Historic Preservation Board - Regular Meeting

We got Let me get a picture. Would you do it again?

Go. Is

everybody ready? Okay. Alright. Call the meeting to order. Diana, if you'd call the roll. She's calling. Okay.

Vlad Dumitrescu? Yes. Chris Kabeza? Here. Peter Dwyer?

Here.

Ezra Creek? Here. Carol Perez? Here. John Miller? Here. Jim Chart?

Here. Any questions about tonight's agenda changes? Any changes from staff?

No. Okay. Thank you.

Move approval of agenda as written. Second.

I need a second.

That was Ezra. All

in favor?

Aye. All opposed?

Alright. The swearing in of the public.

We do have

We do have minutes. Yes. Did everybody have a chance to take a look at the minutes? Can I have a motion to approve?

Moved. Second.

All in favor?

Aye. Aye. Okay. Any opposed?

K. So now we will swear in the public. And

okay.

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

Yes. Alright.

Any comments from the public on items that are not on the agenda? Nope? Alright. So I guess we're up to then comments from well, talked about comments from the public, so let's move on to presentations.

There are no presentations. Alright.

Move on to quasi judicial then. Let me read the text here. Hearing shall be conducted in accordance with the city of Delray Beach 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 a minimum 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 an appeal may not legally be made upon views as to whether the 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 development land development regulations. So if we could put the request in order.

For the record, I'm Katharina Pellavoda. I'm senior historic preservation planner. I'd like to enter file twenty twenty five dash one sixty. It's an ad valorem tax exemption into the record for the property located at 108 Northwest 4th Avenue.

Okay. Before we start, any ex parte conversations? No. None. None by me.

None. I

visited the site.

Okay.

Hello again, Sandra Amani, 108 Northwest 4th. You've seen a lot of this, but I did add some interior pictures. Let's go. Okay. So again, when we purchased the property, it was a shell, no windows, no electric, no plumbing, no heating. And you could see down through the floor. Obviously, going through, this is the property now. It's what it looked like before. Nice view now. We did everything from rebuilding the roof structure.

I put a whole list there of the insulation, the drywall, the subfloor, all of the plumbing out to the street, all of the sewer hookups. We did run gas to property. There were no sprinklers. We added sprinklers. It was quite extensive.

Even the water meter is new. If you look up in the left, that's our gut job, and you can see the rafters underneath and what it looks like now, a picture of the bathroom and what it looks like now, and the bedroom as we when we purchased the property, what it looked like. You can see that amount of work that actually went into the project, we are very proud of. And we're hoping to be able to take advantage of the, tax abatement. And here are some more views of the interior in case you haven't been inside of it.

This again, we're looking into the kitchen as it existed with some disconnect pipes. The overview, you know the location well. And there's Tennis Center and that's it. Do you have any questions about the work that went into it?

Let's wait until we hear from city.

Oh, sure. Okay, I'm gonna stop. Thank you for your time.

Okay. The subject request is an ad valorem tax exemption for the property located at 108 Northwest 4th Avenue. Okay. So this is located in the West Settlers Historic District. I know this property seems familiar. It was in front of the board last month. They did request a change to their front elevation where the porch is. I think I have some elevations. Go back. So here we can see what the original approved front elevation was and then the bottom was the modified and approved one from last month.

So I'll just go through. Obviously, all this all the rest of this was approved. The front porch was the last item that they required, at least for historic, to get their CO for their site. So now that everything's approved and the porch has the porch has been approved, they are they're coming in to request their ad valorem tax exemption. So here we can see what was approved for the addition where we see the red. This is in the rear of the property. And then I'll just briefly go through some images. So here and then they also had an approved shutter color.

There you go.

So we can see all the changes with the shutters. And then here's the approved site plan. Just as a refresher, the blue areas, what was existing, it was the existing contributing structure. The red area is the addition. And then you can see further south, there was a parking area installed as

well as

some hardscaping and a pool. Think. I And this is what the site originally looked like. So this is the original survey. That's it. I won't go into too much detail. Know I've seen this property more than once. That concludes my presentation.

Thank you. Any comments from the public?

Hello, chair and board of Roger Cope, Cope Architects, seeing 701 Southeast 1st Street National Marina Historic District. I just simply wanna say what a wonderful little project this is. It's in it's in a historic district that you don't often get to pass judgment on. It's a it's a historic district that I wish we all did a lot more work in. And I think the applicant have kind of followed it from the sidelines for the past two years and have applauded everything that she's done along the way.

A great, modest, beautiful, pure, unadulterated historic preservation. And the partnership between the city of Delray Beach and the Palm Beach County for the tax abatement is to incentivize people like that for projects like this. I can't think of a more worthy recipient than the tax abatement program. Thanks.

Anyone else have a comment? From the applicant. Any rebuttals from the presentation by the city? None? Let's bring it to the board then. I think this one's pretty straight forward.

I I have one question. So when the tax abatement is given or the ad valorem exemption and the property is sold, what happens to that? Does that continue on?

Yes. It stays with the property.

So it's a set amount and then that just comes off the top.

I believe so. It's whatever the additional ad valorem that's added from that, from the work that gets It ready for 10

could be five owners, it doesn't matter. Okay. Very cool. None, totally in favor.

Great. Does that mean you wanna make a motion? Be happy to. Unless there any other comments?

Peter? Yes. Can you renew the tax abatement after ten years?

Believe so but I believe there were talks of possibly extending the length of the ten years to something further. I don't know where that update is but within the last couple years I believe that was some some discussion about that.

Okay. Thank you. Mhmm.

Okay, Earl. You ready?

Yes. I'm all set.

Okay. Good job.

Alright. Mister chair, I'd like to recommend approval to the city commission of the historic property ad valorem tax exemption application twenty twenty five dash one sixty for improvements to the property at 108 NW 4th Avenue, West Settlers 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. Second.

All in favor?

Aye. Aye. We to do the roll. Okay. Do wanna second Roger's comments. I think the more development or the more restoration we can get done in West Settlers, the better.

Vlad Dimitrescu?

Yes.

Chris Gabazas?

Yes.

Peter Dwyer?

Yes.

Ezra Krieg?

Yes.

Carol Perez? Yes. John Miller? Yes. Jim Chart?

Yes. Okay. If you could introduce the next applicant.

I'd like to enter COA2025Dash176 into the record. It's a certificate of appropriateness. It's for 49 Palm Square. It's located within the Marine Historic District. I believe the the applicant is here to present. The agent.

Before that, any ex parte? No? None. Okay.

Proceed. So once again for the record, Roger Cope, Cope Architects Inc. 701 Southeast 1st Street. I'm simply the agent here for mister Noel Smith who is the proud owner of the property. We have a one slide presentation. That's the slide tonight. So we'll just keep it right there. So I'm the his agent because I was the architect on the house ten, fifteen years ago. And it this is a code enforcement violation that he's been flagged for. He unbeknownst to me, you know, he was started to have some wood rot on a part of the facade facing the front of the house, Palm Square.

And so as meticulous as a gentleman as he is, he paid attention to it. And so he started to he engaged with a general contractor and one thing led to another and they decided that they were going to not repair the slight damage that was done or the amount of damage that was done that they were gonna replace the board or boards that it was affecting. And I don't even pretend to know exactly where it was happening, but it was on the front of the house. So the general contractor claims he came into this building department and tried to file for a permit and was turned away saying that he didn't have to have a permit. That's his claim.

So So he went so far as to file you know, fill out the paperwork, get an old and notarize it, and they were ready to hand something in. And having not been successful at that, went back to my client and said, apparently, we don't need a permit. We can move ahead. So they started to repair, and a code enforcement officer took a photo of some of the work that was in progress. And so here we are trying to because they were repairing not with wood, but with a man made product called AZEK.

And it's a it's a product that's got I don't I'm not a chemist, but it has, you know, 18 different things in it. Potash, a little bit of plastic, I think, and a bunch of other stuff. It's, you know, a hundred year warranty will never have to be replaced. Looks exactly like real wood from three feet away, and so off they went down down the rabbit hole. Code enforcement noticed them, and somehow the notice got shuffled, misplaced, put to the bottom of the pile, and they kept repairing stuff.

So they finished the job and then paid attention to the to the notice. So it's an active case at code enforcement. He's incurring a daily fine, which is staggering. We cannot we we begged we've gone before code enforcement twice begging for them to suspend the penalty that we were resolving. And and it could have been I'll let staff confirm this.

But had it been on the back or side of the house, we would have been allowed to use a man made product. And and we still would have had to receive approval, but we would very likely have been given administrative approval. But because it's on the face of the house, meaning in view of the public right away, staff doesn't have the authority to give us an administrative approval to use a man made product. We would have to have come before you anyway. I think that's the story.

So so here we are. It's further complicated by the fact that the AZEK siding that they chose to use had an NOA at the time, but doesn't have an NOA now. So we contacted the manufacturer, and the manufacturer thought they were going to improve upon the product. So they discontinued the use of the product temporarily, and then work they were going to reissue the product with a brand new NOA, and that that's going to be forthcoming, you know, who knows whether it's six months from now or a year from now. But that's a permitting issue.

The issue really today is an aesthetic I think is an aesthetic issue, and that, you know, did it have any difference in the appearance to the home? And I'm here to tell you that, no. It didn't. Should he have gotten a permit? Of course, he should've gotten a permit.

And and are we here this is an after the fact, after an improvement scenario, but we've gotta be able to satisfy code enforcement somehow, someway, and we can't get to them until we go through you guys. So we're throwing ourselves at the mercy of you in in some respects. It's a stunning home. It's not a primary residence. I hope you've at least had the chance to go buy it, you know, in your travels, if not because of it.

But it's on Palms Square. It's kinda highly visible. It's an immaculately cared for piece of property. He doesn't have any ill intention at all. And anything that he did, he was simply trying to maintain the property. And we're here to try to take the first step toward a final resolution. And I'm happy to answer any question. He he's in Maine at the moment. He couldn't make it today.

Got a question, Roger.

Of course.

Is this the entire house that was redone?

I don't think so. It was a significant part of the front of the house, and I think staff may have some photos of some of the work while it was in progress. I do not.

When was this done?

I think last summer. It's taken a while to get to this point.

Because this is the house that was elevated at some

point. Fifteen years ago.

Okay. Yes. I remember that.

Not because of FEMA though.

And then there's a lot of trim around there. Is that the new material?

No. No. Tree in this photo, like the the heavy timber bracket to the left, that's beige. That's real wood. The the the white beam underneath, it's real wood. It's it's just The woodwork around the siding is what they Okay. Were Yes. There's crown molding. There's real crown molding. The whole porch is real wood. There's a ton of real wood flying around.

It looks like the entire house was gone though from the photos, but you you have to get your recipe.

Yeah. Well, I'm sure we'll circle

back. Okay. Sure. Okay. Thank you.

Okay. The request before the board is a certificate of appropriateness for the property located at 49 Palm Square. The structure is located within the RM, which is the multifamily residential zoning district. And it's within the Marina Historic District, which is a nationally and a locally registered historic district. The structure on-site is a one story historic, minimal traditional wood frame residence that was built in 1940.

So you're going to the front elevation. The original one story residence contained a ten twenty four square foot that had, front facing cross gable roofs, covered with asphalt shingle, horizontal clapboard siding, operable wood louver shutters, and a regular floor plan. This was a brick chimney. There was also a brick chimney that was located towards the rear west side of the residence, and the height of the residence was approximately 14 foot, great to peak. So in 2005, the historic preservation board did approve, for a hydraulic lifting, which is what we see now as a relocation for the structure in place approximately two foot higher than it was originally situated on the site.

So original it was originally at, below the floodplain level at six foot, and it was lifted to the structure was lifted to eight foot, which allowed it to exceed the FEMA requirements. This structure is also located west of the low of the in Intracoastal, so flooding has occurred on the site as well as the adjacent properties. Okay. I'm just gonna also note that mister Cook did notice a note the code enforcement violation. This was recently issued for the replacement of the existing siding without a building permit.

So applicant did submit a certificate appropriateness. It was made on 04/28/2025 for their replacement of existing clapboard siding with the synthetic a Zach double siding that's currently existing on the structure. So here we can see. So our concern is, and it's also noted within our staff report that we're not sure to the extent of where all the siding is. But the appearance is slightly different.

There's usually a wood grain texture that comes with the original siding. So the appearance of the smooth siding lets us know that it's possible the AZEK. So here we can see the rear. Okay. This is the east elevation.

Okay. This is the existing survey. This is the site plan. So based off of our elevations and what we can see in photographs, these are the all the red area. It's possible that this has all been the siding has been changed from clapboard to the AZEK material.

Also noted that was in our Secretary of the Interior Standards. There are concerns with the material. We do see synthetic materials used on additions and new construction. However, according to the Secretary of Interiors and our Visual Compatibility Standards, the use of any type of synthetic siding for contributing structure is not considered appropriate. So here we also have screenshots that note the replacing of deteriorated wood feature or wood siding on a primary or other highly visible elevation with a composite substance material that's noted under not recommended under the Secretary of the Interior Standards.

Okay. Here we also know our historic preservation design guidelines standards also do not recommend the removal of major portions and repairing the deteriorated wood. So we do have concerns whether or not this whole entire structure is the siding has been replaced on it. Mr. Cope did mention the issue with the NOAs.

We do usually require NOAs at the time of the application so we can ensure that the material is appropriate and has the notice of approval from the manufacturer. However, because this is already existing on the structure and we're not sure specifically how long it's been on there and what NOA that they no longer have for it. We did accept the we did discuss this with our director. So we were able to accept the application without the NOA. However, if this were to be approved when it goes to permit, an NOA is absolutely required in order for them to get a CO for the permit.

We still have that concern about the material. So these are other not recommended notes that we've included from our historic preservation guidelines as well as the Secretary of the Interiors. These standards apply. So relationship to materials, texture, and color, those apply for visual compatibility standards. And these are the certificate of appropriate findings. And that concludes my presentation.

Before public comment, just a question or two. Why

don't we

know how much has been done? Whether it's a patch or the whole building. Because that I would think would make somewhat of a something to consider. If it's a few square feet, that's one thing. If it's the whole house, it's another.

So we've met with the contractor a few times. I don't know if there's more information you have, Michelle. And, essentially, he mentioned it was like a progressive thing. Like, they would repair siding over time, and then there'd be damage to another side and he would repair that siding. So I know it was over multiple areas, but I mean, I guess we have to go out and do like a thorough Principal site just to check on the

planner for the record. This I will defer to Roger in a moment, but I want to state that as Catherine has said, we've had meetings with the owner, architect, and contractor. They're under I think a daily fine with code enforcement. So it was their hope to get before the board. And so we put it on the agenda so we weren't going back and forth with them. But perhaps Roger could answer exactly where the siding is happening or has happened.

Wouldn't be my testimony but it would be that of client, my owner and the general contractor. I know it's not the whole house according to them. It's portions of the front And I if you put my one slide up, I I'm 90% sure it's a certain area on a panel right there. Right where where right where the little white hand is, that area right there was totally replaced. You know, those boards which are maybe four feet long.

Now that that was not replaced. The trim around windows, not replaced. So so and then if I could, a statement was made about the smoothness of the siding.

Well, look. We're getting ahead of

ourselves. Okay.

Alright. So you'll have a chance to to ribbit. We'll do that. Anybody from the public have anything to say? No? Okay. Mister Cope, please go ahead with your rebuttal.

It's just AZAC is my understanding is AZAC is is allowed to be used in repair situations. I I think this is a repair. It's it's clearly a repair. And and there's there are other products out there from Hardie plank, which is a cementitious product, to this, which has a multitude of things within it, to one of my favorites is called Borel. And it it it's stunning material, but it it offers a smooth finish to it and it and it offers a a fake wood grain texture to the opposite side of it.

And it's done so so that it allows you to use either. And believe it or not, most clients decide the smooth is what they prefer. And I don't pretend to know fifteen years ago how smooth the real siding was when we put it up, but I guarantee it was really smooth. Know, you don't put brand new siding up expecting it to for the wood grain to pop out of it. So I don't know how you can allow the the wood grain aspect of it be any kind of a determining factor on what might have been replaced or not replaced. That's it.

Can you see the difference? I mean, we're we're we don't seem to know how much has been done, but I would think that you could see the difference between

Jim, between the former service. It was cited fifteen years ago. I don't know what they do. It's a very private house. It's not you can't walk right up to it. It's gated. It's secured. It's it's private. No you you know, you don't walk up to somebody's house and study their siding. So I I don't know. I just don't know.

I thought that's what architects did.

No, sir. Not at all.

Any rebuttal from staff?

Yes. Unfortunately, not walking up to the side of a building and studying siding is not one of the standards that we have in the code or the secretary of the interior guidelines and standards. Mister Cope, in his rebuttal, and I don't wanna go back and forth, but I wanna make it clear that it's the board that decides the material, not staff. Typically a synthetic material can be used on an addition primarily when it's not a major component of an improvement project or when it's not visible from a right of way. We see that all the time.

And I don't remember because I haven't studied this case but when this went through, if you could please zoom out. When this went through renovation twenty fifteen, sixteen, seventeen era, you can see the top of the roof there where there's some ginger breading in the gable and then the transom windows above the windows. That entire portion of the structure was added to this structure in addition to the structure coming up vertically at the ground level, all board approved. So when they did that, they had to utilize wood siding. The applicant also you can see just a smidge on the left corner of this picture.

There's brick on the carport. There was discussion with mister Smith, at length about the use of a coquina stone that was going to be taken from another building and repurposed here. I think he may even have come to the board to ask for that, and it did not get approved. I think it was approved for use on the chimney only. So my point in saying this is the applicant is aware of the board requirement to have approval for alternate materials.

So we don't typically see AZEK, Borel, Hardie board used on the historic portion of the structure. It's not people have asked and the board, you know, has has required authentic materials in those cases. So that's the rebuttal to the statement of that the board has approved alternative materials on historic structures. It's just not been common.

And the Secretary of Interior doesn't distinguish as to how close the building might be to the ocean or to the water in terms of that decision as to whether or not wood can be replaced?

No. And it's obviously, you know, you're talking about locational Yeah. Requirement. That's something that the board could take into consideration. We've had many other projects, wood frame, wood sided, that are even closer to the ocean in our other historic district. It does require a level of maintenance. So there there is an increased maintenance requirement. The wood is not as hard as it used to be. Old growth wood was much harder. Newer growth wood is somewhat softer and might require replacement.

And that's why we press on homeowners when we talk with them about sealing around the windows, the door openings, caulking, ensuring that underneath the windows are painted in and caulked. Any kind of structure you have, you could have a stucco house with a real frosting look to it, and that's going to require a separate kind of maintenance itself.

Should we take it to the board? Peter, do you wanna start? Sure. Well, what a

well maintained home. And with so many examples around town of deferred maintenance, think I this is a nice example of somebody really looking after their property. And I don't have any issue with the use of modern materials. I think we need to be a little more open to them. And I support and would like to see the fine stopped. That's all. Just as

far as the fines go, that's gonna be in the code enforcement

Right.

Portion. You guys are only reviewing it right now to determine whether if this had come, you know, as it is, if this had come before you at the time that it was being put in, is this something that you would approve based on the land development regulations and the design guidelines?

Thank you for clarifying.

Thank you.

I think the big item is the NOA that if we approve it, but but the material doesn't get approved by

Not a problem.

Yeah. But okay. Still, that's that's

an issue.

There's no NOA for wood. I mean, if you go and buy a piece of siding, there's no NOA that I'm aware of. Mhmm. So that's to be considered.

It's one of these unfortunate situations where if this came to us before the work was done, maybe we would have approved it. But we have no idea of the extent it was done completely incorrectly. They should have known to get a permit. They should have known to come before the board. They've done it before.

There's no before and after photos so we could just see what was being done. So those things really bother me to have to come after the fact to approve it. It does look great. Think in using synthetic material seems to be a reasonable suggestion being by the beach and for it lasting, especially if it looks very similar. But the interior standards do say to use accurate historic material, which we're here to really uphold that. It's written there. I'm torn with which way to go on this. I'd like to hear some other board members' takes on it.

John, let me skip over you and go to Ezra if that's alright. Sure.

It's not alright with me.

Step Well, outside and talk to

me. I

I share Chris' concerns. I I and I don't feel like the that we've been given enough information that we we don't know how much of this material is used. I think there's a difference between a repair and a and a renovation, and that there's some point there that does that. I'm not sure that if someone was coming for before us initially, reading the guidelines that we've presented from the interior department, I'm not sure we would have approved the use of these materials based on that information and guidance that were given. So I'm uncomfortable with going ahead with it, but again I'd like to hear some other thoughts.

Ms. Rez?

Yeah, I'm still confused on is this a patch? Or is the whole facade like like, even the picture that you have, Roger, is that whole facade this material, or is it just a board or two that he could take out and put in a wood board? Like, what The only What are we talking about here?

The only thing that I can reference is a photograph that code enforcement has that simply shows a a kind of a photo a in progress. It shows the tar paper and the vapor barrier exposed. It's up in the upper left hand section to the left of the transom. And it's certainly not the whole front facade of that piece of the house.

So, yeah, if it's not the if it's not the whole facade, I don't know why they wouldn't ask to you know, why they wouldn't do wood and just patch it with the material that it originated with.

So any architect in town will tell you, if you have wood on your home, you have termites.

But isn't that what it started with?

It did. It did. It did. So mister Smith apparently didn't wanna put a he didn't wanna put a piece of wood back up because it lasted fifteen years and and it was deteriorating to the point where it

was

unacceptable. So apparently, he made the decision to concert

Even though he's getting fined every day, you know, that's that's just it. Mean,

if Say that again?

Even if he's getting fined every day, like, it's one board or if it's two boards, I mean, I

I would think that it would be

I got a feeling it's a lot more than that.

Yeah. I maybe we just need more information. That's it. Because I don't know.

Okay. But have same

opinion that we're kind of blind here. So one thing we've been shown that pretty much the whole facade has been replaced. That's that's what we got the presentation done. The red areas were pretty much all of it. And now I'm told there are few boards. So I really can't make a decision like that. Is there any way that the contractor can present a bill of repairs or something like that that they could show the amount of repairs?

Your mic up, please.

Can you put your mic What I'm trying to say, there must be a way that we can find more accurate how much of that has been replaced before you make a decision. I totally agree. If there are few boards, that's maybe okay. If it's the whole thing and doesn't have even an NOA, that's another issue.

My concerns is obviously either mistakes were made or was a conscious decision to go with this knowing the process was being bypassed. That being said, yeah, I agree with you 100%. I'd love to hear from the contractor. The GC is ultimately responsible for this if he attempted supposedly to get a permit and said he didn't need one which, you know, that that to me is completely implausible. But on the other hand, I I've met mister Smith a couple of times and and I don't find him not gonna think what's in his mind, but, you know, he's to me the kind of guy that says just get it done and not quibble about the details, but whatever, however it happened.

What the only thing you could really figure it out though is do a core sample and drill little holes over this entire place and try and find out what's wood or what's not. And to me, that is completely ridiculous. So, you know, I hate to reward bad behavior but at the same time I'm not willing to vote against this at this point. I'm grudgingly insubordinate.

I think

I I just wanna say, like, as far as, like, the burden in a quasi judicial is coming from the applicant. So, you know, like, if you guys feel like you aren't given I mean, you you take the evidence as it's presented. So if you the evidence that you have is all you can really rely on. If you feel like you need more, then like, I mean, you can do a continuance, but like also just noting that, you know, you have to support your decision based on the evidence that has presented to you. So if you don't feel like you know the answer or you think that you don't have enough information, you probably would want that to continue or you have to rest on what you've actually seen and heard that has been deemed factual.

When was when was this flagged by code enforcement? Do you know?

It's been quite a while. We have been working to try to get them into compliance for the better better part of six months, maybe longer.

We

did, I think, ask them if they could take off the sections that were synthetic and put it back and it was too much to do. So I too have a concern that it's the whole historic structure because we offered some options to the applicant.

So it was obviously, it was flagged when the siding was off. Right?

When there were work being done.

Yeah. So it was con they were contacted. They were notified that there was an issue. They continued to finish the work as intended or as they intended. It's a and Roger, I I appreciate your situation. You shouldn't really be the one here, it would be the GC.

Or the owner. The owner.

Or the owner.

I mean the idea that it has termites too. We totally get that, that's requirements. But in Florida there are two kinds of homes. When I had mine tinted and the guy said there's homes who have termites and homes that are going to have termites. And I have a block house, I had subterraneans.

So I don't know that we wouldn't want him to do repairs to the structure. But I also would like to have an opportunity to state something if I can. I know you've not asked me this question but I would like to state something about Please do. The code enforcement. When I started at the city in 2016 there was a backlog of projects and a list of properties that were under code enforcement action because people couldn't get through the process because there wasn't someone here for more than, almost a year.

And then when we came on we worked really hard with the task force, the city commission, the board at the time, staff was added to improve our response times. We're highly responsive. We obviously push things to the board as quick as we can when things, even in this situation you don't have all the information. But we're trying to get the building into compliance. To have the continuation of applicants who are getting the message that they can do work without approval and come back and ask for forgiveness is a very bad message.

Previous boards had decided they did not want to send that message. You all and the boards preceding you have seen some cases like that ramping up recently. It's making staff's job more difficult from historic to code to law to all of us. So I think perhaps the bigger question is, a very thoughtful one, is for those structures that maybe are in the very coastal area, could an alternate material be accommodated to be used. But I would like the opportunity to research that.

I think that some of our CLG partners might have information where they've allowed things like that to occur and bring that back to the board much like we did when we talked about windows. What's okay for glass color? And then you all provided some guidance. I hate to put the applicant off for yet another thirty days of fines. That's really feels unfair. So this this is your decision, not mine. Right? I'm here to guide you. But we just simply haven't we don't have regulations that would support the use of an alternate material right now. They're not in place.

The Secretary of the Interior Guidelines are very specific about the use of synthetic material. So you know, we could discuss this at our next meeting or even at the end of this meeting. But this is the matter at hand for this applicant. And thank you for letting me say those few additional words.

And I just wanna make a quick comment on top of that and I don't think that this was the intent of the statement, but as far as like sending messages like your board up here isn't sending messages to other people when you're making decisions. You're making a decision on a case by case basis. And to the extent that you know, you were making the decision today, your decision today should be based on the fact that the burden has not, you know, if you were going to deny it today, it would be based on, you know, you don't think it meets the design guidelines or it doesn't meet the land development regulations or you don't believe that the applicant has met their burden to prove that it's done those things. So just wanted to Yeah. Lay that

Just was the GC notified about all of this? I mean, far

as why isn't aren't they here? Totally not he's definitely notified. Yes. He's definitely been notified. Yes.

You just draw with a short stick or

Yeah. You could say that.

Withdraw that question.

I think he's busy citing another client's house right now. As a

matter of fact.

Do we

know the GC? No. You do not.

No. Okay.

And the owner is aware. He's a subcontractor. So but if I might, Noel Smith, this project came before the period of time when when Michel's first started. Right? Right about the same time.

Before. Yeah.

Slightly before. Yeah. And it finished up, I guess. And the man doesn't have an he's so kind and gentle. Terms of his character, he did not do any of this with any ill intention. I promise you.

I don't I don't think we need

to go into that So if the burden of proof hasn't been met, we'll do our best to go back in time and try to figure out how much has been done and present some kind of evidence of that and an opinion of that, I will ask them both to come to the next meeting or at at one of them, the contractor preferred preferably, and and we'll take a shot at it then.

So would you prefer a continuance then than

a Of course. Yes. Michelle? I mean, we're we're, like, in the we're in the 6 figure penalty phase with the item, so we're trying

So while Yep. That's that's what really worries worries me me is this ongoing fine on on a daily basis.

Well, owner is that's their responsibility.

I understand. Okay.

So I I'm gonna just not say a lot about that. It's their responsibility. But I think, John, you've asked me about continuance, right? Is that what you're asking? Yeah. I would like to be able to understand the amount of siding that's happening, where on the house it's happening, has the profile changed at all? Are are the corners exactly as they were approved? The siding that's on this building for the most part is some old and some new from '17. At this point, you know, they can report to code enforcement that they're working with the board, that these steps are happening. We can let code enforcement know that as well.

And then when it's over they can go back to code enforcement and work with that board on their fines. I'm not suggesting that the fines will go away but that's for them to deal with the code enforcement board. You know it's unfortunate because he is a really nice guy. He really is. But honestly he should be here.

So if we vote for a continuance though you feel comfortable that what you just asked for is communicated to the applicant?

Oh yeah, so we'll put it in writing in an email. We put everything pretty much writing. And we can schedule a site visit to go on-site and take better pictures and talk with the contractor and the owner. Whatever we can do to help them get into compliance is our goal.

You had mentioned you've been working with them for six months to try to get them into compliance.

At least.

And can you expand on that a little bit? They

have not So we have been asking them since the fall to submit the application. I cannot bring an application forward to the board if it's not made. So we've been asking, please submit the application. You know, we'll hear what's from code, what's going on with this. We've heard nothing from the owner or we have one meeting four months ago. And so then code enforcement will reach back out. So I think it's kind of been a pressure tactic that's had to happen for lack of a better term to get them to apply. So when they applied, we brought it right to you. As far as the NOA, I also would like to talk with the building department and understand. I think, you know, mister Dwyer makes a great point.

Do you not need an NOA for wood? Why would you need an NOA for this kind of siding? And if they don't have a siding an NOA for this siding, why would they go through the whole process of getting your review and approval only to have to come back because that building permit may not get approved? I'd like to understand that better what their plan of attack is for that.

I think only if only if they ask you a question, mister Koch.

Is there anything that we could do in turn and this is really a question for Kelly, where we can approve this under the proviso that all of the things that Michelle has talked about take place and the staff is satisfied.

I don't think so because, really, what she's asking for is the information to provide to you guys. I mean, you still have to decide whether this synthetic material is appropriate on those areas that they report are the ones that have been repaired.

Yes, an option could be, and we've had this happen with roofing in the past, where someone comes forward with a roof material that the board's not finding compliant, is they'll make a motion to approve the replacement of siding or replacement of the roof with a material that's appropriate. So you could say motion to approve replacement of the siding with wood. And unless the applicant wishes to return back to the board with more information, which would leave it like an affirmative option for him, but then he'd have to go out and take all that off. He may end up doing anyway. You know, that I don't know what you all are gonna do with it.

I'm more comfortable with just a Simple continuance. Yeah.

That's correct. So I've got a question. Are there any there's no homes in the historic districts with synthetic material site?

We rarely ever see the use of synthetic material on the historic structure itself. I can't think of a case where it was approved.

Are

in Delray? There

Not that I can think of. In all the historic projects I've worked on in nearly ten years, we've seen them on the addition. So for instance, we've got some houses along Bankers Row, the Mackle Cottages, that have had additions to them. And they utilized hardy plank or hardy board siding that matched the exact same profile where an expansion joint was placed and the whole addition is hardy board, but the whole front of the house, there's at least two, was replaced with wood siding.

Well, that might be an important part too because I don't we don't know. I mean, I personally I this person I'm seeing this. I don't know what's original or the addition too. I mean, you know, if there could be an exception, I I don't know. But

That's a a really good point. Like, they could identify what part of that elevation right there was new and perhaps, you know, patch in some synthetic with wood on those elevations because that whole top is new. I I think almost from the the middle of the transom up to the top of the roof is all new.

Didn't we approve for the the architects building on South Swinton Hardy board on on that?

No. Not for the original structure. In fact, they came to the board and asked for it and the board did not approve it.

So it's just

the But it's interesting, like we're having that conversation right now. You're looking for an example where it's okay. I mean, will this become your example for future projects?

Are familiar? This is a new material, not new. Acoia. It's a wood product actually, but been modified and has completely different properties and still wood. Maybe you can recommend that at Acquia, a c

c o y a. We've looked at a couple recently in fact, what's Ron's last name? Mr. Kersman, when he was coming in with 202 North Swinton, also Mr. Cope's project, they discussed the use of an alternate material. And the material that was suggested was something that was almost made like a press. It was wood, but it was like made almost of ash. But there was a synthetic component in the glue to keep it together. So it wasn't 100% wood. Most of those products, that's what happens.

The synthetic component is in the adhesive that pushes and presses the material together. But like I said, I would like to hear from my CLG partners across the state to see what are they doing. I'm sure there are probably examples that we could bring back to the board by our next meeting where you could have an expanded conversation. We could look at the preservation briefs with the secretary of the interior to see if there's any updates there. They tend to update those briefs to give us guidance particularly for flood and coastal properties, things like that.

Can we get this back on the agenda in the next meeting?

I 100% have no problem doing that. It's really gonna be on the applicant. Sure. But there's no reason why it couldn't be accommodated on the next agenda from our position.

I'm not sure what consensus we have, but John, do you wanna take a shot at continuance?

I'd just like to move to continue file number 2025Dash160 For 108 Northwest 4th Avenue to the next practical meeting where both applicant and staff can review any updates and new information. Do I have a second? Present back

to the board.

Excuse me. Second.

Let's call the roll.

Vlad Dimitrescu. Yes. Chris Cavezas. Yes. Peter Dwyer. Yes. Ezra Cree. Yes. Carol Perez. Yes. John Miller. Yes. Jim Chart.

Yes.

Just so I understand the motion to provide updates and new information that's based on like all the discussion you had. Yeah.

The question is how much of this stuff is

hung up.

Got it. Thank you.

And is it on the historic structure or on the addition?

I'll go off the discussion that you all had. Yeah.

Consistent with what you guys already talked about.

Yeah, shaded elevations would be helpful.

No problem. Who seconded? Sorry. Me. Thanks Chris, Mr. Cabezos.

That would also include the work you were talking about, talking to your partners and so forth. Yep. Okay.

That piece we may handle under board discussion. But if I have information I can forward you in the agenda as part of board discussion, you'd be able to see that too.

I think we should ask the contractor if they took photos during the process.

I'll make a note. Thank you. I'm not hearing what you're saying right

now. Alright.

Next project.

I would like to enter file number COA2024Dash133 into the record for 46 Marine Way. This is a COA relocations variances waivers for that property and the applicant is here and is going to present.

Before

you start, ex parte. When the when it was originally presented, I I met with the applicant, and I went by the property again today.

Did you see that?

And I emailed Mariana Wood and Kristen Finn, and I received letters from Maya Willis.

I said like

Yes, so did I.

Yeah. It does sound like new one today, I've spread from labor.

I'm not sure about it.

Carol, could

you speak into the microphone a little bit more? Yeah.

Do you want me

to repeat all that?

No. That's okay.

Okay. I just wanna make that.

I will. In the future.

Vlad, ex No. Unless this is considered. I think it was just mentioned that.

I think it was this material was distributed here, so I assume It should be like It's not an expert. If it is, there is Yeah.

So received emails tonight from Claudia Willis, Roger Cope, and Jeanie DuPont, and then spoke to Larry Butel, Winnie Edwards, and Kristen Finn.

Perfect. Just testing this out.

I have not spoken to anybody since the the last time, but I have explored the building and been on-site. And I, of course, have the same letters from the same parties.

I received the three emails.

I walked the property with Kristen Finn a couple months ago prior to the previous submittal.

Okay. You may proceed.

Okay. Awesome. Well, it's nice to see you all again. Again, my name is Catherine Craig, and I live at 654 Lakewood Circle West here in Delray, and I will be presenting 46 Marine Way again. To reiterate, 46 Marine Way is in the Marina Historic District and was built in 1926.

We really wanted to put focus on the three directives that we received from, the board last meeting, the three things were to reduce the roof overhangs, to redesign the visual impact on the front wall, and to also soften the structure on the 3rd Floor to the north. Actually put together in the next slides, a before and after to just show the side by side of what we previously proposed on March 5 and what we are now newly proposing. So as you can see here, the first thing, we reduced the overhangs, as you can see here. And we actually, originally, they were four feet, but we reduced it to two foot six. And, I know one of the major talks, that we spoke about in the last meeting was a concern for this front wall, one second, that felt very overwhelming.

So we, went back with our architect. We redesigned the front facade, to lessen the visual impact from the front. And after looking at several concepts architect with Affinity and keeping in mind your directive, we were able to accomplish what we feel is a softer look that includes a mixture of terraces, landscape, and now actually it's a new access point to the door that faces east towards the intercoastal. So previously I know it was mentioned, this wasn't really actually an an access point. It was really just putting you out into that patio.

Now there's terracing. We added some landscaping to soften now what will be a little portion of that wall. Now you can actually enter into that front door, which I actually think is a is a great alternative now. So we feel that this actually looks a lot better to the front facade. Here to the side, you can really see in the previous proposal how that that front wall is definitely very overwhelming.

The new proposal now is is much more enjoyable, much more pleasant to look at. And again, we really love that now we can actually enter that door from the front, which will be really, really nice. And then we also have another angle here. We also want to speak about that, third story. So I guess I can go back here because you can really see.

And one of the biggest points was to soften this, structure on the 3rd Floor. That's that point, sticking out to the north here. We reduced that, and we now created an open balcony, which I actually think is is a much better look. People can now go out and, you know, you can use that balcony. You have a wonderful view of the intercoastal and it leaves some really nice outdoor space that we didn't have prior.

Again, the side profile and this is another view here. So, everything is just really soft softened and I think it's really, really pleasant to the eye and we actually loved all of your directives and considerations, and we think this is a much better proposal. Here, I know we had this in in the previous meeting, but we have the existing streetscape and then the proposed streetscape there. And then, for fun, I I think it was Ezra actually last meeting who, thought it would be nice to see a potential future streetscape and basically what it would look like if all these homes were raised to the nine feet. So I know obviously that some of these haven't been approved nor have they done it, but when now that new new nine feet FEMA requirement is in, this is what that potential future streetscape could look like.

We feel that we have successfully listened to all of your directions and considerations, and we think we've created a beautiful historic masterpiece that will last many years to come. So thank you for your time.

Welcome back. Okay,

so 46 Marine Way. This is a 1926 mission or Mediterranean revival style, structure, Spanish style. It's got some mission elements in it. That does not wanna click, does it? Don't start my time yet, please.

Something is not right. What is it? No, they left. I'm gonna close all this and start over. Hold on a second.

Feel like we could really benefit from a mouse pad. Yeah. Okay, thank you for your patience. I'm so sorry for that little glitch in the program. So 46 Marine Way is a 1926 style structure, Mediterranean revival, some mission elements.

It is on the West Side Of Marine Way between Atlantic Avenue and Southeast 1st Street. This is a view looking at it from the Intracoastal. We did a site visit following the last board meeting. As you know, it was continued from March with direction from the board which we've identified that direction in your staff report. I have a lot of slides. I'm going to kind of move through quickly and some will be available if you have questions. There's a lot to cover. That site visit we went on with the property owner, the architect, and miss Kristen Finn. Michelle Hewitt and I went, walked the entirety of the structure inside and out. Yeah.

I was actually surprised what good condition it was in considering what I had heard about the structure. We had also done some research between the meetings because of the applicant talking about the front door being on the north side of the building. And we did figure out that the street where you see lane on the Sanborn maps on the right hand side of the screen, there did used to be a street here. And that is why you see there's an expanse of open space between these two structures right here to the north and the north side of this one. That street was closed, abandoned, and the property distributed to the adjacent property owners.

So what I thought was quite interesting is that I do believe the original front of the house faced north. I had tried to catch the applicant before they submitted to have a conversation about turning the house. We weren't able to connect and they're in with the submittal similar to what it was before. But we do believe this was the original front and that's why the accessory structure which was a garage would have had its garage door facing north. So just some interesting facts that was known as Lover's Lane.

This is what effectively operates as the front of the house today with that door. And that patio with a little wall around it is completely enclosed, but it did not look like an original piece to me. We did talk last time about the Marine Way improvement project, the capital improvement project that the city is working on. As a matter of note, that project does incorporate some on street parking spaces being constructed on the west side of the road in front of all of the homes. Should they not be able to accommodate parking on-site that those spaces we've confirmed would be available for use by the individual property owners.

Overall, the proposal has changed in size. You can see the table on the far right is something we generated just, you know, doing analysis of the proposal. The 1st And 2nd Floor of the new square footage has increased two forty six square feet on the 1st Floor, 397 square feet on the 2nd Floor. It reduced in size in the 3rd Floor by a 185, so that's a net change of 457 square feet AC that's new. The garage was reduced by two seventy four square feet.

That was to accommodate that new terrace area in the front. So that was really more the storage piece of the garage. So the total AC square footage increase is four seventy six square feet, but the total area is two zero two because of that garage. So here we see the existing site plan. On the far left is the accessory structure. We toured that as well inside and out. And then this was the March proposal. This is the June. So we'll do a little bit of this as we go tonight, just kind of the back and forth. The blue portion on the left in the March proposal, the far left of your screen, was the guest cottage at Ground Level.

You'll see as we move through these drawings that the guest cottage is now proposed to be relocated from the Ground Level up to the 3rd Floor. The whole building is going up to the 3rd Floor. Again, here's a March versus June. This was a study of the existing square footage versus proposed. Here's the March rendering, the computer generated rendering.

That was the historic main structure. As a reminder, it's going up in elevation to about 12 to 14 feet NAVD where nine feet is required, and that was to accommodate the garage underneath. That little piece of the porch in the front and around everything in red here were the additions. This is our current proposal. You can see that front wall has really been reduced in size, which is a big improvement on the front facade.

The roofline around the portions of the addition in the back have also been reduced which really gives a little less prominence to allowing the historic structure to be the focus. So our floor plans, I'm just going to click through these kind of quickly if you don't mind and get over to these elevations, but we have all of them. There still is concern you can see in these section drawings the circles in the middle of the screen have the new construction being built on top of the existing historic structures support wall rather than having that built next to the support wall so that it's a completely separate connection. So there was concern relating to additions being able to be removed in the future, how that would happen. That concern with the garage becoming the new foundation also persists as a staff concern about additions being able to be removed in the future.

That's an item we identified in the staff report. We did a thorough analysis of the renovated or the revised drawings here. This is kind of hard to understand when I looked at this and I almost redid this, but I'm not going to because the point that we're trying to show here is that the historic accessory structure in the first submittal was built in such a way or put, you know, constructed, proposed proposed to be constructed that it was butt to butt with the exterior wall of the existing main structure, which is the more desirable approach to meet the Secretary of the Interior Standards. You can see on the right, the pool house is no longer proposed like that with its interior wall removed. And that's not completely unusual.

It's not a terrible thing. But again, why this is difficult is the picture on the left was ground level. The picture on the right is up on the 3rd Floor, which we'll see in some of these other drawings here. So these are those standards that I've been talking about. Here you can see the drawing on the right. That patio porch has been decreased immensely. It still does encroach into the front setback and a variance is still required. But its overall impact I think has been a big improvement. So these three pictures are the March submittal, the existing structure. They were supposed to be March, existing June.

But anyway, here's the June. So that terrace is doing the work that we wanted them to take that. I don't know the best word for it, but to take the burden off of the front of the structure by having that front wall reduced. So that's a big improvement that we're happy to see. So here's a picture looking at the side.

So the square footage did increase up on those 2nd And 3rd Floor first, second floors. And that's really going to be more visible as we go through the actual black line drawings but I wanted you all to see the renderings first. So here we get into the black line drawings. This is existing March on the right, March middle on the left, June middle on the right. So you can see up at the top of the structure the area that the applicant and during her presentation identified as being reduced up here.

So that has been reduced. There's some more porch area being added. And then again, those those roof overhangs and the front terrace. So those are the big changes for this. It's very much still very similar to what we were seeing before.

So here's kind of a rear black line drawing. So this is looking at the house from the back with that guesthouse up on the 3rd Level. We did discuss with the applicant the process to demolish the guesthouse or this, and this is the approach they chose. There are some items addressed in the staff report where the windows and the slider doors on this structure really are of concern. If you're going to be using single hung windows, you should go ahead and replace the awning style window that's on that 3rd Floor guesthouse and the slider doors.

Perhaps something else could be envisioned. It's a back elevation. There's no need for a super high level of preservation of that element. Plus it's kind of, functionally a little bit concerning if that, you know, I'm assuming it's a fixed window, I don't remember, slider would be completely, I'd be nervous to have that up there without a railing. So here we're looking at the north side.

So you can see the roof changes, the 3rd Floor roof change in that the built portion is much smaller. And then the guesthouse up in the far top right of the drawing. Again, with slider doors, those could be reimagined to be in keeping with the architectural style of the structure and the opening pattern requirements as the code, outlines is required. This is existing in March looking at the south. Here's where you can see some of that increase in square footage happening, in the back corner of the property.

Colors and materials we think, are appropriate for what's existing. These are just reminders if we have to come to them where the concerns lie. The concerns about the front wall plane, the increase of the front setback or decrease of the setback with the increase of building building space in the front. This we're we did a pretty thorough review in that staff report versus the, you know, the change from old to new. And there still are concerns primarily with massing of this structure, structure, the secondary and subordinate requirement, which there is a waiver for, and I'll get to that in a second.

There is also a concern with the creation of a false sense of historical development, with that size of the structure. And I'm just going to move through these kind of quickly. So these are direct quote snapshots taken from the Secretary of the Interior guideline book and this is the recommended and not recommended approach when dealing with renovation rehabilitation of structures. This home was vertically elevated and the structure on the right was deemed by the Secretary of the Interior to not meet the standards. So this did not meet the intent of Secretary of the Interior standards, which is talking about how a building is elevated and how a new design is, a new foundation is designed.

When inserting an entire new floor underneath a historic structure that is not the approach to take. In this case, inserting in the entire parking area as the new ground floor is not the approach to take. So we understand there's some challenges with this property and how this happens for vertical elevation but the standards are very helpful in guiding the design professional. This is a project that meets the standards. So designing new foundation treatments that mask the change in elevation to a point that alters the historic proportions of the building, changing its historic character is the not recommended approach.

In this case here you can see this home obviously was in great risk of flooding and loss. And they did vertically elevate and incorporate that elevation. They incorporate landscaping to kind of mask that elevation in the foundation treatment. Again, here's a great example of terracing being utilized. And while we think they did a great job with the terracing, there still remains that the building is being elevated five feet, three to five feet higher than is actually required by FEMA which is having some impact on that historic structure.

These are for reference. These are all the visual compatibility standards that we utilized in our review. These are the streetscapes which you did get to see from the applicant's presentation. We're showing you existing in the original proposed or the March proposal. And then we're showing you the March original and the current June proposal.

It does look and I don't know if it's just the scale of it to me, but it looks a little bit taller on the top floor and that could just be perspective. Here we're showing you what the existing streetscape would look like versus the current proposal. And this does incorporate the adjacent property to the left which are all in for renovation right now to do a vertical elevation and should be coming forward soon. So again, you know, the board had concern with the overall impact of the size of the structure and that impact on the streetscape as it relates to height. Although the proposal does alter and shift and reduce in in places.

It is still in having an impact on the overall streetscape. The Marina District has a pattern of one and two story residences. I could probably finish in like three to five minutes. Would that be okay? I haven't made it through the variances. Sorry. I'm sorry. Thank you. So we're gonna move, you know, I've already talked about these windows a little bit if we need to come back to these drawings we can. But I'm gonna move kind of quickly here to get over to the variances and waivers.

And we have a lot of different images. Before I get to that I do wanna say it was quite interesting in the site visit. This little feature in the arch on the upper left picture here, the portion in the upper left corner, we believe that there was a bell in the arch based on the fixtures that are still there, the hardware, two hooks. And there's actually like this kind of pulley where we think a rope was. And it's just kind of cute to note that if they wanna put a bell back in that'd be pretty cool.

We also noticed some coral coquina stone used on the, north side of the structure. Interestingly that same stone pattern is on the building to the south. Okay. So let me get over here to relocation. You know, there's a criteria.

The mover has to submit documentation indicating that they can handle the move, the method for the move. We've received all of that documentation. Not to continually say there's a concern with the vertical elevation but it's in a lot of different places. It's not just secretary of the interior, it is, LDR based as well. So I'm gonna get to variances now. There are four variances proposed. We now also have a rear setback variance where the last request did not have a rear setback variance. Here is the spreadsheet or list table of the proposed variance. 10 feet for I'll start at the top. Front is 25.

They do have a reduced setback today that they're proposing to reduce to nine foot eight inches, 12 foot seven. So that has improved a little bit over the last submittal, but still is less than the required 25. Their south side is still two foot three for the entire structure. The existing structure does sit two foot three, six foot one ish, but the entire addition is going to be built or proposed to be two foot three. The rear did not have a variance last time and it's now at eight foot four inches for the addition.

And the pool is the same at seven foot six where 10 is required. So you do have very specific findings when you're reviewing relief requests for variances. This is all in your staff report. Is that variance necessary to maintain the historic character of a property? Is it demonstrating that the granting of that variance would not be contrary to public interest, safety or welfare?

That special circumstances and conditions exist relating to setting, location, nature, the land and the same, you know, how they affect other properties in the same district and historic district, zoning and historic. Would literal interpretation of the requirements alter the historic character of the home? So literal interpretation of a seven and a half foot side setback, would that have an altered effect on the historic structure? Is that variance going to have any kind of diminishing factor upon the historic structure and the character of that site or district? And is the variance necessary to accommodate an appropriate adaptive reuse?

So these are your required findings. The applicant's burden to prove that they've met these. We have concerns with all four variances. Is it necessary to build an addition two foot three feet for the south side? That is the new addition Even though the house sits at two foot three, is it necessary for that side structure, the front as well.

While there are some existing nonconformities, do those nonconformities need to be increased with additional building area? Realistically the garage could be accommodated in a different configuration that wouldn't cause the front setback to encroach further the way it does. There's concern with the ability to meet the visual compatibility standards for this front setback. That new patio, there's facilitation of that in order to, you know, bring people up to the new elevation for the structure. Here we're talking about the south.

In addition could be accommodated on the property that does not encroach into the side setback of two foot three. So, you know, it's not really in our analysis taking all the requirements. Again, compatibility, visual compatibility concerns. This is the new variance. Again, an addition could be built that does not encroach into the setbacks.

So that's an adaptive reuse again on all three of these. The rear setback could be seen as aiding with the standard noted above here about facilitating relocation of historic structure, although that structure could be reduced or shifted on the site. And then number four, which is the pool setback. Generally having a pool encroach into a setback isn't normally something that raises a red flag, but we have to remember this pool is sitting at an elevated height. So it's not a ground level improvement.

It sits up at nine foot NAVD. So removal of that pool and allowing for some addition could allow for adaptive reuse of the site. A pool doesn't necessarily mean adaptive reuse is necessary. You could have a renovation to a structure without a pool. Waivers.

So there's three waiver requests. There's one new one about allowing additions for the relocated accessory structure to be consistent with the setbacks here and how it affects the scale of a building. So your waiver findings not adversely affect neighboring area, not significantly diminish a provision of public facilities, not create an unsafe situation and then does not result in the granting of special privilege and that that same waiver would be granted under similar circumstances for other property or other owners. So those are the burden that the applicant again has to prove. The first one, building height plain.

We did study how much of this building currently exists within the building height plane area and if it were elevated, you know, would still be in the building height plane for the existing structure. That said, the entire third floor of the addition is within the no build zone as well as the portion of that front porch. So that is also, you know, concerns that are identified in the staff report. The next one is the relief for secondary and subordinate for the addition. This is to allow that, addition in the back to overwhelm the existing structure.

That's essentially what this waiver, that's what they're asking. We want to go ahead and have an addition that's not secondary and subordinate to the massing of the existing structure. Waiver three scale of a building. Again here there's concern about the design and how this approach has been taken on the main residents and its impact on adjacent properties, particularly residents to the south which is only situated six foot three inches from the adjacent property line that they share. These are the certificate of appropriateness findings that you have to guide you in your decision.

We do have a few site plan technical items that have been attached. And aside from that I want to show you one other picture that if we need to come to it when it's in relation to the discussion of the massing, the scale of a building, and the secondary and subordinate portions of this. We did study here, and this will be then I'll wrap after this. This was the previous submittal. This is the current submittal.

And if we had did not have a third Floor. So that third Floor you would still have a secondary and subordinate requirement potentially, maybe, you would definitely have building height plain waiver. Secondary and subordinate you may, may not have if the 3rd Floor wasn't being proposed. Because the new addition that's the two floors is pushed so far back, it really does appear subordinate to the massing of the main structure. So it would be something that we'd be talking with the applicant about the terrace.

So that concludes. I hope I covered everything that we covered in the staff report. If I didn't and you have specific questions, please let me know. Thank you so much.

Thank you, that was very complete. Public comment, I think some people have come swearing in. So we might I'm assuming there are people in the audience that want to speak that haven't been sworn in.

If there are and you wanna stand and get sworn in, go ahead. If not

Okay. No. Go ahead.

Guess not.

Guess not. Alright. Once again, chair and HPB staff and board, good evening. Roger Cope, Cope Architects Inc. 701 Southeast 1st Street in the marina, National Marina Historic District, right around the corner.

Subject property. I'm here tonight representing the adjacent property owner at 48 Marine Way, mister AJ Rotund. He and I are formally opposing certain aspects of tonight's COA twenty twenty four dash one thirty three, which is of course 46 Marine Way, as they relate specifically to building forward or eastward of the existing facade of the historic house. The property, the entire front facade of the house is nonconforming in that it it is forward of the 25 foot setback as are most of the homes down the street, mister Rotund's. So everybody's nonconforming along the front to a certain degree.

And I'll give you the statistics of who who is as far back as. I'll give you a list at the end of this dialogue. But they're further they're they're increasing their nonconforming aspect of their front facade by seeking to push improvements to that front facade eight feet further toward the street. So eight feet is important. And it's architecturally, it's representative of stairs and steps in the terracing that they they have mitigated from the initial concept to gain access to a door that's facing the water.

But the existing house is 17 feet seven inches from the front property line when we're all supposed to be 25 feet. They're seeking an eight foot expansion eastward of that reducing the setback down to nine foot seven. Michelle's chart said nine foot eight, so nine foot seven, nine foot eight. They would be nine foot seven or nine foot eight from the front yard setback. Just think about that for a second.

We're respectfully objecting based upon competent and substantial evidence. The design's further exasperated by the fact that they're setting the finished floor at that door that they're trying to tear us up to at 12 feet NAVD, not nine feet NAVD. So it's three feet higher than what FEMA FEMA's minimum is requesting. So not only is this eight foot mass forward of the existing house, it's three feet higher than the existing house. I can wrap this up in two seconds.

Okay.

And so finally, the other thing the other nonconforming aspect of it is as Michelle pointed out, is that the entire south facade of this house is only two foot three inches off of the south property line. And so their eight foot expansion eastward isn't even respecting the seven foot setback. It's trying it's going all the way to the two foot three demarcation, which is another objection that we have that is that is again making a non complying scenario more non complying, which is basically a cardinal sin in historic preservation. In contextual comparison, 48 Marine Way, my client's property

Mister

our front yard setback is 18 feet 10 inches from the front yard setback, 18 foot 10. The property next to us, is 54, is 23 feet five inches from the front yard setback, almost to the 25 foot demarcation where we're all supposed to be at. But yet they're seeking to be nine foot seven inches from that front yard from the front yard property line. We think there's

a

better solution Okay. For them to attack that front eight foot section. It doesn't need to be eight foot wide, And it certainly should respect the seven foot six inch side yard setback because it's impeding and compromising the visual ability of my client to see the the waterway and the historic Atlantic Avenue Bridge. Thank you. So thank you. Anyone

else?

I guess not.

I do want to note that you received three emails. It looked like it went to all of your email addresses. And we provided you copies of those. And I believe we provided copies to you all too. You good? Okay, everyone has them. I just wanted to be sure that the applicant and the board saw

them. Okay, let's start the board discussion. Any application, well the applicant rebutted, or I'm sorry, did not. Is there anybody else, Would you like to rebut any comments either from the staff or from the public?

We can wait

for the board

to staff to wait

for the

board meetings. Okay.

We have no rebuttal. Thank you. Your

opportunity to rebut or cross examine would be now. Like, they they would they don't come back to you after the board comments. They'll they'll ask you questions and you can answer them just just to let you know.

Okay.

You wanna start off? I think they're trying to decide. They're gonna rebut. Have a comment.

I'm Dan Edwards, the property owner, and I would like to acknowledge what Roger stated, and I would like to move the porch to the seven foot setback that it should be at, rather than the two foot three that the existing house is. Pardon me?

It's not

that one. It's the porch.

Yeah, but it's not a two foot three.

The house is at two foot three.

No, that's the side.

If you guys need a second to discuss it, you and can then come back with your rebuttal cross examination. Just take a minute.

Does everybody need a break? I did. Sorry? I think so. Okay. Yes. Can we take about a five minute break? Think it's

Yeah. Sure. Yeah.

Alright.

Proceed. My name is Dan Edwards. I'm the property owner. First of all, I'd like to thank Michelle and staff to get us to this point. Thank you very much. I'd like to thank the board for our March meeting and all the recommendations you made. Mariana is our architect on the front setback on the porch to that seven foot section for visibility for the property owner south of us. So, it would effectively reduce that front porch by another five feet, or to whatever the setback is, seven feet, from the current two three. And I'm willing to do that. And Roger, thank you for your thought process on that. So, that's all I have to say.

All right.

So I think that was rebuttal, right?

No, do you have any further? We'll go into questions after she gives gets a chance to rebuttal or cross examine, but if you have anything else no. That's okay. You can sit back.

You can rebut something I've said or remember the public.

No, I'm

fine with everything you said.

Okay, or anyone in the public too.

No. Okay. So

I don't actually have rebuttal but clarification just so that I understand completely. We're talking about the South Side setback. Mister Edwards, here, this is the area that you would make a seven and a half foot setback. Is that correct?

Yes. From the pink area.

Yes, okay, thank you so much.

It's still a terrace. Yes

sir, thank you.

And still the issue with the front setback. Okay.

They would still have a variance in the front but for that portion of the building there would not be a side setback variance. It would only be for the portion in the back. Gotcha.

Mr. Miller.

Oh. Now I gotta start. I mean, I agree. I like the changes that have been made better to the first. I think this whole project is a I mean, there's non compliance across the board in the existing building and, you know, it's existing non conformities.

I like the terraced look much better in the front. You're coming up a bunch with a bunch of different competing variables here. You know, you've got preservation, obviously, the historic structure which is really for all intents and purposes, functionally obsolete. Although it is, like Michelle said, there's some nice elements left to it. You know, versus FEMA codes which require the the elevation of this nine feet currently, you know, down the road.

It could be higher. Who knows? They went a little bit above and beyond to make room for the parking, I'm assuming, under there. Then you have the you can't really ignore it, the the economic feasibility of this, which is, you know, it's an expensive piece of property. It's on the intercoastal.

So you can't ignore that. You know, I think it would be great if somebody would wanna restore it as is, and have it a shining example of historic preservation here, but the realities of the world today just aren't gonna allow that. I am torn on this, but I do think, I know somebody had mentioned, maybe it was one of the letters, parking in the back. I don't really see how that's feasible here. I think situation is creative, and it is an improvement over what is there now.

You know, I like that they lopped off part of the 3rd Floor. I'm not necessarily opposed to a 3rd Floor. Think it makes it look a lot higher here because the whole thing has to be raised. You know, there's a little structure across the street over here, it's three floors. And everything else around is one floor and we we permitted that. So I'd like to see what everybody else says. I do have some concerns, I wanna see what everybody else has to say too. Okay.

Can we jump to Carol? Yes.

I I will say the front elevation looks better than when you came the last time, but I still have a lot of issues with the variances and the waivers. So I think last time when you came, bet that it was general consensus. The only variance we really agreed to was the pool. And all the other ones were but in rear, maybe Michelle, they didn't have a a need a variance in the rear before, but now they do. And it's for a little bump out.

It's like little things like that. I don't know why you would have another variance and just you know, we we're trying to eliminate the variances. We're trying to eliminate the waivers, but yet you've come with something more. It's not that big of a deal. I mean, it is in the back of the house. It's not my biggest problem. The biggest one's the South Side. I feel it's too massive of an elevation for being two foot three inch or, you know, two foot is it three inches or 2.3 feet back, from the property line, and it will affect the neighbor. And I don't think that that's right to affect the neighbor, and I don't wanna be responsible for that decision. I'd like to stand up for that neighbor because I wouldn't want that to happen to me.

That also has to deal with that third story. You know, if you got rid of the third story, then you'd have a two story home and it wouldn't be as bad for that neighbor, but you are making a situation worse. You had the house down. I mean, how many feet high is that? Like twenty twenty five feet in the air?

And all of a sudden, this poor neighbor on that south side is gonna be stuck with a 35 foot tall wall right next to their property. So I'm really not in favor of that. And then that gets into the waivers because, when you look at the secondary and the subordinate visual compatibility, I don't I feel like the building is being overwhelmed by that third story, which also ties into, you know, the massiveness on that south side of the variance. As far as the building height plane visual compatibility, you can achieve that no matter what you do, but I think you could make it better if you lowered it to the nine foot instead of going to I think it was at 14 and now you're at 12?

It's a range. So a portion of the inside of the house sits at 12 foot and a portion sits at 14. So it's a range from 12 to 14 NAVD.

Okay, so you could have, I mean you can't get away from that one, like it's always going to be there. You cannot possibly have this house, build a house there and probably meet that compatibility, but you could make it better. And that's another thing is making something better even if you can't quite live up to the standard. And then as far as the scale of the building compatibility, that ties into the South Side too. I just feel it's overwhelming for that that property owner on the South Side.

And when you look at the relief for the waiver, I mean, the last thing it says, we we would like the opportunity to build what we are allowed, but you you aren't allowed to do that. There's a setback. You're not meeting the setback. And they're not meeting the standards either. So I I'm very confused on it's like you can't just build something and it's not allowed.

You're asking for something, and I don't think you've met the the challenge there. The staff report talks about modernization and development pressures so which which kinda ties into putting a lot of real estate on this property that's only 52 feet wide. I know you're up against it. I know this is a really substandard property. I understand that, but that's what you got.

That's what that's what you're dealing with. So I don't know how to solve all your issues there. But I do think that small houses and smaller cottages and residences like this can be modernized modernized and and they they can can be be developed properly without having all these variances and waivers that you're requesting.

And that's it.

Okay. Chris? I'm trying to spread the pain here.

Yeah. Let's do it.

Great points, Carol. I think I agree with everything. The changes from the last time I think are improvements and I like that the applicant is trying to work with us. But there's so many little issues that become a big issue. And I think a lot of decisions were made and once you put them all together, the project just seems like it's it's not working in in my view.

The number one thing is the massing and the scale overall is it just doesn't work. The setbacks, the variances, I don't agree with that. It's you can design this within the setback requirements, and I would like to see that. Yeah. I hate to say it, but I think you might have to go back to the drawing board and think about all the things that we're talking about.

Just it doesn't fit the neighborhood. It's a little bit too out of scale, and I feel like the historic preservation of the main structure is getting lost with the addition. You know, the I I I do understand you want to build a big house. It's a great property. But when getting into a historic property like this, I just think that you need to really honor the initial house a little bit more, and it's just becoming overwhelmed. So I really am not I can't support this.

That's pretty clear. Pete? Okay.

I appreciate what everyone said. There are some challenges. This is a very narrow piece of property with and the idea here is to save an existing structure. And it's not practical as John said for somebody to just come in and take what's there and raise it five feet and repaint it and fix it up. So this is a very creative solution to a very valuable piece of property.

I know we're not really supposed to comment on that so much but it requires creative solutions and sometimes you have to have variances and you have to work a little harder to be creative to make things work. And I don't think we're gonna actually see the property in the perspective we're seeing it on the screen in real life. I mean it, things never look like this when you build them. You're just not gonna have that, that kind of massing feel when you're on the street in my opinion. This is very dramatic what we're seeing and I I think it's gonna be much softer in real life.

I know they're not gonna paint it red. So I'm in support of it. I think that they followed the direction we provided at the last meeting and they worked hard to make a lot of these changes. The front elevation is much more appealing. I'm not sure you need the planter but I guess it works with your little stairway.

Mean, normally I don't I don't wanna push for variances and waivers, but it is a very challenging property. And the other houses on the street are all gonna be raised as well and they're gonna probably require some waivers and variances. Although they're not here presenting them now, but I I could anticipate them. So I think we need to really look at each property on its own merits and we are saving a very old house. This is a 100 year old house. And right now it's really not usable. I would say there's probably water in the 1st Floor right now if we were to go visit. So I am in support of it. It's not, it's a little messy, but I think that it's a good good approach. Thank you.

Vlad.

Well, I I have to respect everybody's points. I think they're very valid. I personally appreciate what what was done in the Ground Floor. I I think it's it's okay to encroach in the in the setback a little bit, especially if she's gonna reduce a little bit the width of it and maybe modify some other things so it's gonna be more broken out and not as massive. But I I don't have a lot of problem with that. I do have a problem with the 3rd Floor. What? I do have a problem with the 3rd Floor. I do agree with the other the other improvements. I think they are a plus, but the 3rd Floor is still it's a it's an issue to me.

And I I I'm looking actually in the floor plan too, and it's interesting because that whole facade is actually a pair of stairs and the bathroom. And it feels like you can find another way of of giving more transparency to that upper floor. Perhaps makes it a little less dominant and massive. And ideally, it should be kind of pushed back, and that might dramatically change the the massing of it in my opinion. So as it is, I I don't like it. I don't approve.

Ezra, think you're you're next.

Number one, again, appreciate you coming back with the modified plans. I think it's a great improvement from what you presented before, and I do appreciate you doing the little exercise I asked about what it would look like. And I think that's something we need to think about when we make this decision. The fact that although those they have not come to us yet, we have to anticipate that people are gonna come and and have to elevate their buildings. So, if that if that structure is there today, it's it's massive, it it overwhelms, but I'm not sure that that's the reality after all the other properties are are as have to be elevated.

And I think we have to take that in consideration. I, you know, I I think your comments were really, really well taken. And you've made me think a little bit. I I had one point of view before you spoke. I have a different some concerns now.

I'm And it's particularly due to the variances in the waivers. I think that is an issue. I think our job is to try to maintain what is supposed to be, you know, what is dictated, and to make exceptions, not always work towards the exception. And I I think you made that point very well, and I appreciate that, and it's made me think a little bit more.

I think what you also need to look at though is, I mean, yes, there are waivers and there are variances here, but and if this was a blank lot or an empty lot, I wouldn't support any waivers or variances. But they're going through a lot of pains to keep a historic structure. And do I think that it gets swallowed up in the overall new project? A little bit, yeah. But anybody who's going to do anything with this lot is gonna have to raise that structure.

And I think some of the waivers like the building pipeline, never in a million years are you gonna not have that. There's so many existing nonconformities like I spoke. They're already encroaching in the setback on both sides and in the rear. Most of those are not anything new. It's a continuation. Now, are they building a whole lot of other stuff around it? Sure. But that again comes to the economics of this and the realities of it. I wouldn't even call it the economics, it's the realities. I don't think anybody's in that house to the south.

You know, has significant structural damage. When I drove by it last time, the stucco was falling apart and it was rotting on the bottom. So whatever happens to that one, gonna be, and that lot's even narrower. That's probably a thirty, thirty five foot wide lot. It's very narrow. So whatever happens in there, I guarantee you that's an existing nonconformity right there on the South Lot, and it's gonna be an existing nonconformity whenever somebody comes back to us again. So,

you know

I I sorry. I just wanna I I know you guys have both mentioned, you know, like the what it's gonna look like in the future, but none of these have been approved. So you you can only make your decisions based on the evidence that's before you at this point. Noting that FEMA requirements are existing, that's fine. But trying to make determinations, I guess, on who's gonna come forward, what they're gonna present, what you guys are gonna approve, what's gonna you just wanna make sure that you're looking at the current agree.

I'm trying to look at the big picture here on what this street is gonna look like in the future because it's not gonna look like it does now.

And we are directed to look at the streetscape and the rhythm of that. So

Yeah. But it has to be the streetscape that you

that exists. I I have

a couple questions. Did Michelle, did I understand you to say that they are raising it more than they required that the FEMA minimum requires. Yes. Briefing.

So the existing structure does have a varied interior finish floor elevation that What? Varies by two

Sorry. She was raising her hand. I was just saying unless unless the question's asked of you, we can't speak during their board discussion. But if wanna ask you they'll let you know.

So the FEMA requirement is eight feet. The Florida building code is an additional foot. So that's where we get the nine from. And it's you know, kind of something that we've been discussing back and forth with the applicant. NAVD, North American vertical datum, is the actual measurement. So how much is that increasing in the field and where the house sits today? They're going to 12 feet and 14 instead of nine feet and 11.

Could you address that? You might wanna tell us who you are.

Yes, my name is Mariana Wood. I'm here in behalf of Affinity Architects at 85 Southeast 4th Avenue. And I wanna explain the twelve and fourteen and the nine. So the nine foot NAVD is the proposed structure. So the way we are joining the two structures, the historic structure with the new proposed structure is within the interior stairs.

So at the landing of the existing stairs, and I don't have the plans but Michelle might be able to pull them up for me so I can explain. At the landing, that's where we're joining and that's where we get that three foot difference. And that's why that front structure, it's raised three foot higher than the proposed structure in the back. So we are abiding by FEMA on the proposed. Unfortunately, we just can't on the historic structure because we need to join it to the proposed somehow. And that's the only way we can or the only way we were able to.

To get the garage underneath it?

Well not necessarily the garage. I mean it was just the way it worked at the landing and it just happened to have enough. I mean the garage is not even that high because if you look at the stairs going down I think it's barely minimum. It's not even for the garage. I think we have a seven foot door, garage door. It's not even that high.

So just so I'm clear, what I'm hearing is that the proposed structure which is on the left side of the screen, that has a nine foot NAVD, but the relocated structure is not going to have that nine foot NAVD at the same level as proposed, it's going up higher. Correct. If you pull the floor plans, I can explain to you why. No, I totally understand. I don't wanna go in a back and forth.

Okay. Yeah, okay. Can it be brought down to nine? Yeah.

I I can't I mean

How how could it be brought down to nine? Would you lose garage headspace?

Is that

why Is about the I mean, yeah, the garage is important, but it's not even about the garage.

I think the issue would be is then the new addition wouldn't be at the nine foot, which is what FEMA is required. So the addition, according to the LDRs, needs to be at the new nine foot requirement. And due to inside the historic structure, there's a bunch of landings and stairs, which Michelle has seen. So that's where it connects. And that's why the stairs going up, there's the three feet difference, not within the addition, which is at the nine, but within the historic structure, which has to go up due to the stairs. If somebody pulls a plan,

I can explain it. I'll be happy to. It's just at the

landing. Okay. Could you do the east elevation?

Do you wanna be respective?

Yes.

Yeah.

Now this actually all fits together, but it's like two different questions. The pool house, is that the pool house that we're seeing here?

No. It's behind that.

It's behind So

you see on the top of the 3rd Floor, there's a little piece peeking out with, like, rafter tails?

Mhmm.

That's it. Okay. And sorry. This jumped forward. I don't know why. Hold on a second. Okay. This thing, this mouse jumped forward. Here we are. Yeah. This piece right, like in the That's center

the pool house.

That's it back there.

And we are saving the pool house because it's historic and they gotta put it someplace?

That's a question for the applicant.

But you said it could be demoed? You would say you had that conversation with them about demoing?

They could make an application and bring it forward to the board for demolition.

We're trying to preserve.

If they're going to be speaking, they have to be at a microphone and the board has to invite them to do so. I just want them to be able to get on record what they wanna say. Sure.

We're just trying to preserve all the existing structures so that was the main reason why we left it, that pool house to the 3rd Story. That's all.

My thought was if that could be demolished, that then the part that we see here could be pushed back.

Yeah. We could just if we are able to demolish, we could keep that structure in the 3rd Floor and just make it straight all the way back. And the reason why we are encroaching into the setback in the 1st Floor is to support that shape of the structure of the pool house below that we're raising.

I think you're saying something different than she is saying, miss Wood. I think what mister Chard has said is that the 3rd Floor could be pushed back further from the facade. And I think what miss Wood is saying is not exactly that. I only say that because that's where the stairs are,

miss Wood. I think we're talking about the pool house.

Saying what Michelle is saying that the pool house could be if if it could be demolished Right. Then that whole 3rd Floor could be pushed back.

Push back. Yeah. Correct.

Yes. He's saying is this entire 3rd Floor could be pushed way back over here. Yeah. And that's where your stairs are so I don't know if that's

They're not gonna wanna lose the square footage though because

That's another issue.

Yeah. 55.

Mhmm. Well, went up in square footage.

They went up in square footage.

Yeah. Yeah.

Well, to move that thing. Yeah.

With the stairwell for the prevent you from doing that.

Well, we would have to move the stairwell all the way from the 1st Floor because it connects all the way up to

the third. And then that's, it's a redesign So at this I mean I think these are great questions, right? But I think that there's been some discussion at the board level that needs to be stated to the applicant. That are redesign based items?

The reason I'm asking is I think all of us are concerned about the massing. And the massing is most, to to my eye, most indicated by that 3rd Floor. So that if in effect that 3rd Floor could be moved backward because the pool house isn't there, then that I believe could significantly reduce the massing.

Or eliminate it altogether. Well, there's

that too.

I also think the the side setback at two feet three inches for the whole the whole direction, that adds to the massing. And it's very that's that's so narrow to the property line. You can barely walk there. You can't really put planting there. I think that adds to the massing. And the existing structure is there, so I you know, that could stay. But to add more structure to the same setback is is to me, it doesn't make sense. If that were to be pushed in maybe, I don't wanna say a number, but further in maybe that reduces the massing effect.

Well I think we gotta

You can't go ahead and sit down unless they call you up

with a gotta be careful about redesigning it here. I think there's a couple of options. We either vote on it yes or no and it falls where it is and if they wanna appeal they can appeal or we again postpone with direction. I really think that's all we can do because we could talk about this literally for another month on what could be here and

I I don't think we need to do think what you're hearing is there's opinions about different aspects of it. Not comfortable with massing or setbacks or whatever. So if the board has consensus on, I think Kelly would agree, right? If there's consensus on those items and the applicant is interested in discussing a continuation, I think they should be invited to discuss that, right?

And I would say we generally do not design from the diets. Well we're instructed not to. But I think we are allowed to make some suggestions and the client very generously the last time thought those were helpful. So that

Yeah. I think when you guys give direction, it should be related to, like, fitting more into the land development regulations and this guidelines by saying, you know, do something that decreases the massing. Do something that, like, you know Reduces the setback. You know? And then they have the options to make those decisions.

I mean, you guys have brought up things that they could do and and that's fine, but I don't think that should be like your you know, within your motion that it has to be that. I mean, nothing you say up here has to be what they do. They can bring it back however they you know, however they want to, but, you know, guys are here to give them if you want to continue with direction, you're there to give them kind of the the things that you're looking for within in the purview and then they can make the design the design decisions to do that.

And my concern is, like I said before, there's so many non conformities with this right now. It's a matter of lessening potentially those nonconformities because they're always gonna exist here. So you're never gonna with this particular property, with anything that happens here, you're going to end up with waivers and variances. That's a given unless, like I said, you start from scratch.

I mean look at the nonconformity. It's that little square to the right, right? It's that one piece. Now it's the whole lot is almost nonconforming.

Well there's the one to the right, there's and the the pool. So all of those plus the site plane which is not up here.

But they're small buildings right now. When you do the whole building, it's just more on the neighbors now to have to deal with the nonconformity. Yeah.

I think at this point it might be worthwhile to, I guess, see where the board's lying on whether you want a continuation with direction if if anybody you know? And then if if you're leaning toward continuation with direction, I think we should bring the applicant up to see if that's something

Yeah, that's what I'd like to do.

Yeah. Just think one more comment. We did ask for certain things to be done last time, which to a degree or another they were done. What I'm saying is we could ask for something else to be done and to a degree or another they will be done again, but we may still may not be happy with that. So you know, that's my concern with this. That it's worth just kicking the can down the road and you're never gonna come up with a clean project here. It's never gonna be clean.

You're providing an option for them in lieu of us voting it down, you're providing an option to them to modify the proposal.

There are lot of Yeah, absolutely, which they did once, might do it again, might do it a third time. It's to their They

might not. If

I may say at this point, if it would be okay, it's okay that I address you in that moment of the continuation discussion. Sure. You know, to the point of what mister Craig is saying is there was an opportunity for them to make further adjustments based on the comments that the board had last time. If the board doesn't feel like they quite hit the mark based on that massing and third story, and you had those comments. If you feel like it could have been done a little bit more, this would be the time to talk with them about the applicant if you're gonna lean towards that.

I would appreciate that opportunity. Whoever wants to represent.

I think it does seem that the board is leaning toward either.

Mean I don't think there's enough support.

There's not

enough tonight. Right.

Right. So it's it looks like the board's either leaning toward a denial or a continuation with direction. And I think at this point, the question is, do you guys want them to make a decision tonight or give you a continuation with direction? If they make a decision tonight, then you guys could appeal to the commission and pay the fee or you could get the continuation with direction, bring it back to the

Yeah. So Kristin Finn, 102 George Bush Boulevard. Could if you guys would feel comfortable with us I mean, you're obviously not designing for the dais, but I understand what you're saying about the massing. So the client has conferred that if they would be willing to, delete the third store story completely, in order to do that, though, the pool house would be demolished. Would that be something that the board would consider?

Are you asking for them to consider that tonight? Because I do think a demolition, it has specific land development regulations that you have to bring it specifically as a demolition.

So then I

don't Yeah. I don't think it would be an appropriate change to make on the fly like this, Is

there about that pool house, is there anything distinguishing about it other than its age?

You know, it was a garage that was converted to a pool house. It's definitely cute for what it is. Right? But

It's gonna look strange.