Historic Preservation Board - Regular Meeting

We're good? All right. Good evening. I'd like to call to order this meeting of the Delray Beach, City of Delray Beach Historic Preservation Board, July 1st, 2026. Please call the roll.

Benjamin Baffert. Here. Carol Perez. Here. Jake Eliopoulos. Here. Peter Dwyer. Here. Chris Cabezas. Here. Richard Kasser.

Here.

John Miller. Here.

Here. Any changes to the agenda tonight? I get a motion to approve the agenda as written. I'll make a motion. I'll second that. All in favor, say aye. Aye. Opposed? OK. Motion carries. We have minutes from June 3rd to 2026. Anybody have any comments or clarifications, additions, approvals?

I'll make the motion to approve the minutes. Okay. I second.

We have a motion and a second. All in favor, say aye. Aye. Okay, motion carries. All right, now swearing into the public. If anybody's here tonight and wishes to speak on any of the quasi-judicial items, now is your time to stand up and be sworn in. Even if you think you might not, now you should.

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

Thank you. If there's any members of the public that are here tonight and would like to address the board or anybody on any items that are not on the agenda tonight, now is your opportunity. Mr. Long.

George Long, 46 North Swinton News Bulletin. If you're not aware of this yet, you should Google maybe Orlando historic preservation. There's some type of new, somebody has proposed that they just suspend the historic preservation rules for three years downtown. Doesn't make a hell of a lot of sense.

Thanks, George. We'll look it up. All right. Seeing no more other comments, we're going to move on. Any presentations tonight, Michelle? Okay. We're going to move on to quasi-judicial items. I'm going to read the quasi-judicial rules. This hearing shall be conducted in accordance with the City of Delray Beach's quasi-judicial rules. The applicant and the city shall be permitted to present their case. The public shall be allowed to speak for three minutes each or for a maximum of six minutes if the person represents an organization or a group of people who are present but agree not to speak. The City Commission Board members, board, staff, and the applicant may be allowed to cross-examine a witness. The city or the applicant will be allowed to offer rebuttal testimony. The decision to approve or deny an application or appeal may not legally be made upon personal views as to whether a 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, comprehensive plan, and the land development regulations. OK. Moving on to item 8, quasi-judicial hearings. Items A, conditional use.

For the record, I'm Katherina Palavoda, senior historic preservation planner. I'd like to enter file HP-492-2026 into the record. The agent for Sunday Village West LLC, Mike Cavillie, is here.

If you could ask for ex parte communications before he begins. I'm sorry, yes.

Is there any ex parte communications on this item? No. No. It's not none. Okay.

We're waiting.

It's not me, I swear.

Good evening, Mike Covelli, 1209 South Sueton Avenue. And I think we're about ready to go here. You're getting there. There you go. OK. They're good. Good evening. This is a conditional use application for Sunday Village Block 61, which is to approve evening outdoor dining. The section of Sunday Village is in yellow here, which is along Swinton Avenue. This is the area that contains all of the restored historical homes. This is the site plan that was approved, and you can see... faintly the patios and all of the areas that were set up on this. This is a little clearer picture. This is The restoration happened as per the approved site plan. The site plan was approved for restaurant uses for all of these structures. And the patios and the decks that are surrounding these are all part of the site plan, and they were built as such. So right now, if a restaurant goes in here, they can actually serve outdoor food. but they have to stop at night. And so the request is to extend those hours into the evening so that we can have those areas utilized after dark. These are the areas that were originally approved on the plan. These are the areas that will be utilized. We're not making any changes to the site plan or any changes to the patios or the decks. And I'll walk you through some quick pictures very quickly to show you the areas that are being used, starting with A at the north end and G at the south end. This is building A. The areas that are going to be utilized are basically the front porch on the image on the left and the back porch, the image on the right. The next building south of that would be building C, which is basically going to utilize a patio that's along the north side of the building and wraps around to the rear. Building E has a large patio in the front and a patio in the back off the Paseo, and then parts of the porches will be utilized. The monument there that you see just as a side note is an area that is in front of every building that has a bronze plaque talking about the history of the building in there and some other informational things. Building B and F is serviced through an elevated deck that runs along the front, the side, and goes through a breezeway into the back. And then building G has a patio in the front and a raised deck in the back. So with regards to the conditional use, there are certain findings that have to be made. The first one is section 3.1.1 that talks about compliance with land use, concurrency, consistency with the comp plan, and compliance with LDRs. This has all been vetted in the previous approvals. The building is built according to that plan, so you can find positive findings for this in terms of consistency with all of these items. And then the other section you have to look at is section 2.4.5. And the first one is that it will not affect the stability of the neighborhood. Extending the night hours will activate Swinton Avenue farther south from Atlantic. It will bring eyes on the street. It will create some natural surveillance. There's a lot of things that it will do to actually help the stability of the neighborhood. So it will not... be detrimental to the stability of the neighborhood. And the second item is in terms of hindering the development or redevelopment of the property, this is all contained within the property. There's nothing that goes beyond the property that would actually hinder any development or redevelopment. So positive findings could be made for all of these items. And I'd appreciate it if you approve the application. If you have any questions, I'll be happy to answer them. Thank you.

OK, so this is a conditional use request for Sunday Village, specifically for the five historic structures located on block 61. of the property. So in general, we don't get a lot of conditional use requests here. If you're not familiar with them, conditional use requests, like specifically for this one, is for the old school square historic arts district zoning. There are specific uses allowed once approved through a conditional use. It requires recommendation through HPB, and after the recommendation for this, it will go on to Planning and Zoning Board for a recommendation as well, and if that passes as a recommendation to City Commission, then it'll go to City Commission, where they eventually will approve or deny it. So the subjects for the proposal are located in the red circle. Those are the five historic structures that are on block 61. Here's a better close up of the subject area.

And then I'm just going to go through a few of the photos.

I know Mr. Cavalli also showed these. So this is building A. This is also known as directory. This is building C, which I believe is Van Leeuwen. That one already has the outdoor seating established, and I think that's currently the only structure that's actually operating right now. Here's another visual of building C. This is building E, also known as the Cathcart House. Another image. This is the back area for Cathcart. Buildings B and F. So we know you've seen this structure or Sunday Village for the last few months for hood vents, but this one was recently approved for the hood vents on building F, I believe. So here's the rear of buildings B and F. Another rare image. And this is Building G, which is Drinking Pig. Eventually, I believe we will be seeing this one as well for some modifications. And this one is the most southern structure on Block 61. So here's another visual of the overall site plan. And then here you can see where all the outlined areas are, are what was already approved as outdoor seating for all the five structures. This was with the previous approval. And so the only request that's being proposed for recommendation today is specifically the seating areas that are already existing on site that they be allowed to have outdoor dining at night. OK, so with 4424, which is the Old School Square Historic Arts District zoning, 4424C specifically notes that outdoor dining is allowed for an accessory use with the principal use, which is for restaurant. Section 4-424D specifically notes that conditional use requests do allow, if approved, outdoor dining at night could be allowed with the associated restaurants. The proposal specifically requests that the outdoor dining be in operation until midnight. So here we can see where the proposed outdoor dining at night areas are that are existing on site already for regular outdoor dining in the daytime. And then we have a list of the different square footages, which is also available in your staff report. Okay, so this specifically notes that the conditional uses, they must be recommended, as I previously noted, recommended by HPV, which would eventually go on to the Planning and Zoning Board. If a recommendation is not given by the Planning and Zoning Board, it does not go forward to City Commission. As Mr. Covelli noted, these are your required findings. I think Mr. Covelli had the, we just updated chapter two, so the new code section moved a little bit, so it's now 246A5 for the findings. This is an excerpt from our staff report. Staff has no concerns with regards to the proposal for outdoor dining at night. It is encouraged that the proposal will be expected to make the area more attractive and accessible and help assimilate the economic development for downtown. And these are additional LDR findings under 311. Mr. Covelli did note a lot of these findings, which are noted in your staff report, were already reviewed and approved with the previous overall site development approval plan. And that concludes my presentation.

Thank you. Any members of the public want to comment on this item?

Still George Long, 46 North Swinton. I hope this doesn't erode my credibility coming up here and agreeing with everything. But I never know what you're going to do. Anecdotal. I live next to a restaurant. And you're going to like this. Don't worry about it. When they moved in, it was Dada. My mother was living there at the time. They were open until 2.30 at night, had a lot of loud music and a lot of lights. And it was the best thing that ever happened, because the neighborhood needed that very badly. And it worked out very good. So there was nothing wrong with having lights at a restaurant at night on the street there. There's two-story buildings behind it on the other side of the property. And then directly across the street, there's nobody living right there. The best activity over there is a whole lot of noise from Lieutenant Ruth. But besides that, noise is not the issue here. I think it's entertainment district. I have no doubt about that in the neighborhood. Go with the lights. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good evening, staff and board members. My name is Jim Chart. I live at 401 Southeast 4th Avenue. And I made a major mistake. I need to wait for the right COAs. But if you could pass those around. And I'll be back. Thank you for understanding.

All right. Anybody else? OK. Any? No rebuttal. Staff? No rebuttal. OK. Thank you. Moving on to board discussion. Anybody want to start? I have a quick question. So it says daylight hours is where it cuts off now. So obviously that fluctuates with the time change and everything. And then does this permit any type of entertainment outside as well? Or like, you know, somebody on a guitar or whatever? I mean, how far does that go?

It doesn't really specify. But in the past, when we've had this request for different – because I think Sunday Village – When you came in for buildings one and two, which also have the outdoor dining at night, that question was brought up. So it's...

discussion okay but they would fall under any other existing noise ordinance or anything else absolutely okay if I may sure if you look at the proximity of all of these I think it's really going to be self-policing because you know they're they're all very close together and if one is loud they're you know management is going to deal with it because you can't be you know print fringing upon someone else's restaurant and they're very close together so I don't we don't anticipate this being an issue you can see that they are pretty close together okay thank you all right anybody want to start I have a question for staff should be pretty easy

So the outdoor seating would run till midnight. Is that compatible with other outdoor dining venues in the area?

So at this time, we have outdoor dining, like I mentioned, for buildings one and two. Let me see. Let me go back. So it's going to be... Okay, so it's going to be the structures... right here so there's outdoor dining at night here and then um docks which is across the street if you're familiar with docs um also got approved for outdoor dining at night also until midnight so there's okay so it's not it's adjacent sooner or later than than others in the immediate vicinity correct i mean there are areas where i i believe I'm not sure about Tin Roof, but I don't know if they have the... There's two different types of requests. There's like the late night, which I think it goes until maybe like 2 a.m., and then there's the outdoor dining at night. So I think it's noted in your staff report, like if they were to request anything later, then they would have had to request the outdoor, the late night operation hours.

And then the outdoor dining... runs with the land if you will so if a new tenant comes in let's say there's a turnover in in a restaurant would they have to come back would that specific building have to come back for outdoor dining or is this blanket for sunday village these buildings i want to say we'll double talk with michelle but i want to say it runs with the it doesn't run only specifically for oh for the use yes but if

Hi. Michelle Hoyland, principal planner for the record. So if there's any change, let's say the taco stand or the beer, what are they called? The drinking pig? No, the beer one. What are they?

It's the Delray Brewer.

Yeah, pale flour. So we have a brewery who has a retail location, the cath cart house, the taco stand, drinking pig. I don't think Van Leeuwen's is selling alcohol, but they are restaurant-based. Any of these uses that have outdoor dining at night up until midnight is what this would be for. If the user is going to change, the conditional use could change. It's case by case. We have to look at how the operation is. And there's a certain time period. So if the space goes vacant for a period of time, the conditional use ceases. So there's controls in place about the entertainment at night. There are limitations on noise. If there were speakers that were going to be placed, we'd need to know about them so it can be included with the approval. In other areas outside of the downtown mini golf type places, there's been complaints. And we've had to police that and make sure it's handled correctly. So it's not designed to be live bands on the front patio. That's not what the intent is. I don't think that's the intent of the applicant either. But we did know this was coming. So when the project first got approved, there was outdoor dining. delineated on the plan what you're seeing on this plan has been on the plan so they have outdoor dining it's just that at dusk they have to pull their chairs in so now this approval would allow the chairs and tables to remain outside for use from dusk until midnight midnight correct yeah so we're not looking to have a noise issue, we do have residents that live catty-corner from this. So those are good questions to ask to make sure what you're approving is what you expect. OK.

Anyone? Anybody else have any other comments, questions? Where are the closest residents?

Directly southwest, so at the intersection of 1st and 1st, south of the library there, is an apartment complex, a townhome complex. They're the closest. They almost touch the property. You can see it there, CODA.

Do you want me to point?

Right under the Southwest 1st. Right there.

And then George Long. He legitimately is, I think, the closest resident north of the site. Perhaps there might be one other. I just don't know if they're still utilizing it as a residence next to the CRA's office.

So directly south is Cindy House? Yes. Is that right? Yes. And then across the street directly, some are vacant, but there's no residence there, right? Those are businesses or offices?

So right here, there are offices, but I believe this is a residential use. It's a duplex. All of this here is townhome. This is the courthouse parking garage. Then we have the courthouse. There's some more residential over here. To the north, we've got George Long in this block and maybe one other. And then over here, right there, which is a block and a half, two blocks east. This is residential. Magnolia Place is right down here. So this is a mixed-use district that abuts CBD and single family in the distance.

Directly across on Swinton, those are offices, right?

That's correct, yeah.

Yeah, it seems like it's in downtown. It's part of the entertainment district. The largest patio, what... I guess there's two larger patios. What are those uses? Or who are those tenants? I guess it's building E and B?

Buildings B and F is actually just a bakery. This has the largest patio. It's Mamon Bakery. I think it's just coffee and pastries. That's B.

It's two buildings, right?

B and F? Yes.

Oh, I see. And then building E would be the, is that the brewery?

yes cathcart it's so it's not an actual brewery happening there their brewing operation is off-site in a warehouse industrial zoning this is their retail location where they will be serving food as well where's the one with the i think it's after all the pictures oh with the the the seating highlight that one right there yeah yeah Building A is Taco Stand. Building C is Van Leeuwen's Ice Cream Shop. Building E is Rare Flour, Pale Flour, the brewery retail location. B and F is the bakery, Mamon. And building G is the Drinking Pig Barbecue.

Okay. Yeah, I have no problem with this. I think it's great, actually.

Anybody else? Comments? Concerns? Want to make a motion? I'll make the motion.

Oh. Sorry. All right, so I will make the motion to recommend approval to the Planning and Zoning Board of the Conditional Use PZ-492-2026 to request to allow outdoor dining at night for buildings 1 and... Nope, that's wrong.

So that should say outdoor dining at night for the So it's in your agenda to allow outdoor dining at night associated with five restaurants located within the five existing historic structures along South Swinton Avenue.

OK. Request to allow outdoor dining at night for associated with five restaurants located within the five existing historic structures along South Swinton Avenue, Block 61. for the project known as Sunday Village Old School Square Historic District by finding that the request and approval thereof is consistent with the comprehensive plan and meets the criteria set forth in the land development regulations.

We have a motion.

Yes. Motion.

Second. Second. All right. We have a motion, a second. Any discussion? Nice recovery, by the way. Yeah. Very good. Sorry about that. Please call the roll.

Benjamin Baffert.

Yes.

Carol Perez.

Yes.

Jay Galiopoulos?

Yes.

Peter Dwyer?

Yes.

Chris Cabezas?

Yes.

Richard Kaster? Yes. John Miller?

Yes. Thank you very much. All right. Good luck. Thank you. Thank you. OK. Next item.

Michelle Hewitt, senior planner for the record, and this is agenda item 8B for 102 Northeast 7th Street, a certificate of appropriateness and variance request. The property owner is here to present their application request.

Thank you, board and staff, for your time today.

Sorry, just one second.

Before you begin, if you... Ex parte communications, please.

None?

No.

Okay, none.

Go ahead.

Thank you.

Let's wait for the presentation. So we're looking for approval for a variance as well as a certificate of appropriateness for a few modifications to 102 Northeast, where my wife and I own the house. We've had it for about 13 months.

I apologize for interrupting you again, but could you state your name and address for the record, please?

I'm Eric Gilbert, owner of 102 Northeast 7th Street. Thank you Again, I'm looking for a variance approval and hopefully approval for certificate of appropriateness for some modifications restoration of a 1952 minimal traditional home as you can see here on the picture recognizing it's a wonderful area Delido we actually own the home next to it it's our it's our family home and this is a renovation for our oldest child and his wife and multiple children so we're we're working on that for them so we've been in the neighborhood we've been through the historic process before with Michelle Hoyland and Katharina We're actually recognized in 2026 as a Historic Preservation Award nominee. So respectful of this neighborhood, we are big believers in preservation. And you can see that in the work that we did in 18 and would like to do the same type of modifications to 102. As you can see, what we're proposing is not impacting the street at all. The house that you see third from the right is the small bungalow known as 102. Our home is on the ranch next to it, 18. So we share a property line. What we're trying to do is bring that house back to what it was when it was constructed. There are actually some details left off of the home. So in the original plans that Michelle was able to supply us, We saw some nice lattice work that was never put in to the front porch, which we've captured and we'll restore that back to the original state that is shown here. The elevations remain unchanged. We're looking to expand the back out to just add another bathroom. Currently it's a three bedroom, one bath. It's a very small home. If anyone's ever been through it, it's actually not the original floor plan that was in the original drawings. There's a hallway that went down the middle of it. The rooms are very small and had one bathroom. So we're expanding it through the rear. No disruption to the height of the front or nor can you see it from the front. It would add another bedroom and bathroom and creep into the current patio that is in the backyard. This is a side look. I think this is from the east, if I'm not mistaken, looking at it from the east. So you can see the current above and the recommended approach below to extend the back. You can see we're asking for some slight modification of the window placements, primarily in the back, not visible from the road at all, and actually the house that is to the property line to the east is walled off by fence and palm trees. There's pools in all of the yards, so they're pretty private backyards. So the goal is to refresh everything with the stucco, the muttons on the windows, changing a little bit of the configuration, just lessening some of the muttons, but still having raised muttons, obviously no tinted glass, anything like that. This is a view from the front, again, remaining unchanged. So the front will change in color, a little less, again, muttons on the windows, but preservation of the original look, restoration of some of the porch that was never actually executed. And this is a look from the western side, which is the property line that we share at AT Northeast. As you can see, we're asking for modification of the window placement to accommodate the second bathroom. and the new bedroom that is in the back trying to preserve as much of the window openings, the fireplace, the chimney, all of those things. So as minimal disruption as we can, but we're trying to just make the house a little more usable. I think the biggest conversation that we've had with Michelle and Michelle is the type of roof. It's currently an asphalt roof. We're asking for the opportunity to put a standing seam roof on. If you go back to the original permits and builders permits that were in the town, You could have chosen metal for this home. It was chosen to be asphalt, but wood was our metal was available in the 50s We're looking at durability We're looking at kind of what the neighborhood looks like probably 50% of the homes on Northeast 7th and actually on Northeast 6th Have that standing seam the goal would be to leave natural color low profile but try to modernize the house without you know taking away from its its characters from the 1950s and So the goal is to preserve, add a little to the rear, trying to use all the colors, materials that were appropriate at the time. And that is a visual from the front. It's the current condition of the home and our home next to it. And I had the plant, I had put in the elevations and I don't know if they made it or not. They did not, so sorry. Thank you. Thank you.

Once again, Michelle Hewitt, and this is a certificate of appropriateness and variance request for 102 Northeast 7th Street. On the screen here, I have an aerial with the subject property outlined in blue. To the north is Northeast 7th Street, and it is surrounded by single-family homes to the east, west, and south. Some background, it is within the locally designated Del Aida Park Historic District. It contains a one-story contributing minimal traditional style single-family residence, originally constructed in 1952. It contains 1,318 square feet. Some standout elements include a stucco chimney with a banded top that exists on the north side of the structure, awning windows, and a covered open-air porch and carport. So the request before the board is for a new 100-square-foot rear addition with a 74-square-foot covered patio to the existing contributing structure. The request also includes a variance to reduce the west setback from the required 10 feet to a range of 9.39 feet to 9.7 feet for the addition. Going through some pictures here, this is the front or north elevation. This faces northeast 7th Street. This is the side or west elevation. This faces the property that this property owner also owns. It's 18 northeast 7th Street. This is more of the side here. And this is the side where the elevation is or the variance is proposed on. This is the continued along the side. This is the other side, the east side. Continued here as well. And this is the rear or south. This is where the addition is proposed. So this is the existing site plan with the subject structure highlighted in blue. This is how it exists, and then there's a pool and some papers along with an existing carport and driveway on the east and north side. This is the proposed site plan where you can see the addition in the rear. It's highlighted in red. You can kind of see the outline there. On the left and top portion is the addition, and then on the bottom right is the covered patio. Going through the elevations, this on the top is existing north elevation. This faces, again, Northeast 7th Street. And at the bottom is highlighting the proposed in red, where you can see the slight window shift in the muttons and the standing C metal roof and the doors proposed to be replaced. This is the west elevation on the top is existing and on the bottom is showing the proposed in red. This is the side that is proposing the variance. You can see some of the window changes and button patterns that are occurring on the existing structure and then the proposed more vertically oriented windows on the addition. This is the south or rear elevation. Of course, the entire rear is going to be red because it's accommodating the addition pertaining the sliding, the appearance and sliding glass doors that are currently existing on the structure. And this is the east elevation. This is also interior to the site. And again, highlighted elements are new. That standing seam metal roof, those revised window, mutton patterns replacement of the door and those new windows on the addition the roof is to accommodate the addition they are slightly modifying the roof pattern but it's not visible from the right of way and it's a pretty common method to increase the ceiling heights inside this is the proposed building materials and colors Here we have the Secretary of the Interior Standards for Rehabilitation with the stop report excerpt on the screen here. With regard to standards 9 and 10, there is no concern with the proposed addition as it is located to the rear and least public side of the site. It is also not visible from the adjacent Northeast 7th Street public right of way. Going into the visual compatibility standards. Here's another staff report excerpt. There is some concern with the proposed mutton patterns on the existing structure and the orientation, the more vertically oriented windows. On the addition, they are proposing to have muttons, but... Some of the existing window openings should be retained in terms of the mutton pattern where they can be. And then again, the addition is proposing more vertically oriented windows where horizontal ones are the primary orientation of the existing ones. And then going to the roof from the visual compatibility standards, there is concern with the use of a standing cemental roof as existing structure contains asphalt shingle. Consideration could be given to the utilization of metal shingle, which will have less impact on the roof shape, but also retain that shingle appearance. Going into the relief for the variance, these are the variance findings that are required for the analysis and review of the request. So currently, the required setback for R1 AA is 10 feet. And as it exists today, the existing structure is in nonconformity at 9.5 to 9.7 feet. And the proposed is to continue that existing nonconformity for the addition. The variance would assist with facilitating an appropriate addition to the existing structure. As the site is smaller than the required R1AA zoning regulations permit, the reduced site and existing nonconformity could be considered a special condition or circumstance, and overall its method can be seen as appropriate for the structure's configuration. Here are the certificate of appropriateness findings and some site plan technical items that we have. And that concludes my presentation.

Thank you. Any members of the public want to comment on this item? Seeing none, any rebuttal from applicant? OK. Staff, I'm assuming you're good. All right, we're going to move into board discussion. Does anybody have any questions for the applicant or staff or comments? Or a vote.

No questions. I think it's very tasteful. modifications. I have no problem with the vertical windows that are in the back of the property. I don't think anyone's going to notice them. The standing scene, I believe we've proved that many times before. It's a good, long-lasting material. I'm sure other houses in the neighborhood have them as well. So overall, I'm in support of this. Thank you.

I'd just like to say that this is a great example of... rehabilitation and the way to save a structure. I'm surprised we don't have six of these before us tonight. I mean, the homes are out there, and there's a reason. I don't know if people aren't buying them or what, but great house. You're going to have a great property that will last a long time. Appreciate that. Thank you. So I think this is nice to see. I live in Del Aida as well. Oh, good. So always great to see the investment. Thank you.

I agree with my board members. Thank you. Thank you.

I have just a quick question about the color selections. Sure. If you could go to – yeah, just the – The one question I wish my wife was here for. And it's really because we have different materials but only two colors. Yeah. So which is going to be – because we have trim, other – fascia, shutters, awnings, all being break time, and then walls, the Chantilly Lace, what's the brick going to be?

The brick currently would be Chantilly Lace. Okay, so stucco. If you can go back to just the front elevation. Yeah, stucco and brick. There you go. Okay, so... I think it would be a little patchwork-y to change that brick color.

Yeah, so that's... And then the wood by the front door, that's also going to be the white? The whitish, yes. Okay. And then the wood up by the roof, that's going to be the green or break time, shutters break time. Correct. And then the gray, mid-gray metal roof. Correct. Okay. Okay. That's all I have.

Great. Thank you.

I think it maintains the character and it's going to come out great. It's a good presentation.

Like Pete said, it's a really good example of a proper rehabilitation.

Yeah, very appropriate. No problem with any of the The change is surprised, actually. Like Pete said, there's a house that condition in that neighborhood, but you found it, so good on you. I had no problem with it. It was next door. Yeah. Didn't sneak up on you.

So you knew the owners, the previous owners?

Ted had lived there for quite some time. I had met him. We used to get his mail quite a bit. He was a deteriorating older gentleman, and I had always asked him if he was going to sell it, if I could take a look at it. Yeah. Part of it's to preserve it, to be candid. We don't want somebody coming in and trying to put a second-floor house and change the neighborhood. 7th Street, if you know it, it's a beautiful neighborhood, and we fell in love the minute we saw it. So this house is perfect for our children, so we figured why not take a run at it. It's a process, though, as we all know. You guys do it every month. So the first house took some time, and this one's taken 12 months so far. But Michelle and Michelle have been wonderful, so it's good to – Good to learn as we go, too. It's hard for us on the outside to know all the details, so it's been great to have good guiding folks to help us through it.

That's great. All right. Want to make a motion? I will make a motion to approve Certificate of Appropriateness HP-511-2026 and the variance request for the property located at 102 Northeast 7th Street, Del Aida Park 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.

I'll second. I'll second.

We have a motion and a second. Any discussion? OK. Brittany?

Benjamin Baffer?

Yes.

Carol Perez? Yes. Jake Eliopoulos?

Yes.

Peter Dwyer?

Yes.

Chris Cabasas? Yes. Richard Kasser? Yes. John Miller?

Yes. Great. Congrats. Thank you all for your time. Appreciate it. All right. Item C. Any ex parte communication on this item?

Yes. I talked to the applicant, Kay, and Jim Char. Okay.

Nope. Nope. I talked to Jim Char and Price Patton, and I stopped by the property. Okay.

I spoke to Jim Char and Winnie Edwards at the Historical Society.

They got an email or exchanged emails with Kay Edwards and spoke to Price Patton.

I've had conversations with Kristin Finn over the course of the project. Also exchanged some text messages with Price Patton.

And that's it. Yeah, I did speak to Kristin Finn prior to the last time, not this time.

Same with me, actually.

This is agenda item 8C. I'd like to read into the record. Agenda item 8C, 46 Greenway, Certificate of Appropriateness, Demolition, Relocation of Variances and Waivers for file number HB-544-2026. And we have the applicant here to present.

Okay. Hi, board. Good to see you all again. Catherine Craig at 101 Northwest 17th Street here in Delray. I just want to start off by thanking the board and staff for the time and guidance and for working with us so quickly to get this back before you in such a timely matter. I know we were here last month, but I appreciate everyone working so diligently to do that. Since our last meeting, we have carefully considered every comment and recommendation that you gave. We refined the design and we believe the proposal before you tonight reflects both your valuable feedback and our commitment to creating a design that respects the historic character of the property while achieving a beautiful and appropriate outcome. We're proud of the revisions we've made and we hope you'll see the significant effort that went into addressing your concerns. So at the June 3rd HPB meeting, the board had three concerns and moved to continue the project with the following directives. The first was the overall massing of the proposed addition. Two was the size of the pool being too large and that it had required a variance. And three, the proposed windows and blank walls on the west facade, which is the rear facade. We took each of those comments seriously and made it our priority to address them all. So let's start with the overall mass. I did kind of like a back and forth so you could see. So this was our previous design that we came in with in June. We reduced the ceiling heights. This is the new one, so flipping back and forth. We reduced the ceiling heights throughout the new addition, lowering the overall height by two feet. You can see the impact of this change in the before and after renderings. The addition now has a much lighter appearance, reduces the perceived massing, and creates a more seamless transition between the existing, which is the focal point, and the addition. We believe this actually greatly improved the overall look of the project. Here's another before and after side view still of that front elevation. I wanted to point out, because here you can see the historic home as it currently sits, only these top three left windows have the mullions on it. But after June 3rd, when we had talked to staff, They actually recommended that we carry this detail throughout the entire existing historic home, which is what you see now here. We actually thought this was an amazing suggestion because the design now has a stronger sense of continuity with the existing historic structure, but it still allows the historic structure to be distinguishable between the addition as well. We also covered the board's concern about not having a pool barrier before. So as you see, we didn't have that. Now we added it, a pool fence, and we feel that this is actually more attractive on the property anyway. And lastly, here's another view, so before and after. Because the ceiling heights were lowered, the windows on the proposed addition became more proportionate in scale along with the archways. It softens the appearance of the addition. We feel that it improved its compatibility with the historic residence. You can see another nice view of the pool fence here as well. Finally, we addressed the concerns about the windows and the blank walls. Additional windows have been added to every elevation now, not just the rear, along with decorative shutters, which you can see in this top corner here, but I'll get into all the black line elevations as well. So we eliminated any blank walls on the entire property. Next is the streetscapes. These illustrate both the current conditions on Marine Way and where Marine Way is headed. The first line shows the existing streetscape. Many homes, including ours, face increasing flooding, which you guys have seen. And for additional context, we thought it'd be helpful to include future streetscapes. The two properties immediately south of us are currently pursuing full demolition applications that are currently in with staff. And you can see that 48 is actually going three stories up as well. So this just reflects the redevelopment pressures that are already happening on this street. Finally, the last one is a FEMA compliant streetscape. As the board knows, any home that undergoes a 25% improvement on Marineway is required to elevate to meet FEMA standards. So realistically, this is not a hypothetical future. It's the direction Marineway is going to continue to go. I thought this would be helpful. This is like a side profile shot. This was our previous and this is the lowering of the ceiling height. The height reduction decreases the overall massing of the property, which we feel creates a more sensible and less imposing presence. I guess to quickly get into the variances, because the historic home is being preserved in its original location, the structure must be vertically elevated to comply with FEMA floodplain requirements. As a result, the existing front setback highlighted here in red and the existing south side setback highlighted here in green are requested to accommodate the required vertical elevation. And regarding the pool, we completely eliminated the need for the variance. We agreed with the board that previously requesting it was unnecessary and removing it was the right decision. So now you can see that the pool sits within the front setback. I'd also like to put the size of this addition into perspective compared to the existing 987 square foot home because it is important to consider its context. Marineway is a waterfront property directly on the intercoastal and one of the most desirable and valuable areas in Delray Beach. This context matters. We are not asking for an out-of-scale expansion. We are proposing a thoughtfully designed home that respects the character of the property while making it functional for modern living. When you consider both the unique waterfront location and the reality of today's living standards, our addition is reasonable and a measured request. Our goal isn't about maximizing square footage for the sake of size, but rather creating a home that is appropriate for its setting and location, preserving the contributing historic structure, and represent a long-term investment in the future of this property and the Marineway neighborhood. As the existing home sits today, it is not compliant with the visual compatibility standards, extending beyond that visual compatibility line. This was the previously proposed. It kind of just gives a good depiction of that blank wall that was there, but again, I'll get into those further. And that was the encroachment that we had previously. This now we've added decorative shutters, and you can see that we have further reduced the encroachment beyond the visual compatibility line. This proposed addition extends only a minimal distance and it's less than our original proposal. Now let's get into elevations because I think this helps. So everything in red is what we've added or changed. So in this case, in the front elevation, we added those mullions to all the front windows on the historic home. You can see that the windows on the addition here got smaller, the archways got smaller, and we also added a new coral stone that is more organic and matches to the small piece of coral that's actually on the north side of the property. In the rear, so if you guys remember, this was entirely a blank wall besides those three windows to the right. So we added windows on the garage level. We added decorative shutters on the first floor, which was a staff recommendation, but we actually love it. It makes it a lot more complimentary. And then we added two windows on the second floor as well. On the south side elevation, we added a window in the garage and also a decorative shutter on the first floor. And lastly, on the north side elevation, we added the mullions to the existing house. We added two decorative shutters at the top. And then that archway is highlighted because that has come down now since the overall height of the entire addition has dropped. And then windows also in the garage there down in the right-hand side. So something positive that I wanted to highlight is the incorporation of this hyphen. So this is basically down below, you'll pull in, there's this hyphen, and then there's the garage. Actually, in the LDR section 4.5.1 for the Secretary of Interior Standards, it states that new additions shall be undertaken in such a matter that if removed from the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property would be unimpaired. An often successful way to accomplish this is to link the addition to the historic building by means of a hyphen or a connector. This provides a physical link while visually separating the old from the new and the connecting passageway penetrates and removes only a small portion of the historic wall. A hyphen is one of the several acceptable design techniques for meeting standards nine and 10. So we thought that was a nice little thing. We believe it's important to emphasize that this project is about preservation. The existing 987 square foot home will remain intact and continue to serve as the focal point of this property. The existing home is very small, and for those of you who have had the chance to meet me on site could see how small and dilapidated it is in its current condition. The addition is necessary to create a functional residence for modern living while keeping the historic structure as the centerpiece. And also, the property's narrow 52.98 lot severely limits horizontal expansion, making a second story the most practical solution. Even so, we have intentionally designed the addition well below the maximum 35-foot height allowed by code to minimize the visual impact as much as possible and ensure it remains subordinate to the historic home. And finally, we want to thank the board for the time, care, and thought you've given to this application. I know it's been a long time coming. Your comments have helped shape a stronger design that not only respects the historic character of the property, but remains functional for today's living standards. This project represents more than just restoration of one historic home. It represents an opportunity to show that preservation and resilience can work together. As Marineway continues to evolve, we have a chance to demonstrate that adapting to today's realities doesn't have to come at the expense of the neighborhood's historic character. We chose restoration because we believe this home is worth saving. We've worked hard to preserve its architectural integrity, minimize our impacts where we could, and create a project that respects the history of the property, but also the future of where this community is headed. We hope this home can become a positive example of what's possible, one that encourages others to invest in preservation rather than demolition. Instead of watching homes disappear, we can begin to see them thoughtfully restored, elevated, and given new life. One day, as people walk along Marineway, Atlantic Ave, or look toward the neighborhood from the intercoastal on the Lady Atlantic, we hope they'll see a place where historic homes have been cared for, restored, and allowed to continue telling the story of this community. With your approval this evening, this project can be one small but meaningful step towards that future. Thank you.

Thank you.

OK. This is, again, 46 Greenway, COA demolition, relocation, variances, and waivers. Just to recap, this application is before the board as continuation from the June 3rd meeting. The June 3rd meeting, the request included demolition of the accessory structure, vertical relocation of existing main structure, addition, the variances, and two waivers. At that June 3 meeting, the board had concerns that included the size of the proposed pool, needing a variance, the overall massing of the proposed addition, and the proposed windows and blank walls. The applicant has since revised the request, which still includes, retains the demolition of the accessory structure, vertical relocation of the existing main structure, the addition, construction of the swimming pool, but they have since reduced the size of the swimming pool, so the amount of variances has been reduced from three to two, and the reduction of the overall height from 26 feet to 24 feet, along with some architectural elevation modifications. So here on the screen we have the subject property highlighted or outlined in blue. On the right is Marine Way. To the east, going through some pictures here, this is the front. This space is the intercoastal in Marine Way. This is the existing patio in the front. This is the side or north elevation. The rear, the south side elevation. The accessory structure that's proposed for demolition. More images here of accessory structure. This is the east elevation, the west, and the south. There is an active marineway improvement project, just so the board is aware, that is in the works that is going to impact the entirety of this roadway. Going through some drawings here. Here we have the existing site plan, the accessory structure, and the main residence highlighted in blue, and the existing pool. This is existing first floor plan, exercise level, second floor. And then here are those revisions that I mentioned in the beginning. That reduced height, the reduced window and arched openings on the first and second floor, the raised coral feature. That was previously smooth in the proposed carport. Window openings and modifications on existing structure. The proposed use of the rooftop, which was not previously proposed, and that reduced pool size. Going through the site plans, this is from the previous meeting, the June 3rd meeting. Again, existing in blue, proposed in red in that pool on the north there that was encroaching in the front setback. And here we have the revised proposed site plan. You can see that whole has been reduced to now be within their front setback, or outside of their front setback, no longer requiring that variance. Here we have the proposed relocation demolition plan, as I mentioned previously. These are the proposed setbacks. Going through some renderings here. This is the June 3rd rendering and the revised. You can see those new mutton patterns on the existing structure and the reduced windows and arches. This is again the East June 3rd rendering and then the revised before the board today. June 3rd here. Again, blue is existing, red is proposed. And then revised. Revised, and then we have June 3rd rendering here, then the revised rendering, June 3rd rendering, and then the revised rendering.

So one of the biggest changes you can see is that, as the applicant mentioned, the overall reduction in height of the structure from top to bottom. But there's also edits that have occurred on the rear here where you can see additional openings have been added. And the ones that have closed shutters are actually faux openings with the shutters closed. And we've discussed with the applicant to make those look realistic as they're set in, maybe including some hinge and shutter dogs on those as well. Again, this is a really great use of a hyphen, so we don't get to see projects utilizing a hyphen. It's a historic preservation approach, and you can see it here on the left. This is the June 3rd proposal. The overall height of the building has been brought down through the reduction of the interior ceiling heights. I just want to touch on some of these renderings. When we met with the applicant before It came back here to the boards. Some of our advice was to change the perspective that this drawing was taken at so it was more human, which also provides that realistic look of the structure. So while the building height has been brought down somewhat, keep in mind this perspective, the point of perspective where the human eyes are is about five feet, where before they were a little bit higher in the air, almost as if you were on top of a vehicle or something. So we wanted to give you a realistic expectation of what you would be seeing in the built environment Other improvements that have been made to address your concerns Involved windows not just on the west side of the house But on the north side of the house as well and a change on the south we did go through the look on the floor plans to see what could be shifted and adjusted given there's bedrooms with needed headboard walls and kitchens with needed cabinet walls. So those things were taken to consideration by the applicant as well. And you can see some additional windows were added as Michelle discussed, the muntins, which was a last minute catch. I don't know how all of us missed that, but just to make sure there's consistency on the historic structure with the window pattern detailing. The rooftop is going to be utilized, which they are allowed to do based on the way the project's designed. They do need to meet the required rooftop standards, and they're showing landscape planters up here to meet that requirement of the code. Here's the June 3rd to now, which you can see that's all these additional buttons on the windows, overall reduced size of windows, bringing the size and the scale of that building to a more historic, appealing, compatible appearance by just doing some minor shifts. Even the arched openings slightly shifted as well. So here you can see it's about a net two foot change overall in adjusting that and I think it has made a difference. It's still going to be up to you as the board members to make a decision on that massing. There's the north side of the building with an additional two windows that have that closed shuttered approach. So there's no actual window here. It's a faux approach. And there's another on the south side. Again, the west. We are not going to go through the entirety of the presentation as we did in June. Just for timing's sake, I don't even know how much time I have left on the clock, but I renew a majority of the presentation that we made in June. Just some shifts that have been made doesn't mean that the entire compliance with the code completely goes away. That's up to you to make a determination on. So I'm not going to go through every single item, but I do want to touch on the relief requests. Outside of the Secretary of the Interior standards, the visual compatibility standards, all that's in your staff report, which I trust you've read. We've got the streetscape here as well that's in your staff report, and you can see that overall shift slightly in the top of the building. They are incorporating a more organic look on the coral rather than flat with a rectified edge. So I think that will add to the historic integrity of the building and its future ability to become a contributor rather than having something that's just so drastically different from existing. But here we go. So we're going to talk demolition, relocation, variances, and waivers just really quickly. So the applicant does have some demolition that's included. That's the little structure in the back of the property. That was once a garage converted to a pool house in the 1980s. They modified this building to take the roof off, add additional wall, put the roof back on in order to make it a habitable guest house. So that's going to be demolished. As you know, the relocation criteria is applicable because we have a vertical elevation. So anytime you take a building off its foundation and move it, the requirements for relocation have to be met. And these are your standards that you have to make findings on. Of compliance with in your staff report as well There are also requirements in the code relating to Should you approve this relocation the applicants responsibilities for maintaining the structure from any further degradation? vandalism Additional weather damage we are in hurricane season So they will need to make sure if there's anything on the horizon that they secure that building so it doesn't get blown away There's going to be a requirement for a surety bond. There's a letter that gets provided to the applicant about the property being in a flood zone that has to be recorded with the clerk. I'm just saying it all on record because we've had some applicants not understand that that needs to be met and in compliance before permitting. So the variance, we no longer have the pool because they're in compliance with that, but we still have the front east setback. And that is primarily because a new garage is being built underneath the house. So the house already has a reduced front setback, and it will have an additional layer, basically, an additional level in order to achieve compliance. A variance must be approved. The second one is the south. for the existing structure only. So the new addition will meet the requirements of the code for setbacks, but the existing structure with its new garage level will encroach into the side setback. And here you can see the exhibit that's showing you how this renovation is proposed. And you will need to make findings. Here's before and after, so we're talking June here to July. They do need to meet these requirements of the code with the findings, special circumstances consist or exist, pardon me, literal interpretation of the ordinances. So if the code said to pick the house up and move it because the setbacks didn't get met, that could affect its historic integrity, that the variance has no major effect on the historic character of the structure. These are things that you have to make sure they meet all five items here necessary there's the variance necessary to accommodate an appropriate adaptive reuse so the house has to be moved up because of flood district is the variance necessary to make that happen this is really just what i summarized here so our waiver requests are the building height plane and secondary and subordinates so Again, there's waiver findings that we aren't affecting the neighboring area not diminishing the provision of public facilities that it doesn't create an unsafe situation And then the big one is that there's not a grant of a special privilege and that the same waiver would be granted Under similar circumstances for another property or applicant owner This is what the code graphic says for building height plane, which you can see there's a no-build zone And yes, the existing structure does encroach into the no-build zone, as many historic buildings do. They tend to be built a little bit closer to the street, encroaching into that. But the main goal here is that any changes and shifts, and let's look at July, here we are, that happen, don't further encroach into the no-build zone for the building height plane. If there was a one-story structure being built onto the back of the building, that would probably comply. But since it is a two-story structure that's being elevated in the air and they're adding a two-story addition, some of that new addition will encroach. It's less of a concern for the existing historic structure and it's more of a concern for the addition, so you will need to make a finding. that the waiver requirements are being met for this proposed relief request. Here we have secondary and subordinate. This is really amassing control. So when you look at 451, the visual compatibility standards in Section M, there's a series of requirements that additions are to the rear and most inconspicuous side possible and that they are Their massing is secondary and subordinate to the massing of the existing historic structure. This is where you will also need to make a determination with those relief requests or those relief findings that this request is meeting those requirements. And then finally, we have the Certificate of Appropriateness findings. which require all of the LDRs for zoning, for historic, the comp plan, the Secretary of the Interior Standards, the Delray Beach Historic Preservation Guidelines, that every project meet the requirements of those documents. There are a few site plan technical items. These are not for the board to really concern themselves with, but if you have questions, we're happy to explain what these are. But they will need, should you approve, they will need to address these items prior to final approval of the project. Just for a holding screen, this is the final rendering that's proposed. And that's my presentation. Thank you. And Michelle's. Thank you. That's our presentation.

Are there any members of the public who would like to comment on this item?

Again, Jim Chard, 401 Southeast 4th Avenue, and I'll start again. I passed around a one-page note that was the result of some of my research. I had spoken with a number of board members of both past and present who discussed concern about the flexibility of standards and the consideration of economic factors to HPV's decision regarding 46th Marine Way. I'm sorry, Michelle. I thought you had one. So I didn't really have good answers at the time on those. And so I went to the gold standard, which is, of course, the Secretary of Interior guidelines. Title 36, chapter 1, part 67.7, standards for rehabilitation. And I just want to note that the underlinings that you see in this are mine. First quote, the intent of standards is to assist the long-term preservation of a property's significance through the preservation of historic materials and features. The text further explains that the standards are to be applied to specific rehabilitation projects in a reasonable manner, taking into consideration economic and technical feasibility, with some focus on that economic. The decision criteria are further clarified in the preservation briefs from the Secretary of the Interior, National Park Service. A project meets the standards And here I'm quoting, a project meets the standards when the overall effect of all work, the cumulative effect, is consistent with the property's historic character. And additionally, when the process of returning a building to a state of utility, which is obviously something we're trying to do here. This is not a museum. This is a living, economic, and habitable building. And additionally, when the process of returning a building to a state of utility, this accommodation of change is basic to the process of the rehabilitation and distinguishes it from restoration. It is the owner's choice as to what or how much work will be undertaken in a project. Again, these are all quotes from the Secretary of Interior in the technical notes. Further, the guidelines are intended to as an assist when applying the standards, but they are not codified as program requirements. And lastly, determination that a project meets the standards is based on the cumulative effect, as said before, in the context of the existing conditions. Also in these notes is a table of explaining what economic and technical feasibility is. Several relevant factors are listed. One of them is Change is essential for the new or continued use under the category of programmatic issues and industry standards. The section summarizes economic and technical feasibility considerations are not an exemption or a waiver, but from otherwise having to meet the standards, from not having to meet the standards. But rather, they're factors that can and should be considered when applying the standards as long as the overall project is consistent with the historic character of the project. Back when I first joined the historic board five or so years ago, the chair at the time would quite often say, we are here not to say no, but to find a way to yes. And I hope tonight you all find a way to yes. Thank you. Thank you.

Good evening, everybody. My name is Sandy Zeller. I reside at 209 Northwest 12th Street in Delray Beach. As you may recall, I spoke at the June 3rd meeting and stated my opposition to the project. I'm here today to reaffirm my opposition to the project. As I previously stated, I've served on numerous boards, PNZ board, CRA board, the Downtown Development Authority, and the Delray Beach Preservation Trust. But more importantly, maybe not more importantly, I lived in the Marine Historic District for 13 years at 126 Marine Way, which is about a block from the subject property. um and i was the chair of the marina historic district homeowners association for numerous years so i'm familiar with the property i've reviewed the plans and really they continue to be non-compliant the project still requires at least two variances and waivers from the ldrs they haven't complied fully with the historic preservation element of the com plan And importantly, it violates probably four or five standards of the Secretary of Interior's requirements, all of which are mandatory. Not only that, there's not been any testimony by the applicant itself in any of the hearings and I've been to three of the hearings there haven't been any testimony by the applicant as to the standards and trying to comply with the standards so and that's raised in the staff report I'm sure Ms. Hoyland can point that out but it's standards two three five nine and ten as noted in the staff report on pages 10 and 11, all of which use the word shall. And it also violates LDR section 4.5.1, which defines the mandatory standards and guidelines of a historic site, building, or structure and states that the project shall comply with not only the LDR and the Secretary of Interior guidelines, but also the Delray Beach Historic Preservation Design Guidelines. The guidelines state that elevating a building without considering the impact to the massing, size, scale and proportionate relationship of the historic buildings and to the historic district is prohibited. That's on page 12 of the staff report. As well, the guidelines require that additions shall be secondary, and this is really in addition to that existing house, that shall be secondary and subordinate to the main mass of the historic building and shall not overwhelm the original building. This, of course, you can tell by the renderings, is far exceeding that.

I'm going to have to cut you off now.

Sorry. If I can have a second, I'll wrap it up. So there... It's the developer's obligation to prove their case by competent testimony and evidence. They haven't done that. They haven't said a word about the standards of the Secretary of the Interior, and it's not up to this board, frankly, to bail them out just because you may feel sorry for him in his testimony last time that he spent a lot of money on the project. So I would urge you to reject and deny this project.

Anybody else?

George Long again. Same address. I think everybody makes pretty good points here. All of these are all, everybody has good points. Can't argue with that. But I want to make some more general observations about going over all the details of the interior recommendations. First of all, I expect a three-story building to go there. It's a flood zone, right? Low elevation. That's going there. I expect an addition to go there. That's sort of a given. That's going to happen. Whatever happens there, whoever buys the property, whoever builds there. So I think mainly this is about size and massing more than anything else. And we've got different ways of looking at this. I'm referring back to a book I read many years ago called The Hidden Persuaders. There are things that you see that kind of sway your opinion. If you see a depiction of the relative size of the existing versus the proposed, you'll see for the existing a little blue square, and if we propose a big pink square. But if you see the elevation, the conceptual drawing, rendering of the building, and the addition looking straight on, it looks like it sort of belongs. I don't see that big contrast there, coupled with the fact that it sits back. It's beyond, well beyond the front of the original building that's been raised. So anyway, In my opinion, which is not near as professional as yours or others here, I think it doesn't look bad. In fact, I kind of expect something like that there. Thank you. Thank you, George.

Anybody else? All right, we're going to close public comment. Any rebuttal from the applicant? No? Seen none? All right. Just sit close in case we have questions. Staff. Yes. Comments and rebuttal.

So I just had a quick moment to look at Mr. Chard's submitted comments. A couple of things I just want to remind the board about, that the Secretary of the Interior standards are the 10 standards that have to be met. The Secretary of the Interior standards and guidelines is a large book that addresses four different approaches to preservation, one including rehabilitation. 99% of the projects you are dealing with are rehabilitation projects relating to adaptive reuse. There's one reference in the entire, is it 1,200 pages, I think, that reference for rehabilitation, probably less, that makes a reference to economic. So the application of that statement in this summary, indicating that the board shall take into consideration economic and technical feasibility. Taking into consideration economic feasibility of a project is not only a requirement of maybe the board. It's not something that you look at and say, is this economically feasible? It's really more that that term is applicable to the property owner, the architect involved and what treatment is being selected, and that there's an appropriate adaptive reuse. Not to forget that there are other programs like the local tax exemption program, the federal tax credit program. There's different things that are put specifically in place to function as an incentive when historic preservation might seem expensive. But the boards... role here is to ensure that the requirements of the LDRs, the Secretary of the Interior Standards, are met and followed. The guideline book is not a suggestion. And I've heard this. Maybe it's not just this particular applicant. Maybe it's been repeated to the board from a different applicant. I don't remember. That guideline book is in place. to give the owner and the property development team, such as the architectural team or the historic preservation team or the contractor, a how-to, basically. So if the requirement is, we've got rotten windows, what do we do with them? You open the book and read the requirements of how you can come into compliance with the 10 standards. So it's not a... Pirates of the Caribbean, they're really more guidelines than rules. That's not what that is. It's how you can achieve compliance with the 10 Secretary of the Interior standards. So I just want to make that clear that that's not a suggestion. It is if you have a question on what to do with masonry, brick, windows, roof, new construction, additions, how do we do it? It's meant to be an assist. if somebody isn't sure how to be in compliance with Secretary of the Interior Standard 9 or Standard 10. So I just want to make that really clear that they're not intended to be an assist that you get to bypass. That's just not what the intent of that is. And then whether or not something Mr. Long noted, swaying an opinion, this isn't, well, I'm not saying you can't have an opinion. This is your deliberation of a project's compliance with the code. It's not really like an opinion of whether you like it or not. It's whether the project meets the code or doesn't meet the code. So just so we're clear in the use of the term opinion, this is why we've got one, two, three, four, five, six out of seven board members from a background that's a qualified background for you to sit on this board. Because we rely upon your expertise in the Execution of a project that an architect brings forward to you and the review of that project for compliance with the code that staff is is Providing that analysis to you on so thanks.

Thank you All right, we're gonna move in the board discussion Anybody like to share their thoughts

I could start. I made some notes, and after reviewing the new plans, I think that the applicant has really taken into consideration our comments as evidenced by the reduced scale of the project, the adjustments to the pool, adjustments to windows, and some of the other items. They've really made a good faith effort. This is... project that's been around a while. I mean, it's been a lengthy review process. And throughout the process, the applicant has continued to modify their design, continued to take feedback, and continued to try and improve the project. It's not a perfect project. It has lots of challenges. One of the biggest being the flood plain that it's in and the fact that this whole street is going to be raised several feet. So that's ultimately affecting the building height, which controls the massing of the project. But I really think that I can support it moving forward. It looks better than it has, and I think that I definitely support it moving forward. It's not perfect, but I think that to rehabilitate and save the existing structure, it's important that they have additional square footage and usable materials

Amenities that you'd find in a modern home including a garage and a pool That's all thank you Um Again, I think it looks great and it did last time It just makes it difficult with the given conditions of the site and whatnot and Although the you guys reduced it by two feet and the pool wasn't an issue for me last time. I still think the overall mass in does make the existing contributing structure secondary to the addition. And personally, I think. It was good improvements, but it was still somewhat underwhelming to me. I think it could be handled. a little better according to last meeting's comments. And for that, I'm leaning towards voting no. Thank you.

Ben?

Yeah, I agree it's an improvement, but there's still too many non-conformities with the addition. I understand the need to elevate the entire structure. That's understandable, and I understand how by elevating the existing structure, The existing structure in itself is out of compliance with the site lines and actually the building setbacks. Probably the building setbacks happened after the building was there. But there are still similar non-conformities or non-compliances with the new additions. I can understand the existing nonconformities, but I don't understand why we can't come up with a design to conform with the other LDRs and regulatory guidelines for the addition. I mean, there's still, yeah, it's an improvement, no doubt, but we're still way out of compliance.

Anybody else? Chris?

Sure. I echo a lot of the sentiments of my fellow board members that have already spoken. I do... really want to commend the applicant for taking every bit of feedback that we gave and the board gave, that staff gave post-meeting, and incorporating it into a design. I mean, everything that we discussed is there, from the windows to the massing, being brought down, the materials, the fence. I brought up that fence a lot, and also the windows, and I was happy to see it. I think... The site poses a lot of challenges and designing a modern 2028, because that's essentially when it'll be done, home that will last into perpetuity from there around a small 900 square foot two-story home is incredibly challenging. I give you, the applicant, again, a lot of credit. I really like the improvements. I think they're... in line with the area. I think that it's, in looking at the future streetscape and the elevations that have been provided, I don't think it looks out of place. I don't think it will look out of place. I think we're going to, especially in the Marina Historic District and on Marine Way, we're going to be seeing a lot more in the years to come, a lot more raised elevation homes, whether they're three stories or two stories, a one-story home on a higher elevation, things are going to be raised up with stairs. So I think that's the way of the future in the area. And I, again, just want to commend them, commend the applicant, and I am in support of this project.

Down the line?

OK, wait until the end.

Yeah, well, I wasn't here last month. And so I watched some of the videos, so I got a little bit of the background. And I was here, I guess, last year when this came. It seems every time it gets smaller, it gets better, right? So every time the applicant takes our advice, makes it smaller, we feel like, ooh, there's an improvement. So the questions I have in my mind are, We have examples of additions to historic properties. And when we look at those, would this fit into a proper addition or would this be do not do this? And it's hard to tell, right? It is set back behind the original structure, but it overwhelms the original structure because the massing is pretty large. You know, when you're standing, I drove by the property, when you're standing there and maybe at angles and I saw on the plan there was a big tree that was planted in front of the new structure. I don't know if that's going to happen. We don't look at that. But maybe there are ways to reduce that massing problem. But it still is an interior standard about the original historic structure is what makes this an important property. And by changing the streetscape and adding this addition, it really does change the character of the streetscape. And the interior and the historic integrity of the house. It's a challenge. I know we want to modernize We want to make it livable, but we also want to maintain the historic integrity of the streetscape So it's it's a true challenge. I really battled with this But it it still feels like the addition is overwhelming and the massing is too big So I I'm leaning against approval

I've got a few comments so yeah I you know I'm not gonna add on too much what everybody else said I think the building site plane is gonna be violated here no matter what you do it already is it's existing so I kind of discount that one it is taller than the existing structure The massing is mostly hidden, but there is some of it on that right side, on that north side that you're going to see. It is set back. You could consider that secondary, but it is a larger addition than the existing structure. That being said, I think the conditions in this area... um i don't know what else they're going to do um to this and and if you know i guess you could take the whole third floor off or the second floor off technically because it's not a third floor um but that's not what's in front of us so uh you know we there's somebody from the public that commented about variances and waivers we offer variances and waivers as an opportunity to save a historic structure while at the same time making some accommodations to a site. We've had variances in waivers applied to brand new construction where the site was scraped clean. And multiple variants and waivers, which in my opinion are not warranted, but they get approved and moved on. In this case, I think they are warranted because one is an existing non-conformity, not a big deal, it's exactly where it is, it's just going up. And the other is these building site plane where it's an existing nonconformity. It's, you know, it's just bleeding over into the other new structure. So I'm in favor of it. I was in favor of it. And we'll see where it goes.

I kind of wish this was the first app, you know, your first application that you came with. Because I think, again, you're going in the right direction. I do think that the massing is still overwhelming the historic structure. Michelle, when it comes to this economic, having to do with the economics, I would think that would apply to the historic structure and not so much to an addition. Because you know, your historic structure, you're going to spend money in fixing that up, and that's costly. And we all, anyone who's done it knows that. And also, well, building a house is expensive also, but you're in control of your proposed structure. You know, the other one, you have to bring up the same as it was. So it's the economics that this note that Jim Chard talked about, is it based upon new and proposed and existing structures?

I believe it's unfair to utilize a term that's in the full word, basically, of the entire book to explain what the intent of the book is. It's not a standard that's applied within one or the other approaches to compliance with the Secretary of the Interior standards. So it's more so high level, right? That it's up to the property owner and the architect to determine the economics and the feasibility of a project. It's not, I feel like, I'd have to bring the book and show you opening the book. It's literally if you open the front page and it says, these standards are for this. So I don't think it's something that you should be too distracted by that you have to make a determination based on economics. That has not been the case in the many years we've all been doing this and serving the board. It's not a factor that is included with any of the guidelines code requirements or anything like that. It's more of a high-level look. The applicant's going to have to decide, does this make money sense for them to do?

I mean, economically speaking, just black and white, take it down and put something new up would economically make more sense. Historically, we're not trying to do that. We're trying to encourage the preservation and restoration of the historic structure.

And that's why we consider the waivers. Exactly. That's why we consider the waivers.

True. If I could maybe expand on that for you. if it were to be demolition right there are specific requirements associated with the demolition that involve the economics in the replacement of a structure so that's something that also gets taken into consideration if they were to move forward with a full demolition with cost estimates for replacement repair appraisals with the property without the property so there there are moments where economics are a glimpse in the application of historic preservation standards and requirements, but whether or not you're using the Secretary of the Interior standards to make sure you're doing the best approach to preserve a structure, such as are you using the right kind of windows, do they have the same reflectivity, sash depth, the reveal of the muntin, those types of things. It's not an economic approach. That's a technical approach that an architect or a designer takes into consideration for a project. So it's kind of hard to say it's not involved, right? But like you're saying, with a demolition, it would be involved.

It would be involved. I mean, historic preservationists a long time have used the measured increase in values in historic districts versus not as justification for historic districts. And in many cases that is true. In Delray, and this is going off topic a little bit, but because of the development pressures in Delray, we're seeing somewhat of the opposite where Having a historic structure can be considered, you know, a detriment. And we don't want that. And I don't want to see that. But, you know, it's where we are right now when the dirt is so valuable underneath some of these historic structures. You see the improvement value of some of these houses is minuscule compared to the property value. Until they renovate.

I do think that's a point of why we want to preserve the historic integrity of just the few streets. I agree. So by building something that maybe would belong more on a modern street here, to me, doesn't make the sense.

Well, I mean, again, you're up against the economic realities of waterfront property, too. Yes, of course. You've got to try. All right. Does somebody want to make a motion here or propose something? I think we've talked it to death. It seems like we have the breakdown. I mean, you can move to approve. You can move with conditions. We can move to deny. I can't make a motion, so...

I'll make a motion to approve Certificate of Appropriateness HP-544-2026, demolition, relocation, variances, and waivers for the property located at 46 Marine Way, Marine Historic District, by finding that the request and approval thereof is consistent with the comprehensive plan and meets the criteria set forth in the land development regulations.

I'll second that.

We have a motion and a second. Any discussion? Seeing none. Brittany?

CHRISTIE WOODARD- Benjamin Baffert?

No.

CHRISTIE WOODARD- Carol Perez? No. CHRISTIE WOODARD- Jake Eliopoulos? No. CHRISTIE WOODARD- Peter Dwyer? Yes. CHRISTIE WOODARD- Chris Cabezas? No. CHRISTIE WOODARD- Richard Kasser? Yes.

CHRISTIE WOODARD- John Miller? Yes. Motion fails.

So at this point, it either needs to be made in a denial of the certificate of appropriateness, or there's an option for a motion to continue as well if that is an interest to the applicant. Should I have them come up? Yeah, if you want to come up. I mean, you guys can discuss amongst yourself and then come up.

It's a tough one. Is it feasible to ask what the conditions would be if moving forward? I only ask because I don't know if it's helpful to put up the visual compatibility line. Because essentially speaking, in regards to the massing, wherever we have the slide with the visual compatibility line. Yeah. So everything that's in green, we could essentially do. We would be in compliance with. Obviously, the existing structure, that is what it is because it's existing and we're raising it to meet FEMA. So the part in red on the addition is really the only... technically massing that's outside within the buildable footprint that we can build. So I guess is there a suggestion? Because that's really outside of the no build zone that would be in question because everything else underneath in the green is allowable by code. So I guess looking at it that way, what would you envision, I guess, when it's just a very minimal marginal amount outside of that visual compatibility line?

I guess I just want to make a quick comment as far as designing from the day. It's like you're not going to give direction on exactly how to design it. It would be more like you decrease massing or you...

create a because technically you just have to decrease it like below that line essentially i was going to ask the the the board members that you know voted to deny is it the variance issue or is it the overall scale and massing that you could provide direction on the scale and massing yep

overwhelming the historic structure so it's becoming subordinary subordinate to what's happening behind it so that is on the right side the whole thing the top floor yes could use your mics I'm so sorry the sight line that she's asking about to me I'm less concerned about the sight line sight plane as I am

feel like the addition should not be taller than the than the existing that that's where i think it the matching for for me uh takes over just because the addition is taller and less relative to the site plan but to the relationship with the existing building about what i agree with that

Yeah, I think that place, one of the biggest roles in it is just overtowering the existing one. I agree that it should be raised up to meet FEMA, but as you can see in the elevations, it really does overwhelm the existing structure. That's the old one.

Could I ask a question of the applicant, just for clarification of this purpose, what they're asking?

And maybe, Marianna, I'm sorry. No, that's fine.

Hi.

Hi. Marianna Wood.

Were you sworn in? You were sworn in, right? She was. Yeah. Just looking here, Marianna.

That's the old one. That's the old one. Okay, sorry. Can you just state your name and address for the record, please?

Yeah, Mariana Wood, Academy of the Architects, 75 South East 4th Avenue, Elray Beach.

Mariana, is there space at the ground level where FEMA requires eight, the building code requires a foot, so we have a nine, right? Is there any wiggle room in there or not? At the bottom. Because I don't remember. You're going to 10 and 12, right? Or are you going to 9 and 11 for your finished floor?

Can we look at that? Can we look at the section, please? The section slides.

There weren't measurements on the section.

Yeah, but that's 10 feet.

9 and 9, right? Right here. Yeah.

It's 8 in the front. And then, yeah, I believe it's, well, that's even lower because the entrance.

It's 8 foot based on the plans. We have 8 foot 10 inches.

Yeah. And that's based on the steps. Yeah. That's how the steps join at the front to meet the 10 feet.

The top of finished floor for the actual habitable space. Has to be a femur, so that's where it is. So are you a nine there or a ten there? So it's a ten, I believe, yeah.

So there's only a foot if you were to mess around with that.

Correct. Okay. I'm just looking to see what kind of availability there is to adjust. What's that interstitial space in the middle? That says hyphen?

Yeah, above that. There's just like an empty space between the ceiling and the floor.

Oh, well, you can see on the left of the ground floor to the left of the red hyphen thing. There's a garage door.

That's an empty space. That's just the connection between the carport where we're raising the structure. So this is like a breezeway. See hyphen?

Right here? Above hyphen? There's a space that's empty. If you go to the left, that whole space, it feels like it's two feet of empty space.

There's two feet of structure, so you need two feet to pass your air ducts, to pass your structure. Between the floors. I mean, the floors. For air, for AC and wires. For all that stuff, you need at least two feet. For chemical, plumbing, everything. You can't go any lower than two feet.

And I think we might be going a little bit too much into the design.

I think it's fair questions just to see if there's even room in how it's designed here. or if they have to go back to the drawing board because they're asking if it's bhp or if it's the second secondary and subordinate sounds to me like that was your question which is it is it both or is it each yeah and it sounded like from i guess the people who spoke on you know the

the difference that they're feeling is more on the massing issue than it is the building height plane variance. Obviously, let me know if I'm out of place. But based on that, I guess the question really is just whether you want a continuation with direction or you'd rather them just make a motion at this point. And, you know, obviously your option once... is to appeal to the commission if you want to, or it's a final decision. Or the commission could appeal.

Okay, so I have a comment on the massing, and I respect everybody's opinion, and I think we're all very qualified professionals sitting up here, but if you can go to, like right there, that's perfect. If you look at June 3rd, but also revised, we're looking at And a lot of the visuals that we've been presented are head on, straight on, as if you are standing dead center on the street looking at it. When really, it's rare that someone is going to be fixated dead center on that street. You're either going to be coming by one way, coming by another, walking by, and seeing it from different perspectives. this if you look at revised and you look at the wall that is on the north side of the existing structure and how you have stepped it up i think that yes we all know that the new the the new structure is taller than the existing the existing structure was built back when Ceilings were lower. Again, talking about this is going to be a 2028 house.

I can't even touch in the existing.

And I'm short. Height challenged myself. You know, who's not blessed with heights. And I could probably touch it too. But I think that for me, again, the June 3rd, massive. But I think that the massing issue has been solved, especially looking at a perspective like this. and looking at other perspectives where we see the step up, we see that it has really, you're utilizing different angles, you're utilizing lot of design features to address that massing and to make it not seem so so brutal and so big again because you're very rarely will someone stop straight in front and look at it if they're walking by they're going to see it from different angles before they stop there and then they're going to keep going and look at it again from different corners and different vantage points And I think this does a great job at descaling that massing, at least for me, and really bringing it into perspective and creating, again, some visual contrast and also some complimentary lines from the original structure to the new one. So I think that, again, just to say, to discuss massing, that's what changed my opinion and how it, these particular angles.

But they're looking for direction moving forward.

Well, if we were to make a motion, could we make a motion to approve again? Or is that?

Yeah, you would have to provide. It would be your motion to approve failed. So I don't know what you would be adding to that to make it.

I think he's just trying to have a discussion with the board.

I'm just trying to point out again, from a massing perspective, all of the visuals that we've really seen have been head on.

anything that they would propose to do if there were to be any substantial changes to this would have to come back for this board anyway so if they if they just hypothetically took off half part of on that right side above the arches move the whole thing back you know or lopped off a section of there so it's step back a little bit um i think from what i'm hearing that would go some ways with with some of the board members that have an issue with it but we can't speculate on that it would have to come back so is that the kind of direction that would be permissible from some of the board members that have issues the height for sure um overall height

Here's the thing. This is a historic house that had its size, and now it's becoming something completely different. Remember, it's 100 years old.

That's right, but we're now repurposing it. We're retrofitting it. Remember the applicant before? We want it to last another 100 years. How do you do it?

But we also are trying to keep the historic integrity of the street. That's why it's historic, because of how this house is right now.

Well, that whole thing is being saved.

And I totally understand every point of view, but I'm just trying to maintain the historic integrity of the street and of this house. To me, this makes it seem like we're... We really care about the house in the back and the house in the front. We're just doing what we need to make it. And that might not be the case, but that's what it feels like when this big structure is looming large over the front structure. So what I'm looking for is to switch those massings. I think the front should be up front and the more important structure in the back one should feel like it's a subordinate addition. to it and it's tough. It's a tough site. I don't think the house has to be right behind it. Could it be attached to the side and pushed back? We've seen that before. Now, I don't know how that looks. I haven't seen sketches. But there's maybe different ways to deal with this. But with this configuration, I just think it's not subordinate anymore.

I think the only – I mean, right now, they're not moving the existing one as is, and it's already within the front setback. And they're going on the rear structure of the addition. It's setback to setback. side to side, all the way to the back. They're not asking for any, you know, they could technically, I guess, ask for a waiver to go into the back setback and push the whole thing back a little bit further.

The addition, we did recess.

Unless there's a question. I'm sending it.

I mean, that would theoretically make it a little bit more subordinate because it would push it further to the back. um but you know they're that's another waiver you know or or a variance there so um you know yeah you could lop off the second floor again that goes back to to the um to the applicant's economic desires on this structure um and that does play into it especially when you're talking about you know this type of a location so

So I guess there were four of you that didn't approve it. So maybe just asking each other if you guys are consistent with kind of the direction that Chris has mentioned and Jake has mentioned of making it more subordinate and decreasing the massing. Is that kind of what you guys are? So I guess with that in mind, is that something And sorry, I didn't see. Is that kind of?

Yeah, I think that's been the issue all along. I mean, that's continually been an issue every time you've come here, unfortunately. It's just like there's just not enough done to reduce the scale of that addition.

And I guess with that in mind, is your preference that they provide a continuation with direction, or would you rather them— I just don't really know that— This is our fifth time coming back.

If you have questions about it, we—

You know, I mean, we could take a recess and we could discuss, staff could discuss, like, how those options work with the applicant.

Yeah, because there's consequences to either vote. Yeah. So, I mean, you know, if it's vote denial, you're starting over. If it's a continuance, then... You know, you can make that decision whether you want to come back or not.

Yeah, no, I mean, that's fine with me if that's what the board wants to do.

I'm fine for how long? Five minutes?

I just wanted to make a quick correction, though. If there's a denial, there's obviously also an option to... Yeah. It be appealed or. They can work with staff. Which I know you know. I know. I just wanted to make sure. Thank you.

But they can at least work with staff and not have to start over.

If it's a, you know, postponed. Well, they're still talking.

Can I say one thing? I mean, I know you're trying to maximize your square footage and you have that. You've got a lot of things that unfortunately you're raising up you and you have that third story But this is a three thousand. It's almost a four thousand square foot under air Proposal here So, you know, I know you're on Nutri Coastal and you want to get a small lot. But when you look at the size of that lot, what's the width? It's 52. 52 feet. And it's almost a 4,000 square foot home.

I think it's a 5,000 square foot lot.

What?

It's a 5,000 square foot lot, right? Yeah. Something like that? That's a lot. It's very small. It's very small for a bigger house on the street.

But we are 3,321 under air, too. I just wanted to clarify that.

What was that? We're 3,321 square feet under air. Just for the addition, right? No, for the whole total. The addition is just 2,000.

You might want to check the data table on that.

The data table said, I think, 3,977 under air, and there was something about 4,333 square feet total. Yeah, let's correct that because that's not right. Anyway.

We do have a slide that shows, actually.

Is the board okay with a five-minute break while they discuss? All right, we're going to take a five-minute break.

Let's show that slide, actually.

All right. So we're good. We're going to reconvene where we left off right before the break.

Okay. Thanks for the break. I think we're just going to go with the vote.

Okay.

Yep.

All right. So... There was a motion to. Thank you. Oh, you're welcome. Thank you. There was a motion to approve, which failed. So does somebody want to make either a motion to approve, and if anybody's changed their mind, or a motion to deny, and something's got to pass at some point.

They're on the screen also.

Yeah. OK, well, I'll make a motion to deny Certificate of Appropriateness HP 544-2026 for the property located at 46 Marineway Marina Historic District by finding that the request is inconsistent with the comprehensive plan and does not meet the criteria set forth in the land development regulations.

We have a motion. Is there a second? Second. We have a second. Any discussion?

Benjamin Baffert?

Yes.

Carol Perez?

Yes.

Jake Eliopoulos?

Yes.

Peter Dwyer?

No.

Chris Cabezas?

Yes.

Richard Casser?

No.

John Miller?

No. OK, motion passes. All right.

Right going on to item 9 legislative items seen none By staff next meeting is August 5th for those of you who have terms up and can be renewed I remind you to You have to reapply with the city clerk's office. I think maybe that some of you already have if you want to stay on the board and John do you do it? Does he actually come in August?

I don't know if he comes in August Yeah, well my term expires that day. So I don't that's what I was gonna ask you. Is this the

I think you come on that day. If my memory serves me right, I think that serves as your last meeting, not this one, because your term isn't up until then. Okay. We'll see you one more time. I'll be there.

I have vacation the next week.

We'll see you one more time.

Anything on that agenda so far?

I'm not at liberty to say.

Okay. All right. But we're probably going to have a meeting. Yes. Okay.

Yeah. I think he's just wondering if we should say our thank yous now just in case.

I'll just fade away.

We are very thankful for you. We expect to have a meeting, yes, in case.

Any other board member comments, concerns, questions?

I'm going to ask my standard question, since you already have it. All right.

You guys going to stop asking me that? I'm telling you it's not a question. I think John was just wondering about his meeting. I was waiting for Peter more so than for John. So I didn't ask, for the record.

All right. At this point, meeting adjourned. Thank you. Thank you.