Historic Preservation Board - Regular Meeting

So welcome everybody, applicants, invited guests. I'll call this meeting to order. It's a little bit late. 05:03, I believe. So would you like to call the roll?

John Miller? Here. Carol Perez? Here. Vlad Demetrescu? Here. Chris Gabesas? Here. Peter Dwyer is absent. Jim Chart?

Here. I think everybody knows that Ezra resigned to be on the housing board. That. And I don't know if they've replaced him yet or not, but we will be the mighty five, guess. Minutes. I called up Diane Miller today and complimented her on this exhaustive.

Did we wanna approve the agenda first? I'm not sure.

I guess we could.

That would be great. Thank

you. Thank you, Kelly.

No problem.

Motion to approve the agenda? So

I'll second.

Okay. All in favor? Aye. Aye. Okay.

Who seconded? Carol. And who motioned? Chris. Thank you.

Alright, minutes? Excellent. I was trying to say is these minutes were just amazing. And the amount of detail and accuracy and effort that went into those, I had to call Diane and compliment her and I assume you helped a little bit too. But no? Didn't. Give Diane all the credit? Okay. So having said that, would somebody like to make a motion to approve said minutes?

All three of them?

Let's see if we can do all three.

Yeah. Yeah.

You wanna make the motion, Glenn?

Motion to approve all three

minutes. Carol, do you want a second again?

I'll second.

Okay. All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Okay. So now we get to swear in the public, including George. Alright. Anybody who wishes to speak, please stand up.

By the authority vested in

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

right. This is a point that anyone can come up and speak their mind about any issues that they think are pertinent to historic preservation? Can I encourage at least one person to come up? Alright. I guess that is it for that. So now we move on to any presentations. Miss Hoyland?

We have none.

Alright. Mhmm. Therefore, we go into our judicial issues and let me read the introduction on that. This hearing shall be conducted in accordance with the city of Delray Beach quasi judicial rules. The applicant and the city shall be permitted to present their case.

The public shall be allowed to speak for three minutes each or a maximum of six minutes if the person represents an organization or a group of people who are present but agree not to speak. The the commissioner, the board, members, staff, and the applicant may be allowed to cross examine a witness. The city of the I'm sorry. The city or the applicant may be allowed to offer rebuttal. 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 numbers 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 requirements of law. The comprehensive plan and the land development regulations. So I guess we therefore need to. Enter into the record.

File number 2025. File. 184. See you. Or it's an ad valorem tax exemption for 108 property owner, miss Tracy Pickett, is here and will present now.

While she's walking up, do you wanna see if there are any ex parte communications from the board?

No. Ex parte?

No. I've spoken to the applicant way in the past when this project was just getting started but that was it?

No. None.

Okay. So I guess do I

begin? Can begin. Please.

Okay. So this

You might introduce yourself.

Oh, yeah. Tracy Pickett, the owner. So this was 108 Swinton when I purchased it, but actually it looks much better than it really looked

in this photo.

Anyway, I mean, you can't really see in this photo, but there's three windows in the front. Okay. And this is the side, the porch.

And you can control it there too with No.

No, no, I'm fine. I'm This is from the South Side, so that's what the front porch looked like. Just the front part of it. Oh, okay, because it switched down. Okay. Oh, okay. Oh, here. Okay, perfect. So this is immediately behind the front porch and you can see there's two windows. They were the existing windows that were on the house on the south side. This is the lovely north side. Those were not my paint colors. They were there when I bought the house. There's the two windows, the fireplace, the three windows, and the next set of windows are the kitchen windows. That's the kitchen window.

And then here is like a double wide trailer sort of thing going on there with some more paint splotches. So that was the back of the house. And this is it from the alley, so the west side looking at it, what the back like. So we went through the construction process and what ended up happening. Well, two things.

First of all, there was termite damage, but they were 24 inch studs, you know, from the center. So we had to reinforce every single two by four with a two by six. So you can kinda see that. As well as with the trusses, we also had to reinforce those. As a result of doing this is just of course the new part of the house looking into the old part of the house.

But as a result of all reinforcement that we had to do and the excessive weight, of course, the foundation wasn't able to sustain that weight. So I think it's probably standard and common practice we had to pour new footings throughout the existing part of the house. So that would kind of be the major things that had to occur on the interior of the house before we could start working on the outside. And then anyway, here is what it looks like now. As you can see, we opened up the porch to look like what it originally looked like before they boxed it in.

I did keep every single window. The windows in the front are the same size as the original windows. And as you look around the rest of the house, that window you couldn't see because obviously there was the enclosure enclosure done, done, but but the the door door is is the the same same size size as as well well as as the the window. Here on this side too, if you look at the original photo of the south side of the house, there was a single window and two double windows. Right beyond that is the piece which separates the old construction from the new construction, juts out a couple inches on there, and that's the new addition towards the back of it.

We did keep I don't know what they're called. The what are those? The ones near the top. The soffits that kinda looked oh, you got one up there. We kept those. I don't know what the name of it is, the architectural name of it. As well, this is the side view of the house now to the north. And again, kept all of the windows, the two on either side of the fireplace. I see that. And then there, you can't see them in this photo, but then there's three single windows.

The only thing that I took away from the northeast and west side were the two short windows, were the original kitchen. And I put two entrances. One is to the kitchen, one is to the cabana bath. And then right after the light that's there, you can kind of see prior to the French doors, that's where the old house ended and the new house began. And then, of course, what we kinda did to try and make the old part look a little different is we put shed dormers up on the top, which and there are some too as well.

This is the back of the house. Of course, this is a new addition, but you're more concerned with what the front looks like. I think I think that's probably about it. So it's all wood, all the siding's wood, cedar on the old part, new part. We could do whatever we wanted. I see people looking in all different directions,

I'm like, oh, okay. Like, what are you looking at on the paperwork?

Anyway, okay just questions or do you guys, you go, okay.

For the record Michelle Hewitt historic planner and this is for an ad valorem tax exemption at 108 North Swinton Avenue. Here we have the subject property outlined in blue on this aerial. I'm gonna go over some brief background of the property. Okay. The subject property consists of the South 15.7 Lot 14 and the North 48.8 Feet Of Lot 15. It's located within the locally and nationally designated Old School Square Historic District and contains a contributing one story bungalow style structure constructed in 1925. Is that the building?

It's lightning probably. Lightning.

Fingers crossed.

I don't think so.

They they redid the roof a couple years ago, sir. Oh,

okay. Okay. Sorry. Go ahead. I'm sorry, Michelle. I just I was like, we should probably Okay. Leave if it's the

Thank you. Sorry. Okay. So here we have the original area of the property. This is prior to improvements on the screen here.

You can see the building as it existed previously. And then here is the new aerial of the property with those additions. You can see the rear additions pergola pool redone landscaping and new hardscaping. So just going over the project that came before the board and that's here for the ad valorem tax exemption. It was for a new addition and exterior modifications to restore the original porch on the front facade of the existing structure, a new thirteen eighty three square foot addition along with a four ninety seven square foot garage to the west rear side of the existing structure, removal of the 342 square foot existing report shed from the west corner of the existing structure, construction of a new trellis on the north side of the property, construction of a new swimming pool decking and enclosure wall, and replacement of existing ribbon strip driveway with a paper brick ribbon strip driveway, construction of a new brick ribbon drive walkway and construction of a new paper brick rear driveway adjacent to the proposed or to the approved garage.

So here on the screen is the east or front elevation. This space is North Swinton Avenue of the structure prior to improvements where you can see that enclosed front porch there on the left where the blue door is located. And then here is the front of the property during construction where you can see the porch being unveiled during construction and some of the siding and painting that's being done. And here is it today today with the trellis feature on the right, the new paper bricks and that restored front porch there railings. Another angle here of the finished front elevation.

This is the side or north elevation of the structure prior to the modifications. And this is the now the side slash north elevation. You can see the existing structure on the left that new pool, the wall and the addition there on the right along with those new dormers that the homeowner mentioned. This is the south elevation further towards the back. This is Or towards the front.

And this is the south elevation with that porch during construction being restored. And then here it is today, a little hidden behind the landscaping. But you can see that opened porch there and the addition a little bit on the left. This is the westrear elevation. This is the side that accommodated the new addition, garage and driveway.

And here is that addition here, garage and driveway. This space is the alley. So this is the survey prior to improvements with the subject property highlighted in blue and the property line in red. This is the approved site plan. The blue is the existing or original structure, and the red is the addition that happened to the rear.

There's the pool there on the north side, the trellis, ribbon strip driveway, and the rear driveway. Looking at elevations, this on the top is the existing and the bottom is the approved where you can see the red are all of the new elements that were added including the restored porch. And then after that got approved, there there were was siding that came through those scalloped architectural details on the roof there, on the gable there and some new smaller structural columns for the trellis that came before the board and were also approved. That's reflected in the final project. Here again on the top is the north north or side of the structure with the blue being the existing original structure And then the red are all of the new elements.

And then the yellow there, that small modification that came before the board after the approval. This is the south side. Again, blue original structure and then red edition. You can see the expansive edition, those dormers, and that porch as well. And then the the item that came up to the board after for that gable. And then this is the rear. This is again with the primarily the primary primary facade where the addition is located with the garage and driveway. And then this is the rendering that

was

approved for the front and the proposed. I'll just you can see the final execution being nearly the same as what was on the rendering there. That concludes my presentation.

Thank you very much. Any comments from the public?

George Long, the public. 46 North Swinton. I watched this house

being rebuilt, and you haven't seen anything until you've actually did what

I did. I kinda peeked under the house and took pictures of the all the formwork and stuff, and it was amazing what what if you're looking at the sticks and the works inside, there's a lot that went on underneath that, a credible amount. And one of my four four careers actually, by some strange coincidence, is a series of I ended up doing layout and commercial construction, footers and column pads and things like that for big hotels and shopping centers and things like that. It's kind of weird how I got there and and got into in construction management. I fooled a lot of people. But anyway, when I looked under there, knew a little bit what I was looking at, and it was incredible. And also it looks good.

Right. Thank you.

I only had this is pretty obvious, but in case there was something in the water, I wanna make sure that you guys are cool on this.

I guess you approve it. Is that safe to assume, George? Anybody else from the public?

Cathy Appleton, 1127 Nassau Street. I wanna support this because I think it's one of our outstanding examples of restoration and preservation in the city, which I think we're losing rapidly. And I, and over the years, it's I lived in, Nassau Park in 1993, and we, in the city, have, as you all know, have lost a lot of homes. And so this is a credit to the owner who went to the extent that she did to restore and to preserve this property. So I fully support the tax abatement.

Thank you. Thank you, Kathy.

Any rebuttal by the applicant to the presentation by staff? No. Okay, alright. And by staff, any rebuttal?

None from staff.

Okay, let's take it to the board. Anybody wanna start off? I can start.

It's just a great project. It really retains that historic character and scale and it's done very well. Hitting all the marks that we look for so I'm full support of this. Yeah. Don't know

what the previous owner thought that paint was gonna do. But I mean I had an opportunity to see this as it was going on and it resembled an open air pavilion for a lot of the time when it was being reconstructed they really did a great job. It was nice that it was kinda located near the front of the property so that so much could be done in the back and when we're over at the historical society looking across the street, there's so many people that comment on it. Anybody who's walking around and sees it. You know, hopefully somebody will take on the property next door at some point, but I'm in wholehearted support of this one.

Me too. And, also got an award. I have to remember that.

Yeah? Mhmm.

And rightfully so.

Rightfully so. Yeah. Carol?

Yep. Great job. I'm your neighbor. I'm probably two doors down from you at 132 North Swinton, and we watched the construction going up and and great job.

I

agree with the sentiments expressed. Think it was one of the best shows in town for weeks driving by. Little bit of competition from Sunday village, but really amazing effort. Thank you. So I guess we should make a motion.

Yep. I'd like to make a motion to recommend approval to the city commission of the historic preserve or of the historic property ad valorem tax exemption application twenty twenty five dash one eighty four for improvements to the property at 108 North Swinton Avenue, 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. Second.

Call the rule.

John Miller?

Yes.

Carol Perez? Yes. Vlad Domitrescu? Yes. Chris Cabasis? Yes. Peter Dwyer?

Not here.

Oh, absent. Sorry. Jim Chard?

Yes.

Thank you.

Hello again, Michelle Hoyland for the record. I'd like to enter the file 2025Dash176 into the record. This is a COA for 49 Palm Square. You recall you saw this last month and continued requesting additional information. The applicant's agent, Mr. Roger Cope is here and will make a presentation.

Is he here?

Oh, is he?

There he is. For the record, Roger Cope, 701 Southeast 1st Street National Marina Historic District. No real presentation other

than Sorry to interrupt you, Roger. Just were there any ex parte communications from the board?

None. None. Nope. No.

None. The

presentation before you and today is that we invited staff out to the property to allow them full access to see every square inch of the house off, you know, front, back, sides up close, you know, rather than from a distance. Not that we kept them from distance. So we all met on-site and let them do their thing and so they have made some observations and opinions that I'm sure they're gonna share with you when they give their presentation. The you know, so the the the perhaps But the issue is how much of the house was resided and it it you know, it's impossible impossible to say how much or how little. It's almost impossible to tell, in my opinion, what what has been replaced because it's so professionally done or perhaps.

And and so the the craftsmanship is is almost museum quality. So so other than we found a few little pinholes of attachments here and there that we're gonna have the filled and remedied. But the only other thing that's come to light over the past month is the fact that, and I'm certainly not an expert on it, but the National Park Service seems to have softened on their opinion of the use of man made product. I think it's kind of recognized that they've accepted it to a certain degree contributing structures and were not visible from a public right away. But while we were all out at the site, you know, pointed out it was it was very easy to point out where all the wood on a house that that was original and meaning the the renovation of fifteen years ago.

The entire front porch, all the all the brown things that you see in this little image right here is obviously, real wood. All the heavy, timber brackets, a lot of which is is, been painted white. It's all wood. The shutters are wood. The trim around all the windows and doors are wood.

The jambs are wood. The sills are wood. It's just the siding. Obviously that's the question mark. And relying on the National Park Service's adaptation of the allowance for an applicant to in a regional sense use a product that's gonna withstand the test of time, you know, we're gonna, you know, rely on that.

And so I'm sure staff has a much more in-depth presentation on that. But other than that, we're looking for an approval so we can move on. We've gotta get code enforcement satisfied. The clock is still running and ticking on a daily fine basis. And so, you know, we're just here to answer any other questions that you might have.

Could you address the NOA issue?

NOA issue, you know, is is more than likely gonna be available to the public by the time we get this approval approval and file for permit on the residing. You know?

No change from the last time?

Other than another month closer to a new NOA. And and that and that that even begs the question

Honestly, I think it's gonna be within buildings' hands at that point anyway. That's gonna be a later later issue.

Experience thank you very much. My limited experience with that is the NOA on any siding, even real wood siding, is when it's applied to a concrete block substrate because you can't put it directly on the concrete block. You have to fur it. And and and and then so it's the NOA is about the method of attachment and and the resistance of that attachment to to a 200 mile an hour wind occurrence. So I'm not I'm not even we have a wood frame structure here.

So I'm not even a 100% sure that the NOA identifies anything other than attachment to concrete block. So in other words, I don't know that it's totally pertinent to the attachment to a wood stud frame building which has a layer of plywood on it. No involved. And it's and and when you apply apply any piece of siding, whether it's wood or man made to a plywood wall, you don't have to worry about hitting this and hitting that. You're you know, you're always going right into the plywood, the substrate.

So so I'm not even positive. We need an NOA on it, but we're gonna get it when they when they make it available. And it is a building department issue. We'll, you know, we'll try to take it one step at a time.

Thank you.

You're welcome.

Michelle Hoyland, principal planner with the development services department. Sorry about that. So this property for 2025 Dash 176, is 49 Palm Square located on the East Side Of Palm Square South Of Atlantic Avenue in North Of Southeast 1st Street. This is the current existing structure. It's a single family home and it has a detached car port or like a breezeway attached car port on the north side.

The structure had gone through a series of improvements over the last decade that included a vertical elevation of the structure to meet the finished floor elevation requirements plus renovation which was removal of some of the existing siding, adding on additional vertical elements such as, you know, increase in height on the walls, the roof, adding the transom windows. That was all completed and approved by the board in around 2015. And we do have a picture which I'll show you a little bit later but I want to address one thing so we can kind of shelf that idea for a moment and then we can focus on the requirements from the LDRs and the Secretary of the Interior Standards. The question about an NOA. So we checked in with the building department.

You know this is a complete replacement. So all siding on this structure was completely replaced from front to back. This was done without a permit. It's subject to enforcement violations. But the building department, said that they can either provide an NOA or a letter from assigned licensed professional indicating that the installed material meets the Florida building code.

One or the other is required. So there is an option there allowing some flexibility basically in order to comply with the Engineering Florida Building Code requirements for hurricane wind load. That's in your staff report. If we go back though and start with the review about the historic integrity. So whenever a project is, you know, coming through the process to do a siding repair, the standards, secretary of the interior standards are very clear and what the recommended guidance is.

When an entire siding of an entire structure comes off of a building, it has to come before the board for your review. And that is to ensure that we have the same profile, that the same texture of that wood siding is met, that the carefulest methods are taken and if there's any instance where portions can be retained rather than removed just because say they're removing 50% of it. Some contractors might say take it all off and start over. That is not the recommended guidance from the Secretary of the Interior Standards. The recommended guidance is to patch availability of the wood might be slightly different, wood is not a material that we're seeing not available.

An asbestos roof shingle is something that's not going to be available available or or something something that's that's not not going to be made. So that's where this alternative or substitute material question comes in. So we did walk the site. What we noticed, and I have no close-up pictures of what was out there before, But this material, this AZEK, looks nice, feels nice. We assume it has a similar profile, but it has the appearance of wood that has been planed.

So there is no wood grain texture on the exterior of this structure. You can see here there's brush strokes from the paint. There's, you know, the exposed pieces at the joints here that probably should have some kind of treatment cap something. There were a few photos we had where we could already see water wicking in. Even though this is a more sustainable material, material.

That doesn't mean that that material won't degrade or have its own deterioration issues over time. So here you can see where it intersects natural wood material. So it's very nice looking, but what the board has to consider, and we did review the preservation brief number 16, and we have provided information on that for you, is that preservation brief goes hand in hand with the Secretary of the Interior Standards for Rehabilitation, which clearly state replacing a deteriorated wood feature or wood siding on a primary or other highly visible elevation with a composite substitute material is not recommended. So we've went and also photographed other locations. What wood siding would have looked like original wood siding.

Some of these pictures are. Structures, you know, within our store districts. These two are from Sunday Village. We were out there yesterday where they painstakingly removed all of the siding off of these buildings, put it to the side, and then repaired the building and put the siding back on. So this is what has been required of other owners in other historic districts for contributing structures.

And this is where you can see there's an authenticity to that original material. This is a reminder of what happened with this house when the renovation happened. So this you can see the original siding was retained in place. And what's new, that raw open area on top, is what was added. So that's where some of the new siding this is where the new siding was used to match in with the profile of what was existing.

So it is all that that's been removed. The Secretary of the Interior, the City Of Delray Beach Design Guidelines, they all provide guidance to applicants not to remove all of your siding and much less replace it with a synthetic material. The preservation brief, and we can kind of come back and forth to these. It's very specific when you review this, it's a case by case basis, that needs to be analyzed. But there's, criteria.

It's not really the intent to take off the original material and come back with substitute material on the entirety of a structure. The intent is that you might have features or sections that need to be replaced. And how hard would it be to replace wood on a front facade? Say you took off 50% of the wood and matched that wood with a synthetic or alternative material. That's what the intent of preservation brief 16 says.

So the use of this material isn't necessarily what we're saying it's you know can't be done. But the board is going to have to determine because this will be something that other applicants will look for. We have an immense amount of pressure from design professionals and contractors pressing to use substitute material, not understanding what the intent of the guidelines are. So here you see that it's the criteria is whether historic or substitute material is used, there's a point where amount of replacement can become excessive. And the building's historic integrity is diminished to an unacceptable degree regardless of the material used.

That is a loss of authenticity and physical features and characteristics closely associated with historic significance. Now if we were talking about all the porch columns had to be taken down and they wanted to put AZEK up, to me that's how I see this preservation brief providing that guidance where the board can make a determination that there's similar profile to the original wood of porch columns or a texture or whatever rather than saying take all the siding off. We aren't really certain why all the siding was taken off. It had existed in place for almost ninety years when it was renovated in 2015, and here we are in 2025. What happened in ten years time?

Did it degrade to such a point where it was all rotten? In that case, really should have been going back with wood. So here's where I mentioned availability of materials. This is taken from the preservation brief. The picture on the left has a structure with authentic wood siding on one side of the building and around the corner is synthetic. It's very difficult. It's getting better. I'm not saying it's not available, but what's off the shelf isn't necessarily going to match the exact profile of wood that existed. So you can see authentic versus synthetic in this picture. On the right you can see asbestos cement roofing shingles just aren't made anymore.

So if a structure had that, you have to look for an alternative material. These are both synthetic materials here, And the point of this is that, you know, there is a wood grain that's available if the material's ordered that way, or it can be planed. So if the house had plain plain siding, then plain siding is what should be used. We don't have documentation of that, that I can find in my records. This is an example of a structure that has both wood and synthetic siding on the same elevation where pieces were patched in.

You can't even tell. So there are instances where it can be done. Milling a synthetic material is something that's a little bit harder to do. It's going to kind of price the customer out if you can't buy the size you need off the shelf. But you certainly can do that approach.

Conservation, rehabilitation, preservation, these are all essentially the same approaches. And the fact that we have environmental factors here being close to the water in a flood prone area, those are things you could consider as well. But net instance, might consider replacing the bottom quarter rather than the whole structure. So here's the guidance that came from the preservation brief, when the board is making this consideration. Will the significance or visibility of the historic feature require a very precise match?

Is the entire feature being replaced or just a component of it? Are preexisting conditions contributing to the failure of the existing material? And if so, how is that going to be addressed? Is the need for replacement due to inherent deficiencies of the original material? And will the material need to resist any environmental hazards such as flooding or fire?

Well we really don't have the context clues for what was happening with the material that was out there. But there really needs to be a compelling reason for the board to make a determination that an entire historic structure should have its siding removed because an owner wants to. You know, if there was documentation, photographs, a contractor's estimate or an architect's assessment of the condition of what was going on, that you know obviously is the compelling evidence that you need to make a determination. So we're really trying to make sure you have all of the information provided so that you're making a decision that doesn't later come back and become something that is you know not that we do precedence but could be an example for someone else to want to do something similar. So these are your 10 Secretary of the Interior Standards.

These are analyzed in the staff report. We've identified you know the problem, the ones that could be met or not met. Obviously standard two and five are basic, almost every application looks at this, whether the character of the property is being preserved, whether distinctive features or craftsmanship techniques are being preserved, whether deteriorated features are being repaired rather than replaced. In this instance they were all replaced so you have to decide whether or not it meets standard six. And then standard nine is ensuring that historic materials aren't destroyed that characterize the property.

So these are things that, these are the requirements the board has to check off and decide on. And then your visual compatibility standards, relationship of materials, texture and color is compatible and predominant with the historic district and the structures, the historic buildings in the district. So wood frame buildings with wood siding, is this going to remain compatible with that? So that really is the bulk of it but I also want the board to remember and consider that decisions that are made now may seem like a compromise in trying to help somebody come into compliance or resolve an issue. But in five to ten years from now when the next historic resource survey is done where the consultant comes through and assesses our districts, are they going to be looking at a structure saying that structure appears to have had a whole siding replacement, it's really affected its historic integrity, we recommend declassifying it to a non contributor.

So those are some of the things we have to think through because that does happen. So here's your findings. And that concludes my presentation. Thank you.

Thank you Michelle. Any public comment? Would really like to hear from the public on this one. This is a tough

one. George Long, 46 North Center.

This is coming from somebody that never failed a student.

Take it from there. Wow, that's complicated. Is there a way of leaving it there but making a record that you are aware there's an error that cannot be used as a precedent setting example? That's all I have to contribute, which isn't much.

Thank you, sir.

I I would just take the tear down. No. That's all.

Just to comment on that, would say that none of what you guys do up here is actually precedent setting. You're supposed to look at the the property as is in the house and their circumstances and then apply the land development regulations and the design guidelines to it.

So would the applicant care to rebut?

If you oh, I think we'd to like go on record. We're happy to be declassified as non contributing if that means we can get an approval from you tonight to move forward. The the the the the reciting was, like, you know, started a year ago or so. From testimony of my owner, it real wood was deteriorating at such a rapid rate that it just required attention. And he takes immaculate care of the property and it it kind of went from there.

So other than that, if you want I don't know what else to say to you. If you want us to remain contributing, but how do if you want if we can if you want us to strip the whole facade of the front of the house maybe and go back to real wood, I if you're gonna deny us, please give us explicit direction on how to remedy it.

Thank you. Michelle?

So it doesn't really work that way that if you approve the siding that they get declassified declassified is as an an effect of that tonight. This is something that would be in the future. But the things that happen when a property is declassified, I haven't searched this one up and looked, but if they have a tax exemption, that they have to repay their class their tax exemption upon declassification. It's a very complicated process because in effect of something that's happened from a renovation or, you know, you it's not really an instance where you're sitting here saying, oh, me go replace all my siding so that the board will declassify me. It's not it doesn't really work that way, but there's other processes that would come into effect should that happen down the road upon a resource resurvey.

But I did hear mister Cope offer wood on the front and that's definitely something that the board could consider that would moving them closer to compliance. Know it's something that I don't think we would. We would prefer to see the whole structure be in compliance but that's obviously up to the board to make that decision.

Thank you. Let's bring it to the board. Carol, do you wanna start? No.

Vlad? Roger, can I ask you a question? Roger? How you doing? I'm trying it's it's not an easy one. So I'm trying to find the rationale to hopefully make everybody happy. When I'm not there was a photo of under construction, one photo we have in the report. And it show, like, portion of the portion of the siding in place, and then the extended addition, higher roofs, and all that, not yet sided, call it that way, or custom. And okay. That's what that is what you re remember this?

You've you've you've seen that? You you were there present? No. The reason I'm asking is because the is it that? Am I really that that I can hear myself, but ah, okay.

Got it. That it's interesting because the the the building looks like he had no cover in the corner. There was no there's no trim in the corners of the this was a very, in a way, a very modern type of siding solution there with a continuous, almost like usually that is done with the mitering solution, not budding one against the other when it's right? I mean, would you do that? So I'm kind of interested in why would this and where I'm going at is that the the design at the end was approved and maintained the house as an historic house even though it's actually a very modern design.

It it really is. I mean, it's not a traditional the look of the facades and all that was, I think, your fault. Call it that way. But you introduce a certain different proportions, different look, the way that the the gable, in some cases, the the siding continues in the gable. That's not a traditional detail. What's done is a more abstract sort of design, in my opinion, as an architect. You don't see that way. That wasn't your intention. No. That wasn't your intention.

It's it's actually to me, it's a modernized version of a of a traditional building. It's not the how would it have been built initially. It has a lot of beautiful details. This is nothing wrong. It's just that this I'm not criticizing the design. That was interesting to me that was approved. And if I would be from a very purist historic point of view, I'll have kind of objections to certain things. You know? But it was approved, and it was was fine. And everybody liked it as well.

Right? The result of that. Is it possible that we, building, that's how we call it. It was actually looked much much of a newer sort of type of design. Wasn't didn't remain as a traditional old Florida vernacular would But it was approved.

We can't go back and

So glad yeah. But my point

is my point is that when it was approved, that opened the door to certain modifications of the of this of the design and of the house. So I think what you're asking me Okay. Thank

you. And you're and and listen. Your insights are that of an architect, so thank you very much. But and none of you were here fifteen years ago when when this went before the board at that time. But we this is this was a resto mod.

In in in a to use a a car term, and and I hate to do that, but this wasn't a pure restoration. The client sought to raise the entire roof system two feet. Fairly controversial. And and so just we got that approved. And and and and that you can imagine, that changes the massing, that changes proportion, that allowed the opportunity for transoms over windows that would otherwise never have them had we not raised the roof.

I think you can see that the corners on the original were always mitered. Yeah. They're still mitered. I don't think it it's an opinion. It wasn't a grain a wood grain finish back then. It it had 15 layers of paint on it perhaps. I don't know. It's and so it it you know, it's relatively smooth skinned now. Yes. I would never have brushed the house.

I would have sprayed it so you can see brush strokes in the paint. But Right. It's it and and the porches, you mentioned the port Right. We we we came back more than once to ask for revisions to the original conception.

Mhmm.

And we enclosed the rear porch. And expanded it. We enclosed the front porch. We added a carport to the side. This wasn't a pure restoration I think is your point. It was a modification slash restoration. Mhmm.

Yeah. And my point is that maybe Michelle has a little leeway because of this change of rules. This is not the house that was just restored to be a perfect replica of a traditional construction, you know. It has a lot of very modern, very unusual details. Very unexpected.

For sure. And there's no rule change. So the rules are what they are. The board made a determination in 2015.

Right.

One year before I started, I was a bit surprised by it. I remember meeting with Roger. Right. But it's what they did. Right? There's nothing wrong.

Per se. Yeah. It might

This is not mitered, though. These are butt joints.

Right. That's

weird. That is not what we saw in the pictures we have. This was 2015, we weren't getting PDF digital JPEGs, they're photocopies of pictures. But from what we can see is there was a grain that had been painted out so many times. So I don't know if that answers any of your questions, but this is, we're not going back essentially. I understand that's part of your consideration, but what we're moving forward with is how do we What does the board want to do in order to move this along?

Personally I'm not against what happened. I'm trying to find an argument why would make it easier for everybody to accept those

Yeah.

Those changes for once. I mean, obviously, not causing not creating a precedent that will be from now on like everybody's gonna say, see, you've done. Therefore, I'm doing vinyl now. I'm changing it to vinyl.

Right, these are the guidelines and rules that are used.

There's Well I'm gonna make my own decision. I actually support it.

Can we go to

Chris? Roger. Roger would you like to say something?

I I if I can address the minoring just for one second. I I did a house a few years after this where we they make an aluminum corner piece to hide. If if I had my druthers, I would have I would have included that white aluminum corner guard on every one of these corners which does it's a good maintenance addition and I'm happy to add it to these corners if the way that they did it is of issue. Happy to add those corners which you wouldn't be able to distinguish, It would just make it super clean and hide the end of one of the boards. That's all it would do.

But it's that that's done in some historic home.

No. I I understand. I was trying to find a way that I feel better about improving. Chris, go ahead.

Yeah. There's a lot to unpack here. The seems like the the client did many things wrong. Right? They They know the historic process. Should we assume that he knew that this was going to come back like this and that he was doing this work to try to get this passed after the fact or or the contractor knew that they needed to get the permits and the historic preservation. I don't know what happened there. And

I Sorry. Just you don't need to assume anything about how it got here. Just if it came to you, this is like you're looking at it for the first time. If this came to you and they asked for that approval, would you give it?

So we don't look at it being after the fact?

No. You really should treat it the same as any other request.

Oh,

really? You wanna treat it like this came to you and they asked you, can I put this siding on?

Is that accurate?

Well, I Kelly's right. We're giving you the backstory because it is a subject of a code enforcement violation and it's been done but it's not supposed to factor into your decision making and that you feel bad for the applicant because your decision making based on quasi judicial rules is not whether or not you like a project or you don't like a project. It has to be based on the requirements of the LDRs. So in this case, if this were coming to you as a brand new application, what would you be doing if it hadn't been done? The fact that it's been done is really ancillary. That's the owner's issue, not yours.

Yeah. And it shouldn't factor in on either side. You shouldn't factor it in as you feel bad, and you shouldn't factor it in as you feel like they should be punished for doing something without approval. You know, code enforcement handles that portion of it, whether, you know, like, what circumstances led them to that and, you know, if there are fines or whatever they need to do, you know? But you guys handle it as if does this request fit the land development regulations and the design guidelines and the,

you know.

Okay, got it. Well, would have been nice for the applicant himself, the owner, to come in or the contractor to come in to explain what happened. I think that would have been more helpful. But they're not here, so we have to make some decisions based on very limited information. I'm not against the use of synthetic material. I think it makes sense. I actually think the house looks great and looks like they do a good job to maintain it. I don't like the way they're going about this. The interior standards do say it needs to be wood or it's recommended that it's wood. But that's just a recommendation and it was also noted that the use of synthetic materials is now being more widely accepted.

Something to consider is to take off the siding in the front to put wood. Is that going to damage the house at all? Is it just more effort and using of resources that is just not really needed for the overall effect, you know, of the historic quality of this house. I I don't know if if the site itself is the factor that would take this from conforming to nonconforming. I don't know if we could know that.

Even though I don't like how this went forward and I don't want to set this as a precedent for people to come back after the fact, I think I'm leaning towards supporting it because it just makes this synthetic material makes sense as it seems like it's changing, especially here in Florida by the water. So I'd like to hear what other board members think, but that's what I'm leaning towards. Carol, are you ready yet?

Sure. Yes, so you're saying basically, Roger, that the compelling reason was the deterioration of all

the

wood siding that was there.

Yes. And

you can put a little finish on the ends to make it look more like a dovetail on the front. Is that what you're saying?

Not a dovetail, but a but a Minor. Peep a a totally symmetrical minor. But Yeah.

I I think, you know it looks good from the pictures. I mean the house looks immaculate and it looks fantastic. I really can't tell what the material is from the pictures I have not driven by. I did not touch it. As staff said the workmanship was good. I mean I think you all agreed. Is that true? That the workmanship was well done?

We didn't see any issues with the workmanship except the butt joints. Yeah.

Yeah. In this case, I mean, I'm I'm in favor. I'm leaning towards being in favor of this.

As is or with the changes suggested by Roger?

If, if it'll make it look more historic I mean, I don't even know what that looks like. But if it would make it look more historical, I yeah. They can do that in the front. They wouldn't have to do it on all four sides.

John? Are you talking about replacement or No. It's just the edge detail?

I'm not an expert in that, but, Roger, can you repeat, like, what that would be?

The edge?

I would work with Michelle whether or not I don't think you would just wanna add it to the front corner only. I think you would wanna do it everywhere.

Okay.

If that's

Okay yeah, I don't the

know. Think, did somebody say

what I thought? I don't know if somebody

asked Sure. I'm sorry, say that again.

I didn't know if somebody asked what I thought.

You were asked, yes.

I would forego any corner treatment at this point to hide something.

Leave it.

Leave it the way it is. But the applicant did suggest replacement of the front to wood which I think is a very fair compromise getting it back to a more historic appearance. It was something that is in those secretary of the interior guidelines that specifically says about the primary facades having that treatment. Yeah. Can I say one more thing?

It wasn't something that was ever proffered at the time when we initially took it in but being that it's being offered now I feel like I get an opportunity to weigh in on that. If we were writing a staff report about that I would say that would be a very fair compromise to a mistake that was made.

Just one more thing. So you and the shutters are all still wood? Because you said that some of the facade is still wood, right? You have the the are the rafters wood

and the shutters?

All the all the rafters, the the outlookers, the Outlookers. Entire porch enclosure, the

The ceiling.

If it's if it's if it's brown in any of these photos, obviously, that's it's real wood. Not obviously, but it is real wood. Even the white heavy The trim around the windows and doors is wood and I'm relatively sure the shutters are wood. Not that they're an issue right now. I can't recall but I believe they're wood.

Thank you. If

the wood were replaced Roger, could that be mitered on the front?

We

would have to, yeah. I think we would have to minor it to make Okay.

Okay. John?

Yeah. So as Chris said, there's a lot of things that could have been done differently here but we're past that. I don't think the discussion of grain versus not really matters because you could have a smooth finished wood.

From

the beginning, we don't know really what was there. It should've So it could've and even if it did have grain on this version of it, it's still a you know, it's a man made product. So were we to have this in front of us tonight as a new project, I don't think it would have support. So, I mean, that's kinda you take it, boil it down, that's what Kelly said. I think, I don't wanna get into what might happen, but there's issues where if it is denied, there's recourses that the applicant has that goes above this board and just leave it at that.

I think that there are options that they would have now if the applicant said, yeah, we're gonna replace all the front and we vote on that as a condition, that might have support. But as far as it is now, I don't think I could support it.

I think the idea of a compromise where the. Front would be replaced with natural materials. Is certainly something that I could support. And, you know, one of the things that I always. Try to say is that this board is flexible. It has guidelines. It does have LDRs. I understand that. But we do do want to encourage more historical, not discourage others from undertaking the task. So I would I would definitely if a condition were added to the COA application.

That a natural wood. Front replace what is there now. Could definitely support that. Michelle, you look questioning.

Okay. I I mean, it's your decision.

It would be the same exact size as this sighting, and it would look indistinguishable from what this is?

Wood is much easier to profile, the availability of it. But, yes, it would have to match the profile, and it would remain as a plained appearance.

Even even okay. Go ahead.

I'm sorry. We do see that. So just as an example, and I'm only gonna go to a flat example, but we see this all the time. So when additions are coming before you and you have a single family house or whatever the building is and they add an addition on, for instance, miss Pickett, right, they can ask for synthetic material on the addition and the board has approved that. Typically, see hardy boards, cement siding, AZEK is becoming something a little more popular. But you might actually have an instance where you have to miter a corner of wood to synthetic. So it's not an unusual approach. We've seen it in other projects. So I don't see a problem with that.

I had one question for you Michelle. Do we have a real life example in Delray where we have had buildings de classified as contributing buildings?

The entirety of Southeast 7th Avenue, South Of 3rd Street, except for the three properties right at the corner of 3rd And 7th. So everything between 3rd And 4th was declassified.

That was removed from the district.

Yeah it was actually removed from the

district at the request of the Yeah.

That was

classified because somebody came through and saw that it didn't fit.

It happens upon the survey, the re surveys of every five to ten years. We do have recommendations from the consultants. It's in the board's hands where you get to decide. You don't necessarily have to heed the recommendation from the consultant but we have had recommendations for declassification at that time. Absolutely.

And the board chose that as the course of action?

I would have to go back in the previous resource surveys to see if they actually did. But there have recommendations from the consultants. I've read about them in reports.

You know my concern here too and this is the larger issue is Roger was very quick to offer to get out of being contributing which is what we don't wanna do. Wanna encourage people to list as contributing and add their homes as contributing. And when it is made in their opinion onerous, it's difficult to sometimes follow that. And if you're asking somebody to rip off existing facade and replace it with wood even though it looks almost exactly the same, I think if they appealed, they'd have a very good chance of of winning that appeal. So, I mean, I know that's not what we're considering here tonight, but it is part of the bigger picture and maybe we can talk about it after the meeting.

But I didn't hear Roger if removing the the front and replacing it with wood, is that an actual proposal, or is that just spitballing? Or I mean, I know you're not writing the check. So if that's a consideration that the owner has approved, then I'd say let's put it on the table.

So what I would say to you is, to answer the question, I would ask that we clearly define exactly what we're talking about because what what I would ask for is not have to not have to replace the siding that's on the two foot portion that we raised. Okay? So we we raised the entire roof two feet. So that siding is not original. Was never original.

So like in the photo that was presented earlier where it started, you know, at a certain elevation down. So allow know, so and I would say, this this is the public facade, this is as seen from Palm Square. No other part of the house is is viewable from a public right away. There is no alley in the back. There is no alley in the side. So we'd be limiting limited to essentially the panel on the right and the panel on the left from the top of the lower window down. Both panels.

But in that if I can ask a question because now we're talking about the design. We're gonna have mitered corners corners on on the new piece but the stuff on the upper pieces aren't. Is the contractor just gonna be like, why don't we just do that whole side and be done with it? I don't understand the context for that.

We would miter the corners exactly as they are Fairly small

piece here but what I was going to suggest is do these two side pieces in their entirety but leave what's inside the porch. That that would be to me a more reasonable approach than having to patch in AZAC to wood, you know, without mitered corners, with mitered corners. I I don't know. That just seems like it'd be a simpler

I'm not gonna I think we would agree with that. I mean, I'm not saying that this is the solution we would prefer, but if that's where you're going, you know, the the the

That takes off

all of in a couple years asking

for repair.

So just to be clear, so we're talking about from this you know, you're saying you don't want let's for argument's sake, like, from the scalloped top, I know that's not what you had requested. You wanted two feet down. So when this was recited and raised fifteen years ago or whatever it was. Ten. Was that ten years? Was that top part wood or was

it AZ? No, was wood.

It was raised, it was resided ten years ago, right?

Yes.

And it was wood.

It was from the top of the window down.

From the top

of the window, what was

the addition? That's new. That's brand new. So there was the

What was the material though?

There was

there was never material there.

There's nothing there.

So this material that was added on the approved plans was specked as wood for the new piece. That's what I'm asking.

Yes. So we would side from this delineation down.

What Mr. Miller is asking, Roger, is that the new piece that you added above the windows, the siding and the gable pieces, the material that was applied at the time this renovation was done ten years ago

was Assume it was wood, sure. So

it was wood.

So it was new wood over old wood but then a year ago it all became Azac. Including the gable. Just my opinion, I'm only one vote, but if it was gonna be replaced I would like to see the whole just front facade replaced as wood. Top

to bottom.

From the from the from that scalloped part to the bottom, which It's probably about another 25% more of the total.

Including the scallop or not?

No. No. How about those side little step outs that are also facing the front? Or do you just stop at the very front?

No. Just the front, the west west facing flat elevation, not including what's inside the porch.

Yeah. I agree.

So you I don't have a highlighter, but I would go from that top corner down to the bottom over to the top and then up to the top. I mean, it's

So from

right here where the

mouse There? Yes. Across the bottom? Yes.

This here.

Just that.

Just that. Not the wing

on the Not the wing, nothing. Because there's multiple wings on that and you're getting into tearing up too much of the building. If it was mine I'd push back on doing this much but you know what? If it it might be cheaper in the long run just to get this done.

Can we say that's a motion?

Well, I think you need to make a motion with that as a as a Condition.

Condition. And is the preference to for it to be perfectly smooth smooth or with some kind of wood grain in it so that it's

I I feel like if I can weigh in, if that would be okay at this Unless we could provide some kind of photographic evidence from our file that I haven't found yet that shows it had a wood grain, I would say stick with the plains look.

Okay. Maybe Yeah. Matches existing.

Maybe you could include some type of leeway for us to work with the applicant on that, that it's either planed unless photographic evidence shows a wood grain.

So aesthetically, it would look exactly what you're looking at right now.

So are you going to call that a motion on the table?

We all in support of

that strategy? I mean, I'll be happy to make a motion stating that.

Would you second it?

I I honestly It's gonna look exactly the same. It's so much effort for it to look exactly the same. We just know that it's wood.

But how much effort would it have been to come to

the board and get

it back? I know. Yeah exactly. In my mind I'm feeling like it sounds like a little bit

of This punishment for isn't out so we could vote and see how it falls. If the vote to approve fails then the fines continue and the whole thing goes either to appeal or they can't get a CO. This way there is an out, they can do this, and then they get their CO and they move on and then potentially appeal the fines or whatever.

I'm actually good with either way. I'm good with either way.

So could you second the motion that John has

made? Well I'll make a motion.

Let's have them make it. I'll clean motion. Make

So, mister chair, I would like to move approval of the certificate of appropriateness 2025Dash176 for the property located at 49 Palm Square Marina Historic District by finding that the request and approval thereof is consistent with the comprehensive plan and meets the criteria set forth in the land development regulations subject to the following conditions that the westernmost building front plane of lapsided siding that is currently Aztec?

Aztec.

Aztec. Aztec is replaced with natural wood from the scalloped architectural details on the top by the eave down to the ground level. And from north to south only on the front building plane.

Do you want to add to that the suggestion that Roger made that there'd be consultation between Yes,

and adding to that that the level of smoothness or grain of the wood be left to consultations between staff and the applicant.

Are you ready to second that?

Can I add something?

Are there others here? Okay. Well motion, did somebody make a motion to approve and then we

can discuss? Let's do the second and then

Or second, we can sorry. Second. Who's second? I'll second. Okay now we can discuss. Sorry Michelle. My

suggestion on the first part would be to say excluding the wood siding within the front porch area.

I'd like to amend my motion exclude the wood siding within the front screened in porch area.

And to miter the edges?

I'm gonna leave that up to conversations between staff and the applicant because you're going to two separate materials there. So it might be easier just to butt it but I don't wanna recommend one way or the other.

So do you amend your second as per Yes. This Call Okay. The roll.

John Miller?

Yes.

Carol Perez? Yes. Vlad Demetrescu? Yes. Chris Cabasis? Yes. Peter Dwyer is absent. Jim Chart?

Yes. Shall we go to Yes.

And I will go ahead and enter the file into the record. Ms. Rebecca Dessari is coming out principal planner with the long range division and she will take over from here. But the file is not on the screen. I don't know the file number. I'm sorry.

Hi. Good evening. Rebecca Dossary, principal planner. We would like to enter into record file number 2025Dash067 and 2025Dash066. Then we have the agent for our applicant, mister Jeff Costello, here to present.

Good evening. Please introduce yourself. Jeff Costello, JC Planning Solutions, representing the applicant.

Can you help me out?

There you go. Okay, so I would suggest using the arrows of the mouse. When if and

when you wanna point, you long press this until it vibrates, and then it'll highlight in a circle. That's It's

good handle.

We go.

Yeah. But you can go forward and

backward with that too if you prefer.

You know

all this. Which I was No. Was

Oh, I thought

you said you needed

help. Kidding.

Like, why

does he

need help?

He does this all

the time.

This is taking from your time.

I apologize. Good evening board. There Yeah. It Thanks, take care. Jeff Costello, JC Planning Solutions representing applicant.

Good to see you all this evening. Just before you are the comp plan of text amendment as well as the amendment to the land development regulations related to the CF zoning district. You may recall about a year ago, it was before you requesting land use amendment and rezoning from CF to R1 double a, LD and R1 double a to accommodate the adaptive reuse of the existing historic structure to a single family dwelling. At the City Commission meeting, that was denied. However, at that meeting, there was direction to, after discussion, amend the text of the comp plan as well as the land development regulations to allow the adaptive reuse of historical places of worship to a single family dwelling within the CF zoning district.

Sure you all are aware or will be, I've had this recently there was Amendment to Live Local Act, which really won't affect this property, but it could other properties that are religious institutions to accommodate housing regardless of their zoning. So just, you know, I'm sure oh man. Let me back up. Let try this one.

Could I just interrupt you? We did not do ex parte here.

Was it quasi? It is quasi. Okay. Carol?

Yes, I spoke to Jeff Costello. No.

None. I spoke to Jeff Costello.

I also spoke to Jeff Costello. Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you. And so just as you I mean, that's that's a separate but, basically, you know, in other properties, residential uses, multifamily could be permitted. In this particular case here, we're we're very focused on the preservation and the conversion of historic places of worship. And so with this, the comp plan amendment, there are findings in the two four five eight. Feel that the policies within the comp plan support the adaptive reuse of historic structures and the amendments to the proposed amendments to historic preservation element in neighborhoods, district and corridors element support the conversion of historic places of worship to a residential use.

I just wanna note also that in your backup, in your staff reports, there is consistency with, in addition to the two elements mentioned, the housing element as well as the private property rights element. These support preservation of community landmarks such as this, supports adaptive reuse, and expands opportunities for adaptive reuse, and provides additional options for the continued use of historic places of worship. And so this was all in your backup. I just had them up there. I'm not gonna read through each of the amendments, the objectives, as well as the supporting the objective and the policies.

But, again, it's supporting the preservation of historic places of worship and maintain the community benefit of historic places of worship revered as community landmarks through historic preservation and adaptive reuse. This all supports policies that are already in place. And that's within that historic preservation element, and then again to the neighborhood district and corridors element. These are, again, in your back if there's any question with regard to language, either myself or miss Dossary can cannot answer those questions. There are this also includes an amendment to the LDR Text Amendment.

The findings can be made in twenty four thousand seven hundred eighty five. The amendment goes a little bit further. There were some, I guess, clarifications that were included in this as far as purpose and intent. So there's clarification on that language. With regard to the principal uses and structures allowed, there was a provision that dealt with the medical arts overlay.

Those items were moved into this. And then last but not least, number 13, the the primary one, was the single family detached residence resulting from a death of use reuse of historic places of worship. Other provisions include development standards. As you may be aware, in some zoning districts, they defer, for instance, in the RM, which is I'm not gonna be site specific, but in this case, let's just say RM, if you construct a single family residence, it's subject to the R1A requirements. Kind of carried that over into this for consistency.

And so on the development matrix on the screen, it shows what the CF requires versus what the R1A as far as minimum lot size, minimum lot width, interior and corner lots, minimum square footage of a building, open open space. And then the setbacks, of course, are much greater than in the CF. It's 10 feet, pretty much the entire site. Of course, within the RM and A, you have a 25 foot front, 15 foot side interior, 10 foot rear, and a seven and a half side interior. And then the building heights are limited to subjected.

Obviously in this case, the steeple would of course remain and is allowed to extend per the LDRs. So no changes. Other supplemental district regulations again refer back to the single family detached residents resulting from adaptive reuse of historic places where it is subject to the supplemental development standards applicable to single family detached residents in the R1A. There's also basically the special special regulations of the CF which deal with would not apply to a single family residence. And then for clarification, it's also definitions were included for the historic place of worship, which is on the screen, and versus a place of worship.

So there's a differentiation between the two. This is from the comp plan. Basically shows CF zoning as well as historic places throughout the city. And one may ask, well, where all would this apply? And it is limited within the city.

And on the screen, it's approximately five properties. And if if I'm incorrect, I'm sure miss Dossary will correct me, but I believe these are ones where it would be applicable because it's applicable to historic places of worship. There is another property that's on CF, but the historic aspect relates to, let's say, a classroom or a school house. These are just some conversions, examples of adaptive reuse that have occurred. Those within in Florida, these were presented at the last year.

You're probably familiar with that in a lot of these situations. We understand the pressures, and we wanna be able to accommodate these historic landmarks. These are just in some other states. I did wanna just mention too, I I know there was a concern also when we were looking at the rezoning in that the the possibility of more than one residence on the property. This this is very specific to the historic place of worship in the CF.

It the single family resident would only apply to that structure for the adaptive reuse of that structure. In your backup, are the other uses allowed in the CF that are residential oriented, community residents, senior housing, assisted living facilities. This is a single family residence for the adaptive reuse of a historic place of worship. And with that, it concludes my presentation, and I'm available for any questions. Appreciate your support. Thank you.

Good evening again. My name is Rebecca Dossary. And as Mr. Costello said, this is a comprehensive plan text amendment and an amendment to the land development regulations. You'll have two separate actions to vote on at the end as these are two separate actions with two separate findings.

But because they're so connected, I'm gonna present them together as he did. So ordinance eight twenty five that you have in your backup is amending the comprehensive plan. There's two elements that are proposed for a text amendment. The historic preservation element and the neighborhoods, districts, and corridors element. And then we're proposing through ordinance seven twenty five the amendment to section four four two one which has the community facility zoning regulations in the land development regulations to add adaptive reuse of historic places of worship as a principal use.

So again, the genesis of this request was the structure here at 200 Southeast 7th Avenue, which is a contributing structure within the Marina Historic District. There's a very extensive history of the district and, this property in your staff report. But for here, we'll just start again in 2024, and they came in with the land use map amendment and rezoning to try to allow the adaptive reuse because in community facilities land use and zoning, that's not possible. When commission denied it, the applicant was directed to take this route and that's how they are here before you tonight. So we have several new policies and an objective proposed in two different elements and a revision to one existing policy.

The policies that are proposed in the objectives specifically speak to adaptive reuse and community benefit of historic places of worship and their role as community landmarks. And the policies generally support contextually appropriate adaptive reuse. This particular amendment pertains to adaptive reuse within community facilities zoning and land use. But we do have other general policies that we're adopting as well should it ever become appropriate to look at an adaptive reuse in another zoning district, the general policy is there as well. Then we have in ordinance seven twenty five, a rather extensive number of changes.

There were a lot of issues with the construction of this section of the LDR. So when we were adding in the regulations for this amendment to allow for the adaptive reuse of historic structures, we restructured it so that it would make sense. And so when you look at the draft in your packet, you'll see a lot of language that moved around. So essentially, we are adding single family detached residences resulting from adaptive reuse of a historic place of worship as a principal use. The change in the or the comprehensive plan text amendment allows us to add this in CF zoning.

And then we are applying development standards from the R 1 A Zoning district to any adaptive reuse of a historic place of worship. And we are also exempting some of the other special regulations, really wouldn't be appropriate to a historic structure that already has its place fixed on a parcel of land. And again, we had to also propose these definitions for historic places of worship and places of worship in general just to make this a fully comprehensive proposal. Comprehensive plan text amendments are subject to the findings in section three one one of the LDR. LDR text amendments are only subject to consistency with the comprehensive plan.

So as I'm going through these criteria, you can keep that in mind. Generally, for the land use or the consistency with the land use map designation by adopting the comprehensive plan text amendment and LDR amendment together, you would find that consistency. And then I'm going to go into some of the policies that apply to this request. So on the screen before you, you'll see where our objective related to the community facility land use designation is there's an edit for an incorrect name of the district in the policy. But also, the policy currently is the objective is for a wide range of community serving, community based uses.

But we added in the language community benefit because if this specific place of worship was no longer being used as a place of worship, it wouldn't be a community use. But there may still be that benefit from its place in historical memory of a community. And then we have these other policies. We have multiple policies about adaptive reuse and then amending the LDR where it supports preservation of historic resources. The housing element talks about supporting historic preservation and then neighborhood character where historic places of worship may have that place in the memory of the community to find ways ways to continue to preserve those physical structures is supported by the comprehensive plan.

And again, in the historic preservation element itself, we have a lot of policies about adaptive reuse and incentives in historic districts and then compatible adaptive reuse projects. These are a few examples of historic preservation. This one is Delray specific. Dada is very famous, of course, throughout the city for its location central to the city. And then Mr.

Castello went over a number of examples of adaptive reuse of church structures. So these are just some other ones that have been done throughout the country maintained the physical form of the structure even though the use changed. And then again, we have the private property rights element which supports the right of property owners to use their property. So one thing we would be asking the board to consider is whether this policy change through the LDR and the comprehensive plan is a way to help property owners of these structures to maintain a productive use of their their investment. Again, as was noted, this particular amendment to the comp plan and to the LDR would have limited applicability.

There aren't a lot of historic places of worship in community facilities zoning. But this proposed amendment, although limited in application, would provide another path for adaptive reuse to add to the historic preservation toolkit. The required findings require a finding of compliance with the LDR. So whether a structure is being used as its original use or another use, if the structure is preserved, we have extensive guidelines in the LDR. Any changes or site modifications have to come to this board.

There's Secretary of the Interior Guidelines for Rehabilitation Visual Compatibility Standards and such that no matter what happens on a property of historic significance, these are the criteria subject to when they were proposing any modification. Sorry, I didn't realize all these red highlights were on here. So one consideration that was not in the amendment or the staff report, but we had talked about whether or not it would be advisable to require that any historic place of worship undergoing an adaptive reuse to a residential use would be required to erect a historical marker. So we would welcome any board input on whether that would be a viable way to contribute to the community benefit or if this would be an excessive ask. And then finally, just to summarize the considerations again, whether the amendment is consistent with the applicable goals, objectives, and policies of the comprehensive plan and whether the comprehensive plan text amendment and LDR support the preservation of historic resources.

And you'll have two sets of actions. And at this time, any questions you have, either mister Castello or I can try to address. Thank you.

Comments from the public.

George Long, 46 North Swinton. To me, it looks conceptually correct. And then we get down to the details, we will have a protection of preservation board. That's all I needed to know to be convinced it's not bad. Good deal.

Okay.

From the applicant, any rebuttals?

No, sir.

Okay. The applicant replies none.

You hear me?

Hear We're good.

No rebuttals.

Okay, okay. Let's take this to the board. I got

a question to start off. So the way say there were modifications proposed down the road, the way a residential property is looked at is different than a commercial or CF property. Landscaping being one. Residential, you don't review landscaping. So are there any other considerations like that that would be removed from review if this switched over to residential or single family residential?

No, but if may have to call Michelle out here for some of the detailed answers. We weren't proposing any other changes?

No, it would still, as far as landscaping, are requirements for single family residents landscaping in the code.

They don't come from Bore

HBB though? No, however you treat your COA applications for single family residents would all apply here at HPB including four fifty one, the guidelines, Secretary of Interior Standards.

Yeah I mean other than that this is kind of a unique situation. I don't like going from CF and losing that but it can be completely justified in this situation in my mind because once that property across the street which was the parking lot was sold off, this you cannot use as a community facility anymore for all practical purposes. And as Mr. Long said and noted, if this does remain in the historic district and a contributing structure, we do have some purview over it and it will have some historical protection. There's a long history of this.

I know most people know but I'll just say for the record, this was originally on the Boca Field Base. It was constructed there during World War II. After the war it was moved to Delray. Sam Ogron was the one who designed the new facade for it in the front porch and all that kind of stuff. So it has a long history in Delray Beach and I'd hate to lose it.

So if this actually helps protect it, I'm okay with it. It really doesn't affect most of the other properties that it could affect. This does affect or in Delray are parts of larger properties or larger campuses I should say that are probably at this point safe. Like Trinity is one little chapel in the middle of their whole property there. So and same with the other ones. So I'm I'm in support of

it. Glenn?

It's an interesting subject. I actually support it. I was just thinking, the only thing it seems to me that the the setbacks and all that does does get modified or maintain the current CF coverage and all those are are meant to stay because the building is existing basically. Whatever things even there are per se conforming, nonconforming, they they are maintained. They're not modified. Is that what's correct?

Sure. So the status as a historic structure would be what would determine what happens on the site. So if it's not conforming to any current standard, then whatever is there and has been historically there is how it would stay.

And and that would

Unless someone came in and went through the process.

Well, linked to that, there's any problem that they have to be brought up to code. Meaning, among other things, the worst thing is will be they they gonna have to raise the property to the flood level. Because this is just one example, but maybe there are others that have that issue. And that has to happen before trying to figure out. Before is that affecting in any way? If they're gonna they're gonna be required in some way to bring the building to code. That's what I mean.

So if the building was gonna be inhabited, any of the building code regulations for that would have to be adhered to? And then anything regarding elevation and the flood? I know there's different rules that can be applied for historic, so whatever those are would apply to this as well.

It is it is non

I'm glad to see that Michelle is coming because she's the

it's existing non forming

Correct. The I understand.

In the rear. It's like a five foot setback. That could continue to exist through the adaptive reuse. But turn it over to Michelle.

Yeah. No. Was just curious what happened if the building, I mean this is one of them, but what happened if the building needs to be brought up to code? It's Because is is this triggering that or not at all?

This is not. Not. This is purely used. You don't have a site plan before you. Think maybe you guys said that already. But when it would come through for the actual conversion, that is likely, I would say like a 99% chance going to trigger the substantial improvement requirement for the floor to building code. And if the finished floor elevation is not to

The street.

I don't know if it's seven or nine here. I think it's still nine.

Nine is nine.

Then the whole building has to be elevated or they can come forward with variance. Variance to the finished floor elevations is allowed by FEMA. FEMA's code requirements say that we can do it however we want, keep a list, do a variance. We've chosen through our code that we process it as a variance through the board to leave the building at its finished renovation. We've seen them before.

So yes they're going to have to raise anything that's not in compliance but setbacks would be allowed to continue as nonconformity. They're gonna have to provide parking for it so that you know would need to be identified how they're doing that. Whether through new structure, driveways, whatever. But that would be a COA that would come through for that. And that would be the case for anything that they would do.

Whether it was remaining in its site today or without this change or whether this change happened and they were coming for something else. Like if they said, oh, we wanna do community residence here. And we've gotta make improvements. They're gonna have to come through for some type of COA for that occupancy and site improvements. So I hope that answers what you were No

it was just unusual to see that whatever regulations the CF has, they carried on to residential use now which makes sense. Mean, the other thing too, there's any control about the size of the I mean, this would be a cathedral. Would that matter? I mean, would that be still applicable to

So as far as Rebecca could probably speak more to that, but from a site planning perspective, they have to meet a minimum size for a residential unit. Not there isn't really a maximum for the square footage, but there's things like open space and lot coverage and drainage, you know, permeable, impermeable that they would all have to come through and meet. Right. Without having a site plan before you, if you could kinda picture it. I didn't hear if you all drove past the site at all.

But it's a church with a grass parking lot to the right of the front door and then a surface parking lot and additional wing of a building to the left of the front door. So it's a fairly large site that they would have some room to do something like that.

No. What I mean, if there is any control about the What regulation applies to what size build Building, it doesn't matter.

Not here, no. When you go residential it's not a FAR floor area ratio, it's a density. We're looking at how many units per acre situation. This is single family, it would be one structure per lot.

But if they split the lot and wanted to do something in the parking lot onto the south and they'd have to meet the visual compatibility standards and that type of thing.

Yeah. And they would also have to meet requirements for lot size. If if that's not before you, it's not really consideration you should be discussing should it come forward. But in the know, let's just talk about it possibly. Right? Like what would happen in that case? That would be its own application that would have to come through. They'd have planning to do and meet those minimum lot size with frontage

use is only allowed in a historic place of worship. So what the previous concerns were with what you're just talking about, it would need to be a CF property, a CF, a use that's allowed in a CF, but not just a detached single family home because that's not allowed.

You mean like on the adjacent lot? Yeah, That would have to be rezoned, all that. Just like bed and breakfasts are only allowed within bonafide historic structures in historic districts. You couldn't build a brand new building and call it a B and B. And this would be similar to that where the residence is only permitted within a historic contributing structure that was utilized as a church.

Okay. Alright. So it's

That's especially

a very strong direction. Okay.

Okay. Are you are you Yeah.

I'm I'm Carol. CSO. Yeah.

I mean, the the situation's a little different. I mean, I didn't know how many areas were affected, but and that was your slide. The was that your third slide or something that showed, like, Saint Paul's? And so you're talking about just historic historic places of worship would be affected? Yes. So

That's correct. And I think, I to the point about it being limited applicability, I think that's why maybe the rezoning had been a more targeted approach than this plan and LDR amendment, but there was the concern about just maintaining that land use and zoning, which is why we ended up here today. But you're right, it's very limited because of the number of historic places of worship that are on CF zoned property.

If I could add to that. I haven't studied it so I don't quite know. But we have seen in instances where you have churches in single family residential zoning districts. And say you had that in a historic district, that's a completely separate thing. You could still convert a church in a single family zoning district to a residence. This is very specific as Rebecca said that it's CF. And I think our CFs are First Presbyterian, St. Paul's, We've got a list of them that are in CF. I don't know that we would see First Presbyterian. It's a huge church.

That's right.

But it's the historic portion is the piece in the back. You know, not the entirety of that big church. So there's limited site specifics for each of these structures. Saint Paul's is a contributor in Oshad. Okay. So I think it

is I mean, I'm very familiar with the property. I think it is a shame that it would be lost and not open to the public or be available to the public. And I thought it'd be you know, it would have been nicer for them to actually move the building someplace else and then, you know, have single family homes there instead as a sink because it's a sink single family residential neighborhood, basically. But that's just my thoughts. I thought it'd be nice. But those are my comments.

Thank you. Chris?

Yeah. This came before us last year. Right? So I'm trying to remember what we we talked about in that one. Maybe I can get a refresher. We that was to get it rezoned to residential, and we were very concerned about this the the neighborhood losing the character and losing community element. Now this is coming back as sort of a workaround to still get the residential but it's staying as a CF. I think you've mentioned it a few times but what are the main differences again between last time and this time?

The last one was the land use map amendment in rezoning whereas this is changing what you can do in CF to allow the single family residential use. At the time, I think the board was concerned that this was not going to be something that would be open to the public if it was changed to a residential land use and zoning. But Mr. Castello will have to speak to the likelihood of that and why his client has chosen this path.

Right. And so while there was discussion about community facility, the fact is it's privately owned. And so whether it's this or another use that's permitted in the CF, it is private. As far as the community facility aspect, yeah, I think it tied back to where the association at one time had some meetings there. And of course it was a church.

The fact that with this, it's an adaptive reuse and the community still benefits by the physical asset. Actually, the church is there, prominent and visible. I think at that time too there was also concern that, oh, well, you could come in and do a lot split and build another house there if you're an R1AA even though it all has to go back through the process, if we need a waiver and all that. And so as we were discussing at the City Commission, the intent is to have a single family residence and so at that discussion while they denied the land use map amendment and the rezoning, I did offer a fact about amending the regulations and the direction was to do so. And so as far as it being open to the public, that somewhat has been lost.

By right, they could do other uses that would prevent any other access to the building. But the benefit is really what the community sees visibly there. And just like a single family residence in a historic district, not everybody can go walk into somebody's single family home, but they get the benefit in the historic district to see this resource, this valuable resource for generations to come.

So the the lot cannot be split now with this?

Under the CF zoning, this allows only allows a single family residence in the historic place of worship. My client has no intention of splitting it to have another CF use, But that was to alleviate concerns very specific to historic place of worship. There are no plans to split it for another CF use.

Okay, great. And for other clarification, the setbacks, they're still the CF setbacks and they don't change to the residential setbacks?

So for a single family dwelling for the conversion, they'll be subject to the r one a. So they have a great, more stringent setback requirements. The fact of the matter is is the church itself is setback to the porta to portico or what the I'm sorry. That's a bad term. For the front porch area. It's about 35 feet. The side setback from the street is about 47 feet from second. To the rear, the nonconformity is the rear. It should be 10. It's it's currently five feet.

And then on the side, it meets the the it's a 10 foot setback requirement. Currently, the building. The intent is not to move anything on that building. So the CF is actually less stringent under development standards. There's no minimum lot size. It's really a perimeter setback of 10 feet and 48 feet in height. This is more strict.

But I will say as we're sitting here and the discussion is going on, I don't know that we would be applying any development standards such as setbacks because this is a historic structure. It is where it is. So I think we need to clarify clarify in how we have it constructed which of the R1 standards, probably the ones for accessory uses, for example. You can have your pool and you can have your shed in the back. But the things like setbacks, what's there is gonna be there. Except if you were to do an addition, then it would be subject to the r one.

Because what I was thinking is to to continue with the character that it is now, if they come back with wanting to do additions to the to the structure, I'd like it to maintain the the the setting that it is now and not make it look more like a house like the rest of the block. I think it should retain the character because I I think that's the purpose of this is for this structure to be retained there and retain its its setting that's different than houses. So

for in the future, if they come in when they come in for the conversion, that's the COA. Now the question would be, you know, most likely that paved parking lot will get removed. It's actually a great place for

a pool.

I was thinking the exact same thing that that's the next thing we're gonna see is

that pool parking lot's gonna turn to a pool. And then perhaps at the Northwest Corner is where it backs out where the alley is and it's towards the rear without impacting the existing addition to have a garage. But again, that wouldn't be subject to all the criteria in April, the design guidelines, Secretary of Interior Standards. And that would be before you all.

Yeah. I do love the idea of the community sign for properties like this that could be included into the amendment. I think that's what they said. Right?

Well, I think I was thinking about that too. A monument sign or something like that, that A, communicates this is not open to the public. Please don't come in but here's a story of it somehow. Because being a lot of people knocking on the door in the middle of the night looking for refuge or whatever. So you wouldn't

have way think it would be a

pleasant He suggested that as a pre discussion. I don't think we included it in any of the documents, but I had the same thought. People feel comfortable walking into places of worship. So it would be a really nice thing to have a small little sign out in front near the walkway that expressed that this is a private residence and then maybe a blip about the history of the church and that it

was It's been appropriate, yeah.

Such and such a year it would add to the heritage tourism comprehensive plan requirements. This is what we looked at very closely with this exact thing in mind. You know, that should it move forward, it could be something that the applicant puts together. It's not a big deal to have a small little marker out there. Not to the size of what's in the island.

That's what I envisioned. And that's why I was like, woah. No. No. Because and the historic marker there describes the church in the middle of the roundabout. So we could do something more

Residential in scale.

Yeah. That that's different. Right.

Okay. Was No. I we were thinking. We were not thinking a state of Florida division historical resources blue marker $3,000. No. Yeah.

Well, it does raise the question of who pays for it and is it consistent in design?

Well, the owner. This would have to be something the owner would would communicate to stop people from walking up to their front door, you know.

Right towards the front or in this case here

It's gonna have a gate and all that, but we're not there to consider that.

I'm sure they'll be fine paying for a small marker considering what they're gonna pay to do this.

There's also the consistency issue that is it going to be similar to other historic markers in

I the think that's way down the line when we get to that, yeah.

Okay. Alright. For myself here, I think both staff and the applicant have answered the questions I had about setbacks, about splitting the parcel, about the one wing becoming multifamily. So I'm I'm happy with that. The one thing that did come up, I just wanna make sure I heard it right, the steeple is not a problem in terms height.

Correct. And because it's a historic structure, it wouldn't be something we would ever require to be altered anyway. Alright.

Who wants to make the motion?

Oh, go ahead. Two motions.

Two motions. Well, yes. But let's do one at a time.

So I Definitely.

I am let me make sure I'm on the right one before we sorry. Okay. Mister chair, I would like to move recommendation of approval of ordinance number o eight dash 25, a privately initiated amendment to the Always Delray Comprehensive Plan by adopting the text amendment to the historic preservation element and neighborhoods, districts, and quarters element to support adaptive reuse of historic places of worship as a residential use by finding that the amendment and approval thereof is consistent with the comprehensive plan and meets the criteria set forth in the land development regulations.

Second.

Call the roll. Any discussion? No. Alright. Okay.

John Miller? Yes. Carol Perez? Yes. Vlad Dimitrescu? Yes. Chris Gabesas? Yes. Peter Dwyer's absent. Jim Chart?

Yes. You wanna do the second one as well?

Do want somebody to? Alright. Oh, there you go.

Chris up. So I move a recommendation of approval of ordinance number zero seven dash two five, a privately initiated amendment to section four point four point two one, community facilities, CF zone district of the land development regulations to allow adaptive reuse historic places of worship as a residential use by establishing it as a principal use category and to adopt regulations for the use and by amending appendix a, definitions to adopt definitions place of worship and historic places of worship by finding that the amendment and approval thereof is consistent with the comprehensive plan and meets the criteria set forth in land developments regulations. I second that.

Call the roll.

John Miller?

Yes.

Carol Perez? Yes. Vlad Dimitreski? Yes. Chris Cabasis?

Yes.

Peter Dwyer is absent. Jim Chart?

Yes. Thank you so And I wanna just thank staff, especially Rebecca and the team for all their help through this. Thank you. You. Good So

our next board meeting is August 6. We are almost caught up on minutes. We have got I think three maybe more. What did

we get through tonight? April I think.

Got to April, so May, June, July, we have three. I would expect, we want to try to have completely up to date so that we're just month to month, that's our goal. We did reach out to our partner CLGs across the state of Florida to ask about the substitute material because we think that there's an opportunity for further discussion about this at a future meeting. I don't have enough feedback yet to present what's happening. Right now a lot of them are saying they're getting pressure as well and they're interested in hearing what what research we come up with.

So I expect that we might we might approach this in a future meeting to talk about. There are also some board members who terms are setting or I don't know if all of you looked at this, what your your term limits are or if you have to reapply. Feel like it was mister Chard, you're off after August. Right? That's your last meeting. You're termed out. And I think mister Dwyer is hitting a term. At least that's what it says on the website. So I think we need to make sure we let him know to reapply if he wants to be appointed because he would have to go through that. So if you all could just double check first meeting.

Your timing with these things, you'll notice mister Craig isn't here. He resigned from the board seeking other appointments. So we have a new board member that likely will be here, possibly be here for our next meeting. But if anyone's term is done in August and you can be on again for another term, you have to reapply. That's your responsibility to do. They don't just reconsider you. You have to put an application in.

It's a two year term?

I feel like was like one year terms and then I'd two year have to double check. I think the first was a year, am I wrong on that?

No it's always been two.

It's always been

two. Yeah.

Unless you're filling somebody who abandoned or was removed from a

I feel like your first term is a year and then the subsequent term is two years but I could be wrong.

And then is term out

after that?

I wanna double check.

It says here on the website, so it doesn't list the names like it used to for some reason, at least on the mobile version. So there's one current vacancy, two terms ending soon, term length two years, term limit two terms. So.

For the this board or general?