Historic Preservation Board - Regular Meeting

This will call to order the Historic Preservation Board meeting of September 2, 2026. May I have a roll call, please?

Zach Pernot?

Here.

Richard Kasser? Here. Benjamin Baffer? Here. Peter Dwyer?

Here.

Gregory Pitts?

Here.

Jake Eliopoulos? Here. Chris Cabezas?

Here.

and then I'm just gonna slightly move the order but I'd like to get a motion to approve the agenda first and then we'll go into elections so if you guys if somebody could make that motion and just say as amended with the approval of agenda moving up I'll make the motion as amended with the approval of the agenda and all in favor aye Okay, the reason I'm starting the meeting today is because it's the election of the officers today. How that works is we're going to have a chair, a vice chair, a second vice chair. Um, what you'll do is just make a motion to, to, um, make a certain person that chair, um, and then, you know, we'll call the vote. But if you guys have any discussion like beforehand or, you know, just, just, um, discuss it amongst yourselves and then make the motion. Um, but first off, let's go ahead with the chair.

I'd like to nominate myself, Peter Dwyer for chair.

And do we have a second?

I'll second that.

Okay. Is there any discussion you guys want to have amongst yourselves?

I guess not. Okay.

All right. Then can we do a roll call, please, Brittany?

Zach Perdue?

Yes. Yes. Richard Gasser? Yes.

Benjamin Bacher? Yes. Peter Dwyer?

Yes.

Gregory Pitts?

Yes.

Jay Giliopoulos? Yes. Chris Cabezas? Yes.

All right. And then we move on to the vice chair. Does somebody have a motion for the vice chair?

Who wants to do it?

I'd like to nominate Richard.

Is there a second?

I'll second.

You guys have any discussion? OK. Brayton, can you call the roll?

Zach Perdot? Yes. Richard Kasser?

Yes.

Benjamin Bathur?

Yes.

Peter Dwyer?

Yes.

Gregory Pitts? Yes. Jake Eliopoulos?

Yes.

Chris Cabezas? Yes.

All right. And then the last one we have is the second vice chair. Anybody have a motion?

I'll nominate Jake.

Is there a second?

I'll second that.

OK. Any discussion? All right. Let's go ahead and have a roll call, please.

Zach Perdue?

Yes.

Richard Kasser?

Yes.

Benjamin Baffer? Yes. Peter Dwyer?

Yes.

Gregory Pitts? Yes. Jay Giliopoulos? Yes. Chris Cabezas?

Yes.

all right congratulations everybody and uh yeah go ahead and pass the gavel to chair dwyer yeah i think you just switch the two of you i don't think anybody else has to move but maybe the next meeting they get switched around okay do we have to call the meeting to order again no just go ahead and start at uh minutes on the agenda

OK, we have minutes from the previous meeting. Who would like to make a motion to approve the minutes?

I'll make a motion, yeah. I'll second.

OK, let's take the roll.

You can do all in favor on the minutes if you'd like. It's up to you. But you're allowed to.

Zach Perdot?

Yes.

Richard Kasser?

Yes.

Benjamin Baffert?

Yes.

Peter Dwyer?

Yes.

Gregory Pitts? Yes. Jay Giliopoulos? Yes. Chris Kabesis?

Yes.

OK, we'd like to swear in the public at this point. If anyone would like to speak on any of the agenda items, please stand up, raise your right hand.

OK.

Does anyone have any public comments not related to the quasi-judicial items that will come before us tonight? Speakers will be limited to three minutes. Seeing there are no speakers, we will start our agenda. Any presentations, Michelle? No. Okay. I'm going to have to read this. This is a quasi-judicial hearing. 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 is representing an organization or group of people who are present but agree not to speak. The city commission board member, staff, and the applicant may be allowed to cross-examine the witness. The city applicant will be allowed to offer rebuttal testimony. The city or the applicant will have 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 number of citizens who support or oppose a particular project. The law requires that all decisions must be made on the basis of whether the project meets the requirements of law, the comprehensive plan, and the land development regulations.

Just before we get started, I know we have two new members on the board I just want to let you guys know like as always any questions you can direct them to me if you You're really just during these quasi judicial items just trying to apply the land development regulations the design guidelines to you know the facts that are ahead of you and if you have any questions at any time I'm here and That's about it

thank you no problem welcome to the board thank you guys okay we'll start with our first agenda item michelle hewitt for the record senior planner and i'm reading to the record agenda item 9a for hp 744-2026 for 236 north fixie boulevard

Chair, could you do the ex parte communications before we get started?

Yes. We're going to go around. Has anyone had any ex parte communication?

No. Just the email that we have here. OK. No.

No.

None.

None.

I have the applicant here to present on behalf of the property owner. And the property owner is here as well.

So who would you like us? I'm Ann Gannon. I'm actually the property owner. I've lived in this house since 1990. I believe it, I was trying to remember, I think it was built in 1930. Sorry, if you can just state your address for the record. 236 Dixie, you say North Dixie Boulevard, Delray Beach, Florida, 33444. And please pardon my dress tonight, but I just got here from Orlando from a meeting. So I rushed over here. This is a pretty simple application from my perspective. We're asking to put the two HVAC units on the new structure in the back of the house. And this is... something I want to do because I'm a master gardener and a gardener, and this lot is 60 by 120 with the setbacks on the right side of the house where these two air conditioners would go. It's six feet. It would be very difficult to walk in that area, and I proposed to my gardener construction that the appropriate place for this house would be on the back, that you cannot see it from the sidewalk. And we do have a presentation. And I will, Carlos?

Good afternoon, everybody. Carlos, project manager for Gardner Building Group here in Delray.

Sorry, can you just state your last name for the record and your address, please?

Carlos Rivera.

Or business address.

Business address is 2100 Lake Ida Road, suite number two, Delray Beach, Florida, 33445. Thank you. So we put together a brief presentation here showing the site conditions and what it looked like previously before we started construction and a little bit of what it looks like now after the addition has been added. We also, we went ahead and put some boxes up on the roof of the addition, which you'll see here in these next slides. This is what it looks like previously. And as you can see, obviously, We can't put anything in the front yard. On the side of the yard, the property lines between both houses are minimal at best. In future photos in here, you'll see on the left side of the property, her walkway that leads to her front gate is roughly six feet in width. We're talking about AC condensing units that are about three foot square. This is the sidewalk here on the side of her property to the east. You can see it's really narrow. Top left photo is the old existing structure that we demoed. So her new structure is actually wider at that corner where you see the downspout. So it actually eases further into the egress. And then of course, lower right-hand corner, you see her garden is quite full and she's trying to maintain the aesthetics of it all. And so what we can do is, I spoke with Michelle Hewitt and she said we would have to do a screening, some sort of screening. What we can do is an aluminum louvered screen. Of course, those come with NOA approvals and would be installed according to the local guidelines. Of course, hurricanes, winds, stuff like that needs to be adhered and secured to the roof in a specific manner. Um, so in these photos here, it's hard to see, is there a way to zoom? We, we put some boxes up on the roof to kind of, um, set an example of the heights of these units. That one on the left is really, um, you can see on, on the, on the left, if you zoom in through those trees. So you can see those boxes represent the heights of each of the units. And, of course, those will be screened at one elevation, right, at the highest standing AC condensing unit. Can you point to where we're looking at? Oh, I got the mouse right here.

Yep.

You can also do this. All right. Let's see. Right in between here. All right, so this is... Do I have to hold it? Right in here. So you can see where the units would be visible.

So you placed cardboard boxes on the roof in the approximate measurements of the condensers?

They are the exact measurements and exact locations of the units. One unit is 36 square in dimension and height, and the other unit is 33 and 3 quarters square by 25 inches in height. These sit on top of, per code, an 18-inch stand. So that taller elevation you see of that AC condenser, that would be the height of the louvered screen. If you look to the photo to the right, that is a representation of the louvered screen that we would provide. It's aluminum painted to match the color of the house. And again, here from the front of the house, this is the view.

How can I zoom in?

Sorry, first time. I don't know how to get back to one page. All right, so how can I zoom in here?

On the top?

So you can see from the front of our house, you see those right up there. That's the view from the front. And of course, it'll have the louvered screen. This is a bit more zoomed in, of course, representing what the louvered screen would look like. And... I was informed that we need to do a four-sided screen, which we can absolutely do that. This is what I submitted initially per the request of Michelle and all of you. We can make that a four-sided, louvered screen. It's not a problem. And again, these are just elevation pages to represent what it'll look like structurally. No, this is from the front of the house. Pretty basic, pretty straightforward. This is the actual louvered screen that we can use. It's basically a Bahama-style louvered screen. Nothing crazy about it. And, I mean, basically what we're here for is to make sure that we don't change anything of, you know, how the neighborhood looks. We want to appease you guys and what the law requires for the historic society. At the same time, you know, trying to get the units in a position where they're not going to interfere with her garden and, of course, with the egress on the south side of the house. All right, so any questions?

Typically, we'd go staff, and you can sit down for that, and then public comment, and then we'll go back to you guys for rebuttal and cross, and then we'll see if you have any questions from the board.

Once again, Michelle Hewitt, and this is for 236 North Dixie Boulevard for a certificate of appropriateness. Going through some pictures and images here on the screen, I have an arrow with the subject property outlined in blue. This property is located within the Della Ida Park Historic District. It is a 1925 mission-style structure that contains approximately 1,700 square feet. It is a wood-framed construction and is clad with a textured stucco exterior. Just briefly going through some project history or property history. In 2005, a COA invariance request was brought through for a trellis and wrought iron fence, which was never initiated, so expired. In 2014, a COA invariance request for a freestanding pergola to the west side of the property was approved to allow that pergola to be approximately two feet from the west side of the property line. In 2025, the board approved a COA and waiver request for the construction of a 1,122-square-foot two-story addition to the rear of the existing one-story single-family residence. It also included minor ground-level improvements to the residence, removal of the existing rear-enclosed patio, and hardscaping around the area of the proposed addition. During the building permit review for this addition, it was proposed to locate the air conditioning units on the roof of the second story addition, where it was previously approved on the ground level on the north side of the property. So the proposal for the board is for the installation of two new air conditioning units with screening on the rooftop of the rear two-story addition on the existing contributing residential structure. Going through some photos here. This is the front or northwest elevation. This space is North Dixie Boulevard. You can see kind of in the back that gray piece up there is that history edition. Some people went out there again. They painted and added some stucco on there to match the existing. This is at the edge of the street looking at the structure. And then even further back. This is directly in front of the structure, again facing North Dixie Boulevard, slightly further back. Now you can see that addition popped up back there. This is the side interior or southwest elevation. This is the side where the pergola is located in the driveway. This is the rear or southeast elevation. This is where the addition is located. Is this on the screen? This is the backyard. And you can see there's an additional structure back there on the property. And this is the side interior or northeast elevation. This is where the 2025 group will have those AC units located. Going through some plans, this is the proposed roof plan where you can see those two AC units proposed on that two-story addition in the rear. They're proposing an aluminum two-sided louvered screen on four sides that will be painted to match the bluish, tealish color of the existing structure. This is the side interior or northeast elevation where you can see that screening up there on the roof behind the parapet wall. This is the front or northwest elevation. Again, you can see that louvered screen on the left and its height relative to the new construction parapet wall. Going through some of our standards used to analyze the request. This is the Secretary of the Interior Standards for Rehabilitation with the applicable standards highlighted. So the previously approved requests include air conditioning units along the north elevation, as I indicated previously. While the units and screening are small, they are proposed to be above the parapet wall, but not taller than permitted by code. We've got a screenshot here from the Secretary of Interior Standards regarding mechanical systems. Going into visual compatibility standards. Here we have a staff report excerpt. As a horizontal lubrid aluminum screening is proposed around the units, it will aid in disguising the units on three sides, four sides now, leaving the rear open. As the applicant indicated, they will do four sides. The height of the screening is designed to be the lowest possible to just screen the units at 2 feet 6 inches. Consideration could be given to a different luber color as they are proposing to do the same color as the structure, differentiating that and creating or utilizing a color that would be more, wouldn't, create the appearance that the louvered screening was a part of the roofline of the uh the two-story addition but again it is barely above the parapet wall and will likely not be visible if at all from the public right-of-way here we have the certificate of appropriateness findings and a site by technical item regarding meeting Florida building code requirements for access to the uh AC units on the rooftop and that concludes my presentation

All right, any public comments? Please approach.

Board, Roger Cope, for the record, Roger Cope, Cope Architects, just the zip code 33483, I think. Congratulations, Peter, Richard, and Jake, for the new positions. I think the young guns are taking over HPB, which is excellent. Mr. Baffert's going to have to keep you guys in line as a senior member up there. But congratulations to all three of you and the two new members that are here tonight that you introduce later, please. I've known Ann 30 years. I gave her a little consultation a few years ago when she first conceived of the idea of expanding her house. She had me over. So I know the property. I know the backyard. I know how passionate she is about landscaping and everything. This is a no-brainer. This is so supportable, you guys. I drive down that street two or three times a day because I have a job in that neighborhood. I can't even see the addition that she's putting on the back of the house. That's how harmonious the addition is. So to put a little tiny box that's called an air conditioner on top of the roof, give me a break. It's very approvable. Send her on her way with an approval tonight. And if I could stand on my soapbox for two seconds, items like this should be changed in the LDRs to be administratively approved so they don't bog down a meeting like this where you guys should be talking about real architecture and real historic preservation instead of air conditioning units. So that's my opinion. So if there's an upcoming workshop that you can do that and say to our staff and Anthea, maybe we can expand the LDRs a little bit. Thanks.

Thank you, Roger.

George Long, 46 North Swinton. I don't need to be up here following that, but since I stood up, I'm going to have to do this. You guys approved two-story buildings, giant additions, things like that. You shouldn't see any problem with a little air conditioner or a roof.

Thank you. Thank you, George. OK, is there any rebuttal or cross-examination from staff or from the applicant?

None from staff.

All right, seeing there is no rebuttal, we will break into board discussion. Does anyone want to open up the discussion?

Just saying, at this point, any questions can be asked.

At this point, any questions can be asked. I have a question for the applicant. I think this is relatively simple and straightforward, but the screening material is going to go from basically the bottom of the roof stand to the top of the unit?

No. Per code, I don't think we're going to be able to go all the way down to the bottom of the roof deck, right? Because part of having the stand is to allow hurricane winds to pass through, right? We can't have like a sail effect. So wind has to be able to pass through the legs of of the stand, which is why there's a minimum height requirement for the stands.

So the screening is going to be mounted on the stand?

Correct. We're going to have to get creative, right, and we'll have to build a frame to mount these two, all of which will be aluminum.

Okay. And... How is the roof accessed? Because I don't think that was covered.

The roof is accessed by ladders. Okay. Either straight up to the second story or a ladder to the first roof and then another ladder up to the additional roof.

But there's no mounted ladders? No, there is no. Okay.

Oh, sure.

And then how high above the parapet does the screening, would the screening extend?

At the tallest elevation, it would be about 24 inches above the top of the parapet wall.

Just a little more. The videotape goes right to you, so that's why we just want to keep you on.

And then last question. I know you mentioned that you're proposing that it be painted the same color as the structure. Staff mentioned a differing but complementary color. Would you be open to that?

Oh, sure.

Okay. Okay. That's it.

Pink.

Well, no.

Something that blends with the sky would be good.

Yeah. Something neutral and, I guess, complementary to that, to your structure color. Okay. All right. Thank you.

So you're requesting them to change their paint color?

Well, staff had brought it up, so I'm not giving them a color, but just asking if they would be open to staff's comment.

And do we approve the color here? No.

it's not pink that's for you guys to decide we just put our comments in the staff report it's a it's a creamy like light green with blue in it you you could go i'm surprised we didn't bring a sample um the house was just painted um which was it was painted the color was previously

My question, did you consider anywhere else on the property for the air conditioning? Maybe on the side of the house, sort of hanging off one of the sides in the rear?

So I think that would propose another issue of visibility as well, right, because you're elevated off the house. It needs to be at an elevation where you can still walk on that egress, right, on the eastern side. You'd have to have it high enough. So that almost puts you at the fence line of the neighbor. So that would propose, I think, another issue of visibility from the sidewalk, more so than the top of the two-story roof.

That's it for me.

For the applicant, why are you putting it on the high roof instead of the low roof?

so if we were to put it on that lower elevation roof it would definitely be visible from that sidewalk that you see right in front of uh ann's house whereas on that higher elevation right the placement on that second uh the addition roof is at the back so with the height of the roof And the fact that the units are placed at the backside, that really, really lowers the visibility from the street and from the sidewalk.

I'm not sure I agree with that. I think the lower roof, if you put it on the lower roof behind the parapet and painted the louvers the same color as the house, you would probably see it less than up against the horizon.

I wouldn't agree with that.

And it would be easier to access, too. You'd only have to go up one ladder.

I wouldn't agree with that, just on elevation of that roof.

There was an image that showed, maybe it was a side elevation, that showed the height of the lower parapet versus the upper parapet. Can we see that? And so what you're suggesting, Ben, is if you put it all the way to the back of the lower level, you think it would be less noticeable?

I'm just looking at whether the scuppers are relative to the parapet. That lower roof has a much taller parapet than the upper roof. And I think it would be, if it was my house, I'd be putting it on the lower roof.

That's a good point. Against the horizon, it does look like a little notch on the top, but if it was on the lower one, maybe that blends into that back wall, and maybe it wouldn't be noticeable. I think that's a good point.

I think the only problem with that is, right, you're looking at...

Sorry, unless a question's asked of you from the board, they're in board discussion.

I can ask you what you're thinking. Sorry. So that rendering, that elevation showing that parapet wall being probably double the depth of the addition is not actually accurate. It's not. If you took a measurement of that and measured it to scale, it would show that that existing parapet wall is maybe four feet. Whereas the, um, the addition parapet wall is actually two feet tall from the roof line, um, or from the actual roof itself, right from the roofing membrane. So the picture or the, the, uh, architectural detail is, is deceiving, right? It's not as actually as deep as it looks. If you actually in, in, If you visited the site and looked at the site conditions, you would see that it's not actually that deep.

You're saying the lower parapet is not accurate?

Right.

Correct. It's lower than what is being shown.

No, it's taller. It's taller. Right.

So it would mask the unit even better than the lower.

What I'm saying is that... You're going to have the same parapet as the second, the addition parapet wall, right? If the additional, the addition parapet wall is two feet tall from the roofing membrane, you have the same thing going on with the addition, with the existing roof. The parapet wall is two foot tall off of the roof membrane. Correct. Although it appears more like three or four. Correct. Correct. Site conditions don't always match what's on black and white plan sets.

Or is it just one unit for this entire house?

It's two units. There's one existing unit that she has, and then we're adding an additional unit, of course, because we're increasing the living space.

Where is the existing unit?

The existing unit now, it's not connected. We did away with that unit. Oh, I'm sorry. If you look at this photo here, it's all the way...

Previously, it was in this alley.

Right. There's a photo... Can I scroll through here?

It's beyond the gas tank.

Right. It's down in front of her gate now. If you were to zoom in there. Can you do that, Michelle? See, it's down there in front of her gate that leads into her front yard. As you can see, based on that photo, right now, That three-foot square condensing unit that's existing is clearly impeding her egress, right? I think we can agree to that. So the width of this walkway is maintained the same width all the way back to the corner.

Is that white tank going to stay there? Yes, it is. So something else is impeding the area as well, right? How much space do you have to walk around the AC unit right now?

But there's... About three feet. Three feet? Yeah. Okay.

That's not too bad. But you... Putting a second unit there, you thought it would take out too much space to maneuver. And do you use this corridor a lot?

Yes, I do.

Is it your main side that you walk on, or do you walk more on the other side?

But this is, until we started this project, it was actually landscape. And that is a shower right there.

And what's the space between the house and the property line here?

It's about six feet.

Six feet. I thought this was going to be a straightforward one, but now it's getting a little interesting. Okay. Any other board members have something?

Structurally, could the original structure hold the – could it support the two units and the roof stand?

The existing roof?

The existing roof. I mean, it was a 1925-30 structure.

They weren't initially – they weren't originally on that roof.

No, but because it was brought up that – You could theoretically put them there, so could that roof support it?

So these new roof trusses were engineered in a specific way and planned out to support the roof of the unit. So what you're saying, that would have to be a whole other re-engineering going back to the architect, going back to the truss company, and we would have to then...

look at what her existing roof trusses look like and having an engineer say yes or no right and then from staff perspective if if it was to require a re-engineering of the roof of the original structure to support potentially to support these two air conditioning units would that have to then go back through staff and an application process

Mostly depends on if it's going to impact the exterior of the structure. So if it can be handled with interior reinforcement, that can usually stay at building permits when you're altering the exterior. If we can see it from any right of way, anything like that.

I would agree with that. If the units were proposed instead on top of the historic house, The plans that we have aren't for that, so we would need to see that. And the owner would need to make sure she was okay with the way that looks because there would still be screening. I don't think the parapet wall is as high on the original house as it was designed on the addition. Is that right?

Yeah, it could possibly be a little bit more shallow, yes.

Potentially could be maybe a little more impacting on the roof of the primary structure.

one thing i'll point out is i don't have any issues with the visibility of it but one comment i will make is i mean the site is really tight but it's normally like a last option having it on the roof just from maintenance and any roof penetration might lead to leaks down the road but that being said if if you're okay with it i don't have any issues with it we've talked about that those two units aren't units that leak

On the side elevation, what was the height of the chimney in comparison to the parapet wall?

That I wouldn't be able to tell you without having the plans in front of me and actually using a scale to measure that.

Okay.

You can see it's at least 14 foot 8 inches. You see the measurement to the top of the dog ear right there on the top corner of the parapet? So we can't guesstimate what it is, but it's at least 14 foot 8 inches.

I definitely see what you're saying, where it would blend in. But I'm OK with it up on the roof.

Thank you. Did you consider ductless systems where you could hang a little mini split unit on the wall?

the outside yeah again i think that goes back to what somebody else mentioned of hanging see if you look at this elevation here um if we hung something that's at the height or higher than the neighboring fence line again we run into the issue of being able to see that from your side hanging something low that that sticks like 10 inches off the wall i don't think it's going to stick about 10 inches i think it'd be more about 16 inches at best and then that's of course being able to get a unit that's really that small that would be efficient to cool a 1200 square foot addition we also then have the condensate lines running up the wall yes okay any more discussion why don't we take it to a vote and uh does anyone want to make a motion do we have to add the condition for the four sides

Because the plan only shows the three sides.

We can make that a site plan technical item, so it doesn't have to be a condition, which gives them a little flexibility that should something change in design, they don't have to come back and get the condition removed.

And can the color as well? Because we talked about the, in the staff report, it was a different color than the actual structure. Could that be a site plan technical item as well?

Yeah. If the board is OK with white or green, we'll make note of that and coordinate with the owner as well.

That sounds good.

OK. Would someone like to make a motion?

I'll make the motion. I'll make the motion to approve the certificate of appropriateness, HP 744 2026 for the property located at 236 North Dixie Boulevard, Del Lido Park Historic District by finding that the request and approval thereof is consistent with the comprehensive plan and meets the criteria set forth in the land development regulations.

Can we have a second?

I'll second.

All in favor? Take the roll, please.

Zach Perdot?

Yes.

Richard Kasser?

Yes.

Benjamin Baffert? Yes. Peter Dwyer?

Yes.

Gregory Fitts? Yes. Jake Eliopoulos? Yes. Chris Cabezas?

Yes. Thank you.

OK, we'll move on to the next item on the agenda.

OK, thank you, Michelle Hoyland, principal planner for the record. I'd like to enter file number 575-2026 into the record. And Mr. Bob Kubin is here and will present. Mr. Kubin.

Before he comes up, if we could ask for ex parte communication.

Any ex parte communication from the board?

No.

No. No.

No. None. No.

Okay, I just pretty much need to change this screen. So just push that window forward to the next screen. You can mouse or arrows, whatever you want. I'm going to use that because it looks simple. Thank you very much, Michelle. We're ready to roll, right? Good afternoon. My name is Bob Cuban. I am the owner of 300 Southeast 7th Avenue in the Marina District. The home has been in the historic register for, I believe, over 17 years now. It's a masonry vernacular home, if that makes any difference. I guess in this case it may, vernacular basically means it's simple or most commonly used materials to build a home. So it's a pretty simple place. Our goal here is to put windows in the house, replace the windows in the home. There are a number of different choices that are out there for windows and we looked at all of them and came to the conclusion of one particular type of window that would work best and meet most of our goals. So we're going to move on here. The house is originally – okay, this is why people over 25 should not do selfies. Let me see where we're going here. We're going to go back to, I was hoping to make this the most concise when we're here. So the windows that are in the house right now are referred to as awning windows. They are broken up into two panes through the mountain bars, in some cases three panes. In the bedrooms and in the living room, there are four panes, top to bottom, approximately 30 inches wide by 10 inches tall each pane. The mutton bars are the bars that break up that pane into separate panes that open. So they open in an awning sense, so they open up outwards in a crank situation. They currently do not meet the code for egress. And there's also a safety hazard with them. I've worked on this house for over 15 years now, and I've walked into the awning windows more times than I'd like to talk about. In fact, it makes me a little cranky thinking about it right now. So the idea of having windows cranking out is something that is objectionable not only on the safety standard but also with Egress you can't get out those windows. So that's where the it doesn't the current windows do not meet the code at all So I'm moving on to I believe I hope I can get this right Replacement windows option two that we looked at was a side swing casement window So in other words those windows crank open like you would swing open a door in your home left or right those windows kind of lead us to the same situations that we have with the original windows in the home with the awnings where they come out. The casement windows crank out. It's a safety hazard walking into. It's something I'm concerned about it because I've experienced it. The other thing regarding it is these windows would be used in the three primary, the primary bedroom and the two guest bedrooms. My experiences with these type of side opening casement windows is that they typically open about 40 degrees before they start getting hard to open up. I think, in my personal opinion, if I was asked to crawl through that window under those circumstances in a fire, I think it might be not the best option. It is an option, but I don't feel it's the best one. Hence, going into option three, which is a side slide roller window. So the picture you see on the right side is our living room windows, and that's an example of the four-pane mutton bars going across. All four of those panes open up out towards the yard. The windows on the left are the side sliding side roller windows. So those windows That picture of that window does not have mutton bars in it, but they can be easily placed in there to match what exists in the house. Being part of the historic department is important to us in our home, so our goal is to match and maintain the integrity of what's on the house as it exists right now, with a functionality that not only meets the code, but also provides proper and efficient egress of the house. Then, let's see, where am I at? That's pretty much where we're at right now. We put an addition on the home. These are the examples of the windows that we got from the contractors for the window job. You can see this is a three mutton pane window. This would be an example of one of the bedroom windows that face the street. The windows on the outsides, the far left and the far right, would open to the center, opposingly. The center pane would be solid. again with the mutton bars in them to match what currently exists. So that's what our goal is to do. Currently, what, two years ago we put an addition on the home, a two and a half car garage with a With a small apartment above, worked with Michelle, it was fantastic. It went relatively smoothly according to all the details you have to go through in the historic process. In that process, they ended up, I had a window contractor put the windows in, subcontractor. They put in side sliding windows in that addition. So the addition on our home has side sliders on it and the house that we want To replace windows, we want to put similar side sliders into it. I was unaware that this would have been an issue. I just took it for granted that since we had the side sliders in the upstairs, it was approved two years ago, that it would not have become a code issue or a problem, but it has brought us to here. Requesting that we can keep the aesthetics and keep it the way it is, improve functionality, improve the... functionality of my air conditioning system in my house and make it safer not only to get out of the house but to walk around the house as well. Is there any questions?

So what happens next is if you don't mind taking a seat and then staff will present and you can come back.

Very good, Michelle. Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good evening, board. For the record, Sophia Degue, Planner in Training. And this is a certificate of appropriateness request for the replacement and installation of windows for 300 Southeast 7th Ave. So here we have the subject property highlighted in blue with Southeast 3rd Street to the north and Southeast 7th Ave to the east. The structure is a contributing single family home located within the Marina Historic District. The home was constructed in 1957 in a mainstream vernacular style. At its meeting of December 12, 2020, the Historic Preservation Board was presented with the request for a certificate of appropriateness to construct a rear addition. The board had concerns and decided to continue the project with direction. Then on February 3, 2021, the project, as previously presented, came to the board with revisions, which then moved the project forward with approval from the Historic Preservation Board. Today the request is for the replacement and installation of 11 windows into casement and horizontal roller windows. And I'm going to show you guys some existing elevations. There's a north side facing southeast 3rd Street. We have the east elevation facing southeast 7th Avenue. This is up close so you can see two of the windows are going to be changed. This is the existing west elevation. And this is the interior south. Again, the request is for the change of a total of 11 windows into nine horizontal slider windows and two casement windows. All windows have a white aluminum frame and a clear glass, except for one casement window located on the side interior south of the contributed single family home. And here's a site plan of the site. showing also the location of the proposed and existing windows. So on the north side of the property facing southeast 3rd Street, there are two horizontal roller windows proposed and one casement window proposed as well. You can see on the bottom, as Mr. Cuban said, they're going to be horizontal roller windows. The middle one is the casement window. On the existing east side, we can see three horizontal sliding windows being proposed. And as Mr. Cuban said again, they're going to roll towards the middle of the window. Facing south, there are three proposed horizontal sliding windows and one frosted glass casement window. You can see in the middle, it's number seven. And from the west, we can see one proposed horizontal sliding window. Again, all the windows have aluminum white frames with clear glass, except for the casement window located towards the side interior of the house, which has translucent glass. This one right here in the middle. So I want to show you guys the Secretariat of the Interior standards for rehabilitation and the applicable standards. Standards 1, 2, 3, 5, and 9 are applicable for this request. We have found that horizontal sliding windows are considered a modern appearance and are not typically utilized on historic structures within the Delray Beach Historic District. Some of the windows are obstructed by foliage, making them hard to see from the right of way. However, it is important to mention that landscaping is not a means of too obscure building improvements that are not compatible with the architectural style of the structure as foliage can be revoked later on. And the introduction of horizontal sliding windows can be seen as an alteration to the historic integrity of the structure, as the proposed window alters the pattern and design that contributes to the finishes and character of the structure. Here's the visual compatibility standard of Delray Beach. In terms of visual compatibility, there are no concerns with frame material nor the glass color. The translucent white casement window is located in the bathroom, and the board can approve the use of this glass in a case-by-case basis. However, there is concern about the use of horizontal sliding windows, as they are not appropriate and not typically used in historic districts in Delray Beach, as they are not appropriate for the time frame of the home and have a commercial look in general. Given the requirements of the Florida Building Code, a compromise could be that single hung or casement windows be utilized in place of horizontal sliding windows. And the board will need to make a determination that the request can be found consistent with the provisions of the land development regulations of Delray Beach, as well as the Secretary of the Interior Standards and the Delray Beach Historic Preservation Guidelines.

Okay, and then just a few items. You know, when we are bringing an application to the board, we tend to say, They may not or could be considered incompatible. So it's the board's decision to make. Staff's analysis is that the use of horizontal rollers isn't typically used on historic structures. We don't have administrative authority to approve it. That's why it's here before the board. I did meet with and talk with one of our structural plan reviewers in the building department to see what kind of flexibility could be given for other types. And the Florida Building Code, you know, it does cover egress and ensuring that there's a safe emergency escape via windows and the spacing is 20 inches wide by 24 inches tall. And then we also discussed, and I've put these code requirements here, which I've also discussed this with the property owner before the meeting so he would be aware that he doesn't have to use horizontal rollers or sliders as we call them. He could use a different window type. But the Florida Building Code also allows that if you're decreasing the nonconformity, and I'm summarizing here, but if you're providing for a new window or window style that's a little bit different, as long as the new opening is greater than what is existing, you can provide new windows that may not exactly meet the egress requirements, which would allow for single hung casement. He's absolutely against casement because you walk into those and I understand that. But I just wanted to point out here in the conversation we had, the goal here is that we have a similar appearance on the exterior. Nobody is replacing windows with awning windows anymore. That's just not a typical approach. He could have gone straight to permit with single hung or casement windows, but he was under the impression he had to copy the mutton pattern exactly and there is some flexibility when you're using single hung windows so i think there was you know between us his contractor and the property owner he you know went with the horizontal rollers so the board will have to make a decision i think they did do a fair job in bringing forward that mutton pattern so that there was some similarity as to what was existing And just for note purposes, the horizontal sliders that were provided on the addition are in the rear of the home where they're not on a primary elevation. This is the one we're most concerned with is the north and east side that we have some consistency with the appearance so that it can be compliant with the Secretary of the Interior Standards. Thank you.

Any public comment? OK. Any cross-examination from staff or from the applicant?

I have none. Do you have any, Sophia? No.

OK. All right. Seeing that there is none, we will have board discussion.

Richard, would you like to open it up? Sure. Question for the applicant. so the first question the windows that are in your addition that are not visible from the right away from the street those are those were approved as part of your 2023 edition correct we have a covenant on the edition okay and the while not exactly the same amount of panels in the current windows, you are doing a horizontal roller that will somewhat mimic the current style of window that's there.

That was our goal. I mean, honestly, if I was aware of, I could have just done a single hung and gotten through this permitting six months ago, I would have done it. But we're committed to this. I like this look. I like being congruent with... the historic look in what was on the house originally. So I wasn't opposed with going to this and sticking with it. And I spoke with Michelle, and we had a very nice discussion about what options and what we could do. And she was very helpful. And then we just decided, let's just follow through with this and see what happens. To me, and if I can make an addition to, we did put casement windows in the bathrooms. It was the best option. The other thing is the idea of single hung windows, as this young lady suggested, which she suggested, It's impossible to meet the mutton pattern with a single hung window. So in other words, if you were to take a 30 inch window, a single hung window, and divide, 30 inch tall, divide it in two, it's 15 inch per pane, you can't put mutton bars that'll match that design. Or if you put a single hung, then you just have one bar going directly across the window. To me, aesthetically, that doesn't look anywhere nearly as nice. And being historic is 90% about Aesthetics. Functionality has to take, and code has to take priority.

Yeah, I think you did, in my opinion, I think you did a great job trying to preserve the aesthetics of the original Windows in a more modern application. So I'm for it, and I have no further questions. I do just want to say that great job, Sophia, on your presentation.

Yes, very good, by the way. Thank you.

Anyone else?

I'll say that I like the mutton pattern. I think it looks good. I noticed that you have other windows that aren't being replaced that don't have the muttons. I would love to see the muttons on there just because then everything would be congruent across the board if it's possible.

Yeah, and there are some windows that were original. That don't have it. That didn't have it, yeah.

And they can be applied, of course.

That's something I'll talk to Michelle about and see what we can do.

I like the horizontal slider with the muttons.

Yeah. The one difference I see of course is the original was symmetrical, three panels that are exactly the same size and now the new one has a large window in the middle so that the two windows on the slide can slide in so you have openings on either side. I guess that's the one area I'm looking at is Did you consider doing three equal-sized panels?

We did, actually, and going back to the aesthetic part about it, is in looking at it and making it basically a 50-25-25 window, so the center pane is 50% of the opening. The two side panels are 25%. As you open those windows collectively together, they meet in the center, but they also maintain the same mutton pattern going across, if that makes sense.

So if you have three lines. Yeah.

So if you have, if it's three, if it's 30, 30, 30, when you open the windows, you'll have the, the, the frames of the windows in the center of the window, um, as well as the mountain bars will be hanging slightly over.

So you never get the windows all the way open. Got it. Yeah. Is this 25, 50, 25?

Is that the space? The two windows in the red windows on the left and the center, those are 50% in the center, 25, 25 on the outsides. So it gives us a little better view out through the center windows. It's a living room and a front room. Aesthetically, it maintains the same pattern and the same design pattern, but offers better functionality. Now, talking about egress, the two side windows on both of those rooms, well, the living room has the front door as egress, but the bedroom on the left side in red, the left side of that building, the south side of the building has a side slide open, which is, I think it's 34 inches wide for egress. Okay. On both rooms, yeah.

Even though I do like the original symmetrical pattern better, I get the reasoning for the new spacing. So overall, I think I can support this.

Ben? Question for staff. Did we require the clear glass, or was that the applicant's idea?

Yes, we had a conversation and they are proposing clear glass.

Yeah, and it was required as far as I understand, yes. What about like a low E or something? Because, you know, we're concerned about the code. The clear glass doesn't meet the energy code.

So I don't remember if you were on the board when we had this almost like pseudo workshop item and the board had provided some review and then later direction on what they wanted staff to do when working with applicants. Historic structures are not required to meet the energy code requirements of the Florida Building Code, so there's an exemption for them. That's not just for windows, but that applies for your entire prescriptive method of the energy code, which is air conditioning, roof coverings. We've been down the rabbit hole on this learning for ourselves when I say that. So the direction is that existing historic contributing structures shall utilize clear glass. That was the direction that came from the board. New construction where the energy code has to be met can utilize gray glass. Low E is not a permitted glass finish in historic districts per the direction we were given by the board. So we shouldn't be seeing low E on a historic structure.

Because low E usually has a green tint.

And it's not just that it's the green tint, but it comes with reflectivity. The color of the green changes depending on your manufacturer. I swear you were on the board, but maybe not, Ben, Mr. Baffert.

I just wanted to get the explanation.

Yeah, but we've already seen some low E windows where the house has some low E installed, and then they're coming back two years later for refurbishment. more windows, kind of like what Mr. Kubin is in, the same position, and the greens don't match, or you get purple reflectivity. While it can be really nice for maybe an Art Deco or a streamlined modern newer structure where that color of the glass works, the board had decided to stick with the clear as is allowed per the Florida Building Code. Thank you.

Any more questions from the board? Does anyone want to make a motion?

Make a motion to approve?

You'll need the document. Yeah, we can put it up on the screen for you.

So in this instance, if you were not adding a condition of approval and you were moving to approve, it would be item B. Or if you wanted to deny, that would be D. All right.

Make a motion to approve Certificate of Appropriateness HP000575-2026 for the property located at 300 Southeast 7th Avenue, 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.

Do we have a second?

I'll second.

Zach Perdow?

Yes.

Richard Kasser?

Yes.

Benjamin Baffer?

Yes.

Gregory Pitts?

Yes.

Jake Eliopoulos?

Yes.

Chris Cabezas? Yes. Peter Dwyer?

Yes. Thank you. OK, we're going to move on to the next item.

I'm going to go ahead and enter it into the record while the applicant, if they could please, Mr. Linares, if you could come to the podium. The item is HP 952026, which is a COA for construction of a new single family residence. Mr. Carlos Linares is here from Randall Stoff Architects.

OK. Any ex parte communication from the board? No.

No. No. No.

I do know Carlos, but I have not had any discussion on this project.

None?

No. OK.

Good evening. Carlos Linares, Storff Architects. We are proposing a new single-family home. This project is being proposed at the northeast corner of Northeast 3rd Avenue and Northeast 5th. Could you just state your address for the record, please? 42 North Swinton Avenue. The current property is vacant and has been vacant for quite, I believe, 1979. I believe is how long it's been vacant for. The site is approximately 13,000 square feet, 0.3 of an acre. We are proposing a... Two-story, single-family. Obviously, the two-story is very, very small compared to the first floor. The house is approximately 5,000 square feet under air, including plus the garage. The proposed design is a vernacular style architecture, which is one of the acceptable styles for the historic district. We've worked with Michelle for quite a bit, and she's given us quite a bit of points. They're great, great points that we've been able to work accomplish a much better architectural piece. And I think that we've come to an agreement and this is where we are now. There's a couple of items in the report that she's put together that we'll speak about that later on. We are meeting all the criteria, setbacks, lot coverage, and obviously there's a line of the elevation plane that we have also worked out with Michelle as well. Can I go to the next slide? I'm sorry. Okay. Just press this. Go to the next. Perfect. Okay. This is the proposed renderings, one a little bit more skewed towards the garage, but still showing you the front door. The other rendering shows a little bit more of the front door facing northeast fifth court, I'm sorry, while the garages are facing northeast third avenue. This is the aerial view of the property. The dashed line represents the property that we are proposing for the structure. This is the site plan. As you can see, the front entry faces the Fifth Court. Garage is facing the Third Avenue. In the back, we would have a beautiful pool, very private space. For this home, we are also proposing an accessory structure in the back that is also well within the required setbacks, square footage. This accessory structure is attached with a trellis to the main home. Second floor, just to give you a little bit of the footprint of the second floor, how much smaller it is compared to the first floor. Overall roof plan. And this is the street caves. Obviously that's what's required. Off to the left on the top elevation. As you can see the other two lots are currently vacant. And the other side we have been able to outline the existing structures. This is just a study of the building height plane that is required by the city. We are not asking for any special exception here. There is the orange, the very top slide, the orange area is the only item that encroaches into the plane site. But it is within the 25% that is required by the city. I believe it's 8%, I believe. Well, we are definitely on there. Two dimensional elevations. The very top is the garage, which is the east elevation. The bottom is our front, which is the north elevation of the home. Just black and white elevations of the same. The additional elevations, this is basically facing the courtyard and obviously the rear elevation of the home. This is the accessory structure, the elevations. Obviously, the accessory structure is in the same style as the main home. And that pretty much concludes our presentation.

Any public comments? Thank you, Carlos.

Still got to go to staff first.

Okay.

Michelle Hewitt, and this is for 514 Northeast 3rd Avenue, HB-95-2025, and this is a certificate of appropriateness. On the screen here, I have the subject property outlined in blue with Northeast Fifth Court to the north and Northeast Third Avenue to the east. Some really quick history. The current property had a structure on there that was constructed in 1921. It was a single family home and garage, but was demolished in 1979, and the current lot has remained vacant since then. The request before the board is for construction of a new two-story, ACE-ME vernacular single-family residence with an accessory structure along with ground-level improvements. So you can see on the screen here just an aerial, a floating aerial of the subject site, Northeast 5th Court there on the right and the Northeast 3rd Avenue. And then here just another angle, 5th Court closest to you and then 3rd Avenue on the left there. On the screen on the left, I have the survey where you can see the area proposed for the new construction on the left, and then on the right is the proposed site plan. Here is the first floor plan on the left, and then on the right is the proposed second floor plan. On the bottom there, you can see that accessory structure. This is the roof plan. Going through some renderings and elevations, this is the proposed rendering. This particular site faces Northeast 3rd Avenue, and then on the right there is Northeast 5th Court. So this elevation here is the east elevation. This faces Northeast 5th Court, or I'm sorry, Northeast 3rd Avenue. It's indicated in the stop report, but when determining what the front for setback purposes is, it's usually the narrow, narrowest side of the lot. However, the applicant has submitted for limited access easement, which indicates, which is in the code indicates that if there is a limited access easement on a side, then the other side would be considered the front for setback purposes. And so the front for setback purposes is Northeast 3rd Avenue and the side street is Northeast 5th Court. So here you can see the elevation, the east elevation, which is front for setback purposes. Here we have the north elevation. This faces northeast fifth court. Here we have the west elevation. This faces east. Interior to the site. This would be where the rear setback is located and the Accessory structure there is boxed in on the bottom right corner. So you can see that elevation and Then we have the south elevation. This space is the vacant lots and Then you can again see the outline of the accessory structure so you can see the south elevation of that and And these are the remaining accessory structure elevations. This is the east. This faces the back portion of the main structure. And this is the north elevation. This faces the pool. Here we have the streetscape plan. On the top is facing northeast 3rd Avenue. Again, those vacant lots to the left there. And then on the bottom is facing northeast 5th Court, where you can see it's massing compared to the other structures along the street. Briefly discussing some materials. The first floor is proposed to be smooth stucco, painted Sherwin-Williams creamy, and similar stucco siding is proposed for the second floor. The window and door frames are to be painted bone white, and the shutters are to be painted celestial blue. The shutters, railing, any gates, garage doors, and window frames are proposed to be aluminum. the accessory structure will have a smooth stucco siding painted creamy with white frame aluminum windows and doors the roof of the principal and accessory structure is proposed to be a standing seam metal in a male finish the natural appearance of the metal and then at the base of the structure there is this A black stone water table posed as the site does have a slope. The proposed size of the black stone water table is smaller relative to the overall structure. So there's no concern with any of the materials or proposed colors or textures. Thanks. Going to the Secretary of the Interior for Rehabilitation, I have highlighted two standards that are looked at for this particular request. Looking at Standard 9 specifically, a majority of the structure is one story where the two-story portion of the building comprises less than 40% of the square footage of the ground floor. Generally, it is a larger structure when looking at the overall streetscape, but the lot is also substantially larger at 0.3 acres. The proposal also does involve additional design mitigation strategies to ensure compatibility with the Dell Ida Park Historic District, such as several porches and balconies, offset walls, meeting the scale of building requirement, which requires additional setbacks. Generally, with new construction, the goal is that in 50 years, the structure could be considered a future contributing resource to the Dell Ida Park Historic District. So it's important that appropriate construction appearance and so on and so forth is considered when designing these structures. Going to vision compatibility. Here we have a staff report excerpt regarding the architectural style. The proposed masonry vernacular design situates the main massing of the structure along the front and side interior setbacks for the ground story. And the second story rests atop creating an L plan shape, which is a characteristic of frame vernacular style architecture. So the board needs to make a determination that the proposed architectural style size and appearance is appropriate for the district. Additionally, on the elevations where the garage doors are located, they face Northeast 3rd Avenue. The arch style garage doors could be seen as a design element more compatible with a Mediterranean Revival style structure, where a more rectilinear garage door would be most appropriate for the vernacular style structure. Here are the Delaware Beach historic preservation design guidelines regarding vernacular style architecture. And then race new vernacular. And then another staff report excerpt, provisional compatibility. There are some expenses of blank walls, particularly along the first floor south elevation and the second floor north elevation. The introduction of additional openings along the second floor of the north slash front elevation would help improve the rhythm of solids to voids. And then there is a garage that is proposed, again, previously on Northeast 3rd Avenue with a golf cart, and that is slightly set back to incorporate a trellis to provide visual interest. So consideration could be given to recessing the car garage, the garage portion further to the west, which could aid in softening the structure's mass along Northeast 3rd Avenue. Here's that rendering again. certificate of appropriateness findings and some type of technical items we have that concludes my presentation okay any public comment

Any rebuttal or cross-examination?

None from staff.

OK. We'll go into board discussion then. Who would like to open it up? How about Greg? I'm not picking on you, but.

OK. Carlos, I think you did a great presentation. I love the design. And the accessory structure, you said it was attached with a trellis system?

That is correct. There is a small space, and you may be able to see that there is a trellis. More of a garden feature is what we're trying to do. Not that it's required, but it's definitely a very nice detail to be able to do that.

So there's no rain protection?

There is none, no.

And have you located the HVAC on the roof? Just kidding.

Too soon.

Where are they located?

They are by the accessory structure and over to the other side. It's definitely not visible from the road.

Okay. Beautiful design.

Thank you. Second that, I think it's a beautiful design and I definitely applaud you for adding a lot of features and really going with all of the sort of neighborhood compatibility, and I understand that there's significant cost to adding that, but it is an investment in the neighborhood, and I really think it's gonna be a beautiful home. Question for staff. The front door is technically on the side lot, or side elevation. Correct?

Yes, so the front door, which you can see in this image here, is on the north elevation, so that is on Fifth Court. As the corner lots develop, whether you have them on the side street or what feels like the more main road, in this case Third, we try to look at it with the architect as to what is the development pattern happening on that street because these lots here are vacant. You know, they had an option to do either, but the building fit better for them having the front door face north. You'll note in the staff report there's a limited access easement that's going to be put in place on the north side so that they actually are using third as the front. So it's on paper that way, but in the field the front door faces north, yes.

Gotcha. Okay.

yes yeah well there's the the door i think it goes into the dining room there's the yeah michelle could you please go to the 3d rendering um so in the development tac process we worked with the applicant to explore adding that porch and balcony the original design had it a little bit different but to add interest and give that feeling of the del lido park district Initially, those were windows there, but they were changed over to access doors so that they could come out of it. Is it a dining room or a dining room? But it's set back and really not intended to operate as the front porch. I think once the plants grow in and things like that, there shouldn't be confusion.

And there's not going to be a walkway.

There is no walkway. That is correct.

And then one last question. Staff recommended or gave a comment about the arched garage doors. Would the applicant, and ergo the developer and architect, be open to heeding staff's advice on a rectilinear garage door in that spot?

Yes, yes. So we did look at that. Obviously, that came into the report. It wasn't while Michelle and us, we were working together. This just came afterwards. So we would have been able to submit a rectilinear garage door, which we have printed. I don't know whether I may be able to pass this by. Could I... That's definitely acceptable. It definitely looks really good with the architecture as well. So we are definitely open to that.

Yeah, I think that design is much better.

I agree.

So for staff, that would be a condition?

Once it circles around, I'll take a peek at it.

If it went that way, then that would be a condition of approval? Yes. Okay.

It's good looking.

There was also a staff comment about some, I think, some blank facades that maybe could use some extra openings, especially in the front, which is the front of the house. You see that second story area. I think it could use some breakup in that area for more interest. Is that also something that can be considered?

So in the front, which to the right, That is pushed so far back as obviously you may be able to see so much better on the rendering, on the perspective, because we're trying to make that second floor very minimal. And so we're pushing that all the way back there. So it's not visible from the street. If we could go back to the rendering, if you don't mind, you would be able to see that there's another shot of the other angle. I'm not sure whether you could show that. But that's the intent and that's the reason that we're not really emphasizing any openings onto that wall.

Yeah, I'd like to see the other rendering.

I think there was the PowerPoint that we provided for you. Yeah, if you don't mind.

There was also, I think it's the, is it the south elevation? It looked also very, very plain. The next one, the next one down.

As you can see how far that wall tucks. And we're just trying not to emphasize anything there. We want that to sort of disappear. Yeah.

Okay, I agree with that. The other blank wall that looks like it's facing the neighbor's side to the south, right? Will that be visible from the street, like just a blank facade?

It will not be visible from the street, but we're definitely open to introducing some additional windows. I mean, that is a club room. It's not facing anything. I actually know that it's the master bedroom, but we could definitely introduce some windows. I don't see any problem with doing that. Again, I didn't think that it was that important just because it's not really facing the street, but we're definitely open.

Well, if I may, because you asked the question, while it's facing an interior lot line, it's facing a vacant lot. So until the other two lots come through for redevelopment, you will see it from third. Once the fence and landscaping and all that grows in, we typically don't make the case that landscaping should be used to obscure a blank wall, right? but it eventually will become an interior lot once the other lots are built out.

So then difficult to see.

Yeah, and here's the floor plan. So you can see the garage, right, is the piece that's more forward, closer to third. And then in the back is where we have this gym, office, accessory structure, almost pool house, where they have... bathroom and some other elements inside there the second floor you can also see on the south elevation which this is tucked way back in or way north on the top of the building so it's giving that articulation that you know it has siding on it it may not be as impactful but the garage and the accessory building is what you'll see at the ground level okay

Well, overall, I think it's a beautiful design. I think it fits the neighborhood well. It fits in the historic character. Those few items, I guess I'm not too concerned about the back unit once those other houses, which I believe there are plans for those other houses on the other units, other lots.

Is that a question? Sure. We've only had pre-application meetings at this point. We haven't had any submittals yet.

Mm-hmm.

That's it for me. Thank you.

Anybody else?

Yeah. I do want to say it's a beautiful design, and I'm happy to see something happen on those lots. I drive past them a lot. But, yeah, it's a great design. You guys are a talented firm, and I'm excited to see it be built. Thank you.

Ben, do you have anything?

I mean, I just think it's just a great example of new construction that fit nicely into that neighborhood.

All right. Does someone want to make a motion?

I'll make the motion.

Thank you, Chris.

Let me get there. I'll make the motion to approve Certificate of Appropriateness Request HP 95-2026 for 514 Northeast 3rd Avenue Del Lido Park Historic District by finding that the request and approval thereof is consistent with the comprehensive plan and meets the criteria set forth in the land development regulations.

Do we have a second?

Second.

Did we want to add in the garage?

Yes, that's right. I'll amend my motion to include the following conditions, that the garage design will be the rectilinear option.

OK. Just a second on the amendment. Second. Great.

Zach Pernaut?

yes richard casser yes benjamin baffer yes gregory pitts yes jake galeopolis yes chris cabezas yes peter dwyer yes thank you thank you uh the motion carries and we'll move on to the next item i will need to recuse myself Yeah, all right somebody can take the hot seat. Okay, so

OK, for the record, I'm Katharina Palavoda, senior historic preservation planner. I'd like to enter items HP-293-2026 and HP-298-2026 into the record. It's for 14 George Bridge Boulevard. It's items 9D and 9E.

Just for the record, there's two items here. They're going to do them at the same time, if that's okay with the board. But because of that, they'll have the 30-minute time limit, so they have the 15 from each. Hopefully, they'll go under, but you never know. But they have the 30. Okay.

And just to confirm, these are motioned separately? There'll be two motions. One presentation, two motions. Yeah, exactly.

And then, I don't know, did we say ex parte communications?

Does anyone have any ex parte communications to disclose?

No. No. No. Just the emails that we received.

I believe the owners are here. Kim Dwyer is here to present.

I'm going to go as fast as I can, and I apologize. I will go very slow during question and answer. I have to cover demolition and two COAs in 30 minutes.

If you could just state your name and address for the record, please, Ms. Dwyer.

Kim Dwyer, 109 Dixie Boulevard. And I'm here to discuss 14 George Bush. OK, here we go. OK. I met with most of you four weeks ago when you approved unanimously the 75-foot split of the lots, the waivers. And we went to city commission, and city commission also agreed, thank you for your recommendation, and they agreed and unanimously voted for the waivers as well. So those two things have been approved. We won't be talking about those today. But now we get to talk about the fun stuff and the not-so-fun stuff, which is the demolition of a contributing structure that's on this property. So... Our goal in this is to remove the void that we talked about and create two neighbors for this community. It's to reinforce and reflect the contributing styles of Del Ida Park. It's compatible and honestly differentiated building a 2026 sensitive appropriate infill homes that are resilient that meet the Florida building code for wind and elevation standards and again that create a community. So I want to tell you that this was not our first approach on this property. When we originally were approached to help with this and then we ended up buying it, the idea was, which I have done, helped other people before, was to divide the parcel and to save the original historic structure. There were some things that came up that changed course. This is the existing front elevation of the existing home. It sits, as we've discussed, back on the property. The garage is at 65 feet back. The front door is at 85 feet back. And the parcel is 120 deep. It's unreinforced concrete block and stucco. It's slab-on-grade construction from the 1940s. The finished floor elevation is below the crown of the road. I'll show you the topographical survey for that. The flat roof is actually two-by-six rafters. All the air conditioning equipment is literally on the roof, including the ductwork. The windows are mostly jalousy and needless to say there is no insulation in this house either. So sitting way back, it serves as a catchment for the road, all the water. It's anyway four feet from the very back of the property. And it disrupts the rhythm of the street. There is also, I will mention that there is no significant lack of ornamentation on this house and no character-defining features. I'll go over that more in a minute. So it's not within the rhythm of the street. It doesn't contribute to the streetscape. That's the AC on the roof. This is the west side of the house. This is the south side of the house. That is the wall to the neighbor's yard that you're seeing right beside it, four feet. This is the east side, and this is the interior. Pete Dwyer is six foot three on a good day, and you can see the doorway height on the inside of the house. That is in front of the garage. I do think a picture's worth a thousand words, which you may be used to by now, but I'm still going to use a lot of words. Okay, so the original structure, if we go back in history, was actually this. Staff was so great, they have dug and dug through history. and they found this, this was the original drawing. Now there's a reason that this was submitted because this was built and then they added a garage. So the original structure is about 1,240, that's just us estimating, off of the lines there and what they have now. And then we took that, and so this was added in 1948, so you have two separate structures now. You had two lots. Then this is what exists today. So I simply placed it over the top of the existing house, and we don't know where the blue part came from because it doesn't match what was on the drawings, but maybe they built something different than what they actually had drawn. But then there were three more additions made to this property. When the people moved out of the house, in June and it was cleaned out they found these plans and they gave them to us and so the plans show that this connector which is the one in the middle the kitchen which is the one on the left and the craft room were added on in 1971 very simple construction the drawings are two pages that's it so it's just slab on grade with walls that was attached to the house that's there so the reason that's important is because now there are five one two three four five structures at least that have been put together to make this one structure. And I want you to see from the top, you can actually see where the roof lines are and where it was connected. And when I do that, you can see it even more. And we can see it. Pete climbed a ladder to see it from the top. So then we had the topographical survey done, and we looked at it. And this was done, of course, because it was required by staff. And we found that the elevation of the house is actually 21.12, and the road is 21.16, 21.43, and there was another shot as well. The surveyer confirmed that these are indeed the heights and that it is, the crown of the road is higher than the structure. So as we looked at what we were going to do, and we actually had, we're working with Staft Architecture, and they did do an initial drawing of how we would try to divide the lot but save the portion of the structure. And Carlos astutely pointed out, you know, that you're going to hit the 50% rule. And now everything has to be brought up to code. And so then we started taking a look at what would have to be done in order to renovate and repair this existing structure and add on to it. And honestly, I'll go to this next slide and then come backwards. We talked to a bunch of historians and experts. And we ended up talking to Kathleen Kaufman, who has been on the National Register. She's the historic planner for Gainesville. She's worked in Miami. She's been all over. And she said, you know, This is a great candidate for demo and not a great candidate to be saved, quite frankly. So why demo? The finish floor is below the crown of the road, 50% rule is triggered, and in order to raise the structure, lifting and moving a concrete block, 1940s built home, on a slab already has very low odds of success. They've been lifted in this city, and they crumbled when they were lifted. But remember, this is five structures that were put together. They're not reinforced with rebar and designed to withstand being lifted. So then we looked at, what if we rebuild it? Well, your slab is 19 inches below where it needs to be, so you've got to take it out. You've got to remove the roof, raise the tie beam for all the doors and windows. And in the end, my People who I consulted said, what have you saved, Kim? What have you saved? A couple of blocks of concrete. So we also looked at it and said, well, gosh, is there any lore? Is there history in this house? Has somebody famous lived there? Why was it put four feet from the back? And we went and talked to Bill Bathurst and Linda Oxford. And if you know them, they're legends in this community. And they had no stories. And we called lots of peoples. And finally, I backed off after three months of searching and said, OK. I'll go the hard path, and I'm going to ask you to let us demolish the structure, and we're going to come up with two new designs. So now, I'm asking you to, and I think I've got the wrong LDR there, but anyway, I'm asking you to grant us demolition for LDR 4.5.1 F6. Because the structure is not of interest or quality that would reasonably fulfill the criteria. In fact, it was noted on the surveys that were done, three different ones, that it is not eligible for the National Register. It's not of the design craftsmanship that it can't be easily produced. It's obviously easily reproduced. It's not the last of its kind. And it does not promote the general value of a culture. Sorry. As I mentioned, we did ask, and there was no lore, no specific history. So We do have plans. I'm going to present those tonight. And we're going to design a structure that is safe and conforming for the people who live there. All right, moving on. What we're going to show you now is I'm asking for two certificate of appropriatenesses. We're going to go with lot one first, which is actually item E on the agenda. And then we're going to do lot two. So we're going to show you that a two-story home is appropriate, as you just approved one. There have been many, many, many two stories. I'll show you that. Del Ida Park is a mosaic of seven different styles. And I'm going to talk about the extreme stepbacks that have been used to dissipate, if you will, the massing at the street. These are the prominent styles and the period of significance. So importantly, in 2009, to document and recognize mid-century design and architecture across the country, Historic districts extended their periods of significance to 1965. That is when this house was incorporated. So in 2009, this house was marked and deemed... a contributing structure. It is classified as, in some of the surveys, as a mid-century contemporary. And then because of the additions, it's also noted that it could be a ranch vernacular. So if you look at the bottom. I want you to note that back in the 20s, there were a whole bunch of Mission and Mediterranean revivals. So 28 of the contributing homes are in the Spanish influence. Then in the middle, this minimal traditional frame vernacular, which is more the style that you just saw approved, there's about 29 of those. Then you have the contemporary and the ranch masonry vernacular, which in the contributing structures, which I went through the whole resource survey, those are typically the ones that look like the mid-century modern contemporaries because they are from the 50s. So contributing two stories. You would think that all of these were contributing, at least I did, and then staff corrected me. And it's actually, there's only three contributing two stories in the district. And staff challenged me on this, so that's how we ended up having this conversation. There are indeed over 20 two-story structures in the in this part of the district, and all of them are highlighted in blue. Only a couple of them are actually from the period of significance or are contributing, like I mentioned. Most of these are infills. So we looked back and we said, this is what we have for two-story structures, this is what they look like in the community, and we wanted to do something that was compatible and appropriate. This is the block directly behind us with two-story structures on it. And this is another structure that's literally, you know, stones throw away. This is a recent award winner, which was also done by Stauff, similar to the one that you just saw. It sits on the corner right here. And there are Single-story structures all around it. That's all I'm pointing out here is that this is a two-story with single-story structures around it. Same thing here. Now, this is important. And I know that every project stands on its own and that one is not a precedent for another. So I'm only using this to give you a perspective of what a house looks like from a 2D drawing to a 3D in the field. So the drawing at the bottom is their two-dimensional architectural drawing. And that is what it looks like from me taking the picture on the sidewalk. I'm not on my knees. I'm standing up and that's what it looks like. You can see the second floor stepped back. The reason this is important is I'm going to use this as a benchmark for what we're going to show you so that you can see what it will really look like in the field. Our new homes are set back to reestablish the consistency of the block rhythm, reinforcing rather than disrupting the street edge, and you will also see that we have 16 to 31 foot extra setbacks on the second floor. So we will reestablish the rhythm of the street as we talked about. We will create that wall of continuity that gives you a neighbor. You can see each other when you're taking out the garbage. You can wave. You're all right up there, and it feels safer. It feels natural when you're walking down the street to be walking past the front of your neighbor's house and not a big That is a picture of the lot on the right right now. That's Kristen Finn's house, who's here tonight. And then the next-door neighbor is a two-story that has been modified, so it's not considered contributing. So for lot one, again, here's your two-story Spanish, and here's the house we're proposing. It reads like a one-story from the street. The second floor is pushed way back. It is predominantly and consistently Spanish mission style throughout, so again, the architectural style is consistent. I wanted to show you that staff made some adjustments to the structure, and we accepted all of them and agreed that they were great additions. They asked us to change the little hole up there at the top, You can see the arbor over the garage, the windows, all of those modifications were made and the project looks better. So thank you for them. They also asked for the arbor to be extended over the garage and all the wood to match, which we also did. They also asked for windows to be added on the side, which we again did. It looks great. And nothing in the back except making the wood match. And then on the left side also adding iron in that opening instead of what was there to have it feel more mission. So we did all of that. The proposed height of the building does meet the building height plane. And I wanted to show you again the drawing of the, again, perspective at the bottom and the top. The top of the roof for us is actually the parapets at 24 feet. Their top of roof is 26.3. Our top of first floor parapet's at 12. Theirs is at 13. So I'm just showing you that this house is going to meet and be an award winner in the community that really is lovely. It's gorgeous. The second floor setback is 46.6 at the closest point. Then there's an additional 10 and another additional 15 from that for the other two parts. And I'll show you that. This is, you know, you're walking down the street and what do you see? And if you look... On the right, which I don't think the little circle, there it is. This is Anne's house. She lives to the right. That is the side of her house. You walk down the street, steps back to the front door. Right here is the front. And then you step back even further to the second floor and further again to the next part of the second floor. So to the person walking down the street, this is going to read as a primarily one-story structure with big setbacks for the garage and a little step back for the office on the front. So the proposed residence meets all the criterion. We aren't asking for any setbacks or waivers. This is a comparison of the house from a front facade proportion perspective to other neighbors in the district, as well as next door. So I want to show you that the house directly below the proposal, that is the house Kristen lives in, two doors down from where this one will be. And she's on a 100-foot lot. Massing is similar in the width. And then that's Ames Architecture up at the top. It's actually on Dixie Boulevard. The next one, the white one, is actually directly behind and touches the property on the back corner. And this one on the very bottom touches the west side of the property. The proportion of the openings to solids and voids and the porches, again, picture's worth a thousand words. You can see it feels natural. It feels very natural. Then the material color and the textures. Again, I'm going to ask you for bronze windows. And staff's going to say, as it is their job, that white was the original color. And I'm going to ask you for bronze and say that it's been used and it's a 2026 infill and it's a differentiated color. So we'd ask for that. Okay, the scale. The pink is what's required. The white is what we're giving you. That's the first floor. And the second floor, you can see how far we're stepped back. Very, very far. please approve the COA for House 1, Lot 1. That is Item E on your agenda. And the request for demolition. Each one, you have to approve the demolition twice. This is a COA for House 2. Now, this is going to be fun, and I had a timer, but I didn't set it, so I don't know exactly where I am.

Fourteen minutes.

Oh, perfect.

Fourteen minutes left.

Okay, yes, that's what I mean. That's great. I can do this. Okay, we are going to repeat and reintroduce mid-century modern. This is the first time this has come in front of a board, so this is a little tougher for you because it's not what everybody else has been proposing. I'm going to show you that. I'm going to try to make it easier for you. I didn't pick this because I'm in love with mid-century modern. I picked it because the existing home on this property is a mid-century style. So I'm asking to remove an existing historic home. I thought I should at least put it back in the style that it came from. So that is why we are going with this style. You can see minimal traditional is less than a third, and then what is all the infill? All the infill is this style. Only three homes have been anything but this style, and those were missions. And so we just and honestly, our neighbors came to us, too, and said, please don't do another vernacular. Please don't just do something different. Do something that fits in the community a different way. So, again, didn't take the easy path. Might have done that differently, just like the guy with the windows. Now, 24 of the homes are contemporary. There is one. two-story contemporary structure in the district. And this is it. And it obviously has a lot of windows. It is not contributing. It was not built in 1950. It actually was built in 1972. That's an error in my slide. And it has been proposed to be contributing. These are the guidelines. We followed them. Building material, you can see that they asked for one or two stories. They asked for ribbon corner windows in metal or casement, continuous bands of windows that create a horizontal emphasis. So this is the guidelines that we used with staff as we set out to design this home. Now this is the fun part. Okay, these are a bunch of the contemporary homes in Del Ida Park. Some of these you're not even gonna know are there, but you're gonna now drive by and you're gonna see them. So I even have the years on there and you can see some of the different streets. Now, this is an example of the shed roofs or the slant roofs that you see a lot on Fifth Street, also on Seventh Street. And I'll also point out, if you notice the pipe columns on the right-hand side over there, that's on almost every home on Fifth Street on the west side. This is the slant roofs. These roofs tilt just a little bit, and some of them tilt both ways, like on the one on Dixie Boulevard. And then you could also see from here some of the eyebrows, like you see the eyebrow above the Fifth Street door. And then over here, you've got the outriggers and the stepped roofs. It's Tim here. I thought Tim was coming. Anyway, Tim owns this house on Dixie Boulevard, such a cute house. And that little one down at the bottom on Fifth Street, very, very cute. This is the house that we're proposing on George Bush. So now I'm going to show you how we came up with all the elements. The proposed home is consistently in the mid-century quote contemporary out of the guidelines style for all of the different elements. The shed roof comes from Fifth Street. The outriggers, the pipe columns, you can see those on the right-hand side. We incorporated as many of the elements as the design would allow. The eyebrows, the cantilevered sections, the breeze block, that is in the guidelines and in Heisenbottle's write-up about Delray Beach and this period. So we incorporated the breeze block also to give you some relief from the large windows that are in the front. This is Dixie Boulevard, Tim's house, 240 North Dixie, so cute. Here's another one with a house on Second Street. You can see the bands of windows there, bands of windows on this house on Fifth Court and Second Avenue. And these are the changes that staff requested. They felt that this style was a little too modern, industrial. And they asked us to make all of the eyebrows and cantilevers thinner. And so we went through... And the staff team reduced the massing of all of those. And they took out, if you notice, this one over the garage. There's a piece that was coming out, sticking out right there. We got rid of that altogether. So to slim it down and make it feel a little more like the homes in the district. Compatible but differentiated. This is the left side of the house. This is the back of the house. This is the right side of the house. And then we're going to talk about the height. And I'll go through this quickly. that we meet all the building height planes. Again, I'll compare it to the other structure. It's shorter. It's actually only 25.7. And then the average is 23 because of the shed roof. The first floor is only at 12 versus 13 on that other house that I showed you. Second floor, again, is set back. to 46 and 5 16ths. The front facade, this has a stepped massing strategy, so does the other house, very similar to the mission houses that are three houses down. All of them use that stepped massing strategy. We have the wing walls and the main corridor. Again, walking the dog down the street, you can see Kristen Finn's house on the left. Her house actually comes out to 20 feet in the front. And you can see the first blue line is what you'll see of hers. Then the first orange line is what you'll see of this house. And the second one is, like I said, step back 46, almost 47 feet, and then further and further. Also, I'll show you how to have the setback on the left side too. So this is comparing the front facade just like we did before, same houses and this one. And then we're going to talk about the proportion of the openings, solids and voids, and the porches. Again, introducing, you can see how it fits in, how it blends with the homes in the community. I even, I'm not going to dodge that there are these little mission houses next door. So I even showed that because you can see the proportion of openings to solids on Kristen's house reading left to right. There's actually a lot of openings there. And so this is different because it is a contemporary mid-century modern home, which again is going with the style that was there before. But it does It is compatible with what is in the district and what is on the streets. So this is Second Avenue. This was built in 1953. This is Royal Court proposed, built in 1972. And then finally, the materials. We are using smooth stucco. We are using breeze block. We are using white overhangs, accents. And then there's some pops of color, which is similar to a lot of the contemporary homes in the district. These are the elements. I actually gave this to Carlos. and Randy and said, incorporate these into our design, please, wherever we can so that it's compatible with the district. These are the colors on some of the homes. You can see the bronze. You can see the blue and the really cute dog there, too. And then the roof shape. Roof shape's the layup because they're all flat roofs. We did that on purpose because we didn't want to overwhelm the little houses next door so that they feel the same. So that's why we went with the flat roof and chose designs that would actually have flat roofs. The scale, again, this is what's required, and this is the second floor of what's required, and you can see how far it steps back. I also want to note that the sides, you can see there's initial side setback. That's on both houses as well. That's also required based on the size of the lot. Okay, and then this is really my last, almost my last slide, I promise. And this is important because the house I showed you that's the award winner that I kept using to compare is actually the house on the top. And you can see the little, whatever that's called, that style, I call it art moderne. Anyway, you can see that on the left side and you can see that it doesn't overwhelm it and in fact how far it feels stepped back. The house at the bottom left is actually the award winner that's on 6th and Swinton. It uses a stepped massing strategy as well and you can see the little house next door. And then you can see on the bottom right, I mean over to the right, that house was built before we started doing the step to step back strategy. That actually touches our property in the back and looks over the back pool. But it still doesn't overwhelm the Little Historic House because the Little Historic Houses sit forward farther on the street. But regardless, that's some examples, and I'm just showing you that we are going to fit in and be differentiated but compatible. And I would ask for your approval. And I appreciate your time, and I promise to go slower on any questions. Thank you to staff for all of your work, hard work with us.

Okay, so this is a certificate of appropriateness and demolition for two applications, both for 14 George Bush Boulevard. So the subject, .41 acre property is located on the south side of George Bush Boulevard. It contains lots 20 to 22, block one of the Del Ida Park plot. The property is zoned R1 AA and is situated within the Del Ida Park Historic District. The lot currently contains a 1948 contributing single family ranch architecture style residence. So Ms. Dwyer did mention that August, last month, the board did review two waivers that were recommended to city commission in order to split the slot. So here we can see. Let's see if I can have it there. I'll keep this one on. This is additionally the three lots. This is lots 20 through 22. The request was to split the lots into two separate, I think, 75-foot lots and then build the two single-family homes. But it also required the demolition of the existing blocks. single family residents. The waivers were approved by city commission on the 18th of September. So now we go forward with the two certificate of appropriateness and the demolition request. Okay, so I'm just gonna briefly go through a few images. I know Mr. Weyer also had a few of these. So this is the north front elevation. So here you can see a little bit of the elements for the front to the front door, jealousy style windows. This is the area to the northeast. Okay, this is also north elevation where you can see the existing garage. This is the east elevation existing sides on the west. Southeast elevation. This is the south. You can see the southwest elevation with the pool. So this is the existing survey. So here you can see the three existing lots and the existing single family residence. These also show the original home, the garage, and the 51 and 69 additions. Here's an existing site plan of the contributing structure to be demolished. With that pool and any hardscaping will also be removed from the property. So this is the demo plan. And then here are the existing elevations. So you can see the front and the east side of the existing ranch. And here is the rear and the west side. Okay, so I'm gonna go over the east parcel first. This is the site plan overlay showing both proposed residences. So we're gonna just go over the east one first and then go into the west. So this is the proposed east parcel. You can see that they've reconfigured the driveway, added a new pool, and they're proposing a two-story contemporary style residence. This is the proposed first floor. And as Mrs. Dwyer did mention, the second floor is stepped back, so it does meet specific height requirements as well as the building height plan requirements. Okay, here's just showing the first and the second floor, just so you can differentiate the two from the roof plan. I'm including the elevations again. Okay, so this is the proposed front, the proposed east. There's the rear and the west side. Okay, these are the proposed materials. I will note later with materials, the roof, it is standing seam, which is appropriate for the historic district, but they are requesting the slate blue, which normally if the roof was in a mill finish, it's common in historic districts and that's something that's admin-approvable or would go straight to permit, but because it's in a specific color, we just wanted to make sure to note that the board does need to approve the proposed color for the roof. Okay, I'm just going to show some color elevations. This is the rendering. This is the rendering to the rear. This is south elevation. Okay, now we're going to the west parcel. So here we can see it's a proposed mission style, two story residence. Also reconfigured circular driveway, pool in the rear as well. This is the proposed first floor. The second floor is also step back. This is the first and second floor. There's some elevations. Okay, and these are the proposed colors and materials. For the most part, I believe for this one minus the bronze windows, staff had no concerns with regard to any type of materials or styles that went into the proposed mission style. So here's some color elevations. Okay, the rendering. OK, so these are the Secretary of the Interior guidelines. As the contributing structure is being proposed for demolition, for that specific structure, we wouldn't apply the Secretary of Interiors because the request is for demolition. However, there are concerns. It's noted that the building would require the finished floor to be raised. Mrs. Weier did mention that. If they were to come in and possibly rehabilitate the structure, raising the CBS structure would require an interior raise, which would mean they would have to take the trusses off and the roof. And when we're doing that with historic structure, that immediately results in a demolition request anyways. So if they were to come in and rehabilitate the structure, that would have been the demolition route they would go to. If not, they're going this route. But the way staff analyzes requests and the work that is being proposed for the site, especially to come into compliance, Either way, they would more than likely be before you with one or the other version of demolition so the board's gonna need to make a determination whether or not This request for demolition is appropriate for the district These are the visual compatibility standards this is reviewed for both parcels and So going into the East Purcell for the contemporary style, there are specifically concerns, not specifically with the architectural style, but with the height. As Mrs. Dwyer did go through all of the different structures within the district, as well as we did when we were doing our review, as well as the history of contemporary styles within the Delray Beach, there are no second story. There are no two-story contemporary styles. So we did have concern with that. Our contemporary style structures, specifically within Delida, are usually one scale, or small scale, and they're usually one story. We did have concern because of the small scale that the board's going to determine whether or not, and let's see, I can go to... Looking at the streetscape, you can see massing-wise, we did have concern looking at the historic streetscape, not specifically the two-story new infills that have come into the district, but specifically the smaller scale, even two-story structures within the district. The proposal had a larger massing.

OK, we'll go back.

Okay, with regard to colors and materials, we did mention that they were requesting broad-frames windows. There is concern with that. It is more of a modern style within the district, just so within... It's our hopes that when a new infill comes in within the 50 years that it's constructed, that it is constructed appropriately with correct materials, correct color materials, so that it too could be a contributor one day. So the bronze gives off more of a modern style look and is not considered appropriate for the historic streetscape. OK. I did mention the roof earlier. The roof is proposed to be slate blue. So the board's going to need to decide on whether or not the roof color is appropriate for the district. As I previously mentioned, there is concerns with massing. Okay, and then this is the streetscape rendering again. So here we can see the contributing residents, one story, and then the proposed, we're looking at specifically for the east parcel on this one, but concerns with massing for the larger side of the two-story within the historic streetscape was an issue. Okay, going into the west parcel. This one, we also had issues with regard to massing. Here's a visual of the streetscape. And then for the most part, I believe the mission material-wise, we did work with the applicants a lot on this. They did originally propose another contemporary style. And per our comments, they did go with something a little bit more common within the historic district. And mission two-story structures are very common. So we didn't have an issue with the style. So for demolition, we did note, and I think I previously put this in the report, that they would have to raise the structure if they were to demolish it. There is a note when you're looking at the the plain environment of the historic streetscape There are other structures that are historic within the streetscape. We did note 125 Dixie Boulevard That are further back on the lot and it kind of goes with the historic pattern of the district so our concern is the removal of a structure that steps so far back on site would somehow destroy the historic pattern of the street as everything is coming up and conforming and becoming more cookie cutter. These are screenshots for the Secretary of the Interior guidelines. And this specifically discusses the not recommended approach for removing a historic structure. These are also noted in the staff report. So these guidelines are in place to protect the historic structures. We do also know in our Always Delray Comprehensive Plan, see here we notice one of our goals is to increase the number of historic resources. So this request needs to be considered seriously. The demolition of a contributing resource is a very, very serious matter when it comes to historic preservation specifically into our code. These are our certificate of appropriate findings. And that concludes my presentation.

All right. Do we have any public comments? Public comments. Or do you have, no, public comments first, then rebuttal. Public comments.

Hi, I'm Rhonda Sexton. I live at 2439 Southwest 35th Avenue.

And were you sworn in?

Yes, I was.

Okay.

I was here at the beginning. Okay, very good.

Got to check.

So some of you may know me. I have actually served on this board off and on for 26 years. I'm not currently serving, obviously. But a couple of things that I wanted to point out that I felt were important for you to keep in mind. In 26 years of being on and off this board, I don't think I've ever seen a property come in that had less historic significance. Is it in the historic district? Yes. Was the shed-style building put in in the 40s? Yes. But it doesn't have any architectural features. It was, you know, back in the 40s. I did a house over on Southwest First Avenue, and they didn't even have materials to work with because it was after World War II. We had a roof that was two layers of drywall with tile on top. So there are a lot of things that were built in that era that are not really deemed... as significant to a normal builder or somebody looking at the structure. And I think Kim did a good job of pointing out some of the other problems that they were running across. So I would highly recommend this be allowed to be demolished, whether you have to look at the other structures. The other thing I need to point out to you is they have asked for no waivers on this. They've gone through the city commission. They've gone through you all as far as dividing the lot. and there are no waivers on the size of the scale of this property. And we just saw one that came through and breezed through this board just a few minutes ago that was much more grand. I love that they're representing two of the significant periods. This Del Aida area has two periods of significance. And if you're new to the board, that may not have come into play before. So the first period of significance was back in the 20s. That's why you see so many mission styles. And then Delray took a downturn financially, the city itself. And it wasn't until the 50s, when the soldiers came back from war, and they had the GI Bill, and they could get mortgages, that they started building again in Delray Beach. And that's why you see this mid-century modern, these simple-styled homes with the sloped roofs, no embellishments, and I think that they've done a good job of presenting both the Mission Spanish style and the mid-century modern style for this neighborhood, and I hope that you'll approve them. Thank you.

Thank you.

Steve Palutniak. I live at 25 George Bush. That's across the street from this whole historic district, so I'm not historic.

You were sworn in?

Yeah, I was here, too, at the very beginning. I'll try to do this very quickly because, you know what, my hair was going back when There she is right there when Kim was talking. You know, when the board approved the split to two lots, and the commission unanimously approved it, there was some semblance of belief that there would be something really good put on these two lots. This property is a jigsaw property. That's what I call it. When we moved in in a non-historic district 11 years ago, We felt that was the, what do they call it, the scary house on the block. I mean, that was just a mess. I mean, just look at the way the staff presented it. It's the same way. It's a jigsaw piece. It's just three, four pieces. That's why it should be demoed. And then having to do with the two-story homes, they're magnificent. They're absolutely beautiful. And just like the prior lady said... This massive 5,000 square foot house that you guys just approved? I looked at that and I said, what the hell? How is it that you're approving something that big? That actually was magnificent. And there's even a thought that these two homes would not be approved. That's it.

Thank you.

Hi, Kristen Finn, 102 George Bush Boulevard. First want to say congratulations to Zach and Gregory. I served on the Historic Preservation Board for three years. Ben was chair during some of my tenure here. Yes, I live at 102, which is directly east of this property. My husband and I have lived there for 22 years. We love our little 1925 Spanish Mission, but I just wanted to come up here and emphasize how excited we are about the prospect. of having two new homes on our street that actually I feel like align more with our street. The current house in its condition sits so far back. I literally, I have long arms, but I can stretch my arms out and touch the house and the fence at the rear, one section. And it just, it feels out of place for the street. I want to emphasize, too, that the Dwyers have been so mindful of all the LDRs. They live in the Historic District. They live on Dixie Boulevard. They've been our neighbors. We have a very tight Del Ida Park neighborhood. And they worked diligently with their architect and with staff. Again, I want to emphasize what Rhonda was saying. They're not asking for any waivers, any variances. As most of the board will know, that's rare, even for new construction. We are very much in favor of the home styles that they're proposing. We feel it will complete our neighborhood and make more sense on the street than the current home. I know the current home was pieced together over the years, and I feel like the only contributing, the only reason it is considered a contributing structure is the age. It's 50 years old. And I'm asking for your approval of these COAs in the demo tonight. Thank you.

Thank you.

If there's anybody else that needs to be sworn in that hasn't been sworn in, you could just stand up and raise your right hand and get sworn in as well.

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

I do. I'm Scott Cohen. I'm at 17 George Bush. I'll be pretty short. Everything's been said about the house across the street is just a mess. I'll be very glad to see it go. You know, I like the idea of the new house. I've seen, you know, I walk my dog all through Lake Ida every day, and I think, you know, the houses that are going up there are as good as they're going to get. So that's all I have to say.

Thank you. Good evening. Shirley Spader. I was sworn in, and tonight has been quite an education. I appreciate that, especially from my new neighbors.

You could just state your address for the record, please.

801 North Swinton Avenue in Delray.

Thank you very much.

This is good taste, and I'm really excited to see these homes being built and occupy a space that is currently an eyesore and I believe poses danger and I say danger to the neighborhood as is so I am in full support of demolition of this property it it by all appearances offers no character and that's a stretch I'm very pleased and excited about the prospect. My full support, again, for the full demolition and the building of these two properties. Thank you.

Thank you.

George Long, 46 North Swinton. Well, when I look at that from a subjective point of view, I think, well, there's nothing here to save people. That's correct. Technical point of view, same thing. You can't do anything to that house. Easy enough. Now, as for the proposed residence, these buildings just have a big sense of belonging when you look at them. A Spanish mission in this mid-century house. This looks absolutely perfect. And it's not too far from where we've got people putting up what I call the Lake Ida Coastal Defense Buildings with the huge squares moving out right to the street. This is perfect.

Thank you. Anyone else for public comment? All right, we will close public comment. And any rebuttal from the applicant or staff?

OK, the only rebuttal, there's two things. One is that the comment was made that there are no two-story contemporary. In historic Jaleida, there are no two-story contributing contemporary in historic Del Lido. That's true. There is one non-contributing two-story structure in Del Lido. However, there also are no two-story minimal traditional or vernacular contributing structures in Del Lido. So some board somewhere way back when made the decision to allow in 1975 the minimal traditional that's on the corner, the white one. I know Michelle knows the name of that one. And someone allowed the 1972, well, that was before this was deemed a historic district. So those were built before then. So those two were built before this was deemed a historic district, but they're not considered contributing. So that's the point there. Which one is that? The white one that is like a rental apartment on the corner of Northeast of Fifth Street and Second Avenue, that white one. I consider that minimal traditional. You know that one. And then the two-story. But they're both from the 70s, but they're not contributing But if you look at history, for some reason, everything that's been built is the minimal traditional. The only other thing I want to talk about is you talked about 125 North Dixie. 125 North Dixie, we divided that lot, so I know that structure well. Our best friends built the house next door, and they live next door to me now. It's a frame house. It could have been lifted. It wasn't below the finished, the crown of the road. It had a story. Boy, does it have a story. So obviously I took that into consideration because it can be done where you build something cool with a rear set home. This just wasn't that case.

Thank you, Kim. So I have a few items, and I'll try to be swift with them. So we did misstate that there are no two-story contributors in the district or however it was set. The way it should be said is that there are no two-story contemporary or mid-century modern residential structures in the district that are contributing. There is one that was shown on the drawings for 250 Royal Court, which was I think Toth's office architect, he built that for himself. So we don't have a lot of comparison to make. The other thing is the slide, and if you could exit and bring up, just so we're all clear, there was a comparison slide being made to the Jeff Wooster property. Could you go back to the file folder? I just want to go exit out. Yeah, thank you. Sorry. No, I need to go to the file folder in our city presentation. Let me see. So anyway, the Worcester example, the drawing that was included in the applicant's presentation was an earlier iteration of that house on Fifth. And what, you know, they did come to the board three different times to alter the bulk and massing of that structure. So the overall height of that building is 22 foot tall, which is to the median of the building height. And this isn't going to load. But ultimately that building sets in on the sides. It's not built all the way down. to the first floor sidewalls. So that isn't a fair comparison exactly, and I just wanted to be sure that we were comparing apples to apples here. The bronze windows, yes, those have been approved by the board on a case-by-case basis for other structures. The predominant window material and color is aluminum and white when we're doing replacement or new construction. Proportion of openings that was made in comparison to the mission style to the east is The proportion of openings on this building are much broader than what is on the mission to the to the east So I just want to make sure that we're clear and how we're comparing the architectural elevations of these two buildings From the member of the public miss Sexton all due respect She did say, you know in post-war soldiers were coming back and we had new homes being built in the mid-century and what was happening at that time was the country was in a period of recovery post-war but also post-depression and so we typically did see architecture that was very simplified not a lot of architectural detail that is a style or characteristic of the mid-century style structures and And I'm glad that the applicant showed the examples on 5th because those are all our one-story structures. I'm not going to be able to pull this up in time to keep this on track because we got a lot of items tonight. One second, please, if you don't mind. Oh, saying that a structure doesn't have architectural detail or character is not one of the standards listed for demolition. If you read in your staff report, there's very specific standards. We have lots of structures in our historic districts that are very plain and simple, but they are a collection and represent a period of architecture that is important in our country's history. That example is on Banker's Row, where you have grandeur on the west with the 20s mission in Spanish style. And then you have the simplicity of the cottage vernacular style on the east side of the road. That is historic preservation. Not all buildings and structures are the most beautiful, but they do represent a period of time. As far as the period of significance goes with historic districts, every so many years we restudy and look, are there buildings that could now be considered historic? And we start with a 50-year threshold. which is why the period of significance range sometimes extends. Just like we communicated to the architect in the previous project, the new construction, the hope is in 50 years from now, it will become a contributor. So that is a continuum that is ever-changing. I think that's the main points I wanted to make in rebuttal. Thank you.

Okay. Well now we'll go on to board discussion. Do you want to lead it off?

Sure.

I think the applicant, Kim, did a great presentation. Very, very persuasive. Very well done. And I also appreciate the The neighborhood coming to support the project, I think that's great when people from this historic neighborhood come to voice their opinion. So I appreciate that. I have no issue with the demolition of the property. I do think it doesn't really have any character worth redeeming. Learning more of the history of how it's just a piecemeal of different properties. It's set so far back. If you raise it, It might demolish it anyway. So I have no issue with that. For the two proposed properties, the Spanish Mission style I think looks beautiful. That fits the street. There's other Spanish Mission designs and styles on that street. I do think a variety is also nice. I do love the mid-century modern. I think it fits historic neighborhoods. guess my only concern the only item i keep looking back because i keep going back to the to the elevation and the rendering of the the mid-century modern and one of the staff's comments about how usually those are one-story buildings and this is a two-story kind of elongated um it The architecture, the design feels a little busy to me visually. I see there are these poles or these columns next to the garage that seem a little odd. Overall, it's nice. Overall, I do like introducing this style to the street. But there is something about it that I can't quite put my finger on. I'd love to hear the architect's and Jake's point on that or opinion. But overall, I... I'm mostly in support. I just have this one concern about the style of the mid-century modern one.

Yes, I'll go next. I do agree with what he said about the demolition. Typically, I would try and I wouldn't support it, and I would suggest taking at least the original part and saving that while also subdividing it. But this is a different case for this lot. And I was born and raised in Lake Ida, so it was kind of the scary house. I didn't go there on Halloween. But all jokes aside, I do think this would be a great fit. And going to what Chris said about the... mid-century, modern one. It is a lot going on. I know you mentioned you're throwing in the columns in different styles from different houses. I don't think it's too much going on, but it is a lot. And maybe it's the teal getting thrown in there too. It gives it a different sense of what it could be going for. Actually, the thing that stood out to me was the slate blue roof. I'm not huge on that, but it's also not a deal breaker. All that being said, these are great proposals for what's currently on the site.

I will add, I'm OK with the bronze on the Spanish mission. I do think the white frames would work better on the mid-century modern. That is my opinion. And I probably would like to see that change to white.

I think the frames are white on the mid-century modern. Or are they? No, they're bronze. They're bronze on both, I believe.

Mr. Baffert, do you have any comments?

Yeah. I mean, I think we're all feeling about the demolition. We hate to lose a contributing structure in a historic district. But I feel like we're sacrificing one for two future contributors. I mean, it just makes sense. I really love both of these homes. I got to applaud the applicants for just having the guts to go with the all-out mid-century modern new construction. They asked, this is going to be the coolest house in the city. And I'm really OK with some of the non-traditional features of both of these, whether it's the bronze windows or the slate blue roof. We don't necessarily want to build pure replicas. We're not Celebration Florida. We're not Disney. We want to build a 2026 take that pays homage to the traditional historic homes in the area and that blends in well with it. I think that these are both just really perfect examples of that.

DAVID BURRAGE. Mr. Pitts.

On the Spanish project, what is the height of that fence on the wall on the right? What's the overall height if you had to profess? And, Michelle, what is the height in the historic district for a new fence, a new wall on the front?

So a fence or wall that falls within the front yard setback has a max height of four feet. So you couldn't have a fence that goes down the side and across the front more than four feet in the front yard setback.

That, to me, just looked a little taller than four. I don't know why.

It falls outside of the front yard setback. If you're outside of the front yard setback, you can have up to eight feet, actually. Okay. Yeah.

Okay. Well, I mean, I love the Mission Project. I think that is a beautiful aesthetic, very in keeping with the community.

Actually, you're right. I'm wrong. My apologies. Okay. It is in front of the outside of the front setback. Am I reading that correctly, Carlos?

That is correct. Carlos Linares, Stoft Architecture. So I believe it is either a five or six foot high wall. It could definitely be reduced down to four if that is what is required.

Good catch, Mr. Pitts. That wall does need to come down to four feet. At least where it's outside of the front, inside the front setback.

I guess my other question, what is happening over the two windows to the left of the front door? What's that detail above the window?

that is uh painted tile arches that is that is something that uh staff had also um requested for us to take a look at it was more in line with this style home so it's just adding us some detail to the windows that is what we requested not specifically the tile we had originally in the

Previous iteration, the windows were squared, and there was a hole. I think the applicant showed it in their presentation. There was a hole at the top of the arch, and there was a lot of space between. And we asked if they could look at the proportion of that space. And they said, would you be OK with tile? And sure, let's see it. And so this is the iteration that we saw. We didn't specifically say, do tile arches.

Have you shown a detail of the tile, the color? Is there a detail in this presentation?

I don't think that we have specified the specific tile, no. But it's going to be a hand-painted tile that is going to be well in line with this style home. Okay.

I feel like we may have it on the color of material form. I agree. Right? Yeah. Oh, here. No. But we did talk, Michelle, about the fact that it could be something similar.

Sorry, if you're going to speak, you might have got to come up to the lectern, please.

Michelle, we did talk about the fact that it would be something similar, but that we would put this on the... You showed tile. I remember it, too.

I do. Not in this presentation? No, it's outside. So it's in the backup that's attached to your staff report. OK. Is there a concern that you have that you'd like to discuss? No, I'm just wondering.

I think it's a nice detail. I just was wondering if it had been presented and evaluated.

Yeah, we have looked at some ideas, but it wasn't finalized.

OK. And would we incorporate that within the, let's see, if we did approve, it would be subject to review by staff?

Yeah, I think there's some design flexibility allowed. Their color palette that they're using is this green or teal color. So I think allowing some flexibility for creativity.

It's a great detail. It really is. Going to the contemporary project on the east parcel, I had a question. I was wondering if the roof was changed Did I see somewhere that it could be silver or blue or specified as blue but was silver?

It is specified as a slate blue. It's just a name. It's not necessarily blue. It's just a dark, almost like a charcoal gray roof. We're definitely open to suggestions. We're definitely not married to that. It just gives it a beautiful contrast. That is why we typically go with a darker roof, but we're definitely open to that. I mean, I don't think that it's really going to be visible from the street anyhow. You may be able to get a little hint of On a 2D elevation, as you can see, that's the only elevation that you're able to really see it. So it doesn't really stand out, but we're definitely open.

On this elevation, how big is that? How wide is that door? Am I reading that correctly? There's a window and a door there on the...

At the bottom floor?

Yeah, on the bottom floor.

So the windows are probably a little large. They're probably four feet or maybe even five feet to where the door is only to weight to 36 inches.

Okay. I mean, it's not going to be seen from the street anyway. Correct. So not a big deal.

Then that falls in line with the proportion of openings.

And then I think my final question was, what is the material of the screening in the front of the house? Is that aluminum, stucco?

That is CMEO breeze block.

Okay.

Painted.

Okay, looks really nice. Is that custom or is that available off the shelf?

They are available off the shelf. There are many different companies that are making them. They're super popular now. Obviously, this is a little bit more of a tropical wave type of pattern. typically you don't see these type of patterns but there's many options there but we just thought that it fit really good with del Rey ocean you know so that's how we related this pattern

Oh, I see. Is that the actual breeze block that's going to go in? Like that exact one?

Yes, yes. We could provide the manufacturer if you guys need to. Absolutely.

So, yeah, so definitely feel the same sentiment about demoing a property in Delray. You know, at the same time, I think you made... very compelling argument uh for why to demo it uh especially it being cbs and lifting it being pretty hard and then the 50 rule and everything you you added in um also uh really uh when i first looked at this over the weekend i was thinking wow these these are big homes for the lot um but after you know your presentation and talking about how there wasn't any real variance asked for or that you fit within the setbacks. So I think you've made a compelling argument with that. And then I do... This has really grown on me the more I look at it. So I think the mid-century modern contemporary, there's not a lot of it around. Like you said, this is kind of like almost like a new take on something that's old. And I think it's kind of maybe it might be something that might be a trendsetter in the community. So yeah, it's a very cool home. And then yeah, the mission style home Yeah, I don't really have much to say about that one, but that's my two cents.

Thank you. So I have one question or a couple comments. Again, I think we've spoken about the original structure. It doesn't have any historic significance, so I'm for the demolition. The mission-style home, I think, is beautiful. I think it fits within the neighborhood. I do agree with staff about the mid-century modern, that this would be largely the first of its kind. And if you could go to... It's slide 123, but I think there's a better one that shows the east facade. So this one here... It does call attention to... Actually, if you could go to 119, I think. There we go. Perfect. I think that pitched roof really draws attention to the fact that this is a two-story home. And it's a really cool architectural feature. But I think in keeping with staff's comments about the lack of mid-century modern two-story homes and that they are typically... one-story homes because that's what was built in the 50s as budgets and styles and lot sizes and development necessitated i know we're not trying to design from the dais up here but would it be possible to maybe even that out or would that be something that could be considered or is that a really prominent feature of the plants that that pitch up um

Actually, I think that this is one of the more attractive features of this style. I mean, as you can see, any reference that Kim brought up had that slanted roof. And this is almost the feature that makes it that style. So, I mean, we could definitely look into that. I don't think that it's going to read well, or as well as what we're presenting today. But we're definitely open to looking at options, but I still feel that this is going to be a better design.

Okay. Yeah, I mean, the pitch roof is a tenant of mid-century design, and you have, at least in the front facade, no other pitches. Right. That's the only pitch. So calling that the big reference to mid-century, I think, is just my professional opinion. As a real estate developer, I think who really loves mid-century architecture and I think is... Not completely accurate. Again, I won't disqualify anything from it. It reads a little more California Lodge to me with the one pitch up. Kind of looks a little like a Brady Bunch house with that one pitch up. But again, I won't disqualify it. Other than that, I think the massing is fine. I think it really fits within the neighborhood. I don't see anywhere where that would stand out. And I really do applaud you both as the property owner developer and the architect for... Really taking your time to study the various homes in the neighborhood, find specific examples, and come forward with a plan and plans that really are complementary to the area. And I think, as a couple other people have said, that in... If we're looking for homes that in 50 years are going to be deemed historic and deemed contributing, I think these two really will be that way. Also, I know that staff had mentioned the size of the homes and kind of the massing. You know, these are new homes that are being built and people looking at new homes have certain needs and certain wants. So you have to, you know, you kind of can't get that in a one story. You have to go up to add that in a lot of times. And I think this is a prime example of where the two story works for both the design and the needs of modern home buyers and today's home buyers. So I'm in full support of everything as proposed.

Could we go to the one rendering that has the angle looking from the garage side and just where the angle where you're sitting in the driveway looking in the front? Not this one. Not this one. The angled one where we're to the right.

I think we need to go to the applicant's presentation. So just give me one second.

looking at it on my screen here there's one portion of that front facade that has the waves that when you start to walk through the front to the front door it's just a solid a solid wall and it feels very blank there i'm i'm wondering if that that patterning could continue around the corner of that entry It just felt like a very blank entry up to the front door. Or if a gate could be put there. Or a gate, yeah. What's happening behind those walls?

Because I can't get mine.

Mine kept crashing to here. I finally got it.

Yes, that one.

Thank you. Because I think our Wi-Fi is struggling right now. The bottom picture. Okay.

You see where I'm saying where the wavy wall then turns into the front door and it's a blank? This one. just a blank wall and then it goes to another blank wall yeah i believe that that was just something that we missed on the rendering um obviously we're concentrating more on the front but definitely it should definitely wrap around continue the patterning correct okay and behind behind the wall what's happening there uh it's just garden it's just the landscape you can you access it through the the side gate that is correct did i see

Our Wi-Fi is not working. Oh, just bringing the breeze block around. OK. Thank you so much.

Is everyone OK with the bronze on this one? Did you try this one with the white windows to see how it felt with the rest of the architecture?

No, we did not. We didn't think that it would, you know, with just the colors that we have, we felt that the windows would pop a little too much. You know, you have the wood trim and then all of a sudden you have the white in there. I think that the bronze makes the window disappear a little bit more I mean, we could definitely look into that, but it may just pop a little too much, I think, with the white windows.

If no one else has an issue with that, I like it. Okay. I'm okay with that.

I'm good.

If I could remind the board that the decision-making should be made from a place of whether or not the project is considered compatible and consistent with the LDRs. not whether or not you like a project or dislike. That was the quasi rules, just as a reminder. Thank you. We need that sometimes.

All right. Is there any other board comment, board questions for staff or the applicant? All right. Would someone like to make a motion? And we're making a motion for each agenda item.

Yes, that's correct. So a motion and then a vote and then another motion and a vote.

Yeah, I'll make the motion. I will make the motion to approve the Certificate of Appropriateness and Demolition, HP 293, 2025, for the prop. Is this the right one?

No, 298.

298 is D. I opened the wrong one. So I'll just 298. For HP 298, 2025, for the property located at 14 George Bush Boulevard, Del Lido Park Historic District, by finding that the request and approval thereof is consistent, with the comprehensive plan and meets the criteria set forth in the land development regulations with the condition of continuing the pattern of the front block around to the front door. Does that need to be in there?

Is there a second? And then you can discuss it.

I'll second.

D is the east.

Yeah. So we got to add the breeze block wrapping the corner, as you're asking, but also that any fence or wall in the front setback be no more than four foot high, right?

I will add that.

Those are the only two things I had that you were sure you wanted.

Yep. That's on each property. The height is on each and... I forget which one's which.

So this is the east. We're on east.

So this is the one with the wraparound block. We have done this the whole time we've reviewed this project, so I apologize.

OK. So you've amended. Is there a second to the amendment?

I'll second.

OK. And then are you guys ready for a vote?

OK. Call the vote.

Zach Perdot?

I approve.

Richard Kassar?

Yes.

Benjamin Baffer?

Yes.

Gregory Pitts?

Yes.

Jake Eliopoulos?

Yes.

Chris Capaces?

Yes.

Okay, now moving on to the west parcel.

Which is this one? Yes, sir. Okay. I move to approve the Certificate of Appropriateness and Demolition HP-293-2025 for the property located at 14 George Bush Boulevard, Del Aida Park Historic District by finding that the request and approval thereof is consistent with the comprehensive plan and meets the criteria set forth in the land development regulations. subject to the condition of any walls in the front setback shall be no taller than four feet.

Do we have a comment about the tile?

Is that on this one?

We could do a second and then discussion. And the tile detail could be supplied to the staff.

Do we have a second?

Second, yes. And then I need to amend to include the tile detail for staff approval? Yes.

Second.

Okay. Any other comments to this motion? Okay. Please call the vote when you're ready.

Zach Perdue?

Yes.

Richard Kasser? Yes. Benjamin Baffert?

Yes.

Gregory Pitts?

Yes.

Jake Eliopoulos?

Yes.

Chris Cabezas?

Yes. Congratulations.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Can we take a five-minute recess?

We were just going to ask if you could take a quick break. Thank you.

So we'll reconvene at 8.05.

Thank you.

accuse myself on this one i'm the landscape architect on the project see you guys later

I am going to read into the record. Addenda item 9F for 23 South Swinton Avenue. This is a level 2 site plan and COA. Pile number HB-487-2026. We have the architect for the project here to present on behalf of the property owner.

If he could, before he starts. Yes.

Any expert take communication? No. No.