Historic Preservation Board - Aug 05, 2026

We're good. Good evening, everyone. I'd like to call to order this meeting of the Delray Beach Historic Preservation Advisory Board on August 5th, 2026. Can you please call the roll? Carol Perez? Here. Richard Kasser? Here. Jake Leopolis? Here. Peter Dwyer? Here. Chris Cabezas? Here. Benjamin Baffer? Here. John Miller? Here. Any changes to the agenda tonight? No changes to the agenda. Okay. Can we get a motion to approve? Make that motion. I'll second. We have a motion to second. All in favor, say aye. Aye. Motion carries. We have minutes from July 1st, 2026. Anybody have any comments or edits or approval? No. I'll move to approve the minutes. I'll second that. Okay. We have a motion and a second. All in favor, say aye. Aye. Motion carries. Okay. Swearing into the public. If there's any members of the public who are here tonight who may speak on any of the quasi-judicial items, now is the time to stand up and be sworn in. Even if you think you might speak or you're not sure, if you stand up, we'll eliminate the need to do it later. Please raise your right hand. 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, nothing but the truth? Thank you very much. All right. Item six. Any members of the public who would like to address the board or staff on any items that are not on the agenda tonight? Now is your opportunity. If you want to come up, state your name and address for the record, and you have three minutes. Mr. Chairman, members of the board, my name is Jerry Lundrigan. I'm a property owner in Delray Beach. I have been a property owner for over 30 years. We have, my wife and I, own 11 pieces of property on McFarland Drive, and the property that I want to speak to you about tonight is the 226 Ocean Boulevard. We purchased Ocean Boulevard at the corner of Ocean Boulevard and Nassau three years ago, maybe four. My wife is an hour of age. We're 80. She's having a, it's a two-story building, and she has, she cannot get to the second floor where the kitchen and all the necessities are. So we have hired a architect. We have hired a lawyer. We have hired a civil engineer. We have had a surveyor. We have spent thousands of dollars in the last two years trying to get the historical committee to approve a design that we are more than happy to accommodate anything they want. And in order to put it, replace a maid's quarters that has been there over a hundred years, it's falling down because it's eaten up with termites. It's less than 600 square feet. We want to demo that property, rebuild it according to the neighbors. We want, we don't want to destroy the neighborhood. You know, one side of Nassau is historic. The other side is not. We want to be very neighborable and the Appleton's are here. They're my next door neighbors. Uh, and we want to do everything that the board wants us to do. But having served in the general assembly for over 15 years, I know what bureaucratic red tape is all about. It's time that this historical staff who I admire, and, uh, I see there's only three members. They got a lot of work to do, but, you know, we submitted this application over nine months ago. I think it's time, and we just got the questions back, what they wanted us to answer last week. That is ridiculous. It's ridiculous. I know you all are non-paying members, and I admire you. Okay? I don't know that I would do anything for free, but I'm asking for the board to acknowledge, not only my project, but anybody else's project. It's time to move projects forward. This is in the economic age where we need to move projects forward. You know, we, we are willing to pay architects, lawyers, and all, and we're willing to pay contractors. So it's, it's a, it's a down pull on the economy of Delray not to move these projects faster. So I'm asking the board to acknowledge the fact that not only my project, but anyone else's project needs faster movement if we're going to get it done. Thank you very much. We appreciate your time. Thank you very much. Anybody else? Okay. We're going to close item six, um, presentations. Any presentations from staff? Uh, staff, any presentations tonight? Okay. Thank you. All right. Uh, we're going to move on to quasi-judicial items. Uh, before we do that, I'm going to read the rules. This hearing shall be conducted in accordance with the city of Delray Beach's quasi-judicial rules. The applicant and the city shall be permitted to present their case. The public shall be allowed to speak for three minutes each or for a maximum of six minutes if the person represents an organization or group of people who are present but agree not to speak. The city commission, board members, staff, and the applicant may be allowed to cross-examine a witness. The city or the applicant will be allowed to offer rebuttal testimony. The decision to approve or deny an application or appeal may not legally be made upon personal views as 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. Okay. Um, first item, A, uh, waivers, um, HP 3002025. Has there been any ex parte communication on this item? I need to recuse myself, so I'll be leaving the chamber. Okay. Let the record show. Pete Dwyer has recused himself. I did speak to Peter about this. Okay. I have not spoken to Peter about this. Nope. Uh, no ex parte, but I did get about five emails. Okay. Same thing. Same. Uh, good reminder. I got the emails that were presented here tonight, and I have spoken briefly to Kristen Finn and Jim Chart on this. Thanks for giving us a moment. Okay. I'd like to enter the file numbers into the record. 300 and 304 dash 2026. This is for 14 George Bush Boulevard recommendation of a waiver recommendations to the city commission and the applicant is here and will make their presentation. Before we start, can I clarify, Michelle, do I have 15 minutes or six? Well, I, it's always 15 minutes for quasi judicial items. Okay. I was afraid I only got six and I wasn't prepared. Oh, no, no, no, no, no. You're, yeah. Will we start? All you. Okay. So first of all, thank you. Thank you for letting me come in and present this tonight. Thank you for the opportunity. Um, thank you to staff. We actually had to scurry at the last minute to get this onto the agenda because it was a little change in procedure, which Katharina will explain probably. Okay. So I'll let I'm sorry. Could you state your name and address for the record? Yes. Sorry. I am Kim Dwyer, which is why Pete Dwyer had to leave. And I actually live at 109 Dixie Boulevard, but I'm here to talk about 14 George Bush. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Um, so I have been a resident of Delida Park for over 20 years. Pete and I, um, have lived in two different houses in Delida Park. And I've actually done this before. It's been a long time. Um, but we have divided property before and we have built in Delida before. And so I will almost say I was recruited to be part of this. Um, and because we know Pete, the community knows that we care about this community and that we're going to do something that's sensitive to the community. And quite frankly, I think a lot of people here tonight would tell you that, that everything we've done has been very positive for the community. And so that's the way we want it to stay. So this is really important to us. And I appreciate your time. All we're talking about tonight is a lot size waiver. There's a lot of more things that you want to hear about than this, but that's all we're talking about tonight because it's procedure. So, um, I will say also that I was part of a team, a small team for the community. We moved here in 2007. The neighborhood looked very different then. And I was smart, part of a small team of residents who spearheaded the beautification on Northeast 2nd Avenue. And Kristen Finn was one of my cohorts in crime as long, as well as Lois Brzezinski and Susan Ruby. And, um, it's been tremendous for the community and for us who live here. Um, so with that, uh, we'll go to the next slide. And do I have a clicker? Is this me? And then is there a pointer? Yes. All right. So what's, what's before the board today? Two waivers to allow a 5% reduction to 9,000 square feet lot area where 9,500 is what is required. What's not before the board, which is what you really want to hear about is the building design of what would go on these proper, on these lots, the current structure that's on the property and certificates of appropriateness. But these are going to return, return to the board, hopefully September, first week of September, I'll be back in front of you with all the exciting parts of this project. Um, so bear with us here. Um, these are the findings and I'm sure that staff will present this as well, but this is what has to be found. First of all is your part, which is LDR 2, 411. Um, and that is that this shall not adversely affect the neighboring area. We're going to go everything positive and I'm going to say it's going to be a positive for the, for the neighboring area. Um, won't diminish public facilities, won't create an unsafe situation. In fact, it'll do just the opposite. It'll create a more safe situation. Eyes on the street. If you've heard that term, I'm sure Katharina and Michelle both know it. Um, it does not result in a grant of a special privilege and I'll explain why. Lastly, what we're asking of you is that you make a recommendation to city commission that they, that they find this necessary and appropriate, but that is a finding they will have to do. So just so you know what we're, what we're doing. So first I wanted to go back in history just a little bit. Um, and this is what Delida park looks like. Now I walk it every day with my dog. I'm sure there's lots of other people here that walk with their dogs. Um, it was one of the earliest planned communities as Michelle pointed out in her staff report. It consists of 50 and 60 foot lots. The north and south facing lots are 50 and the east and west are 60. There's also some irregular lots that are triangles or, um, go feed through. So, so, um, this is the grid pattern. All right. So what we're going to focus on, if I can get this, there we go. This is the northwest corner. Now you'll also hear staff refer to Dixie Boulevard, which is where I live. This is what they call the estate section. So you can see that the lots are 140. They're much deeper. But so this is the estate section and what we're focused on is this section right up here. And actually the very top, that lot right there with my shaking hand, that's, that's lovely that it shows that off. Um, so, uh, that's what, that's what we're going to focus on tonight though. And I'm going to give you it in a little more detail. This is the original configuration. I'm going to thank staff. I heard there was quite a bit of digging for them to find this old, um, plan that had been submitted to the city. So this, the first, the, the present structure, which is this one here, um, was probably 1948. And then they proposed a new garage, which is the other structure later. The reason that this is relevant is that if you note on both the permit card and on this drawing, it says lots 21 and 22. And so I'm going to show you next the survey, which actually shows a different configuration. So we went back in history and we talked about that everything was a 50 foot lot. So originally this parcel was three 50 foot lots. Then in 1948, they built a structure on a property that comprised of two of those three lots. At some point, a third was added. I did not go do the digging to figure out exactly when that was deeded, but this is the current structure now and the current parcel, which again, we're not focused on the structure. We're focused on the parcel. So, um, at current, what you're looking at is at the top of the drawing, um, is this is George Bush Boulevard. This is the sidewalk. And this is the current structure four feet from the back of the property. Okay. So that's the current structure, the current property that we're talking about. And what we're proposing is that if, and this takes away no authority from you, if, when we get to COAs and we get to the discussion, then that, and if you were to approve those things, then staff would be able to, and I'll let them explain that, but administratively approve a plat. So it seems like it's in reverse order, but based on the city rules, this is now the way this has to be done. So I think a picture's worth a thousand words, and I put a lot of time into analyzing this neighborhood. I do know it really, really well. Um, this is the particular part we're talking about. Now, up at the top, you see the top row. That's actually the north side of George Bush Boulevard. And I'm sure there's some of you here tonight that didn't know that that is not historic. So there are people here in the room tonight, thank you for coming, that actually live in this, these homes. They can do, quote, whatever they want, as long as it's within R1AA standards. This is the side of the street where this parcel sits, where 14 George Bush is right here. And what I've done is I've, this, these two blocks are the most alike. That's why I'm saying we're focusing on that, because when we compare a historic streetscape, these are the two that have the most in common. And obviously that are within the notification and within the five mile radius, or 500 foot radius. I will say that this is not anything I do in my day job, and I am not an attorney, and I am not a public servant. So forgive me, I do not know all of the LDRs and all of that, like staff would or anyone else, but I'm going to do my best to take you through this. So there are 13 50-foot lots in this, in these two blocks. So this is block one, and this is block two. And there are 13 50-foot lots. There are six 75-foot lots. There are four. You can read the chart for the rest of it. There is one parcel that is 150-foot wide. And I would venture to say, and I'm going by width, that it's probably one of the only 150-foot wide in the district. I know there's some other 125s. Again, I have studied the district. There are some commercial properties that are quite large. They have parking lots, et cetera. But of the residential properties, it's probably one of the widest. I'm going to give you that. So what we're doing is we're showing you that there is not going to be, in fact, an adverse effect to dividing this into two. It's actually going to bring it better into the streetscape, put it in rhythm with the rest of the community, and actually be much more appropriate than the 150-foot wide to have two 75s. Then the other thing I want to show you is these bold orange ones right down here are exactly the same size, 75 by 120, 9,000 square feet. So it's not a special privilege. It's been done before. This is a size lot that's typical in this community, in this district. And so 61% of these lots are 75 feet or lower. Now, I didn't go do the whole district. I just focused here. So with that, I'm asking that you find that there is no special privilege and that you make that as part of what my case to make the recommendation that's necessary and it's appropriate. It's definitely appropriate. So we've established the historic streetscape rhythm and pattern. We've noted the four lots. And we've noted that this is an established lot size within these historic two blocks. Also, staff mentions in their report this block is bordered by R1A and RL zoning, which the lot size for those is 6,500, at least for R1A it is. So this is not asking for 9,000 square feet is not a small lot in this district. This also advances the city's goal for compatible infill. We need more houses that are walkable to downtown. And it's a very small waiver, only at 5%. Okay, finally, so we're asking for minimum relief there. And finally, I just want to talk about the benefits to the community. Right now, when you walk down the sidewalk on George Bush Boulevard, there's a large void because there's nothing for 150 feet in where this property goes. You can't see the structure. It's overgrown with foliage. It's so far back. And this will bring two homes to the front of the property. As, again, staff would be able to know because I know there's some master's degrees over here in historic and urban planning. When you bring houses up to the street and you put them in the rhythm of the setback, it creates an enclosure along the street, which also is safety, which also is neighborly, which is, you know, I see my neighbor next door on the driveway and I say hello. So there's a lot of neighborliness that's gained. There's a lot of safety that's gained. And so the National Park Service actually focuses on setback and spacing as part of the character-defining elements of a neighborhood. So we're just – this is going to bring it back into rhythm with what is there. And they're in scale with the surrounding block. Let's see. It continues. And it supports the comprehensive plan. I think that's all I have, and I don't know if I'm at 15 minutes. Got three minutes left. But what we're asking – and this is all I've got, and then I'm done – this is to ask you to approve – to recommend approval. Not to approve. To recommend approval to City Commission for these waivers in order to permit the lot area to be 9,000 square feet where 9,500 is required. And findings B and C were what staff concurs. It's finding A is the 9,000 square foot is within the established pattern. The median – the median width, by the way, within these two blocks is exactly 75 feet. And within two blocks, there are four lots this exact same size. So I think I've kind of beaten this drum a lot, and I can stop. That's it. Do I sit down now or wait for questions? Just thank you so much, and don't wander too far. So I'm sure we're going to have some questions for you in just a minute after staff presents. Thank you. Hi. Good evening. Michelle Hoyland, Principal Planner, Historic Preservation. Thank you. So we're here tonight on this item, 14 George Bush Boulevard, which is located on the south side of George Bush Boulevard. Those of you who have been in town for a long time will remember this used to be called Northeast 8th Street. It's between Swinton Avenue and Northeast 2nd Avenue. The property contains a 1948 to 1970s or late 60s structure that is set back far on the property, the large front yard. And before we get into the actual request, I just want to frame the background of the property itself and its history. It does sit across three plaited lots. The 1948 home and a 1951 addition sit a little bit further east. This is the original structure that's in the ranch style on the property. The area that you see on this screen here that looks gray, that was a separate garage that was built, a detached garage that was built at the same time the home was built. And then the area in pink and purple were connecting pieces in an addition that were built in 1969. The home is contributing. And what you see here, this was not in your backup material. This came as a submittal to supplement the city commission information that's going on the 18th, August 18th. So this is the plait and this is the draft of the plait. You'll notice the name of the proposed plait is Continuum at Delida Park. And right now, this is a zoomed in look here. You can see that lot contains 150 feet in width across and it's 120 feet deep for a total of 9,000 square feet. The proposal is for a minor subdivision. The Florida legislature changed subdivision requirements and we have adopted those changes in our own code. So minor subdivisions go administratively. They get reviewed at the staff level. This is a complete ministerial process. However, when there is relief associated with a plait, it does need to come up to city commission. And in this case, the Historic Preservation Board is providing a recommendation on that request. So here we have a few photographs. You can see this is a low slung roof on this flat deck house. It's got very mid-century vibes to its style. These pictures were taken from the applicant and from Zillow when it was under up for sale. So as I noted, there's relief. If the property must contain, each lot must contain 9,500 square feet as it's in the R-1AA zoning district. The proposal is that each lot contain 9,000 square feet. Tonight, we are only talking about the request for the waivers. So we might be tempted to kind of veer off course and talk a little bit about things outside of that. If you're not sure and you have questions, you can ask, and then we can tell you if that's something we can cover. But the main point of what we're covering tonight is the waivers to allow these lots to be smaller than the zoning code requires. I've already mentioned it's an administrative review. Separately and also under review are COA requests for redevelopment of the property should the lot split get approved. That would involve demolition of the existing contributing structure and construction of two new single-family residences. We will not be looking at anything relating to those proposed plans tonight. So here on screen, you can see the matrix. The area highlighted in the red box is the R-1AA. I want you to just note here the minimum lot size requirement, the lot width requirement, lot depth. It meets all of the requirements except lot size or lot area. So to change that lot, we need to process the plot. I've already mentioned this. Per the code, these exemptions are in place for the board to come through or for the applicant to come through and request a waiver. And now we're going to talk about the findings. So the code was also updated recently to improve the findings in the code. Previously, this was all the code said as far as a finding was that the City Commission must find the request to be necessary and appropriate to create the non-conformity. However, in addition to that, the applicant is required to meet the waiver standards, which we're going to talk about in a minute. Something I think is unique to the property that we should review and make sure that you're aware of is that the Delita Park Historic District, which you can see on the screen here, it's the hatched area. It's about a four to five block square area. East of Northeast 2nd Avenue, we have RO zoning, which is residential office. And we have RL zoning, which is a multifamily zoning, low density. And the area between Swinton and 2nd Avenue is zoned R1A. Well, why is this important? If you're coming in to develop a single family lot in the RO or the RL zoning, single family in that zoning, you use the R1A standards, which have a smaller lot size, smaller lot width, smaller lot depth. You would be required 7,500 square feet of lot area in the R1A. You'll also notice that north of that purple RO that's on the screen here, you can see the word, oh, we lost our bubble. Okay, so it's a pointer. You can see my pointer. We have R1A right here, but you see this R1AA. That's all of this out in this area here. So it's very close to single family zoned properties. As staff, we felt that that was important to point out because we've had other requests come through for relief. It might be a setback waiver because of the way the house is set up on a lot, right, that they can't meet side setbacks. Not that that is a justification for this to happen, more so I'm showing you the lay of the land for the zoning in this district. And here is just a zoomed in picture of where the zoning districts are. So again, if you're RO or RL east of 2nd, you're developing to R1A standards. But if you're west of 2nd, you're developing to R1A, double A, sorry. On the left here, we have the Delida Park Platt map that was recorded in 1923. This is one of the first subdivisions. I believe this was our first subdivision that was platted in the city. And it was marketed heavily to folks in the area. It did take some going to get development happening, but we have some of our oldest mission-style homes throughout the district. And they're typically small homes on small lots. So while the entire neighborhood is set up of 50-foot-wide lots, if you go and look at the development that occurred from the 20s forward, not every house was developed on a 50-foot-wide lot. It was developed on a combination. So the lots were, you know, the west 25 plus lot 4, you know, which was a 50-foot-wide lot. And you'd end up with a 75-foot-wide lot. So you can see in the picture on the right, the aerial, that there are a mix of home development-size lots. So then we have these four findings. Number one, shall not adversely affect the neighboring area. Number two, not diminish the provision of public facilities, not create an unsafe situation. And then we have does not result in granting a special privilege and that the same exact waiver would be granted under some similar circumstances for another property owner applicant. So with that said, I think it's important to show the block face. So this is George Bush Boulevard as it faces north. The homes, these are the homes that are on the north edge of the Delida Park Historic District. And you can see here that four out of the six lots are large lots. And most of the homes on these lots are small houses, which was the nature of the street, small houses on bigger lots. So there's the communication of the landscape and the greenery and the open space between the properties and the houses that were set on them. And here's a photograph where you can see that generally these homes are small in stature and scale with those large yards. The picture on the far right is directly east of the subject property where we have a little mission-style home and a detached two-car garage. Next to that, we have a two-story with the second floor set way back on the house. Again, this actually was probably mid-century with an influence of mission through alterations over time. But then we also have Susan Ruby's old house on the far left here that sits on the corner of George Bush and second. So we have a mix of lot development pattern, but generally we've got small homes and how this pattern has been developed on these bigger lots. Important to note that the Delray Beach Comprehensive Plan, the Always Delray Plan, does require through HPE Policy 1.4.1 that the board make findings that any land use request is compatible and consistent with the requirements of the LDRs, the entire LDRs, not just 451, the Secretary of the Interior Standards for Rehabilitation, and the Delray Beach Historic Preservation Design Guidelines. So we looked at those requirements in relation to this request. Standard 9 of the Secretary of the Interior Standards discusses new additions, related new construction, and that such shall not destroy historic materials or the materials that characterize a property. Now, again, we're not reviewing the actual development application, but I think you should take this in the scale of the waiver requests and how that's applied. We do have some concerns that the creation of additional lots would facilitate a change in the streetscape, that historic streetscape, along George Bush Boulevard. So you're going to have to make a determination that this is also necessary and appropriate to make that nonconformity. Again, those COA requests and demolition requests will be reviewed at a future date. You will be able to see them. They're not administrative. They require board action. So they will be coming before you, whether this gets approved or denied, because likely they'll have something that they're bringing forward. This is a screenshot excerpt from the Secretary of the Interior Guidelines book. This part of the book talks about the setting of a district in a neighborhood. There are a lot of fail-safes throughout the entire book, and we decided rather than listing all of these fail-safes, we were listing the most important here for you, which discusses removing a historic building or a building feature or a landscape feature, which is important to defining the character. So the house sitting way far back on the property is probably not ideal for its potential redevelopment. However, it has sat in that configuration since 1948, so that is important to the defining characteristics of George Bush Boulevard and this block face, this streetscape. The Delray Beach Historic Preservation Design Guidelines state here, which is where I almost wonder if this were the applicant Gotham name for their plat. It states history as a continuum. If you notice, their plat name was Continuum, which is kind of cute. But the idea here and the sentiment is that when we have a historic district, what's in that historic district today, the hope is that it will continue to be historic in another 50 years. So new construction that's getting built now potentially could become a contributor in 50 years, which is why the board is in place and has certain guidelines and requirements that are applied. But where there is not a clear distinction between what's historic and what's contemporary, then the line starts to become blurred. So we have to take that in consideration when we're thinking about the development pattern of the street. It's not always just about the architecture. So this is applicable as well. And how that potential infill will be executed and how that potential lot development, whatever goes on it, how is that going to complement the historic district? And that is outlined here for you in the design guidelines. We also put this in your staff report, should you wish to flip back and refer to that as you're deliberating. The Always Delray Beach Comprehensive Plan does include in Goal 1 a performance measure. And one of those performance measures are that the city and the staff that the city employs works to increase the number of historic resources listed in a local or national historic district. So there is some concern from staff that we are talking about decreasing. And while you might say, well, it's only one, we have less than 600 properties within either historic districts or on historically designated sites. Some are non-contributors. So we have even fewer contributors. So we are talking about one structure, but that will be reviewed in more detail when you get the demolition before you with the COA requests. So this is here at the back end, so we don't have to scroll back. A reminder of the lot layout of this block and the subject requests. And that concludes my presentation. Thank you. Thank you. Right on time. Any members of the public want to comment on this item? If you do, please come up front, speak into the mic, and state your name and address for the record, please. And while we'll do that, I'll also remind the board, I think you've already disclosed this during ex parte, but you did have e-mails that came across three, in fact, in support of the project that you received on your city e-mails, and we printed for you as well. Thank you. I'm George Long with the 46th North Slinton. I have a 75-foot lot, and to me it looks big enough. Now, there's a lot involved here. We get into the Department of Interior and all that business, all the different rules and regulations, and talking about settlement patterns in the area there. But just from the point of view of, maybe a layman's point of view, an opinion, which you've got to listen to, just walking by and looking at that, which I have done, even this afternoon I did, too. I prowled around there for a while. I'm looking at this thing, and I'm thinking, well, two 75-foot lots would be pretty good there, and for all the reasons that Ms. Stryer mentioned. And then there are also some problems you've been encountered all the time about this and that on the historic preservation aspect of it. And I'm aware, actually, myself of how disappointed it is sometimes to lose something. I used to do historic surveys and stuff like that of earlier periods, and it's always disappointing if somebody comes up and destroys an Indian mound or something like that. But in a case like this, I don't see any problem, really, with having a 150-foot lot. Thank you. Thank you, George. Hey, guys, for the record, Roger Cope, Cope Architects, Inc. I agree with George. The Dwyers have provenance in this town. They've been historic preservationists for a long, long time. As Kim said, they've subdivided a beautiful property before, and as best of my knowledge, it's two beautiful historic homes sitting over there now. So this is the same scenario. I think this is a no-brainer. They meet all the LDRs. We'll get into some really cool architecture soon, but tonight the subdivision is at hand, and they meet the width. They meet the depth. There's just a little tiny shortage in square footage. That's nothing, man. I think this is a no-brainer, and I think you should support it wholeheartedly. Thanks. Thank you. I'm at 275 for the clock. Got it, George. Hello. I'm Scott Cohen. I live at 17 George Bush, which is right across the street, and I support the project. What was not in your presentation was a picture of the existing house, and I don't think it is historic or very historic-looking. I think the new owners will do very well and divide the property and look much better, and I support it 100%. Thank you. Steve Paludniak. I live at 25 George Bush, a catty corner from this property that we're talking about. We've been, my wife and I have been living there for 11 years. When we first bought that house that we live in, it was a 1948 house that was there. It was on the other side of the street, though. So we were able to do what we wanted to, except for an oak tree, which I had to come in front of the commission and get permission to cut down, because it would have been on my front porch. We went over and spoke to the owner at the time, and I was reminded that her name is Holly, because I never, I always thought it was Helen. But when I went over there, when my wife and I went over there, we looked at that lot and said, man, this is a beautiful, beautiful lot. And we looked at that house, and we said, oh, this is a shame that this house is sitting here. And it wasn't because it wasn't a house that could have a roof on or, you know, had somebody live in it. It was because it was the ugliest house we had ever seen in our entire life. I mean, to the core, it was the ugliest house. Now, I know we're not here for that. But bottom line is we do support the Dwyer's here, and we would love to have some activity there other than stray cats, stray rats, et cetera, et cetera. Because if you were there before they bought it, you would not want to be there. You just would not want to be there. It was a disaster, as was the house. That's it. Thanks. Thank you. My name is Fran Hall Finch, and I'm a proud neighbor of most of these people on George Bush. And I live at 114 George Bush in one of the little mini 50-foot lots that I call it the mini mansion. And it's a Spanish Revival mission shoebox, and I just love it. I have a guest house, and somebody was there a day and said, oh, this is so grand. Regrettably, I've had to walk by this property for the 14 years that I have been there, and it has been in disrepair and unkempt. And the worst thing about this property, the idea of restoring this house is patently ridiculous. The back part of this house, you can literally, what is it, four feet? Four feet to the property line. So if you're on, in fact, I looked at a house to buy that it backs up to, and it's just not what needs to be done. So really, you could build three houses there based on the size of my lots. You could have three 50-foot lots there like what I live on. So I am overwhelmed to the moon and back that we would have two houses that would be contributing to our beautiful Delada Park neighborhood. And I wholeheartedly support this, and I hope that you will, too. Thank you. I'm Kristen Finn, 102 George Bush Boulevard. I have lived next door to this property for 22 years. My husband and I live in a 1925 Spanish mission home. And I believe our house was initially built on a 50-foot lot. We have a 100-foot lot, but our detached two-car garage is on the second lot. So I believe, we don't have the picture here, but my house is directly east, and then the neighbor's house is the 6,000-square-foot lot, and then Fran's house is the 6,000-square-foot lot. So I believe back in the day, all the lots that face George Bush on the south side were 50-foot lots. And then there was the corner lot, Susan Ruby's previous home. And then Ann, she's here, she'll speak. She's the corner house on the other side. So this house, the lot, it was a triple lot. When I bought my house 22 years ago, it sold to us as a double lot. This house, the neighbors always said, we live in a triple lot. It's 150 feet. Now, with the new requirements, it's not even two lots. So I highly favor the splitting of the two. Also, like Fran spoke, the house sits so far back on the property. There is safety issues with us being next door. I mean, there's a lot of people that walk George Bush. We always say we're the thoroughfare from Lake Ida to Publix and the Beach. So we have had vagrants and stuff that wander onto that property because the property, the house is so far back. So I just support it. I'm here in favor of it. And the Dwyers are stewards. They've lived in our neighborhood in Delada Park. They live on Dixie Boulevard, as Kim stated. We, for the last over 20 years, we have been in favor of beautifying our neighborhood. I know that anything they bring before this board is going to be impeccable. So full support. Thank you. Good evening. Thank you all for being here and volunteering your time and all of that. I'm Elizabeth Ann Bettinger, and I live at 721 North Swinton. I'm on the other side of the property that we're talking about. I agree with Kristen. I've been there for 19 and a half years, and it has just gone downhill the whole time. Don't see a reason why not to split it and put two houses there. The overgrowth and everything, I know that might not be material, but it's been in disrepair for that long. And I 100% agree that it should be split. I love our neighborhood. I'm on the historic, all the historic group, and I definitely want to see things kept historic, and I love our area. And there are times when you need an exception, and I think this would be one of them. Thank you. Thank you. Anybody else? Okay. We are going to close public comment. Oh, I'm sorry. One more. You want to spare me? I'm sorry. I do. Thank you. Shirley Spader, neighbor of Ann's. I'm at 801 North Swinton Avenue, which is across from Ann's. Caddy, across the street from the property in question. I'm in full support of what was presented by the Dwyers. And reason being, it's a beautiful street, great neighbors. The house in question right now is, it's like a haunted house when you walk by it, to be honest with you. And the grounds are not kept. And I'd rather walk on the side of the street that does not have a sidewalk than on that side, due to how unsafe it is presently. So, I am, I join our neighbors, I am thrilled at the prospect of the property being split and new homes being built. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else? Okay. We're going to close public comment. Staff, do you have any rebuttal? Or applicant first? Sorry. Do you have any feedback from staff's report, comments, rebuttal? Yes. The only thing I would say is to remember that we're not talking about the structure tonight. And the other thing is that, actually, in all the reports that were done, when they did the survey on this house, this house is not eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. So, there was a comment made on that. It was marked as a potential contributing for the district. This is more testimony. But it is not eligible. Oh, it's rebuttal, not more testimony, right? Oh, I'm sorry, to what you had said, that's all. Because you said it could be on the National Historic Register, and I'm just saying, no, it can't. Isn't that rebuttal? Okay, I can sit down. Do you have anything else? If we have any. I feel like she has to stop, but it just has to be rebuttal, not more testimony. Okay. Anything else? No. Okay. All right. If we have any questions, we'll let you know. All right. Thank you. And, Ms. Dwyer, you also, not that you would, because everyone was in support, but you can rebut the public comment, too, if you wish. No, thank you. The only thing that I have is more, not to the applicant's presentation, but some of the members of the public who are noting that the property is unkempt and disrepair, we will connect with the property owner and, if need be, code enforcement, because it should not be a nuisance to the neighborhood. That definitely is a concern. So we appreciate the feedback on that. Thank you. Okay. We're going to move into board discussion. I have a question for staff. We talked a lot about the fact that this was, it's one lot that covers three lots. We looked at the historic plat and some other plans, but how did we get to one large home covering three lots? That's a great question. This is the case with other homes that are across lots in this particular district and in other cities across the city. So even along Dixie Boulevard, you see the larger homes are on the larger lots, and that is how they were originally developed. So while the plat had 50-foot wide lots, you would often see a house cross two, so you have a 100-foot wide lot, and maybe even an additional 50 where you might have a carriage house or a detached garage. But one of the provisions in our code states for all residentially zoned properties, single family, other than R1A, you cannot deem these individual 50-foot wide lots as a lot of record if they were under the same ownership dating back to 1990, and these were. So they must stay in their current configuration, or if they're going to be subdivided, they must meet the requirements of the code, which is why there's a waiver before you. So that is a provision to prevent the lot splits to lots that don't meet the standard code requirements, which I showed you in that matrix. But for R1A, you can have a lot of record where you go back, develop a 50-foot wide lot. This was one of the factors we discussed in the early pre-application meetings with the applicant and many realtors when it was under, you know, offering for sale, because we had many requests wanting to do three houses or one really big house, and how does that work? So that they have to meet the standards for this zoning district right now. They could not split off into three lots, even though the plot was designed that way. The way it was developed, it wasn't. I have a question also for Steph. Can the lot be split with the house going over the lot line, or is this part of the process that this has to be approved, and then they have to demo the house, and then they split the lot? Because I don't see how you can have a house that crosses a lot line. We're going to have to probably ask you to make an application for a job at the city, because that's so astute. It's very complicated. So in the resolution that the city commission will review and take action on, it includes a sequence of events and how that works. So you cannot replat and actually record the plat while the house is still in place. The house has to be demolished before you record the plat. However, the historic code requires that you can't demolish a house until you have permits in hand for new development. So those things get tied together. So what we've done with other projects, Sunday Village and Magnolia, is we include the sequencing of how that's going to occur in the resolution for the waivers that is drafted already in that language, so that staff, the applicant, and the city leaders who are making the decision have a clear path forward. So should their requests get approved and their COAs and demolition get approved and all of that get done, they have to have permits in hand for new construction before the demolition is released. That gets done, and then they literally have to take the plat and get it recorded the next day. So we have fail safes in place, so it's a really great question. It wasn't easy when we were first trying to figure this out with the other projects. Yeah, that makes sense. Thank you. I believe that, was it the 15th Court one where the plat was divided and the house was still there? I don't remember that. And then they used that for justification to take down the house or move the house at that point. This was a few years ago. Yeah, because it used to never have to come before the board. A plat division was done administratively, and I don't think it was from historic either. So if this could have been 9,500 square foot lots, it would have been an administrative decision? So the way this would have worked is they would have filed the plat. The plat would have sat on hold, and the COAs and demolition would have come before you. And if that were to be approved, then the plat would get approved administratively. And that's not how it always has been. That's because the Florida legislature changed the ministerial task of a subdivision, minor subdivision plat. Majors still have to go up to a certain degree, and of course the relief. But, yes, it would have come before you with the COAs and the demolition. That's when you would have first saw it. But you would have needed to administratively approve this first? No, it would have sat on hold until the COAs were completed. Okay. Yeah. The proposal is to have two 9,000 square foot lots. So we're actually looking for two waivers, right? That's correct. So two waivers. They're not going to do, like, one larger than the other and ask for one waiver. That's correct. Yes, it's one. Each lot is proposed to be 9,000 square feet. Let's see if anybody else. Jake? In terms of what's being requested today, I really don't have any issues with it. I don't have any issues with it either. I believe the applicant approved their justifications for the waiver. I myself live on a 9,000 square foot lot, and I think it's ample and fine. So, yeah, I mean, the one thing that if this does pass as a result would be, you know, potentially down the road, there could be one big house going setback to setback, and this would prevent that, would split it up, and there would be two smaller houses here. But that is going to be somebody else's problem because I'm not going to be here. Anybody want to make a motion? I'll make the motion. So, I'll make a motion to recommend approval of waivers HP-300-2025 and HP-304-2025 for the property located at 14 George Bush Boulevard, Del Ida 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. Okay. We have a motion. I'll second. We have a motion and a second. Any discussion? I see none. Brittany? Carol Perez? Yes. Richard Kasser? Yes. Jake Eliopoulos? Yes. Chris Cabezas? Yes. Benjamin Baffer? Yes. John Miller? Yes. Good luck. All right. Moving on to item B, COA for 303 Northeast 7th Avenue. Any ex parte communication on this item? Do we want to wait for Peter to come back? Oh, sorry. He probably fell asleep. Calling Pete Dwyer to the... Come back in. I guess, I mean, you can still... Ask everyone else. Yeah, any ex parte on this item? No. None. None. To see if he's in there. Is that where she went? See if he's in there? All right. Well, we still have a quorum. When he returns, he returns. I would like to enter file number HP-392-2025 into the record. This is a certificate of appropriateness and a variance for 303 Southeast 7th Avenue. Bianca and Bianca Pucci and Don Pucci. I'm sorry. My apologies. It's been a long day. Our property owners are here and they will present. One second. Is there a PDF or... PDF. No, it's not. It's PPX. It's not a PDF. There's a PowerPoint. I wanted the PPX. I could do my graphics. My presentation. Mr. Dreyer, any ex parte communication? No ex parte. Good to go. 15 minutes, right? Yep. Well, good afternoon, everyone. I recognize... Good evening. I recognize a few people here. This is our fifth... This is our fifth time at the historical visit. I don't know why we keep... John said he never wanted to see us again. I don't know why we keep coming back. All right. On this project. The first... We've been working with the city since 2021 on this project. We actually went for a constant plan review. I did everything. We need feedback. And then we went for a COA for continuation. The next COA was approved. And the saddest part of this project, which we'll go over, is that we had to go to an after-the-fact demo, which we're going to share about you. This is going to be the easiest of all. Number five, we hope. So we live at Biancan Dampucci. We live at 303 Southeast 7th Avenue. So we purchased the home in 2021. Now, when we bought the home, we knew it was in Historic District. In fact, it's one of the very last ones. And we immediately, even before we finalized the contract, we went through the due diligence phase. And we wanted to know if we could expand. We knew we wanted to do some type of addition. So we did a research. We immediately got it with staff. Got some feedback. Don and I talked about it. We're like, you know... We watched countless videos of this meeting from many previous times. I said, we do believe that we can do an addition here. Gareth, Garrett Dunn is here, our architect. I said, we're pretty excited here. We're going to start this project. So now we're interested. Are there a set of plans? Like there's nothing available. It took a while. I think Palm Beach County, 500. So we get a set of plans. And to our surprise, this is the home that was designed. And built. And built. And I think in your staff report, you talk about Schopel, Carla Schopel. He was an amazing architect. He, for some reason, was hired by Mike Blank, one of the historians of Delray Beach, because Mike Blank wanted this mid-century modern ranch home. And he designed it for him. Little did we know that the fourth owner of the home took this home. And in 1988, when it was legal to do so, I think it was just the start of the survey of the Marine Historic District, if I'm not correct. And they expanded in 1988. They wanted to make a bigger home. So they expanded it about 500 square feet. It was 1,358. They expanded it to 1,858. And these are just some of the features. But it's hard to read here, and I apologize for that. So what do they do? They enclose the carport. They removed the stone planters that you see on the bottom. They reorientated all the windows and doors. They got rid of the glass door. They got rid of the brick. There was a tiny bit of brick left on the bottom here, right in the bottom right there. And one of the key features of this home, which is incredible, I hope... Changed the roof line totally. I'll get that, yeah. The features of the home, if you ever had a chance to drive by it, I would hope you have. And we're going to show you a picture of it because it's done now. But there's a concrete eyebrow that goes from here all the way back, around the carport, all the way out on the north side, all the way east. And Carlos Schopen, at the time, where there was no air conditioning, all of his homes have this signature eyebrow, they call it. It was to shield the sun from the home. And it was built on a western exposure. That was taken off. And it was a concrete eyebrow. I also want to point out... Excuse me one moment. Should we be concerned about that? No, it's a lightning alarm. Is it hard to read? All right. I'll talk. Make sure we weren't under a code red or something like that. Oh, the siren. All right. I'm sorry. Okay. There was a trellis that was here that was removed. The shape of the roof was altered. It was a concrete roof that was common in those days. And they made it into a barrel tile roof. And one of the other key items I wanted to mention is when they did the expansion of this home, like this area was expanded, all the windows were changed. This area was actually brought out for expansion. They made it out of wall frame. It was CVS block. So the materials were significantly changed. Wood framed. They made it wood framed. They got rid of the CVS block, basically. So in the surveys that you'll see back from the beginning of time, they consider this home a Mediterranean revival. Now, if you look at this home, yeah, of course, it looks like a Mediterranean revival. But it really, technically, historically, from a character perspective, is a, we would call it a mid-century modern ranch style home. And here, this is the actual design that Gareth put together with the plan of the home. You can see here the plan of the new home was to match the original Schoepel design. So what do we do? Everything I just listed they took out, we put it all back. This is the home we bought. We took out the beautiful big tree, so you can have an understanding. We didn't take it out. We just photoshopped it. Yeah, you didn't take it. No, that tree is still there. You can see how they're trying to focus a Mediterranean style to this home. They put this arch. You can just tell. What have we done? We have restored this home to the original Carpel Schoepel design. Here, you get a little glance at that concrete eyebrow. And I want to point something out. You'll notice that there are steps going into this home, because we raised the home three feet. And this begins the dilemma. Perfema. Perfema. This begins the dilemma of the demolition. I call it the demolition double Ds. The demolition debacle. Raising the home three feet, we had no choice because the home was on a concrete slab. It was actually on a concrete slab. So in most of the homes that are raised, you'll notice that they're wood frame and they literally lift them up. If the home is on a concrete slab, you can't lift the home up. So the plan initially was to raise the walls. But in order to do that, we had to remove this roof. It's the only way it can be done. The challenge at the time was that, how do you actually mathematically calculate a demolition percentage? The roof was taken off. The staff knew the race was taken off. If you did it length times width times height, that's like 100% demolition. There's no home left. So we did it based on, we have 15 minutes. I'm moving. Thank you. Okay. Eight minutes left. I appreciate that. Anyway, I will just tell you that the demolition percentages now have been changed or guidance have given to the city so that people who do remove their roofs have a clear understanding of what the guidelines are. The second mistake was that the demolition contractor over-demolished some of the historic and non-historic. At the very last minute, when the home went into permit, the structural engineer said that we had to, couldn't have wall-framed walls to support the eyebrow. The point is that it came through really fast. And the permitting phase, even historic didn't catch it. They approved it. But the reality was when the home was demolished, Don and I drove there one day and we sort of freaked out. Like, what happened to our house? The walls are gone. We go to our contractor and he says, Bianca, they're in the plants. That was part of the plants. The reality is we made a mistake. We should have contacted the city right there in the spot. So we're taking responsibility for this. Okay. I do want to just say, there's plenty of time, honey. I know the end of it. Okay. I do want to say that we made a mistake, our architect made a mistake, our contractor mistake, and the city made some mistakes, but it was not at all intentional. And I just want to put that for the record. Unfortunately, we paid the price because the home we had to go through, the construction was stopped immediately. We had to go through a special magistrate, got a terrible fine. We had to pay legal fees and we lost our tax abatement. And it's sort of sad because in the end, we were trying to make this home historic and we sort of got punished for it. But that's it. No grudges. I'm just telling you like it is. And I just wanted to put that on the record. So we still love working with the city. She's amazing to work with. Okay. Why are we here? Okay. Number of questions. And by the way, there's a story behind this. We have two girls in their 20s. When they come visit, they don't like sunbathing in the pool that's sitting in the front of the house where 7th Avenue, all these passerbys go by. That's how girls are. So they literally climb out the second story window with their little lawn chairs. They trudge across the roof. They find a space on the rooftop deck, which we're doing. Well, there's a flat roof on the backside of the house. They bring their lawn chairs, they bring their high noons, and they enjoy the beautiful view of the intercoastal. Of course, I'm a mom and I'm freaking out. Hey, this is not good. This is dangerous. So I am insisting we put some type of railing. So that was our choice to put a railing. How are you going to get access to the rooftop? Well, oh my, if you put a staircase in the setback, we have to come back in front of you again. And boy, we don't want to come back in front of you. What other choices do we have? We were thinking about building a catwalk from the second story balcony and just walk across. Look, that wasn't aesthetically pleasing. This is really the best way to do it. Now, I will say we have some special circumstances. This particular lot that we're on, this is the only lot north of 3rd Street that is parceled. All the rest of the lots go from 7th Avenue all the way to the intercoastal. So whenever they parcel this lot in the 50s, they actually, it's just weird. Here's our house. There's no backyard. It's only 10 feet. And this lot was parceled and they got a special setback requirement to build a garage. So that is why, if you look here, is where the staircase is going to be. But it's only 10 feet wide. This is why we're asking. The lot is only 10. The setback area is only 10 feet. All right. Here's some renderings. We purposely wanted to show you this to look what it looks like a streetscape. I want to point out something here. If you look at this big rectangle, that's actually the size of the rooftop deck. But we wanted to make sure that we probably couldn't see it from 7th Avenue. So we actually made the deck smaller and brought it in 8 feet for that benefit. We believe it meets all the LDR requirements. I know the city has in the staff report, the staff regarding two of these for you to look at. We believe that there's no significant diminished to the historic area of the district. There are actually homes that have rooftop decks. We have a home right across the street from us. It has this beautiful spiral staircase right on 7th Avenue. So we don't see that to be a problem. And the last one here, they talk about the modernization, although this references historic site. But I go along with the staff. I don't understand the interpretation of this. But we need this variance so it's necessary to promote a safe access to a new outdoor space. It's for a 6-foot broad iron spiral staircase that you can see through. It's removable. The LDR sections, the rooftop will be 11 feet at height, certainly not higher than 26. We will provide landscaping as requirement. We will have synthetic roof decking will be used. And, boy, I'm going to make sure this thing is very safe. We will provide the 4-foot railing. Okay. Request number two. So when we designed this home, we were supposed to be a rehabilitation, a historic home. So, therefore, we did not have all of our windows are clear. You guys know this, right? We got a waiver for energy-efficient windows, not to have energy-efficient windows so they could be clear, just so we could pay FT&L some more money. So we didn't meet the energy at CalX, but they gave us a waiver. In the meantime, we did what we have to do. But in the summertime, we're on the west exposure. Boy, it is brutal. My office is right here. And we've tried blinds. We've tried everything. And, you know, the AC is going up and it's still not providing enough. So, hey, look, we're asking for a retractable awning. It's only going to be put on when we need it, most likely in the summer. And you can see this location here where the awning is going to be. It's motorized, retractable, removable. Yeah. This is the material request. The railings for the rooftop deck are going to be the same railings as our fencing, so it's going to be very compatible. And here's a picture. Here's the – it looks like – it's more of a beige look in there, but it's more of a stone beige. And from 7th Avenue, you can't see it at all. Yeah. Anyway, and this is retractable. So we ask that you approve the variance for the staircase for the rooftop deck and that you approve our retractable awning. And how much time was that? Got a minute left. Was how much left? One. Perfect. It should have been like a three-minute performance. Well, I thank you for your time. Again, we hope this is a much more simple request. Thank you very much. You're welcome. We know this is your last meeting, right? Okay. Congratulations. Thank you. All right. If we have any more questions, we'll be sure to call you back up. Okay. For the record, I'm Katharina Palavoda, Senior Historic Preservation Planner. The request is for 303 Southeast 7th Avenue. It's a Certificate of Appropriateness and Variance. I'm going to enter, again, HP-392-2025 file into the record. The location is – the structure is located in the Marina Historic District. You'll see it's at the intersection of Southeast 7th Avenue and Southeast 3rd Street. And here we can see the front elevation. The front. Okay. This is also the front. This is the second-story addition that was built. And this area is where the proposed awning is going to be. This is the northwest elevation. So, the area is showing the roof of the garage. And this is where the railings for the rooftop deck is going to be proposed. This is the northeast side elevation. So, this area all the way towards the front is where you're going to see the spiral staircase being proposed. This is the southwest elevation. It's more of the east elevation. And then this area right here is – right here is where the staircase is being proposed. So, here's the existing survey. So, this shows what was the reconstructed one-story structure and then the two-story addition that was added to it. This is the existing site plan. So, here you can see there's no real extra-square footage or anything proposed. It's mostly just the awning railings for the rooftop deck as well as the variance for the staircase. So, the request is asking that the rear setback for this zoning, it's R-1AA, is 10-foot. And they're requesting a 3-foot, 6-1-half-inch setback for the spiral staircase in the rear. These are existing elevations. So, here on the front, this is the west. So, you can see the areas that are only going to be visible are the railings for the rooftop deck and the retractable awning here. This is the north elevation. This is more of the rooftop deck. And then you can see the stairs. This is the south. You see a little bit of the stairs here and some of the proposed awning when it's retracted. And this is the east elevation where the stairs are being proposed and more of the rooftop deck. They did note, per our code sections, we do have regulations that are required for rooftop terrace. They're not proposing any, like, spas or hot tubs or grills up there. So, they have noted that. It's just going to be proposed as just a seating area. So, they're utilizing it, but they're not adding any extra uses that would be required, certain setbacks or other regulations looked at for the code. They do have planter boxes, which I did note, to meet some landscape requirements. Okay, and these are the details for the staircase. This is an image of the proposed retractable awning. You can see more of the materials and the colors. The canvas is going to be like a stone. The aluminum frame for the awning is going to be white. And then the bronze aluminum railings will match what's already existing on site. So, these are the Secretary of the Interior Standards. As this is a reconstruction, it is noted that these standards no longer apply. However, when we are looking at this, we are looking at the impact of the surrounding historic district. And we don't see any concern with the request being compatible with the surrounding historic structures. Okay, and these are the visual compatibility standards that do apply. Specifically, with regards to rooftop deck and relationships in materials and textures. There are no changes to the proposed rooftop. It is going to be a flat roof. As noted, which is a requirement for the rooftop terrace section, the aluminum railings have to be, well, they have to have some sort of parapet or protective area of at least four foot. And they do meet that requirement. So, we have no concerns with requests to the rooftop shape or the rooftop railings being proposed. There are also no concerns with the materials for the staircase as well as the retractable awnings or the colors for the frame or the actual canvas, the fabric canvas for the awning. Okay, these are the required findings for the variance per 2411A6. These are the Historic Preservation Board findings that are noted in your staff report. And these are your certificate of appropriate findings. I plan technical items. And that completes my presentation. Thank you. Any members of the public want to comment on this item? Mr. Long. George Long, 46th North, Smitten Avenue. I've driven by that property quite a few times. And actually, I've been next door a couple of times, too. And it's two things here I see. When I look at that, I see somebody who has taken a house and returned it back to the pre-original shape. Great thing. Some kind of mistake about some wall inside. Big deal. But that's a house that's been brought back to original design as much as possible. And I think a spiral staircase is a good thing. You look at that, there's nothing pretentious about it. There's nobody trying to make something that looks like, you know, a historic staircase. I think it's something that goes good in the neighborhood. A neighborhood near a marina. A neighborhood near water. Spiral staircase. It just fits in. Looks good. No problem. Go with it. I shouldn't even have to be up here, but just in case, you drank some funny water or something. Thank you, George. We appreciate your wisdom. Thank you. Good thing the police know who you are, all the skulking around you're doing. Anybody else? Any comments? All right. Seeing none. The applicant, do you have any feedback on staff report? No. Okay. Staff? No rebuttal from staff. Okay. Board discussion. Anybody? So I have a question. Katerine, you kept referring to rooftop deck. What is the deck material? State your name and address for the record, please. Gareth Dunn, we're the designer of record. I'm sorry. Have you been sworn in? I haven't, no. Okay. Hold on one sec. No. So currently, it's a sloped flat deck that drains off the back. You can see the gutter in the photograph that was on earlier. It's going to stay, the sloped flat deck, and we'll reinforce it structurally for it to be used for a load-based scenario of furniture and everything else. The new railing and things like that. And then what we're going to do there is we're going to have a composite deck built on stilts on top of the sloping flat deck. So in essence, it's going to stay in slopes. They'll drain through just like your four-inch planks. It'll drain through, come off the gutter at the back. But their actual decking will be a composite that's elevated. How high off the existing? It'll be only about three or four inches. As we pull it back, we'll install stilts inside the new structure. They're only going to be about this tall. So the deck will be flat, but then the underlayment will be sloped. So we can continue to keep the same drainage so we don't have to put in new drainage. Will that work be permitted? Oh, yeah, of course. Yeah, the whole thing has to go to permitting, yes. I mean, that was my question because I didn't see anything about the deck itself. No, yes. So currently it's designed just as a roof deck, like as a regular flat roof. But obviously it will go back through structural engineering. We'll peel back the roof when it's been permitted, do the necessary improvements, and then we'll start to put the layers back down. So for staff, I really feel like that should be part of this request because that's a pretty significant portion of the project that we're contemplating is the deck itself. I mean, we're looking at the rail and the stair, but we have had no discussion or no reading on what that deck is, and I'm not sure that I'm clear on exactly what's being intended here. But you won't see the deck from the street. You don't see the roof from the street. I'm still not clear on what you're proposing. But the point is, at this point, we don't go that far with the drawings because we need approval to make the drawings work. It's the standard procedure when we come through the historical, you know, it's a go-through permitting process wouldn't be the avenue in case the roots had been denied. So staff, was this discussed? So, you know, in all the projects we bring in here, it's a conceptual project. Yeah, I think mostly he's more saying, like, material-wise, like if there was something being added to, like, the ground of the roof for, like, usually how we ask for, like, roof materials or things like that. Like, were you putting an extra material on the decking for the floor? I think that's what he was asking for. And for the most part, it was... If we were, if they were, if an applicant was coming here to change the roof, if they said, I now have a roof that's one material, but I want to make it another material, that would come before the board, the change of the roof material. It depends on the type of roof. If it's, like, if this is a flat deck and they were coming in with materials that were, like, in, like, very similar, it would just go to permit. So if only they were making a drastic change to it, like, say they were doing shingle and they were going to metal, that would have to go before the board. But in some instances, things like that, just, they just go to permit. So here they're going from concrete with presumably some type of waterproofing to a composite. No. The roof area that we're talking about is already a flat deck roof with a three-layer bitumen roof on it. The eyebrow is still around the perimeter. That's going to stay. That's nothing to do with this. I think I might have to answer your question. I think I understand what you're asking. So for the store... Can you speak into the microphone, please, so it fits it up? Sure. Thank you. So I believe, and you all can explain, but there are requirements going in front of this board with respect to if you put an open-air roof terrace deck, what's required. I think I should have maybe did it too quickly. One of them is landscaping. One of them is with synthetic materials that require proper heat absorption or less heat absorption. Those are required. So we are putting in a synthetic roof deck, like wooden plank, like they're synthetic planks that are going on top of the roof deck. And that is what's required that we met for this meeting for the LDRs. So I believe that because you're telling me that, but that was not in this proposal. It was not required to be in it based on the historic requirements at the time. So what Gareth is saying, when we go to permitting, then we have to do the engineering. But the roof itself that's underneath this composite decking that will be stilts on top of it is unchanged. I mean, it will be moved up and replaced, but identical to what it is. It's unchanged. This meeting is for approval of a variance for a staircase to access a rooftop terrace. The structure is already not part, the building of the structure per se. Correct me if I'm wrong, Michelle. Is that right? I just want to understand what the concern is, and I understand you're asking, like, what is going to be the deck material on the roof? So staff, in their presentation, kept referring to a rooftop deck. I asked, what is the deck? And I was told that the deck, they're intending to use, like, some type of a composite plank system or, you know, build a deck, I guess, on top of the existing roof. So I was asking staff, do we have purview over that deck itself? Yes. And I don't see that as part of the presentation for us to be able to evaluate the merits of the deck that is being proposed to go on top of the roof. Sure. And the analogy that I used was if somebody was coming before the board to change a roof, if they had a tile roof and they wanted to make it a standing seam roof, or if they had a standing seam roof and they wanted to make an asphalt roof, we would have purview on that. So we are being asked, you know, we've got a proposal that has right now, I guess it's a bituminous built-up, sounds like a bituminous built-up roof, that there uses some type of a pedestal paver system or deck system on top. Like, as this board, we should have purview over what that deck is, whether it's synthetic or whether it's wood or whether it's metal, whether it's stone, you know, and understand what, really what impact that has on the overall request. Yes. You would, and you do, have purview over the materials that are being utilized on the exterior of the structure. Those, and just looking at this drawing here, where we don't see the proposed material, or it wasn't identified here, it is falling below a parapet wall currently in the proposal, so it's, that deck would not be visible from the street, but if you were at an upper level looking down at this property from an adjacent property, you would probably see what that material is. I would say that if they had proposed an interior access point from the inside of the structure that went up. Could you bring the site plan up, please? So here, this was something we studied as well, was could they modify the rooftop of the garage without having the spiral staircase? And the only way for them to have done that, and the reason why I'm saying that is because we were trying to figure out, is there any level of this that could be admin, reviewed? And the only way that would be is if there was an interior staircase coming from inside the house, through the roof, up into the top of this carport, or this garage, that potentially would have been administratively reviewed. And we would have made a call on the material for that rooftop floor, essentially. I don't know if that helps at all with where you're going and what you're thinking, but what's before you is the retractable awning, the use of the railings around the rooftop, the fact that the rooftop now qualifies as a rooftop use, and the landscaping requirements get kicked in, and of course the fact that the spiral staircase requires a variance to reduce the setback to 3 foot 6 1⁄2 inches in the rear. But yes, you have purview over materials of the staircase, material of the railing, material of the roof deck flooring, all of those things you are 100% okay to talk about, for sure. Do we have a clear photo of the garage with that parapet wall? So this would be if you were at the northeast corner of the property. The street side is on the right over the railing over here, so it's a dead-end street, and this is the north elevation of the structure, and you can see this parapet wall here. The reason why they're proposing a railing on top of the parapet wall is for rooftop uses, you have to have a railing a minimum of 42 inches surrounding your rooftop use for safety purposes. And how tall will the railing be? The total, I believe, goes up to 42 inches, correct? So it's going to, between the parapet, which is what, a foot and a half maybe? 48. And the railing. And it depends on, we have to adjust the railing to the size of the flooring that we're going to put, so whatever that is, it's going to be 42 inches above it. The railing itself is not going to be put on top of the parapet wall. The railing's been offset from the parapet wall. On the inside? It's on the inside, yes. It'll look like it's sitting on top. And we did this for a reason. We did this for a purpose. We did this, the fact that it's offset from the perimeter wall, when you're standing on the street, you're going to see less of the railing, even though it's going to be at the 42. Please, please speak into the mic. So even though it's going to stay at the 42-inch height, it's offset 12 inches from the edge of the, from the inside of the parapet. So in a visual aspect of that, when you're standing on the street, the railing's going to appear lower because it's not on top of the actual parapet. It's set back another 12 inches from the parapet. Just for clarity, too, the railing and the walkway there is like five feet above the street, which is to the right. So meaning the street, if you're looking at the street view looking up, there's no way you're even going to see anything. And the spiral staircase is on the back of that? It's going to be to the left. To the left of that window right there. And then you have planters that are required. On the roof. On the roof. It's on the roof. That's toward the front of the house? Well, it's towards the front of the deck, but the garage is in the front of the house and the rooftop deck is in the back of the house so that the planters are quite far in from the front of the house. Quite far in. See that? Yeah, there you go. There's a garage. So only two-thirds of the roof deck is going to be used for personal use. Are the planters outside of the railing? The planters are on the other side of the railing. From across the street, if you looked, you'll see the top of the garage. You'll see two planters and then the railing behind it. Probably not. You don't think you'll see it? There are parapets surrounding that. No, no. We're so lucky. Where's the parapet here? Is that at the end of the edge of the red? The parapet goes on the right side. All the way around the top and the right side and the bottom of the red area. Katerina, can you go to the front elevation, please? No, and the picture. The picture would be helpful. So how high are the planters and how high are the parapets? So you say the parapet, you say, is about 18 inches. So see if this is right on the – you can't even see the parapet. Yeah. I find it a little odd to have the planters outside of the railing. I don't know. It just feels like they're – We want to be able to use the space. And when I put the planters inside, we lose space. Is that important? I'm just curious. I don't know. It feels like it's outside of – like you have the furniture inside, but then you have planters on the outside. It just feels like it's – you know, maybe it should all be inside. I have to be careful here that the board is asking a question of the applicant, right? Because you're in deliberations and board discussion. Okay. Good point. So you have a concern about the planters being outside of the railing. What is the concern? My concern is that it feels like it's just a piece of something on a roof and not within the deck, the usable space. So it feels like it's an afterthought. I would – it feels like that should be part of like a furniture piece within the usable space and not looking like from across the street a planter is sitting just on the roof by itself. And it's – I wish I had a better image of maybe across the street looking into the space. So I guess that's my one concern of how those planters look from the neighboring property. Like are they invisible above the parapet? But they're there because it's a landscape requirement, correct? Yeah. But they could be anywhere on the roof. I think what he's asking is what is it going to look like from across the street? Are they tucked behind the parapet or do they come up above the parapet? Where do they fall? Do they look odd? It sounds like what you're asking. Yeah. Well, that's pretty much the street view there. I think he's asking from the north side property where the rooftop will be more visible, which we don't – none of us have a picture of. That's pretty close. There you go. The planters are like a furniture piece. They can be moved anywhere. Is that correct? Yes, they can. So it just has to be – now, here's the other question. Do they have to be within the usable space or do they have to be in a vicinity of the space? Because it feels like they're not within the space. They're outside of the space. I see where you're saying that. The code does require the landscaping of the rooftop. So I don't think we've bumped up against an issue like this of where's the railing, where's the planter. But it sounds like you almost want them swapped. Or the planter inside of the space. I think that would fit better. It's inside of the parapet, essentially. It's inside the parapet. But I think – How tall is the parapet again? It's like two feet. It's like two feet. And how tall is the – do you know the planter height? It's going to be – we can make it two feet and just make the rest – you know, happy to make it planters just two feet and the rest is landscape. The parapet doesn't look like it's two feet for me. It looks like it's more like eight inches. And then above that you have the fence that's another three feet, six inches. Yeah, I don't think we've designed the planters yet, Sam. I actually like the – to point counterpoint, I like the planters outside of the railings. Because I really struggled with liking this because it – I do not like the visible railings. So I think that the planters, whether you put Potocarpus, Clusio, you know, whatever you put there is going to block the railings from the street. And actually, the images in the plans are very harsh because there's not a lot of perspective. When you look at it, it's pushed back. You're going to have the rail – the plant, you know, the parapet, then the planters, then the actual plant materials. Maybe you see a little bit of railing. But I think it – I think putting them actually in the space takes away from – to me, it takes away from the usable space. And it also creates more visible railings. And if this was a balcony, you know, I know you don't have anything on your balcony. That's fine because that's a balcony and the railing is a function of the balcony. So, you know, just again, point counterpoint, I prefer them outside. And question for you is the spiral staircase, that is secure. It is in a fenced area. It is not accessible by the public. 100% fenced and walked. It can wander in and go up. The staff didn't have any problems with the retractable awning because it is – it seems like it's visible from the street. We did review it because we don't really get a lot of retractable awnings. We did have some concerns with regard to setbacks. But we did – we spoke to our principal – our director and our assistant director. And it was decided that a retractable awning doesn't really fit the code description with a structure specifically within setbacks because the intention wasn't for it to stay open the whole time. So, in addition to that, with some previous approvals, they did already get some setback requests. They got variants already for the front setback for the pool. So, essentially, if it were to be an issue, they already have a variants approval for that area. So, specifically, setback speaking, those were our concerns, and we're fine with them. And that retractable, it's completely cantilevered. There's no vertical supports or anything on that. Okay. Yeah, I overall have no problem with that. I think the railings on the one side are sort of balanced with the railings on the other side. I'm looking at the whole front facade, so I'm okay with that. I think it was just the question of the planters. You know, are they in the space or outside of the space? What color are they going to be? Is it noticeable? I guess I would prefer them in the space if they can be anywhere. But that's my call. If you ever officially go there and walk across the street, I don't know. This is a poor discussion, but thank you. Sorry, yeah, unless there's a question. All right. You guys good? Or do you have more? What we're really deciding on is the waiver because the staircase is into the setback. The variance, yeah. The variance. And the site plan. I mean, it's a COA and a variance. Jake, anything? Not much. The on-in, I don't have any issues with it in terms of the staircase and the railings. I don't mind the planters being on the outside or inside. If they are on the outside, it gives a sense of privacy, and it's more out of the public eyesight. And in terms of the staircase variance, I don't have any issues with that either. I think it looks nice. Great. Thank you. Reasonable request. I'm in favor of it. I think the planters outside of the railing, if I had to make a decision, soften up the railing, the picket railing a little, and the retractable awning, they're ugly any way you slice them, but it's a removable item, so no problem. I'm okay with everything, but your planters would have to be irrigated, so I don't know if that, how is that handled in the code, Michelle, the irrigation for the planters up on the roof deck? They have to provide irrigation for those planters. They have to be real plants. Drift kits. Yep. The whole point of the rooftop, when it's more than 100 square feet rooftop use, and theirs is over 200, is there's this reduction of the urban heat island effect. So the idea is that you don't put a rooftop use up there that's going to create glare and create heat. So this is why the materials for the decking have to meet certain requirements for the code, and that's why the landscaping is there. So they do have to irrigate that landscaping. They can't, I don't think solely zero escape plants are going to survive on a rooftop. No, they won't. So they do have to irrigate that, but would it be okay if the board lets me discuss something that you didn't ask a question about? Kind of depends. I'm seeing something with the railing. I just want to clarify with the applicant. Sure. Go ahead. Yes. Sorry. On this drawing here, we can see that the railing, there's a measurement that shows four feet, right? Okay. Keep going. Yeah, we thought it was 48 inches. I guess it's only 42. It's 48. It is. Yep. It's not 42. I'm sorry. There was a typo in the SAF report. That's why I saw that. But this part right here, oh, back to circles. Okay, you see this close dashed line that the measurement dimension string is taken from? Is that the floor of the rooftop? Or is the floor of the rooftop further down, like if you flip a page, Catherine, to the north elevation? The four feet will be from the lowest part of the rooftop. No, she's asking from that drawing point of view. So based on this, your parapet wall that you're referencing is not two foot. It's about 12 or 14 inches or something. It's much smaller than two foot. So I just wanted to make sure I pointed that out because the board asked that question. And so we were just looking. If you go back, Catherine, to that other drawing, it's going to be more railing than parapet. It's not 50-50, as you can see here. So I just want you to be aware that the knee wall, the parapet wall around the roof is not two foot on the inside measurement. Understood. Thanks. Thank you. All right. Anybody have any more questions, concerns, want to make a motion? I'll make the motion to approve. Certificate of Appropriateness and Variance HP-392-2025 for the property located at 303 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. We have a motion. I'll offer a motion for that. Second. Second. Okay. We have a motion and a second. Any discussion? Carol Perez. Yes. Richard Kasser. Yes. Jake Eliopoulos. Yes. Peter Dwyer. Yes. Chris Cabezas. Yes. Benjamin Baffer. Yes. John Miller. Yes. Thank you. Item C. 516 North Swinton Avenue. Has there been any ex parte communications on this item? No. No. No. No. Okay. Michelle Hewitt, Senior Planner, and I'm entering into the record. Agenda Item 8C, HP 526-2026 for 516 North Swinton Avenue. This is a Certificate of Appropriateness, Demolition, Variance, and Waiver. We have the applicant here on behalf of the owner to present the request. Hello. Good evening, Chair, members of the board, staff. Thank you for the opportunity. My name is Jose Arazo. 5001 Harrison Street, Hollywood, Florida. I'm humbly representing John Basford and Jasmine Carvajal. This is in reference to a single-family historical property on 516 North Swinton Avenue. Tonight, the request is for the approval of the Certificate of Appropriateness, the demolition of an existing non-contributing garage roof, a variance for the exterior stair setback encroachment, and a waiver to allow the second floor in-law quarters to match the full footprint of the existing detached garage. This is the location of the property on Swinton Avenue. This is the location of the property on Swinton Avenue. My pointer. Okay, there you go. So Swinton would be on the east side, the detached garage completely behind the two-story single-family home. The intent of the project, straightforward, it's preserved the historic primary residence, retain the existing rare detached garage structure, and adaptively reusing the structure to add a second story for an in-law quarters or a guest cottage. No changes are being proposed to the front facade of the historical house and the character-defining features of the primary structure to remain untouched. The work designed so that the historic residence continues to read as a primary visual element on the lot, with the new work remaining subordinate and located behind the house. This is a view from Swinton Avenue, beautiful home. This board is maintaining properties on this neighborhood. Fantastic. This is the front view from the garage. This is on the rear side, which is the west side of the property. The existing garage, there you go, the garage, and this is the proposed roof that we're proposing. It is a non-contributing element and is simply a utilitarian roof structure over an existing accessory building. The garage walls and the footprint, garage door, to remain in place. And the second story is designed to sit over the existing footprint in a way that is compatible with the historical character of the property. The new roof form, exterior materials, windows, proportions, overall massing, was selected to relate the main house while still clearly reading as an accessory structure. This is purely, it's just an image, an example of what we're trying to propose. The site plan, keep on pressing the wrong button, I'm so sorry. So next would be on this side of the garage. The variance request relates to the exterior staircase that provides access to the new in-law quarters. Because of the limited space between the garage and the property lines, the stair would slightly encroach into the side setback, which to the south, in order to function safely and efficiently. Without the limited relief, the stair would have to be relocated in a way that it would be more visually intrusive, less compatible, the request for variance, therefore, is the least disruptive solution and allow the project to maintain the property's historical arrangement and character. The proposal is for about 18 inches. The, I keep pressing the wrong button. The south side setback, it's going through the middle of the proposed exterior staircase, therefore the application for the variance. Also, a waiver request is related to the size of the second floor in-law quarters over the garage. The code limitation allows 75% of the ground floor. But the proposed design uses the full footprint of the existing garage. The request is based on the existing conditions of the site and the desire to reuse the structure. The project remains entirely residential. It does not change the character of the neighborhood. It does not create any unsafe conditions or undo burden on public facilities. From a preservation standpoint, this is a proposal that's a good example of adaptive reuse since we're proposing just to go up on the existing footprint of the garage. In closing, I don't think I took all my time. The proposal is limited, respectful to historical resources, and designed to preserve the architectural character of the property while allowing it to remain functional for modern family use. For those reasons, respectfully request an approval. My justification points for the project, there is no adverse effects on neighborhood or neighbors, no impact on public facility or safety, and there's no special privilege since detached garage is something that we can see in other properties in this historical neighborhood. So, this ends my presentation. Thank you for your time. Thank you. Thank you, Michelle. Staff has been fantastic, by the way. Once again, Michelle Hewitt, and I am presenting for 516 North Swinton Avenue, Certificate of Appropriateness, Demolition, Variance, and Waiver. On the screen here, I have an aerial with the subject property outlined in blue. This property is located at 516 North Swinton Avenue on the west side of North Swinton Avenue between Lake Ida Road and Northwest 6th Street. Within the Lake Ida neighborhood overlay, the property contains a circa 1925 single-family residence designed in the Mediterranean Revival style. The main principal two-story structure was originally constructed in 1925 at 326 Pioneer Place within the city of West Palm Beach. The home was relocated to its current location by David Hardin, the former city manager, and Andrew Hardin in 1994, to a vacant lot the Hardins purchased from a retired Trinity Lutheran church pastor. That same year, the detached garage was constructed in the rear. In 2019, the city commission listed the property to the Local Register of Historic Places, to be known as the Hardin' Heart House. Going through some photos, looking at, this is facing Swinton, the front or southeast corner. You can see where that circle is, is where the subject structure, that accessory detached garage, is located. This is from the northeast side. You can barely see that there, where that circle is. And now we're in the property, looking at the north elevation of the garage. This is where the vehicles enter and park on this side, and then all of the other sides are blank walls. This is an early rendering of what the proposed two-story guest cottage structure would look like. Going through some plans. This is the existing site plan. And you can see the existing structures, that principal designated structure, and then that accessory garage structure that was constructed in 1994 in the rear. In the proposal, you can see the outlined red of where the proposed guest cottage is to be constructed above the detached garage, and those steps on the south side. On the left here, we have the existing garage floor plan. It's a garage. And then on the right is the proposed guest cottage floor plan on the second floor. Looking at elevations, on the left, we have the existing north elevation, where you can see the dashed line indicating the removal of the roof, which constitutes a demolition. And on the right side is the proposed north elevation, with that second-story addition. Here we have the south elevation. Again, left is existing, and that dashed line indicating the roof for removal. And on the right is the proposed. This is the side where the steps that are located within the separated. This is the east elevation. This faces interior to the back end of the principal structure. Again, blue indicating existing, red proposed. And here is the west elevation. This faces the rear of the property. Here we have some comparative images. So with accessory structures, there are certain guidelines and standards that are required that include maximum sizes and heights. One of the requirements is that the accessory structure can be no taller than the principal structure, which you can see here, it's not. And here we have the south side here, you can see that proposed on the left, compared to the existing principal structure. Going through our analysis, here we have the Secretary of Interior Standards and Rehabilitation, with all of these standards that were applied for this analysis highlighted. The proposed renovated garage slash guest cottage will incorporate the same type of materials that exist on the main residence and detached garage. That includes stucco siding, barrel tile roofing, in clear windows, no low E, non-reflective, no tint. We did indicate that this is a non-contributing structure, so it's likely or possible that they may need to comply with energy calc. So we indicated that gray glass is also appropriate, non-reflective, no low E. There's no concern that if the guest cottage were to be moved in the future, that the historic integrity of the main structure would remain. Going to the visual compatibility standards, again, the highlighted elements are what were used to analyze the request. Looking at the requirement for blank walls, again, this is a non-contributing structure, and the existing garage is a garage. There's limited to no fenestration on the structure besides the garage door. As a residential type structure is being proposed on top, consideration could be given to additional fenestration, architectural detailing along the ground floor, and along the south elevation in its entirety, although this elevation is not visible from the public right-of-way. Generally, the request is to be located on the rear-slash-least-public portion of the site, be behind the front wall plane of the historic structure, utilize appropriate materials and finishes, and can be seen as secondary and subordinate to the principal structure. As mentioned before, there is a demolition request, as the entire roof is proposed for removal to accommodate that second-story addition. This is a non-contributing structure, as it was constructed in 1994, and thus does not provide historic significance to the individually-designated principal structure. Given its non-contributing status, it doesn't, again, retain historic significance. The variance request is, as you can see, dashed on the image here, is for these steps to encroach within the south side interior setback, where 10 feet is required. And it's a range of 8 and 3 quarters to 8 and 3 and a half inches within that setback. These are the variance findings for the request. So, the location of the existing garage is seen as an appropriate location, and it's not visible, it's not impeding or impacting the streetscape with the principal structure. Thus, the proposal to put an addition directly on top of it could be seen as helping to aid in retaining that minimal impact to the importance of the principal structure. Again, this request is not going to instigate or propose any modification to the principal structure. This could be seen as aiding the retention of the strict structure's appearance and building footprint with minimal visible changes to the streetscape. This property is located within the Lake Ida Neighbored Overlay District, which has additional regulations and or modified requirements for development and additions. One of those requirements is that the upper floors shall not be greater than 75% of the area of the first floor, where the applicant is proposing to have it be 100% of the first floor. Here are the waiver findings for the request. As I mentioned earlier, there are additional, on top of the Lake Ida Overlay District requirements, there are additional accessory structure controls and standards that are also applicable, including that the addition will be shorter than the existing structure, and only a portion of the addition will be seen behind the principal structure having minimal impact to the existing streetscape. There is no concern with the proposed reduction or increase to 100%, given the minor visual impact it imparts on the historic principal structure and surrounding area. These are the Certificate of Appropriateness findings that were used to analyze the request, and we have site-by-technical items up here to be done after this portion of the application process. An aerial to end, and that concludes my presentation. Thank you. Any members of the public want to comment on this item? None. Applicant, do you have any rebuttal to staff? None. Okay. Board discussion, comments, concerns, questions? I have a question for staff. So this is a request to demo the roof of the existing garage, not the entire garage? Correct, yes. Just the roof. I have a question for the applicant. So I have seen these types of projects before where somebody says, I want to add a second floor. Have you had a structural engineer to look to see that the foundation that this garage is built on and the first floor walls are sufficient to carry the weight of the proposed second floor? So, yes, we have a structural engineer on staff already, and we have analyzed everything, and it looks like it will work. He is proposing additional reinforcements on the wall, though. So we do have the… We often find that's the foundation. Absolutely, yeah. Is it deficient? Correct. And then you end up having to demo the entire structure, which, I mean, would be a different request. But if you were to do that, then maybe you could move it 18 inches so that it doesn't have the weight. That's why I'm bringing that up. First of all, the intent would be to not touch the structure. And as part of our due diligence of design, we are investigating on the foundation 100%. If for some reason it does happen, of course, that would make sense. Just to slide it a little bit so we're not encroaching the setback, I agree with you. But we don't want that to happen. That's my question. Yeah. I mean, does that answer your question? Yeah. Thank you. And just if I could just piggyback off of that, we do have a site plan technical item up here where we've requested that the applicant provide a narrative and or plan be submitted to ensure the structural stability of the structure once the roof is removed. Yeah. Pretty straightforward. It's pretty straightforward. It's in the back of the property. I mean, it is pretty visible from the street, right? Like, there's no… There's really no planting in front of it. It will be a large blank wall, but you have some steps going up. You have one door. I am curious why maybe no window was proposed on that back wall. It looks like there's a little kitchenette there. Is there going to be no window with that kitchen? So, the site photos are a little bit outdated. There is a lot of vegetation that has grown substantially after the images. But to be specific about the structure, yeah, we are proposing cabinet trees for a little under… It was the only location for the cabinets to work and the plumbing. That's why there's no windows. So, you have upper cabinets that would be in place of the windows. Because we wanted to give them a little bit of storage. The alternative would be reducing the cabinetry design and adding the window for requirement purposes. But that's what we are proposing all the plumbing to. That's why. It also crossed my mind that the roof pitch also creates a bigger white space. Yes. And if you look at the other house, the roof pitch is the other direction. So, it kind of cuts that white space a little bit. So, it crossed my mind maybe a roof redesign maybe would make it a little bit nicer looking. But again, it's at the back of the property. I really don't have a problem with this. It's just some ideas. Just to talk about the original house, there are some portions of the roof that do not even… No, it would be in the back side that don't look like part of the original footprint, which would be on the left side right there. But once you're facing the front facade facing Swinton, there is that portion that you could see that matches that. Plus, the intent was to also match the original roof design. So, we're not trying to change a lot of it. So, it would basically be almost stretching it up a little bit. Yeah. I get it. That's it for me. What material would the stairs and what railing material would be on the stairs? So, we started working with metalworks because there is a little bit of metalworks in the single family home already. And we're trying to match the railings. So, they match. Would the door be glass or solid? The door at the second… Yep, yep, yep, yep. All of the doors in the house are solid. So, we want to match as much as we can. Okay. The same color as the… Yep, everything. The front door, everything. Okay. Yeah. The idea is that after we get the CO, you can't notice it was an addition. It's so plain, isn't it? Yes. Does anyone else have any comments on that? I've got a question for staff. Will a landscape plan be… The existing is worse. Triggered? Yes. I agree. I agree. Just a second. Let's have a misprice. Carol had a question. Not for this portion, as this is the accessory structure, and it is single family. So, not anything before this. Okay. Because I thought it was like if you did, you know, it was a percentage of the value of the house or something. It triggers a landscape plan, but that could help mitigate some of that… Blank wall. You know, the two-story blank wall. Mm-hmm. Or maybe the applicant can put in some landscape to put in some palm trees or some trees there to mitigate for that. Answer that question. Michelle got it. But they would need to meet the requirements for landscaping per the code section 4.616, but that would be reviewed at the time of permitting. So, if they're changing anything or there's any deficiencies, that would be looked at by the senior landscape plan reviewer. Pete? No, I'm good. You realize this is a really special property, right? Oh, the Hardin House. Yeah. Absolutely. Yeah. Smooth from West Palm. Yeah. Yeah. Actually, I think the changes to the garage make it a little more visually interesting. Right now, it's just kind of a plain box back there. I really, you know, it's going to be bigger, but I think it's going to be a little more visually interesting. So, yeah, it's a beautiful house. And it's very well maintained. Yeah. All right. Somebody want to make a motion on this? I'll make a motion. Let's see. Can I read from the screen? Okay. I will make a motion to approve the Certificate of Appropriateness, HP 5262026, Demolition, Variance, and Waiver for the property located at 516 North Swinton Avenue, individually designated to the Local Register of Historic Places, by finding that the request and approval thereof is consistent with the comprehensive plan and meets the criteria set forth in the land development regulations. I'll second. I'll second. We have a motion and a second. Any discussion? Brittany? Carol Perez? Yes. Richard Kasser? Yes. Jake Eliopoulos? Yes. Peter Dwyer? Yes. Chris Cabezas? Yes. Benjamin Baffer? Yes. John Miller? Yes. Who seconded? Jake. All right. Item D, 160 Marine Way. Aren't we at time? I was going to say saving the best for last. Yeah, sure. For the record, Gary Eliopoulos. Address is 1045 East Atlantic Avenue. Our firm is GE Architecture. Here with me tonight is our client, Ms. Suzy Whaley. Is there a conflict with Jake? Yeah, there is. Oh, yeah. I didn't even see him. All right. Bye-bye. Bye-bye. Before you start, Gary, I would like to enter file HP-417-2026 into the record. It's for a Certificate of Appropriateness and Waiver for 160 Marine Way. Is there been any ex-parte communication on this item? None. None? No. Okay. Mr. Chairman, thank you on board. Also with me tonight is our client, Ms. Suzy Whaley, and we also have our contractor, Lost Craft, Graham Hutchinson. So we are in the Marina District. As we stated or staffed it, it's 160 Marine Way. Let's see here. So we are located in the southeast corner of Marine Way Avenue. Some of you might be familiar with this building because this building has been actually around a long time and has had a lot of improvements over the years. Here are some of the adjacent properties. So this is 150 Marine Way, so it's right next door. This house is relatively new. One of the things you're going to see in some of these pictures is that all the finished floors have changed over the years due to FEMA. So our client's house is at an elevation of four. This most likely would be either at an elevation. It's probably at seven, but it's possibly some could be at eight because it's all changed now. Right here, this is 140 Marine Way. Those elevations of finished floor there was about five feet. You know, it's one of the things that we talk about compatibility when we start talking about streetscape. You are looking at one lot away where you've got two and three-story townhouses. These buildings actually exceed our height by just shy of seven feet. This one was actually relocated. So this one is probably more compatible with, I think I've heard the board talk before about, you know, what's the standard height for ceiling heights? You know, the older homes all had eight foot high. Now, you know, you tend to lean towards more like 10. The one that's to the north of us actually has 11 foot high ceilings. This right here, this is interesting. This was a Sam Ogren house. It was slated for demolition. We actually picked it up and moved it closer to the street and saved it. But it's a great example of what you can do with a home that was actually on the blocks to be torn down. Then you have a few ranch houses that are surrounding the rest of, you will, Southeast 2nd. And here you come to our site. So again, on the left-hand side, you have the house that was relocated. That actually was originally part of this property. In red, you have our proposed site. Then to the north, you have the new structures. And then, of course, the multifamily adjacent to that. All right. So one of the things I want to talk about is that a lot of the report and staff is talking about definitely compatibility. It's talking about what we're proposing. My issue is whatever we're proposing is not that significant compared to what's already been done. My client has not done any of the things that we'll be talking about right now. This was the original structure in 1940. It's interesting that this home, actually, the original owner was a teacher. And back in 92, there's some documentation. I believe our chairman would know. Spencer Pompey wrote about how this back building, which was a cottage, was one of the first colored schools in Delray Beach. So what happens is you see this right here. So the detached cottage in the back, that's the original survey. The front part was the home that was built in 1940. Okay. So this is basically in 94. This is where you come in and you're talking about doing a two-story, I take it back, three-story addition. Part of this addition is on that one-story house. So you're talking about the part that's in red is non-contributing. The front part is the contributing structure. I believe it was in 92 that the previous owners got the trellises approved for the front and along the north side. In 93, they came in for a variance and actually got a zero setback for the trellis along the north side. All right. So these are just some quick elevations and sections of what was originally approved in 94. Again, a three-story structure. The section up on top actually shows that we are 16 feet, five inches above the original historic structure. That is to the top of the trellis. And so here's what you have. You have our house here. One of the things that you're going to be seeing today is that we are replacing the front trellis along the main entry. Our design actually doesn't have these. The structure that's there right now has approximately two foot by two foot squares for the trellis. And they don't line up with the doors or the windows. Our proposed design will now actually realign everything so that when you actually come into this house, you actually step up center and come right into the front door. So here right along on the left-hand side, this house does actually not meet all the setbacks. We are not actually adding anything towards any nonconformity. Where we are proposing is along the front terrace deck. One of the things that staff did pick up was there is a wall that is along the whole front side. It comes down beyond the property line. Nobody knows when it was actually built because it didn't get any permits. We are taking that out and we're making everything conform. When you start to see what we are proposing here, you'll see the setbacks. And then what happens is we do have, there's the setback of the original or in current, if you will, terrace, which is 31.3. And we are basically adding one foot 10 to it to give a little more room so that when you're sitting out. One of the goals of our client was that, you know, I love when you actually get to design homes. We actually have front porches. Usually you don't know your neighbors unless you have a pet. But she does want to be able to sit out on her front porch. She also wants to enclose her front yard for her dog and enjoy what is a great street in our marina district. So when we talk about what we got right here on the top part, those are these existing trellises. We've got a carport and we have the entrance. We are basically proposing to replace those with an aluminum structure. We are also proposing to have louvered blades in them. This is going to offer a little more protection from the weather that we do have down here with the heavy rains. On the second floor, what you basically have is on the top, that's the existing balcony. It is open. So what happens is you take the stairs internally, you come up to this balcony, and then you go up all to an open terrace on the third floor. On the bottom, we are proposing to enclose that porch to create the stairs that are going to go up to the rooftop level. And here's where you do have your rooftop level, basically the top showing you where that is all open right now. It's trellis, it's the balcony down on the second floor, and it's got stairs going up to it. Basically, what we're showing down at the bottom is that part will be the covered portion. That part there is going to be the new enclosed stairs. One of the things that we're talking about doing is it's really about preserving. And we're going to demonstrate why we feel this is the design that actually will actually keep this structure. I think when I hear staff saying, hey, where's it going to be in 50 years? Well, our goal is this is still going to be here, and it's actually going to be maintained. Right here's the roof, and then in red, that's actually showing you where there is already an existing covered roof. It's the part that we're expanding. The difference between the two is we're basically reducing the trellis area, the terrace. It was 155, and we will be down at 146, so it actually is getting smaller. All right, so here you have the existing elevation on the top. I'm showing you the rear elevations. They all comply because the rear setback is 10 feet. And then you have the front. Down at the bottom is where we were saying that we are extending the front terrace out, one foot 10. So what you see on top is there is a door, there is a roof, and then there's stairs going up to the terrace, which is all trellis. So there is the issue that you find with this design, and I think when the design was originally done, I actually thought it came out pretty sharp, but it has a lot of different conditions that it's almost impossible to protect for waterproofing in the rains. Down below, this is what we're proposing. Now, I am going to highlight the windows. Staff did have a concern with the window sizes. This is in our stairwell. Frankly, if you look at that bottom elevation, it actually looks like somebody went to Home Depot and said, what windows do you have on sale? I've never seen so many different sizes on one elevation. So our thought was, you know what? We're going to match some of the larger windows, and we're going to put it in the stairwell. It's not a place where you're actually going to be looking at your neighbors because it's only bringing natural light into the stairwell. This is our front elevation. So again, you know, I hear about what we're proposing. There are concerns. Obviously, you do not want to lose what is considered a contributing structure, but I can't believe what we're proposing is actually going to take this off any register. So basically what you do, the side setbacks are 5'5". It's actually supposed to be 7'6". Those are existing. We are not touching that area. Again, on the north side, it's 10'3 to the building, but the carport, again, in 93 got a variance to be on the zero setback. So as I stated in the beginning, there's the trellis down on the ground level. You'll see that it actually doesn't line up with the windows, and it doesn't line up with the front door. You're obviously seeing the trellis on top, and then what we're proposing. So we're actually rearranging the trellis. We're having smaller columns, so you actually get to see where the windows are and the front door entry. This is along the back, the rear. We basically do not have any windows proposed except for a porthole window up at the top. Again, the setbacks are all the same as before. This being the north elevation. Again, we already discussed what we're doing. It put the downstairs front trellis area. The rear we're not touching. Again, now here, we are proposing a shed roof along the middle of the bottom floor. Those are over some existing French doors. Now you're seeing, of course, the upper portion. The upper portion does meet the building height plane. We also meet all the requirements for the LDRs for building heights in general. And then again, you do have a window that, again, staff has stated that they were a little concerned with. We feel we've matched some of the larger windows. Again, this is not a window that you're going to stand at and be looking out at your neighbors because you'd never see them. So here's what we're talking about. I'm showing this because the fact is when our client bought this home, they went in for an interior renovation, started opening up the drywall. This is all over her primary suite. You're talking about water damage. The water damage, not only do you have the mold, the mildew, but oh, by the way, you have subterranean termites where the water went all the way down to the ground level. Okay, so the fact is we are talking about trying to preserve this structure, and that's why we're really here today. You're looking at all this damage, and there's a lot of different roof lines that are tying into this upper portion, which is causing all this damage. All right, I need to show this because the fact is, and staff has pointed out, and I don't blame them, the metal roof. The metal roof, we have selected an off-white color. Now, our client did a hold harmless. You know, I heard comments earlier tonight about staff and the process and everything. I've made comments to the city commission. It's not staff. I mean, think about it. It's the process, the process. They have a certain process. I know our chairman, back in the day when he was on this board, you could have a project come before you with plenty of comments, and your comment usually would be, are you okay with all the comments that staff has? And if you were, fine, you're moving forward. But the point is, we need to offset the cost on the front end with our clients and try to get to your board. We want to get to you guys sooner than later. So what happened was, we submitted a pre-application meeting in September. We submitted the drawings in January, and we're finally here in front of you guys. Our client's panicking. She needs to get the roof. So she did. She went with the whole harmless. I know staff had concerns with the color because it's usually a mill finish or gray. So why don't we talk green? We talk green. Let's talk green. The white roof actually goes between 70% and 90% reflectability, where it's actually more green. When you go to gray, you're talking 40% to 70%. When you want compatibility, just go next door because that's where that white roof is. So I feel that we are satisfying that, and that's the only reason why my client did the whole harmless to get a roof on because she needed to protect her house. She's trying to move back in. Here's where you're looking at heights. So what we did on the heights is the following. Here's your streetscape. I didn't even bother showing the multifamily that's to the north, which is three stories. And like I said, it's literally seven feet higher than us. But the existing trellis to the bottom of the beam is 16 foot five, as I've already stated. Our proposed roof that we're doing is actually 15 feet to the beam that actually starts the covered roof. We're talking about literally three feet that we're increasing the height on this. The building, basically at 150, we're going to be one foot, one inch above them. So it's not like we're really trying to exceed all the heights. We're actually just trying to get it so that you can get on that roof and actually be protected. So here's the proposed elevation facing the east. This is our north, south, and you've got your west. When you start looking at it, what we did was we took a picture right now. We do have trees that are already existing on this side. We did the render. We took the trees out so you can actually see what we are proposing. Again, you can see the front yard, which I've already established that our client does want to be able to have a nice little front yard to sit out there. This is, again, the north elevation. Again, we're showing trees there. Reality, they will be reduced for this picture only because those trees are not going away anywhere. There's what you've got today. Everything, and basically, when you talk about, again, the trellises, how they line up and everything, and here's what we are proposing here. We'd like to think that we are extremely compatible. We'd like to believe that our client is doing the right thing. You know, when you hear about people moving into the district, you want them to protect these structures. This is the type of client you want to come into town because they're buying and they're fixing. I will be honest. I advised her not to buy it. I said it can be a painful process, and, you know, it's just one of those things. She's always lived in historic houses, so this is what she wanted to do, and we're very happy to see what the end result would be, and we're hoping you guys will agree. Thank you very much. Thank you. The request is for a Certificate of Appropriateness and Waiver for 160 Marine Way. This is located in the Marina Historic District. So here we can see this on the west side of the marina. This is located just almost the second structure south of Southeast 2nd Street. So here we can see the existing front elevation. Some more images from the northeast. This is the rear west. This is an aerial view of the north elevation, the northwest elevation, then the south. So here we're going to show these again, and we also have them at the end. These are the renderings. This shows what's existing, and then the proposed. Some more renderings of the north, south, west. And so this is the survey. That's what's currently existing on site. Mr. Eliopoulos did note that the structures to the rear and the front, they were original on 1940s, minimal traditional structures. And then early in the 90s, they did have a second story addition with the trellis added to the site. So here we can see the existing site plan. As Mr. Eliopoulos did know, there was a non-conforming wall that was right here. I believe it was a one-inch wall. They do have the existing trellises to the front and the side of the structure. There is a variance that has already been approved for a zero setback for the north side. So there's no concern with regard to the replacement of the trellis on the north. The trellis is also going to be replaced in the front as well. As you can see here, it's a little bit darker. The porch is going to be slightly extended as well. The trellises will, that are originally wood, will be replaced with aluminum, some hardscaping. And if you notice, I did see on the renderings from Mr. Eliopoulos, the driveway is not actually going to be touched. If it were, say they come in after the fact, after they get an approval or the review, and at the time of permit, they do want to change the material to the driveway. They will have to meet the five-foot setback. So I believe that's also noted in the staff report. So here we can see the existing floor plans with regard to the first floor. There's no changes being made to the existing structure itself, just the old wood trellises to be removed with new aluminum trellises. This is the first floor demo plan. Here on the second floor, we see the old stairway with the balcony. That will be removed, and a new stairway will be added here. As well as the balconies. The balcony is going to be removed, and then the stairway will be a little bit larger. So here we can see the demo for the stairway and the balcony on the second floor. And then on the third floor, we can see the new stairwell with the covered porch. And then the trellis on the very top, on the second story, is going to be removed. So here we can see the demo plan for this. Okay, these are the existing and proposed for the front elevations. You can see here the trellis is going to be removed, as well as the wooden trellises on the ground floor, on the front, and on the north. To be replaced with the third-story open-air porch is going to be replacing the existing open-air trellis above the second-story addition. So here we can also see, along with the trellises, we do have the change for the roof. They did submit a hold harmless for that. So the existing roof is originally a 5B crimp, which within the historic, if someone were to come in and request that, we would have concerns with the material. However, they're actually improving the roof because they're proposing standing seam. So technically, at the time of permit, this change wouldn't have been an issue. But because normally an admin approval would require the color to be standing seam, that's why they had to bring the roof to the board. As Mr. Eliopoulos did note, there were issues with the condition of the roof to where the owner needed to get the replacement in a hurry. So that's why the hold harmless was put in place. Here's the existing rear. So here we can see the trellis being removed and the third floor addition being added here. And then we can see the trellis and the gates being added. This is the north side elevation. So here we get a better view of it. They are adding the eyebrow above the two doors on the north side. And then this is the south side elevation. This is the front wall that's being proposed. This is the wall that was originally nonconforming is being moved back. So that's part of this part on the bottom here. And then the louvered elements, as well as the gate, will be added. These are the Secretary of the Interior Standards that applied this request. Okay, we did note that there were concerns with regard to the removal of the trellis and the addition of the open-air porch. As within the historic streetscape, we do typically only see one- to two-story structures. There is concern that the addition on the third floor introduces a third story, which is not typical within this historic district. Here's the visual compatibility standards that apply to this request. This also notes the roof. And I did notice previously that there was a hold harmless. The standing seam roof will be the Drexel metals in stone white. So this is the color that they're requesting, and it will be standing seam to replace the 5B crimp that already exists on the structure. So here is just an aerial of the Marina Historic District. This just kind of shows all the different structures that are in the district that have the mill finish metal roofs. And then here we can see all of the new construction within the streetscape that also includes the mill finish standing seam metal roofs. Some of the visual compatibility excerpts we have, there is a use of the ASAC material for the proposed columns on the third floor. So we did have some concerns with that, just because it's not typical, it's not typically used on a historic structure. We do recommend that other materials that are more consistent with what's already existing be recommended. However, usually with the use of like hardy board and other materials like that, we do typically see it on additions or new construction. But with the use of an addition, we do usually recommend that they use more authentic material. Along with the windows, Mr. Eliopoulos did note, we did have some concerns with regard to the architectural style, as it is minimal traditional, that the louvered elements that are seen on the third floor, as well as the wall in the front of the property may be introducing a new architectural style, maybe a more modern style. The louvered vents aren't typical with what you'd see with like a 1920s or 1930s Tudor-style cottage. So there were concerns with regards to those architectural elements. I did previously note that there were concerns with regard to the roofed third floor addition, introducing a new third floor, because technically the original structure had the trellis. It was open air. Introducing a roofed structure was technically not secondary and subordinate to the one-story portion of the residence, is what we're really looking at, because that's the original structure. So the request did have to have a waiver to the secondary and subordinate visual compatibility standard. So these are the existing and proposed streetscapes. So we can see the existing structure with the existing open air trellis. And then see we have the third floor open air porch here. So per 451E, as I previously noted, this was through visual compatibility. Item 97M6 specifically notes that structures that have additions, the additions need to be secondary and subordinate to the main massing of the structure and should not overwhelm the original historic building. So this is part of the waiver request. Per 2411B5, these are the findings that are noted in your staff report. As previously noted, new additions should not be constructed larger or higher than the historic building. It shouldn't overwhelm the original mass of the original structure or take away from the historic character of, say, the one-story structure. And Mr. Eliabas did note briefly on this with regards to the rest of the streetscapes. There have been, I believe, both of the structures adjacent to this particular property, the structures have been raised to meet FEMA standards. We did have this discussion with the applicant and the owner. They are aware of this. This was one of our TC comments. So they're aware if per the 50% improvement threshold, say they go to building and they are required per all of the cumulative changes and modifications to the structure, that they may have to raise the structure since it's below the existing FEMA. So they are aware and they have noted that they're aware of this potential concern. These are the Certificate of Appropriate Findings and then Site Plan Technical Items. Thank you. Any members of the public want to comment on this item? Seeing none. Gary, no. Yes. Any rebuttal? No. Okay. No rebuttal. All right. Just before discussion, I just wanted to share, just because the hold harmless got brought up a few times about the white roof, I just want to remind the board that, you know, that shouldn't be used against the applicant or in favor of the applicant. It could just proceed with just applying the LDRs and the design guidelines, kind of as if that is the intention and not what is there currently. Okay. Can you explain the whole hold harmless? I mean, I guess what aspect of it? So essentially it'll enforce whatever the board decides tonight. But if we decide that it needs to be changed, then they have. And they knew the ability. Yes, and they are aware of that. Ben, you've been starting every other one. Come on. Can you be cognizant of your microphone? We're having a little hard time hearing you in the back. Sorry about that. Well, this is an interesting property because, you know, it started out very small, and then over time it keeps, like, creeping, creeping, creeping. Although I'm really, I'm on board with everything that's being proposed on the first floor. I mean, the trellises and even the materials, and I'm okay with the color of the roof. What I'm struggling with is the tower, enclosing that, what is now an open trellis, enclosing that, to me, I mean, it looks like a lighthouse. And it's just really kind of changing visually the whole look of this house. So, I mean, that's my opinion. Yeah. I mean, kind of have the same thoughts. I want to see what everybody else thinks. But it's, you know, it's an open-air trellis right there now. This perspective is a little off. It looks like the new proposed is larger in scale, so it makes it even look more, you know, on the image here. So it makes it look more imposing. Well, especially if this house has the potential of being raised a few feet, then this really gets tall looking. Yeah, I would say it's a little odd. I understand the reason they're having water intrusion on that flat deck that's open with a wood trellis. I assume it's wood. How big, how many square feet is that enclosed area in the tower, 100 square feet or so? Great question for Mr. Eliopoulos. Right. Yeah. It's actually 146 square feet. Include everything or just the exterior? That's just the exterior. It's not including the stairs. So if you were to lose this, you're only losing 186 square feet. My question was kind of along those lines. It's like, what are you gaining for this? If it is intrusion and water intrusion, you could just seal the whole thing off as it is. Find a better way to. And find some more space somewhere else in the structure. Visually, it just doesn't seem balanced with anything else in the neighborhood or the structures. And even with the trellis up there, it looks a little bit odd. But adding a whole enclosed section up there, and it's not like it's a turret or made to look like a tower or a lighthouse. It's another room kind of stuck up there on the top. And to me, visually, it doesn't look super compatible with anything else that's around there. And I know the buildings, the townhomes to the north are probably taller than this. But those are part of a townhouse development, not a single family. So I'm curious to see what everybody else thinks. Can you show the elevation with the neighboring properties? Yeah, it's not even the overall height. It's just adding it on to this small portion thing. Yeah, yeah. My take is that it has a trellis right now. And that, to me, actually looks more odd than the proposed design. I actually think the proposed design makes it a more cohesive structure. Yeah, it is kind of narrow and tall. But you do look at the neighboring properties. And height-wise, it does fit. It is in an area that they're raising all of the structures. Is it subordinate to the rest? In size, yes. And it's back. So I think in that regard, I do say it is subordinate. It is now like the top piece that is maybe the most prevalent. But overall, I think with the streetscape, I don't have a problem with this. The ground floor level, I don't have a problem with it. I think they're modest changes. I think it's well done. I can see your point that it is a little odd that it's so narrow and tall. But it does have that trellis already. And I prefer this than to that. Michelle, could you clarify the trigger that would cause this to be elevated based on the value, the improvement value, and when is that calculated? So that would need to be the work that's been completed on the structure would need to be looked at by the applicant starting when the FEMA changes occurred, which I believe was 22. And the FEMA map changed originally in 2017. So there's two time frames where the map changed and then it changed again. It went from FEMA being 7 plus a foot for building being 8, and then it changed to FEMA being 8 plus a foot for building, Florida building code, to 9. So the cumulative look of improvements is going to be anything. So if they replaced windows, those permits need to be included. It's a substantial improvement of anything that happened on that structure, and it's cumulative. From 2017? Does it depend on ownership? That is going to have to be reviewed with the building department, and I don't think it matters on ownership. We did provide in a very back here. This is FEMA 213, which is a really helpful guide. We also have a floodplain manager here at the city that works in our department that's very helpful and can walk through with them. But our quick look at this is we think it's triggering the 50%, but we've made the comments. They've acknowledged the comment. At this point, there's nothing more for my team to do until they get into building permit, and then the building plan reviewer is going to say, yeah, you triggered this or provide an appraisal that says your value is higher than the property appraiser's value, which to me I think is a fatal flaw with the way this process works. It's another day's conversation because the values for the structure alone tend to be pretty low with a property appraiser. It's the values in the land. So an appraiser would be able to come in and look and see if that can be adjusted, which they have every right to do. Where does this sit now, four foot? It's 4.05, so that would be a, and that's NAVD, North American Vertical Datum. So that, it would be a five foot increase. Now they could, could they apply for a waiver? A variance. A variance to leave it where it is. Yeah, and that would come before you. As a historic structure, that would qualify. And what happens with that variance, just so it's full disclosure, right? Because the, are you the property owner, Miss? I'm sorry, we haven't met in person. Full disclosure for the property owner. Should this board decide, you know, should she say, I want to come forward and apply for a variance to reduce that requirement and keep it at existing? And this board says, fine, we're good. It's preserving the historic integrity and everything's good. There is still documentation that gets recorded with a Palm Beach County clerk, including a letter that the owner has to accept any increase in flood insurance once you get a variance like that. So it can be cost prohibitive, and we often suggest that they do the footwork on that before going the distance, delaying the construction to wait for the variance. So this is serious stuff. It wasn't in the staff report because I felt like we pressed on it enough in the TAC review. We were very clear. We had meetings. We had our floodplain manager in a meeting with Mr. Eliopoulos. But the more I looked at this, I didn't want it to come back later and have the owner say, well, I didn't really understand. So I thought it would be good for information purposes that we're full disclosure here. But your review tonight is about the waiver, the waiver findings, secondary and subordinate, the COA. That's what you're here to look at tonight. The variance for potential changes in the future is not technically on the table. No, it was more of a... But that doesn't mean you can't think about what that effect would be. It was a curiosity because, you know, if it did go up another five foot, that would not necessarily change it that much, but it would change it. So it's, I mean, we had the one at 46 not that long ago, and it's the same situation. Chairman, may I just respond to one thing? Sure. Yeah. Okay. With regards to the cost, the ground floor, which are non-habitable spots, trellises and everything, do not count towards the value. So we are only talking about the top floor. As Michelle stated, we went by the property appraiser on this last one. Obviously, we would get a separate appraisal, and everybody knows the values. This structure is worth a lot of money, and I'm not worried about it. That's why I told staff, we'll move forward. We are not raising the structure. We won't have to. There's no way we're hitting that number. All right. Not that we're going to go back and forth, and I respect and understand that. But if there was even a permit for a kitchen remodel, like, that would be included in the price. I agree. Yeah. Yep. Okay. Okay. Okay. I don't have any, I'm kind of, with Benjamin on this, I don't really have any problems with the ground floor and the trellises and the eyebrows and the patio. I think that's all nice. The third story, I think, has some visual compatibility issues with scale, height, mass. So, that's my biggest issue with it. I don't see, I don't necessarily like it, but I don't dislike it. I don't like it, but I don't dislike it. And I think that the addition of the interior space for the staircase functionally makes sense to get to the roof deck. And, you know, I would probably have designed it a little bit differently, but I see where the design language is going. And, again, I don't have any issues overall with anything that's been proposed. Somebody want to make a motion on this one way or the other? I think we've kind of talked it out. I don't think we're going to redesign this from the dais here. Pete, comment? Yeah. I would make a motion to approve it. Let's see how it goes. We'll take a vote. Anybody else have any final comments before? Go for it. Okay. Motion to approve the Certificate of Appropriateness and Waiver HP 417-2026 for the property located at 160 Marine Way, 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. We have a second? I'll second. We have a motion and a second. Any discussion? I'll say one thing. You know, some other projects in Marina District had a lot of the neighbors come by, and no one has come by to, like, say anything. So, not that we have to look at that, but I just wanted to bring that up. Well, no, just... Too late. Yeah, sorry. Just for board discussion. All right. Michelle, I'd like to make a comment. There was no public notice with this where the other application had public notice, just a clarifying difference. Randy? Carol Perez? No. Richard Kasser? Yes. Peter Dwyer? Yes. Chris Cabezas? Yes. Benjamin Baffer? No. John Miller? Yes. Motion carries. Thank you very much, folks. Appreciate your time. John, thank you for your contribution. Thank you. Moving on. Mr. Dwyer, I can't remember if for the first item you stated on the record, or, Mr. Dwyer? Yeah. I can't remember. It's okay. I can't remember if you stated on the record for the first item, the reason for your recusal, or if it was your wife who brought it up. Like, could you state on the record? Yes. For the record, I did recuse myself from the first item. I left the building, actually, and watched the proceedings from my car. And I also signed a form. What is the name of the form? 8B. Form 8B. Okay. Do you remember what you checked? I checked that I had a financial interest in the property. Okay. And then, Mr. Aliopoulos, can you share? I do to it being a family member and business associate. Okay. Thank you. So, we have our director here, Anthea Giannotis, our steam director, who would like to address the board. Thank you all for serving, first of all. These are late meetings. I'm not going to try to make this meeting any later for you. But I was watching at the beginning of the meeting. And I think, at this point, I'm not willing to let inaccurate information stand. And I don't think it's fair to you. I don't think it's fair to my extremely hardworking staff. If we are going to find ways to expedite development and, at the same time, maintain level of standards and the things that protect our city and make sure it's great, we need to deal in fact and truth. Okay. So, the first thing I will say is that, in 2021, this is the building permit process we were using on the screen. I don't know how many of you have seen a DOS green screen. I think some of you probably haven't ever even seen that before. That is how we were tracking. We also used these handy sticky notes that we stapled to the files. And then, the wooden box is the box where the permits went. And every morning, I would walk in through the back door. And if a second box had been added to the chair, I knew we were in trouble. Those plans for TAC and for building permits, sorry, I grabbed this from an old presentation, were being reviewed through a bucket brigade because there was one set of plans. And it went to the landscape person. And then, it went over to engineering, which, by the way, is in a different building at SOC. So, I got driven over there. Then, I got driven back. And then, went over to the fire department because they have a review stop. Everybody looks at us. But TAC involves four other departments. And they are not all in this building. And this is, then you also, you had to pay in person at the window. And you would get your little receipt. And then, you would come back to us. We would say you paid. And we would give you a permit. Okay? You came down here to drop it off. You came down here to pay and pick it up. This is where we were because there was just a lack of investment. Okay? COVID, if there was anything good that came out of COVID, it was the fact that we had to put tables outside with buckets for you to put your building permit in while we waited for you to leave so you didn't breathe on us. And then, we would go and get it. Right? And thankfully, our customers were like, why are you not on a program like others? So, we have been working really hard to get a better system that at least could let everyone review at once. Right? Now, you're going to be amazed at how old I am. But, I'll say this. I went to the University of Miami School of Architecture between 1987 and 1992. Okay? I didn't go back until I went forward. In that window of time, in my freshman year, we were lettering. We had to practice lettering by hand. By my senior year in 92, it was a five-year program, for the record, I was the first class in AutoCAD. And to this day, AutoCAD didn't have icons back then. It was, I will still keystroke a lot of the commands because it's easier for me than to go look for the icon. So, change is hard. Technology moves forward. And I don't care what your business is. It moves forward. And it can be a challenging transition for everybody. But that said, this is the program file because the new technology gives us every single step of every application made here. I can see how many projects each team member is assigned. I can see how long they're in the projects, what they're doing, you know, how they're commenting. And this has been an amazing tool for us. It informed us in the first month we had it that we needed another engineering inspector, electrical inspector. We found immediately that this was taking too long. We had to get another electrical inspector. It just popped right out. Everyone else is chugging along under 10 days. Why is he taking 15? He needs help. He's got too much work, right? So, it's been an amazing program for all of us moving forward. This is the file for 226 South Ocean. The file came in July 3rd, 2025. So, I can absolutely understand why this gentleman is frustrated. Now, to be fair, this was the month we shifted to EPL. Project DOCS is a separate, you know, plan system that building had been on for two years. We did it in pieces. Because while all these people were doing their regular work, running everything through the board meetings, meeting people in the lobby and answering their questions, writing staff reports, doing new LDR amendments, doing the Atlantic Avenue Resource Survey, we were building the system. And that was taking a lot of people offline. About anywhere from 20% to 40% of their time, they're in the back helping IT build the system. So, this team has worked really, really hard. We have more to do. We are finding ways to streamline all the time. But, because I can see every step of the way, I can see. And I generated this. The minute I heard, I said, my goodness, what on earth? Why is this gentleman stuck? Well, on November 25th, 2025, the key to upload your drawings into Project DOCS was given to the architect. There were, Michelle's grabbed it within two days. And she has made comments of things that needed to be added. And there's a list. It will tell me everything. It took the architect 70 days to respond. Finally, response. Michelle Hewitt responded in less than three days. These are business days. That's true. It's not calendar days. And then it took 55 days. So, if you want to be frustrated as to why you lost half a year, it's not city staff. And it's common practice. You know, we've all been there. Those of us that are in the trade. It's very easy to say, because if we're booming, you're booming. And you've got all your clients coming at you, wanting your stuff at the same time. And it used to be very easy to say, Oh, my permit is stuck in City Hall. It's not ready yet. Because really, you've got to go to finish this other guy's garage before you go start on this other thing. This program gives us the receipts. And this staff, including utilities, engineering, fire, they are performing well under the targets that we have. Would we like to go faster? Sure. We're trying to find ways to condense. There's, I think, some of their frustrations that projects back in the day used to go forward with a laundry list of conditions that we would just work out later. I'll give you the best example of that. Sunny Village went through. It was called Swinton Commons at the time. And at 2 o'clock in the morning, the commission approved it. With the condition, we removed the third floor. Fourth floor. Sorry. I think it was more like 3 in the morning. Yeah. And so you can imagine, none of the data tables made sense. Nothing had been double-checked. And fast forward to PEB buying that project, they thought they had a shovel-ready project. And it was kind of not exactly right. We're very grateful they bought it. They brought Gensler in. I think we're all pretty excited, considering the trauma that that project was. That's turned out as great as it is. But we don't do that. We don't approve. And we are not moving you forward to a board if you need a waiver or a variance. That's a legal decision. We're not doing it. So if you have questions, call us. We're here to help. But we've already spoken to the gentleman that was here. And we've explained what happened. And he was very receptive. We are here to help you if you're stuck. But, I mean, I'm just on notice. We have the receipts for everything. And I've heard over and over again, if I had a nickel for every time someone said, oh, the hysterical board isn't going to let me do it. I have a lot of nickels. I also, personally, I don't live in the city. I live in West Palm. I live in a district. I did a huge addition to my own historic house. I got the tax abatement. I will always choose a district if I can because of what you guys do. So thank you. But that was so, I think, inaccurately aimed at the city that I just have to set the record straight. Thank you. Thank you. That's good. So thank you for entertaining me. I'm not saying we're perfect, but we're not that slow. So that's all I have. If you have questions, we're here always. Thank you very much for the reply. Thank you. Thank you. Good to hear. I didn't think that comment was going to go unanswered, by the way. Not that unfairly. So our next board meeting is, I don't know where it went. I know I took it away from you. That's okay. I'll look in my calendar. So I think we're on schedule for our normal meeting in September, and we do have items September 2nd for that meeting. As I think I may have told you, I don't know if I told you this in our last meeting, but 46th Marine Way did appeal and are scheduled for the August 18th City Commission meeting. So we're prepping them to go for that meeting. There's actually, that's a pretty busy meeting for our department and for the commission that night because we also have the item that you reviewed tonight for the lot split is on that same meeting. So we're busy in the background on those items. Is there anything I can do to answer questions before you adjourn? I have one quick question. So it's driving down Northeast 1st, and there's a two-story between 3rd and 4th. Street or Ave? Are we northbound, southbound, east or west? First Ave, Northeast 1st Ave. Okay. Just north of Banker's Row. Okay. Between Northeast 3rd and 4th. Yeah. So across from Canary Row. Yeah, a two-story. Yellow frame, two-story, lots of work done. Never came before the board that I can recall. They did. They did? Okay. All right. Way back then. It's kind of sitting. Is it in construction now? Yeah. Oh, it is. Took all the windows out, replaced a lot of... Well, double check. Okay. But that did come through. Dan Sloan was the architect on that. Okay. Came through, I think maybe Ben was on the board then. It had a big addition being, was approved to the kind of side rear of it. Okay. Wow, that was a while back then. I don't know if we got, we were trying to encourage them to bring the front porch back because it had, they had enclosed the front porch on that one. And we were trying to, I don't remember what happened with it, but yeah. All right. Just curious. It's a lot of work on that. It's a good, I haven't been down first in a couple of weeks, so I'll go check on it and just make sure that it's actually permitted. Yeah. And then, go ahead. This is John's last meeting. That's where I was going next. Yeah. Thank you, John. Thank you. Yeah. Thank you, John. Great job. Good to miss you. I think it's over 12, 13 years on this board. Yeah. Overall. Wow. Maybe even longer. You're a very good chair. Yeah. Thank you. What's next? Generous. What's next for you? Taking a break. Yeah. Taking a break. Good, good. Yeah. Well, we appreciate your dedication and your service to the city and to this board and to historic preservation in Delray Beach. And I'm sure we'll continue to see you because I know you're over at the Historical Society. Of course, any questions you ever have, I love that you touch base and call, check in with us. But we can't thank you enough for your dedication to our board. Thank you. And maybe take a year off and come back. We should come to the meetings with George. We'll see. Yeah. I'll hang out with George. Maybe you could come. Whatever it is, okay. Maybe we could try to get our partners in the private sector to, I remember many years ago, the Historical Society, the Preservation Trust used to come to every historic preservation board meeting. And maybe they wouldn't stay the whole night, but they would come and support public comment and something. So maybe we could get back to doing that because I think there's some really good feedback from the people in the public, private sector over there and what they have to say. And thank you. Thank you. I appreciate it. Yeah. Thanks. All right. I had one quick success. Yes. Before you hit that gavel, though. Um, I saw that the Historic Carver High School, um, RFQ now is out. Oh. Um, they are in selection for architects. And I looked at the, um, I looked at the RFQ for contractors and they are keeping buildings. One and 12 are being renovated. Right. And so, um, that was something. Is that the school board that's doing that? Um, yes. Palm Beach County School Board. Wow. They're, so, remember, originally they wanted to demo everything and. Just keep the gym, I think. Yeah. And keep the gym. But now they're keeping the other, the two historic buildings. Great. Well, thank you for telling me because I'm the last to know usually when it comes to that particular project. So, um, hopefully we can maybe connect with our partners at the school district, um, just to see what actually is in the plan. I haven't seen or heard of that. Thank you so much. I can share it with you. That would be great. Thank you. Because I've got the, I've got the. You probably saw it looking at bids, right? Um, no, it's just, it's the, the RFQ is out. Yeah. For like work purposes. Yeah. For the proposals. Yeah. And then for Carol, Chris, and Jake, um, the three of you are up for reappointment. Um, and I think that's being handled at the next meeting. It's on the next commission agenda. August 11th. Yeah. Yeah. Tuesday. Um, you have every right to, I think the clerk sends you the contact info for the commissioners. You have every right to reach out to them and express your enthusiasm and, um, requests if you, you know, can stay on the board. You, all three are qualified board members. So it's important that we, if they're not going to appoint you again, that we get qualified board members back. Um, but yeah, feel free to reach out or if you have any questions and we can help you with anything, please let us know and good luck. Thank you. We hope you come back. All right. Thank you so much, everybody. All right. Thank you. We need to adjourn. Thank you. Thank you. All right. Okay. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go.