Historic Preservation Board - Jun 03, 2026

Okay. Good evening. It being 5-0-1, I'd like to call to order this meeting of the City of Delray Beach Historic Preservation Board for June 3, 2026. Can you please take the roll? Richard Kasser. Here. Carol Perez. Here. Peter Dwyer. Here. Chris Cabezas is absent. Benjamin Baffer. Here. Jake Leopolis. Here. John Miller. Here. Any changes to the agenda? Yes. All right. The applicant for item 8A has changed her mind on her material, so she requested to be removed from the agenda. So 8B will become 8A, and 8C will become 8B. All right. Somebody want to make a motion approving those changes? I'll make the motion. I'll second. Okay. All in favor, say aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed? Okay. Minutes. We had minutes from the meeting of May 6th. Anybody have any comments? Want to edit? Make a motion to approve? I'll make a motion to approve the minutes. I'll second. Motion and a second. All in favor, say aye. Aye. Opposed? Okay. All right. If there's any members of the public who are here tonight and are going to speak on any of these items, even if you may not be sure and you think you may want to speak, now's the time to stand up and be sworn in, please. Have you invested in me as a notary in the state of Florida? Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and everything but the truth? Thank you. Thank you. All right. Right now, if there's any members of the public who would like to address the board about any item that is not on the agenda, now is your opportunity to make a public comment. Seeing none, we're going to move on. Any presentations tonight? No presentations. We're going to move into quasi-judicial items. I'm going to read the rules for quasi-judicial items. This hearing shall be conducted in accordance with the City of Delray Beach's quasi-judicial rules. The applicant and the city shall be permitted to present their case. The public shall be allowed to speak for three minutes each or for a maximum of six minutes if the person represents an organization or a group of people who are present but agree not to speak. The city commission, board members, staff, and the applicant may be allowed to cross-examine a witness. The city or the applicant will be allowed to offer rebuttal testimony. The decision to approve or deny an application or appeal may not legally be made upon personal views as to whether this 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. We are going to move on to the new item 8A. Is there any ex parte communications on this item? No. None. Staff? For the record, I'm Katharina Palavoda, Senior Historic Preservation Planner. I'd like to enter HP-540-2026 file into the record. This is a Level 1 in Certificate of Appropriateness for Sunday Village, Buildings B&F, and this is located in the Old School Square Historic District. The agent, Mike Covelli, is here with us. So he'll go ahead and present first. Good evening, Mike Covelli. 1209 South Swinton Avenue. Hit this up here in a second. No, no pressure. There we go. Okay, tonight we have a Level 1 site plan modification in COA for building B&F of Sunday Village for a restaurant known as Maman. The restaurant is a restaurant, cafe, bakery that is taking its inspiration from foods in the south of France and some areas in North America. It's a very casual establishment where you would go in and order at a counter and then you sit after you order and then it's full table service once you order. So it would be a very nice addition to this area. The site is located south of Atlantic in Block 61 and west of Swinton Avenue. Oops, I went one too many. Did I go back? Which way am I going here? And there's a subject site where you can see buildings B&F. Building G is to the right down at 1st Street and the Cathcart House is to the left to the north. This is the current facade of building F as it's been restored. And there's building B and you can see building F to the left there. This is the rear of the building. Building B is to the left. Building F is to the right. And this roof area is really the topic of the discussion this evening as we want to add roof vents that are required by code for ventilation for the repurposing of the building. Here's the front elevation. The top elevation is as it exists. The lower is the proposed. You'll notice they're the same except there's a cloud on the lower. That is the location where the roof vents are going to go behind the peak of the roof. So the front elevation doesn't really change. The rear elevation, the top elevation shows existing. And the lower shows the location where the vents are going to go. You can see they are below the peak of the roof. They are on the rearward slope of the roof. The vent to the far left was previously approved. And that's also an air conditioning vent. And then the side elevations, the top elevation is the south elevation that is as seen from building G to the south. And the north elevation is as seen from building from the Cathcart House to the north. This is a detail of how the louvered screen will be placed within the roof. We're very lucky in this particular building because we were able to put all of the equipment in the rafters or in the upper joists of the structure of the house and not on the roof. So the impacts are very minimal. Here's a perspective drawing that shows the rear-facing slopes and the location of those proposed vent enclosures. And then just going around the building, this is the front elevation where you can't see any of this. Here's the side elevation where you can just see a little bit of it peeking up between the chimneys and the valley of the roof. This is the rear elevation that we've seen a number of times already. And then this is the south elevation that is on the building G side. An aerial view of this roof, we are very lucky in this configuration of the roofs in as much as there's a lot of different peaks in this roof. So the location was chosen so that it kind of tucks all these vents in and tries to obscure them as much as possible. So when we do something like this, we have standards and guidelines. And the first thing we look at is the Secretary of Interior standards. The first four items in this, and these are the applicable items of the 10 that the Secretary of Interior standards are. The first four are really related to the buildings, and the buildings have already been restored. The buildings have preserved the character of the original buildings, the character of the property. We've preserved the physical record of the buildings because they've been restored to look like they originally were. And we've restored the distinctive elements and preserved those. The next item on this list is related to when you add something like this to the structure of the original thing. And in this case, it's the roof. These vents were designed so they don't look like they were the original structures on the house, but they've been done so that they blend in and they're compatible with the structure through the use of natural materials and colors and textures so that they blend. The other item is that if you removed it, could you restore the roof to its original character? And absolutely, yes, you could. So you could make positive findings for all of these items with regards to this addition of these code-required vents. Then going to the LDRs, there's criteria for board action. The first one basically says that the design should be in good taste and contribute to the image of the city. The addition of these vents is the result of adaptive reuse of the building. So obviously there's code requirements that we have to deal with, and you'll probably see these on many of these buildings as they develop them. The addition, through this adaptive reuse, we think has been done tastefully and in good taste, and we've done the design that minimizes the impacts through the use of materials and colors and things to blend. The second item is that the appearance does not deteriorate or depreciate the look or the value, bless you. And through the structural restoration and the continued elevation of this property through the adaptive reuse process, we're really contributing to the evolving environment by changing the use, making this more sustainable to go from a single-family house to a commercial use, and it definitely increases the values in the area. And then the final thing is that the proposal is within harmony with the general area and in compliance with the comprehensive plan. We feel that doing these code-required structures on the roof are in harmony with what has to be done in the area. The buildings are in harmony with one another, both north and south. And through the adaptive reuse of making this a commercial site, it is in conformity with the policies and objectives of the comprehensive plan. So for all of these items, you can make positive findings, and I would appreciate it if you would approve this. And Luciana Esposito is here, the architect, as well. If we have any questions, we can answer those questions. Thank you. We'll let you know. So this is a level one in Certificate of Appropriateness Application. It's for Sunday Village for Buildings BNF. This is an aerial of the entire Sunday Village property, and you can see the area circled in red. The two structures that are attached are the second structure to the south, and that's Buildings BNF. Okay, here we can see another site plan image of them. The center here, what's not showing is they are attached by a roof right here. So here's some images. This is the northeast elevation. So this right here, closest to us to the north, that's Building B, and then the one in the rear is Building F. Another front elevation. This is the front of F. This is Building B, and then you can see where the roof structure is. That was part of the smaller addition to attach the structures. That was from a previous approval. This side north elevation. South side. This is the rear. Rear west. So, as Mr. Covelli did note, the two proposed hood vents, there was an original approval with all of the other historic structures last, I think it was last year. They all originally had different hood vent approvals on different parts of the structures on the west side. Building B got the approval for the hood vents for this structure. However, as the new restaurant did come in, and as they were working on their interior and their build out, they did note that they would need additional hood vents on Building F, which, since they weren't originally approved on this structure, we had to bring it back to the board. Okay. This is, you can see, on the north side. Mr. Covelli did note that, although they are visible on the north and south sides, they're not visible from the north, and they don't encroach over the peak roof. The roof of the structure of Building Ave. Okay. Here's the south. This is a proposed rear west structure. So, here you can see the two proposed vents. As Mr. Covelli did note, the vent that's on the rear here on Building B, this was already previously approved. You can see an image of them. We do have the dimensions included. The screening material will actually be, it was noted in the staff report, they are going to be using a wood material to match the existing wood siding. The original approval for the vents were hardy board. So, they're actually going back to using a more natural material that matches the existing structure. There's the existing roof plan. You can see where the proposed vents are going to be. This is a rendering of the roof, so you can see where the two proposed vents are. Here they are again in this image. These are the Secretary of the Interior standards that do apply. As for the existing hood vent, they do match what was originally approved. They are using more appropriate material. Hardware is fine, but they are going with a natural wood to match. So, there's no concerns with material. There's no concerns with height. There are no changes being made to roof shapes. So, for the most part, materials, textures, color, and roof shapes. With regards to visual compatibility, there are no concerns with regard to this request. We did note that because there is a new restaurant coming in, it was adaptive reuse. This was originally a residential structure. They did have to come in and make some additional changes once they secured a new tenant for this structure. So, they're coming in. As you saw in the last meeting, there was a previous tenant with one of the other structures that had changes to windows and vents. And more than likely, you'll probably be seeing a few more of these vents or windows coming in for these structures. These are certificate appropriateness findings. And that concludes my presentation. Okay. Thank you. All right. Any public comment on this item? Seeing none. All right. Any rebuttal by the applicant? No rebuttal. No cross. Okay. Staff? All right. We're going to move into board discussion. Anybody want to start? I'll start. Question for the applicant. And I just want to preface this with I know these buildings are really challenging to especially put a restaurant there. Yeah. So, I get the need for the creative adaptation. To me, the west side of the buildings are – or the back of this building is the more important side. The front on Swinton, people are driving by at a clip. Unless they're stopped at an intersection, they're really not going to be paying attention and looking. But because the project has been designed to pull people and pedestrians into the west side with all of the narratives and the storyboards about each of the properties and really creating that promenade. I think the west facades are much more important and have a bigger impact than the fronts, especially because people are going to be lingering. They're going to be looking at it and appreciating the historic nature of the homes – or the buildings, not homes, but the buildings. So, again, I don't have a problem with it. I just want to ensure that the materials are appropriate. And I think in your presentation, it wasn't clear what the materials are. And staff said it's going to be the wood siding for all three. The previously approved vent, and then these two. Yes. Yes. Okay. So, wood siding, same color of – Yeah. So, okay. Okay. Just wanted to confirm that. Yep. Okay. Just to follow up with one item, could you go back to that slide with the circles on it? So, we don't have a ton of restaurants in historic structures, particularly homes. So, this is a bit of a study in how to do hood vent screening better. The one thing that I don't think is problematic at this point, but we may want to track it as they get constructed and see how they're built, is that the vent screening, these things here on the left, sit slightly off the roof, and that's to allow water to flow when it rains. So, they're not – they don't look like a traditional chimney, per se. Even though they're fashioned to look like a chimney feature. Also, you can see on the left here where the number 39 is, those are actual chimneys. So, this has been the most simplistic solution that the applicant has come up with, and they're all approved like that now. But there's just more. So, we expect that there may be more coming forward, and we may have to study it once they're in for future applications. Thanks. Anyone else? I mean, my opinion was – I mean, we knew this was coming. These are adaptive reuse. They're all restaurant use. I believe all of these have been approved for restaurant use in some form or fashion. So, you've got to be vent somewhere, you know. I would disagree with you a little bit. I think the Swinton side is a little bit more prominent. If nothing else, it is the streetscape. But I see your point as well, because there is a lot of pedestrian traffic in the back there, and it's a really nice little promenade. So, anybody want to make a motion? Well, I just have a question. Oh, sorry. Yeah. So, Mike, the color of the wood is going to be the same color as the roof? No. It'll be the color of the siding. What color is the siding? There you go. Go to one of the pictures. It's like a creamy white. Go to one of the pictures. So, it's just going to stand out more. I mean – It's called Irish cream. There it is. Are you suggesting that we do, like, natural wood, or is that what you're saying? I'm just suggesting that it'd look nicer for me if it blended in rather than have it glaring, you know, an opposing color. But I don't know. I'd have to – I'm not opposed to – I'm not really opposed to that. It's probably a good suggestion because, you know, the root – it is shake shingles. So, you know, they're going to weather to, like, a gray color. So, you know, we could try to do something with – you know, we did decide to do them out of natural wood. They don't necessarily have to be painted, but there's going to be that transition time where – or we paint them some color that is more compatible with the color of the shake shingles, and we go from that. But I'm not – we're not adverse to that. It's probably a good suggestion, Carol. Yeah, I'd like to hear from more board members on that. So, there's – so, you have how many bins? There was one previously approved on building B, which is the north building, and we have these two on the south building. Two of them are some code requirement that you have to have fresh air intakes for air conditioning now, and then the other one is for the hood fat. So, didn't we have someone come in before and ask for more bins? Yes. What was that for? Another restaurant? So, there are five restaurant uses all along Swinton within six buildings. As you can see here, this picture, which shows that chimney in the brick fashion, there's another chimney painted the same color as the wall. So, this is – I think we have maybe one more that might be coming forward. Building G. Building G. I just think it is getting congested up there, and so I don't know. Yes, anyone else has a – How about if I say we would be happy to blend the color? I mean, I don't know what anyone thinks. I agree with you. I think it should blend. Yeah. It's a good suggestion. I think whoever makes a motion would put that as an option. I, staff, would like to hear your input, but I have zero problem with that as well. So, you know, if it's a natural or if it's a stained shake, you know, you stain it roughly the same thing. It's going to age roughly the same time and the same way. So, you know, depending on the species of wood you put up there. But – Go ahead. I have a suggestion. Yes. Just because we haven't seen them all come in, right? We don't know what that's going to look like. I would suggest, since it's going to be hardy board, that comes usually like in a yellow color. It's not hardy board. Oh, it's going to come in wood. It's natural wood. I think that we – you give them some flexibility that it's either staining the wood or potentially painting. But once they're installed, we go out and do a site inspection and kind of see what it looks like and if it's going to blend better or would it look better if it were painted because keep in mind the chimney on the left is white like the walls or the creamy white. The chimney on the right is brick and then we'd have a third color introduced on these. So I would give them some flexibility, you know, on it. But I don't think the idea is a bad idea. I just wouldn't want it to look like a fence. I'd want it to look like an architectural feature. Okay. We can work that out. Okay. That's a good suggestion, Carol. So I guess what would the motion look like? I think that you could give them two color options and say that the wood would be either stained or painted to match the building. Stained to match the roof. Stained to match the roof. You could say that, yeah. Right. Although the roof isn't in its full-blown color just yet. Not yet. It's going to patina gray. Not yet. Well, yeah. But like I said, it'll age roughly the same rate that they're in. Not if you stain it. Because your roof shakes are not stained. So you want to have the same treatment on the roof. I definitely think there should be some sealing of them. Well, that's the problem, and that's what a concern I'd have with just the natural wood. That over time, you're basically creating a louver that is not really supported well. It's a tutelie on each one of those little slats. And over time, the natural wood, especially if you don't have any type of a treatment on it, it's going to curl and warp. Are these shakes dipped, the ones that are up there now? I'm sorry? Are they dipped in a stain or are they pure natural? I actually don't know. I really don't know. Okay. I mean, they look like they've been treated somehow. I'm sure they have been. Yeah. So I wouldn't overcomplicate it. Yeah. Or, I mean, matching could be, from where I sit, matching could be problematic. Because if we say to match and then they do it and it doesn't match and it's not exact, then who's wrong? So what about staying to be substantially similar to the roof? You could say to match as close as possible. This team is really skilled at execution, I have to say, the Sunday Village team. So knowing them, they'd probably stain some pieces before they actually installed to figure out the right color and have us all take a look. So I'm sure it'll be fine. Way to go. All right. I will make the motion to approve the Level 1 Site Plan Modification and Certificate of Appropriateness HP-540-2026 for the property located at Sunday Village Buildings B and F Old School Square Historic District by finding that the request and approval thereof is consistent with the comprehensive plan and meets the criteria set forth in the land development regulations subject to the following conditions, that the vents be stained to match as close as possible to the roof or painted the same color as the building. With staff. With staff's review. Okay. Do we have a motion? Oh, I'll make a motion. Let's do it. No, we have a motion. We need a second. I'll second that motion. All right. Motion and a second. Any discussion? Everybody good? Richard Kasser? Yes. Carol Perez? Yes. Peter Dwyer? Yes. Thanks. Chris Cabezas is absent. Benjamin Baffer? Yes. Jake Iliopoulos? Yes. John Miller? Yes. That's good. Thank you. It was a joint effort. Thank you very much. We got there. All right. Next item. So this is actually item B now, correct? Yes. So this becomes 7E. 46 Marine Way. While they're queuing up the presentation, I'll enter the file into the record. And just press down. And it's HP 544-2026 for 46 Marine Way. It's a COA, demolition, relocation, variances, waivers for property on the west side of Marine Way in the Marina Historic District. And Ms. Kay Edwards is here and will do her presentation. Before we start, because I'm assuming there is some, any ex parte communications on this item? Yes. I saw the site in person with the applicant. Okay. Are these letters here? I do not get these on email, but... Oh, thank you for reminding me. There are several letters that were printed and put at your spaces here. I think several in support and one not in support, which we've also shared with the applicant. Yes. Thank you. Again, the letters and I did some digital walking around of the area. Okay, cool. So the letters that we received tonight in over the past several months, I've probably had conversations on varying degrees with Kristen Finn, Dan Edwards, Anthea Giannotes, Kay Edwards, Julie Cassell, Jim Chard, Michelle Hoyland, and Jeannie DuPont. I received all of the letters that everyone else received, and I communicated briefly with Kristen Finn. And I have been to the site on a couple of occasions. I have the letters, and I've also had conversations with Kristen over the last few months on the project, and she has shared the renderings that I see in front of me. So thank you. Okay, cool. Ready to rock and roll? All right, here we go. Good evening, board. Again, Kay Edwards at 101 Northwest 17th Street here in Delray, and thank you for the opportunity to present before you again. It's great to see several familiar faces who have followed this property through prior versions, but I'd also like to welcome those who may be reviewing the project for the first time. Although this is technically being presented as a new application, we appreciate the chance to come back before the board, share the updates and changes we've made, and continue working towards a thoughtful project that is rooted in preservation. Throughout this process, we have made a sincere effort to follow the board's guidance while also listening, excuse me, carefully to the thoughts and concerns of the surrounding neighbors and our community. Our goal has always been to preserve the historic character of this property while creating a project that can positively contribute to the neighborhood for years to come. Marine Way residents continue to experience severe and reoccurring flooding during periods of high tide or just a heavy rain. These flooding events are frequent and they are worsening over time. Floodwaters routinely cover the roadway, as you can see here, making portions of Marine Way impassable. Water enters our homes, garages, and yards, which causes foundation deterioration and property damage for us all. The temporary measures that are currently being provided from the city, including these roadway barricades, which you can see are proven and effective in preventing these floodwaters from entering our residential properties. This is about preserving a historic home that is currently vulnerable to severe flooding. So with that, I would now like to introduce our proposed new project for 46th Marine Way, walk you through the thoughtful considerations and revisions that we have done. So if you don't know, 46th Marine Way and the Marina Historic District, just a few doors down from Deck 84. On March 5th, 2025, we came before the board with Marine Way and were given three directives that day from the board. The first, to reduce the roof overhangs. Two, redesign the visual impact on the front wall. And three, soften the structure on the third floor to the north. On June 4th, 2025, we came back, took all these directives from the board, incorporated them to our proposed design, and we were approved that day with the bottom house that you see there by HPB. And we thank you for that. That was a very exciting day for me and my entire team. Unfortunately, we were appealed to commission and from there voted no. So today, June 3rd, 2026, a year later, we are very happy to present our newest proposed project of this 46th Marine Way. In this design, we kept the reduction of the roof overhangs. We softened the front wall by adding a carport per staff recommendations. We completely eliminated the third floor. And we also took our pool down from the nine-foot elevation it was at before down to ground level to meet our neighbor's wishes on the north side. These streetscape exhibits help illustrate both the existing conditions on Marine Way and the reality of where this neighborhood is heading. The first line there shows the existing streetscape as it stands today. Many of these homes, including ours, are facing worsening flooding conditions, aging infrastructure, and significant challenges associated with maintaining properties at their current elevations. These conditions are becoming increasingly difficult and costly for homeowners to address. The second line here shows the proposed streetscape with only our 46th Marine Way preservation project included. We also wanted to include a proposed future streetscape to provide additional context. The two properties immediately south of us are currently pursuing full demolition applications with the city staff. Whether those projects move forward or not, they demonstrate the redevelopment pressures that already exist along Marine Way. Finally, the last line shows what the future FEMA-compliant streetscape would look like. As the board is aware, when a homeowner does a 25% improvement, they are required to elevate their structures to meet current FEMA regulations in this district. This means that the FEMA streetscape shown here is not a distant or hypothetical scenario. It is the direction that Marine Way will continue to evolve over time. We do have three variances on this project. The first variance is the front setback, which is highlighted here in red. Instead, we are requesting to keep this front setback here, where the historic structure currently sits. We want to raise it to meet FEMA requirements, which reminds you, vertical elevation is required of us per FEMA. The second variance is the south side setback. Again, we are requesting to keep the current historic structure where it sits. And again, we are required to vertically raise it to meet FEMA requirements. And finally, the last variance we have is the pool variance. We respectfully ask the board to take into consideration the efforts we have made to be responsive and accommodating throughout this process. In direct response to prior feedback from our direct neighbor to the north, we revised the design. We lowered the pool to ground level after she expressed that this would be her preferred approach. We feel this adjustment demonstrates our commitment to working with the community, minimizing impacts wherever possible, and ensuring that the project remains both sensitive to the neighborhood and the historic district. We have made every effort to comply with concerns raised, listen to our neighbors, and design this project in a way that balances preservation, resiliency, and compatibility. We hope the board will recognize these good faith efforts and provide thoughtful consideration accordingly. We also have two waivers in this proposal. The first waiver is the building height plane, which relates to the visual compatibility standards. In its current condition today, where you can see on the top, the home already extends beyond the existing visual compatibility line and is non-compliant under current standards. As you can see here highlighted in red, we are only crossing the visual compatibility line by a very small margin in our proposed addition. Given the new FEMA requirements for vertical elevation and our commitment to preserving this historic home, we believe this minor encroachment is reasonable and still maintains the overall visual compatibility of the property and the surrounding neighborhood. We respectfully ask the board to provide consideration and flexibility in evaluating this request, particularly given the unique circumstances that Marine Way residents face with new FEMA regulations. The intent of this project is to preserve the historic structure and ensure its long-term survival. The second waiver we have is for secondary and subordinate. It is important to emphasize that this proposal is not centered around demolition. It is centered around preservation. We are proposing to retain and preserve the existing 987 square foot historic residents, which remains the foundation and focal point of this project, as you can see in this render here. We have significantly reduced the scale of our previously approved project. That previous project that was approved by the historic board was 4,921 square feet under air. Our current proposal that you see here today is 3,321 square feet under air, a reduction of approximately 33%. This is huge. This is a substantial decrease and represents a significant sacrifice on our part. Even doing so comes with considerable financial and design constraints. And quite frankly, I don't know many property owners who would be willing to make that level of investment and sacrifice to preserve a historic structure. We believe the true measure of this project is not by how much is being added, but by how much is being saved. The historic home remains intact, preserved, and celebrated. While the addition is carefully designed to be located in the rear, meet the LDR requirements, and to ensure the property can continue to serve as a beautiful, functional, lasting home for years to come. It is also important to note that the existing historic home is currently 987 square feet in size. And for those of you board members who had the chance to go out to the property, you could see how tiny and dilapidated the current footprint is. The proposed addition is intended to create a practical and livable home while still maintaining and preserving the historic structure as the focal point of this property. Another primary constraint we face is the exceptionally narrow lot width of only 52.98 feet. Due to these dimensional limitations, expanding horizontally is restricted, leaving vertical construction as the only feasible option to create a code-compliant residence. Additionally, while we are allowed to build up to 35 feet, our proposed design is far below to minimize perceived massing and remain sensitive to the surrounding neighborhood context. We have made a conscious effort to not maximize what otherwise could be built on the property. And finally, as part of this application, we are requesting approval for the demolition of the existing rear accessory structure located at the back of the property. According to city records and property appraiser, the original historic home was constructed in 1928. That's the front house. The rear accessory structure was constructed in 1983. I also pulled the sandborn maps from the city of Delray as well. This 1926 sandborn map, which you can see here to the left, does not show a rear structure as you can see here. Yet, the sandborn map to the right from 1949 does show some sort of rear... I know it's a little tiny, but there is some sort of element that sits behind the front historic structure, which means something was added between 1926 and 1949. But there is no concrete evidence showing that the rear accessory structure was ever part of the front original historic home. The concrete evidence we do have is that a permit was pulled in 1983 for construction of a new 288 square feet CBS structure to be built, which is the current rear accessory structure that sits there today. Based on the LDRs, a structure is non-contributing when it was constructed less than 50 years ago and or it was not present during the established period of significance. In this case, which this is the back accessory structure, just so you can see. In this case, the rear accessory structure that sits there today is only 42 years old and it was constructed decades after the historic home's primary period of significance. Board members, I want to be candid about where we are in this process. For the past three years, we have worked with staff, the board, our consultants, and the community to find a way to preserve the 1928 historic home. We have made substantial revisions, significantly reduced the size of our project, and accepted major financial and design constraints in order to save this structure. The demolition of the rear accessory structure is a critical part of making this preservation plan work. Without approval to move forward tonight, we will be left with very limited options. The reality is that this property cannot continue in its current condition. If this proposed plan cannot be approved tonight, the only remaining path will be to pursue full demolition of the entire property, just as our neighbors to the south are doing now with full demolition applications currently in with staff. That is not the outcome we want. At the heart of this application is preservation, and for three years we have done everything possible to make that happen. We believe this proposal strikes the right balance. It preserves and restores the historic home while creating a functional future for this property. We respectfully ask for your support so that preservation can remain the path forward. Our intention has never been to diminish the historic character of the Marina Historic District, but rather to ensure that this home can survive, function, and continue to contribute to the neighborhood for years to come. We ask for your approval tonight, as you have in the past, and we hope the board will see that every aspect of this proposal has been driven by a genuine desire to preserve, protect, and invest in the future of this historic neighborhood. Thank you all for your time tonight. Thank you. So Michelle Hewitt's going to do the first half of our presentation, and then I'll do the second half. For the record, Michelle Hewitt, Senior Planner, and this is a Certificate of Appropriateness, Demolition, Relocation, Variances, and Waivers request for 46th Marine Way. On the screen here, I have an arrow with the subject property outlined in blue. To the east is Marine Way and the Intracoastal, and the property is surrounded by other single-family structures to the north, south, and west, or rear. I'm going to go through some brief history of the subject property. The subject property is located on the west side of Marine Way, south of East Atlantic Avenue, and north of Southeast 2nd Street, then the locally and nationally designated registered Marina Historic District. The property contains a two-story contributing residential structure and the Mediterranean Revival architectural style, and a one-story contributing detached pool house, originally constructed as a detached garage sometime between 1926 and 1949 per the Sandburn Fire Insurance maps. The main residence serves as a prime example of Mediterranean Revival architecture within Dolly Beach, and the accessory structure serves as a classic example of a garage that was later altered and converted to a guest cottage. To the north side of the existing residence and garage served as the front of the structure, facing a now-abandoned pedestrian lane known as Lover's Lane, which was abandoned and closed in 1970. The door on the north side of the structure, which you can see over here, originally served as the front door to the structure. That, along with architectural detailing such as the original bell arch and the now-enclosed staircase on the north elevation of the home, could be evidenced that the home's original front was facing north. Much of the original detailing of the main structure has been preserved with minimal alterations occurring in 1983. Such alterations included installation of a new door on the east elevation, construction of a new patio, and associated new wall around the front of the structure, along with the construction of a new swimming pool. It is also important to note that the garage was also altered and converted to a guest cottage in 1983, which included raising the roof and construction of a new tie beam at the top of the existing walls. At its meeting of March 5th, 2025, so last year, the Historic Preservation Board reviewed an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness, Relocations, Variances, and Waivers for the subject property. It included vertical relocation of both the existing contributing structure and two-story residence and the one-story guest cottage. The board expressed concerns and continued the application to the June 4th, 2025 meeting. At that meeting, the applicant made modifications to the request to the board's concerns, which included appearance and scale of the raised porch slash patio, the impact of the third floor, the size of the roof overhangs, the impact of the structure in relation to the streetscape, and the proposed springer setback variance. The applicant revised the request. That included still the vertical elevation of the two-story structure and detached one-story guest cottage, along with variances and waivers. This request was then approved by the board at that June 4th meeting. On June 17th, 2025, the City Commission appealed the approved project, where a de novo review of the decision was to be reviewed, but was then pulled and heard at the August 19th, 2025 meeting, where the request was then denied by the commission. Pursuant to the LDRs, whenever the City Commission or board has denied a development application, any further application for the same request should not be considered on any part of the same property for a period of 24 months on the date of such action. So the request now before the board is a brand new application, commencing review on April 17th, 2026, for a new request meeting the requirements of the LDRs. The overall request before the board is for the demolition of the detached one-story guest cottage, vertical relocation of the existing contributing two-story residence, alteration of the existing residence, including construction of a two-story addition and ground-level garage, construction of a new swimming pool and hardscaping. The request also includes three variances and two waivers, which will be discussed later on in the presentation. Going through some pictures here, we have the front or east elevation. This faces Marine Way and the Intracoastal. And there is this existing patio that is forward of the front wall here, along with a knee wall around that patio. Here is the side of North Elevation. This was mentioned in the history that this was the front, likely the front as Lover's Lane was facing this North Elevation. You can see some of the existing features here, like that coral wall on the left and the sloped barrel tile side roof here. This is the rear or west elevation, which is internal to the site. And just behind this is the accessory structure. This is the side or south elevation. This is adjacent to 48 Marine Way. This is the accessory structure. This is North Elevation. Again, Lover's Lane was facing this side. This is the east elevation. This faces the backside of the main residence. This is the west elevation of the accessory structure. And this is the south elevation. Just as an FYI to the board, there is an active Marine Way improvement project that the city is commencing or completing to address and update the roadway along Marine Way. See, there's a street section here for what they're proposing. So here's the existing site plan. All of the items in blue are the existing structure. So on the right is Marine Way. And it's that two-story main residence. And then on the left, there is that accessory structure. And there is a pool that currently exists to the north of the property. This is the existing first floor plan. Again, on the right is that main residence. And on the left is the accessory structure. On the main residence, there is the existing half-level exercise level floor plan. It kind of functions as a mezzanine in between the first and second floor. And this is the existing second floor site plan. So here is the proposed site plan. All of the elements in red are new proposed items. And the items in blue are the item in blue is the existing main residence. You can see the there is a new pool new pool location configuration proposed on the north side. A new driveway, a new two-story addition to the rear, and the elevation of the existing main residence along with the demolition of the accessory structure. The request, as mentioned earlier, includes the variances in two waivers. This is the proposed relocation and demolition plan. The hardscaping currently on this site is proposed to be removed. Demolition of the accessory structure and the vertical relocation of the main residence are part of the request. And here we've just got kind of an overlay of the new structure and the existing main residence to be vertically elevated. So here we have a rendering image where you can see the existing structure on the left over the proposed carport and the addition kind of recessed on the right and behind the structure. Looking at the proposal, so with the vertical relocation of the existing main residence, a brand new carport is proposed directly beneath the structure and there is a covered connection that will allow a vehicle to pass through to go to the new garage proposed on the left side directly beneath the addition. The proposed first floor, we have the existing structure on the right in blue. This is where its new finish floor will begin once elevated. And that connection piece there leading into the new addition on the left. This is the proposed second floor plan. Again, that existing structure, its second floor is to remain and then second floor of the addition on the left there. There are no modifications to the roof of the existing structure and there is a proposed spiral staircase rooftop access on the addition. Here is a composite view where all of the new elements are outlined and or highlighted in blue and then they're proposed in red. So as mentioned earlier, there is this connection piece calling it hyphen where the carport, the new carport beneath the existing structure is to have an open pass through to go to the garage beneath a vehicle is meant to traverse between those two spaces. There is a garage door proposed on the new addition in the garage and then on the second and third floor there is an internal connection between the existing and proposed structure. Here we have the proposed east or front elevation. On the left is the existing where you can see the main structure and that accessory structure picking up from behind and then on the right is the proposed east elevation where you can see again the existing in blue and the proposed in red. You can see the carport directly beneath the existing structure and the proposed two-story addition with the garage beneath. So to clarify how height is measured and indicated here, the FEMA requirements right now are at a minimum 8 feet in this area and the Florida Building Code requires an additional 12 inches so at a minimum when elevating the structure they must be at 9 feet and the land development regulations allow an optional 12 inches of freeboard which the applicant is requesting here and so from that point as requested at 10 feet height is measured from there from that new finish that raised finish floor to the roof the parapet wall there which as proposed and per the height measurements is at 26 feet however from bottom to top it's overall 36 feet but measured for the LDRs it's 26 feet overall. Here we have the proposed or the west elevation this is again internal to the site this on the left is the existing in blue and you can see the outline of the accessory structure and the proposed on the right with that addition directly behind the main residence here we have the north elevation this is the side that originally faced Lover's Lane you can see on the left it's existing and then on the right it's proposed again blue it's existing red it's proposed and again no modifications proposed to the existing structure this is the south elevation this space is 48 Marine Way again blue is existing and red is proposed you can see that spiral staircase feature that is to go up to the rooftop for access and the proposed carport and garage beneath the main residence in the new addition this is the proposed color and material form there are no concerns with the proposed materials and colors however there is a call out specifically to the proposed coral material which is discussed later on in the presentation so here we have the secretary of the interior standards for rehabilitation with the applicable standards highlighted in yellow looking at some staff report excerpts here standards 9 and 10 which are very specific to additions there is concern with the proposed size of the rear addition while it is proposed to be two stories which the existing structure is the interior ceiling heights are substantially taller than the historic structure overall there is a roughly 6 feet 5 inch difference between the top of the roof of the existing structure and the proposed the addition is also substantially wider than the existing main structure however it is recessed 24 feet behind the front wall plane and entirely behind the existing main structure a waiver for secondary and subordinate visual compatibility standard has been requested to address the overall size of the addition so along with the secretary of interior standards for rehabilitation the secretary of interior standards for rehabilitation has guidelines on flood adaptation which are also applicable to this request and you can see here the main standards that were applied for this particular request which include addition requirements the character of the property and that each property will retain as a physical record of its time and shall create or shall now create a false sense of historical development looking at the height of the elevation regarding elevation of the structure wrapping it up you do it in five minutes it's up to the like it needs consensus from the board board generally about eight minutes okay eight I mean it's a time they can consider it again but I mean let's go through see how fast you can go let's get eight minutes everybody okay with eight yeah all right the general recommendation is to allow people like the amount of time that you know they can get their full due process each side but whatever you guys you know at the end of the day it has 15 minutes and then you guys get consensus to let them move forward all right well let's start with eight see how far we go okay I'm going to take it from here and kind of try to speed through so we're at the point of talking about the secretary of the interior standards for flood adaptation we can come back to these if there's questions but basically that gives guidance on the method for elevating the structure that's in a flood zone or a subject of flooding with what approach and so they've chosen elevate on a new foundation and some of these images are showing you like this one what's acceptable this one here is not acceptable because it added an entirely new floor it wasn't meeting the recommended approach so our visual compatibility standards are also utilized as we go through the review of the project this is in your packet a proposed streetscape this shows the house as it exists on top the house as it exists with the proposal and the existing structures around it here's our their proposed rendering you can see it's much improved over the first time it came through the board with the massing of the structure being set pretty far back on the property and the ground floor that is added underneath the structure being what we call a carport but it's still like a garage feature that's typically not the recommended approach by the secretary of the interior standard however with the nine foot that's required to elevate why not utilize that space underneath the structure for garage so we have several different proposed renderings that we can come back and look at but I want to move on and get to some of the concerns the applicant has indicated that the rooftop will not be utilized for rooftop use however there is a spiral staircase going up to the rooftop which causes concern it's not that it can't be done they totally can use the rooftop if they want to they just need to meet the requirements of the code and those are all outlined in the staff report if they're not wanting to meet those requirements of the code we're suggesting something like a locked ladder or something that rather than a spiral staircase which imparts that it's accessible for anybody to go up on the roof we don't think it's unreasonable for them to meet these requirements they just need to go through the code and meet them we have concerns with proportion of openings some of the windows and doors that are proposed aren't quite the exact they're much bigger than the windows that are existing and there while there should be some differentiation between the old and the new there's some consistency concerns there there's also the proposal of using a flat with a rectified edge coral around the entire base of the new garage feature where the existing coral is very organic rock like and so one of the suggestions we've had is to use something a little more organic in appearance so it doesn't appear like a modern house that you would find in a western subdivision the original main structure is no longer prominent which we have some concerns with the rhythm of entrance and porch projections directional front expression of the front elevation but I think this is the nature of what happens with a project like this so it's going to be up to the board to make the determination that it meets the standards and the visual compatibility requirements I already talked about windows so here there the two waivers that we're going to go through in a couple minutes really relate to the secretary or the local visual compatibility standards and whether or not the addition meets the standards for additions is it as inconspicuous as possible have efforts been made to ensure the existing structure is a focal point of the site is it consistent with surrounding properties this from the secretary of the interior standards the yellow are things where you all have to decide have these been met in the expansion of the building and in the first one here it's like when they take a kitchen out of the main structure and put it into the addition which is happening the additions larger it's been constructed does it does it overwhelm the historic building the two good things is this proposal now incorporates a hyphen as a connecting point which I have a graphic and we'll show you demolition the applicant is asking to remove the structure in the back while it there was not a permit for new construction what happened in the 80s was removal of the roof and adding to the top wall of the garage so that it could be habitable it didn't have habitable ceiling heights so it was converted in the 80s to a accessory structure we're not super concerned about this but it's up to the board to find that it meets the requirements of the code for demolition for relocation there are concerns with the massing character and compatibility of the proposed addition these this is directly from these the secretary of the interior standard about how to vertically elevate again this is a difficult site how can you not have some level of a whole new floor underneath the building with a nine foot do they need to go to 10 foot and 1110 I mean an additional foot is good for flood resiliency and increase the ceiling height but they could have done a smaller garage so these are all the standards we use in the analysis of the staff report these little pictures on the bottom are taken directly from those flood adaptation guidelines that Michelle mentioned as are these recommended and not recommended approaches but we would rather see the building get saved than be like the picture in the middle here it's just to what extent and so is it going to tip the scale is what you have to be looking at the applicant's going to have to meet relocation supplemental requirements such as securing this building from any vandalism should you approve this potential weather damage they can't just leave it open once they start the process they have to secure it and keep it in a condition as it exists they're also going to have to submit bonds a bond should you approve and that is basically in place should the building get damaged during the relocation that the bond is in place for the city to have some some teeth there we have three variances this is a single chart that shows all of them the pool has a variance the pool is about 30 foot long and they're asking to encroach into the front setback the existing structure already encroaches into the first front and side setback once they take it off its foundation and elevate it and put a new building underneath that triggers the variance requirements so you can read through the staff report what the findings are you have to meet all of these findings as the applicant and the board has to say that the project meets all five if you feel it tips and doesn't meet one or more it's justification to not approve their relief requests so the requirement for the front is 25 feet and it currently sits at a range of 17 7 to 20 foot 6 feet the side currently sits at 2 foot 3 where 7 foot 6 is required the new addition is meeting the setback requirements and then the pool is required to be 25 feet this one is where we thought maybe some adjustment could be made do they need a pool that's 30 foot long or could they do a pool that's a little bit shorter in length and not have to have a variance at all I am probably five minutes or less out maybe less we've come this far yeah okay waivers I think where I'm done waiver findings so they have two waivers the first is can they have the building in the no build zone this exists in the visual compatibility standards to make sure that the massing is controlled with historic structures to some extent the building already the existing building already sits in the no build zone and once it's vertically elevated almost in the entirety of the existing structures in the no build zone if the request was solely for the new structure or the existing structure to go up I couldn't see a case where you wouldn't approve a waiver to this requirement but what is tripping the standard even more is the whole addition not whole but a good maybe quarter of it is in the back also tipping into the new new build zone how could they get around that it would be to have a one-story addition only with the ground floor rather than a two-story but again this addition is pushed pretty far back to the rear of the property so that's the building height plane waiver the second waiver is is the structure set built or proposed to be built in such a way that it will be secondary and subordinate to the main massing of the main structure as you can see in these pictures that's where the board these items you need to weigh in on again the findings would need to be met all of them so if you feel like it trips one with the waiver findings that is a justification to not approve the request then you've got your coa findings and i think michelle hewitt may have already covered the hyphen but i do want to go back and say this is a really great approach that the applicant has taken in that the addition could be removed in the future that's one of the code requirements utilization of a hyphen is a classic historic preservation approach so i think that was really well done in the rear of the property and then also just so you understand that when they come into the carport with the car they can actually drove through drive through the back of the carport accessing additional garage in the rear all of this is non-habitable space and they will likely have to have maybe some more flood vents around the base of this structure which shouldn't impact the appearance they they occur like right at grade so other than the super fast finalization here just utilize your findings for the variance the waiver the relocation the demolition and your coa and then there are several site plan technical items that we've attached that have to be met these are not things that can be removed by the board they're primarily making some additional notes on the site plan it was a way to get the request to the board as fast as possible without going through another round of tac thank you that concludes our presentation thanks for the additional time thank you all right any members of the public want to comment on this item state your name and address for the record yes at greg schneider three three two four lakeview drive in delray i have a few comments i have copies for the for the board and also copies for the applicant and the staff if they want them they want them yeah i've done my own analysis of this and i've come up with basically this this proposal includes three major components elevating the historic residents to meet fema flood requirements demolishing the freestanding pool house and constructing a substantial two-story addition to the existing historic structure the project requires three variances and two waivers from the land development regulations the analysis evaluates each request in context of the historic preservation standards neighborhood character and regulatory intent and the conclusion reached is that the proposal as submitted does not meet the criteria for approval and that the coa should be denied first of all the demolition of the contributing pool house the staff report identifies it as a contributing structure constructed before 1949 later remodeled into a pool house in 1983. according to the applicant it was constructed from scratch in 1983. i think that's inconsistent with the documented history the stanborn maps the underlying structure predates the district's period of significance and retains sufficient integrity to be classified as contributing under the preservation standards demolition of a contributing structure requires clear compelling justification typically structural failure demonstrated invisibility of rehabilitation or unavoidable conflict with life safety requirements i haven't seen any such justification provided and absent evidence that preservation is infeasible demolition reconstructing structures not warranted and contracts contradicts the purpose of historic preservation regulations as far as the variance requests the first two variance requests are for the existing non-conformities for the existing historic uh property and granting that is kind of a no-brainer it obviously as a as an existing non-conformity is not a problem the third variance is for the swimming pool the request to allow a new swimming pool to encroach in the front setback is materially different unlike the existing houses the pool is not a historic feature is not necessary to the functioning of the property a compliant pool could be constructed simply by reducing its size or adjusting its size or adjusting its size its placement this hardship this hardship is self created easily avoidable and the variance does not meet the criteria for approval granting it would undermine the purpose of the setback regulations and set an undesirable precedent am i okay on time no you're you're i'm over three minutes are over yeah sorry i'll go as quick as we have your comments here okay um and the waivers encroachment into the uh no build zone yeah there's going to be some oh you want me to yeah okay we gotta we gotta cut you off all right thank you for your comments hello my name is julian ray i live at 24 marine way the neighbors to the north of this property um i want to say first of all um my grandmother you need genia deponte she sent an email to you all i have it here if you guys would like it um in the record i can provide you with a copy we have it we got copies of it thank you um i reviewed the project files today um and there were some points that i wanted to make um i like the idea of replacing the gravel parking with the carport that goes underneath the existing structure i think that's both efficient and cognizant um in maintaining the design with respect to the space problems of the property i think that the destruction of the pool house would not have any effect whatsoever on the historic preservation of this property as outlined in the applicant's presentation the pool house was constructed after the period of historic preservation that's applicable here um and you can't even see the pool house from the street either so it really doesn't have any effect to the average passerby if it's gone um there's was a mention of the spiral staircase um and that i think it was interesting because reading some of the issues with that um it would imply that the roof would be easily accessible to anybody but i don't see how that really is the case um it would be used by the owner to maintain the property as needed to access the roof as needed for maintenance purposes um i think that the historical building the existing structure is prominent based off the the designs that we saw it's front facing um the additions is behind the existing structure and the carport specifically i think blends in well with the front of the building itself i also have um some questions maybe for the board and and for the city commissioners as to the contract for the seawall um and how that work will be coordinated with the applicants and homeowners here um i don't know if you can comment on that at all but i would appreciate it if you can um but the bottom line is for the residents the neighbors um here at 46 marine way we i want you uh the board to approve of the variances and waivers um that they are requesting here i think that it will benefit the property values on marine way and also maintain the look and feel of the neighborhood as well thank you thank you uh just your comment on the seawall we have zero input and or information to share on that so um that would be a city commission meeting i would recommend that the next public comment you go and ask that question you're welcome george long 46 north slinton i'm not about to touch all these details i i've seen you guys talk about the motif on a tile for two days one time well maybe it's two hours but uh so i'm just going to look at the the general viewpoint as somebody walking through the marina district i think that used to be canal street there all right first of all if if you go way down to the south end where stuart and shelby did the house down there at the second street sitting up on a big mound so you've got your choice how you're going to go up nine feet you put them in a big mound of dirt like a ceremonial mound or something or you can do something reasonable like putting this garage through there underneath there good thing when i first saw a picture of that house as is looking at those windows and all i visualize if we had a big hurricane the surf going right through that house not you're not talking about just a little bit of a you know water standing on the street you're talking about going right right to the next block so that that's a very good solution as far as i'm concerned um so the dirt bound versus the the garage the garage is a good thing also when this first came out i got a big case of facade shock with that kind of plain wall in the front coming in from the from the side going underneath there that did not look good um this looks a lot better it looks like there's been a lot of thought in that but i i recognize that nothing ever goes smoothly so there's probably going to be a lot of argument about this that and the other but generally speaking if you look at it it's a much much approved rendition and it what what i see kind of makes sense um but uh i'll leave the details up to you thank you thank you george price patent 33483 um first of all i just want to say i've got no problem with the applicant raising the historic house i've got no problem with an addition what i have a problem with is the scope and the mass of the addition that's it's oh it still remains overwhelming even though they've reduced it um it it is uh the project as it's presented now is um fundamentally fundamentally incompatible with not only the historic property but the historic streetscape as well as the the integrity historic integrity of the entire neighborhood um you know only two percent of this city is has historic properties so there's a you have a you have a responsibility to honor the historic integrity of the streetscape and the building um i've done three or four buildings in in the marine historic district not too far from here our additions have been a total of 60 square feet and like 120 square feet so i'm not opposed to adding additions but it's just too it's just too it's just too massive the difference between the renderings that they presented even in the in the in the application the rendering says final product may not look like this you know and then when you look at the rendering and then the uh the um uh the the the facades presented by the by the city you can you can tell the over how overwhelmed the original historic house is by the um addition and it's not for your consideration um to to to approve a project because an applicant has spent a lot of time and a lot of money it's the applicant's responsibility to conform the project to the ldrs and i don't think this conforms to the secretary of the interior standards it doesn't conform to the comp plan and it doesn't conform to our ldrs and finally um no matter how nicely it was delivered you know a threat to say that if you don't approve this plan tonight we're going to be forced to to take uh go on with demolition if i were sitting in that board i'd say bring it on you know um because you're gonna have to approve the demolition anyway here is um i'd like to that's the letter i sent i think the applicant has a copy of the letter and thank you very much for your time thank you and we have the letter it was presented to us i just wanted i want a part of the record oh okay yeah yeah it should be thanks hello i'm jim chard uh 33483 delray beach one of the great pleasures of my life was to serve on this board and john's chair there and i am very very passionate about historic preservation i did an 1865 story brownstone in brooklyn out of that passion and one of the reasons that i came to delray is because it does have a history and a background in my four years on historic preservation board uh i was probably involved uh with somewhere between 75 and 100 buildings being approved and i sat with some of you on that and george sat with all of us um and almost every one of those buildings substantially increased the area that was under air and livable not by 50 or 100 but by 200 and 300 percent often 3 000 square feet more uh the building that george uh mentioned uh just down the street if you go in the alley and behind it it is huge compared to the house that you see in the front this building is tiny uh those of you who have not had the time to go look at it can't fully realize how small it is it's about the size of a two-car garage and in that they've got a kitchen they've got a little living room they've got a stairwell that's very very narrow and in today's age where we have all sorts of features in our home like big screens and refrigerators and bathrooms that's not going to fit in that space so to make this a viable living building it needs to be substantially larger and i know that prior decisions are not supposed to be a precedent i'm sure i'd be reminded by that of that but when you take a look at the buildings where it's whether it's on swinton or delida or old school square the new rehab restoration historical buildings are substantially larger than the original building i think to make this a viable living home that contributes to our community and to the memory and the history that this is not at all uh is not at all beyond what the ldrs and the the secretary of interior require it is fully compliant uh if you look at this uh in a objective way that is fully compliant with a comprehensive plan which i am proud to say i helped right and with the ldrs and with the ordinances thank you thank you i would also like to say of the two letters of support from the community both the residents to the north and to the south are in favor of this and i think you also got the letter from bill bill schiltz right okay thank you good evening everybody i'm sandy zeller my address is 209 northwest 12th street in delray beach i lived in the before i lived there i lived in the marina historic district for 13 years uh one block from property i'm very familiar with the property i'm very familiar with the surrounding area uh and i served as president of the marina historic district homeowners association for many years so my involvement remains my heart is still there with uh preserving that district um i respectfully disagree with my colleague jim chart on on some of the comments and and some of the comments uh made on behalf of the applicant the this this is a massive structure and it's a massive expansion of the character in marina historic district uh the certificate of appropriateness that they're requesting is just inappropriate um as has been said and as is stated in in in the staff report there are three variances required uh two waivers required and it violates several provisions of the secretary of the interior's uh standards that wasn't even addressed by the applicant but but it's true it's on page they're listed on pages 10 and 11 of the staff report it's a comprehensive staff report as far as i'm concerned i was on planning and zoning board and read a lot of a lot of staff reports in my uh time this one is very very thorough uh not that the others aren't but this one is especially thorough um and most of the and actually all of the variances and and waivers that are being asked for are self-created by the applicant because of the massive structure that they want to put they can build it and meet the criteria by building a much more um a smaller and a more accommodating structure um so uh we're talking about the height the height's been increased substantially about six and a half feet above the the existing height even accommodating the femur regulations which require the building to be raised um the secretary of the interior's standards uh really if you read through them particularly uh nine and ten clearly violate the provisions of historic districts and the standards created for historic districts so in all uh i would ask that the board deny this application my last comment really comes in the form of a question and that question is you have a 39 page staff report that's comprehensive you have you have some uh comments made by the apples sorry we're gonna have to wrap it up i'll finish up in a second if i may thank you um the staff report who should be given more credibility by by the by the board the staff report that's that's prepared by the city planners ms hewitt and ms uh hoyland they did an excellent job with it or the the uh self-serving comments of of the applicant in my in my uh opinion i believe that the answer is simple that it's your your staff reports that should be followed so thank you for your time and the extra time i appreciate you're welcome thank you anybody else part of the applicant yeah i think if if you have comments since you're part of the applicant you guys can do them during the cross-examination and the rebuttal there'll be there'll be a lot of opportunity i think so all right um any other comments seeing none now we get into rebuttal so it's up to you yeah either one do uh michelle you want to go or okay hi i'm dan upwards uh the applicant in case dead and what i'd like to do a few minutes i'd like to just pull up uh the picture k of the of the project we've reduced it by 33 and i want to take the time to thank michelle and both michelles we have spent a tremendous amount of time with both of them and with michelle hoyland um i think this has been the best version of the home that we've designed and michelle thank you for that you you brought a lot into that never is it going to be easy when you're talking historic and to to address mr price and mr schneider of the four million that i've invested i think they've invested zero so it's also comes down to who's going to invest in preservation because without an investor or without an an individual with the money to do what is necessary here this building becomes nothing a year from today as someone mentioned one hurricane one more flood there is no structure here there is nothing nothing to preserve far different meaning so there are no threats as far as demolition nature is going to take care of that by itself this will not be here i bought this property three years ago and in that three years it's amazing what i've learned in delray beach about preservation i spent hundreds of hours in boca this was a uh a villa rica property that was shipped up by barge so was the house to the south of us that's going to be demoed unfortunately that neighbor of mine aj is going at the demo processes in right now because he was not willing to continue this process it was easier for him to quit than continue it's easier for me to quit i could have quit three years ago and just submit it for demo for those of you and thank you that have walked the property it's 900 square feet it's not 9 000 it's it's 900 it's the size of some of our bathrooms so we're not asking for something that's crazy and we downsized it and again with michelle hoyland thank you from 5 000 square feet to 3 000 square feet that's a significant reduction in investments for me if i go to return and sell the property so i think delray needs preservation and needs investors like in sunday village to bring in restaurants to bring in tax revenue to bring in more residents and i think it would be a sin a second time around when we voted the first time yes and i appreciate that for the board members then that took the time to come out and see it i think it would be a sin to do nothing but let this rot so thank you so much thank you michelle are they completely done no one else any other rebuttal comments okay i have um a few points um so the i think i covered it in my presentation the structure in the rear was remodeled in the 1980s not a whole new build just so we're clear it did show up on the 1949 sanborn map it's also believed that the main structure was moved here but we've been researching and reaching out to other preservationists in boca we are not able to substantiate that but we have some documentation from dr donald curl who was a long time preservationist he's since passed away where he believed this came from the south side of the boca raton hotel both this and the structure to the south the main building as far as demolition the applicant has the right to submit any application that they wish and we are required to review it and then the board is required to review and deliberate so if they wish to submit a request for demolition you can read in your staff report what the requirements are for demolition that include um an issue with condition an issue getting all the appraisals done that responsibilities on the applicant to make that case as to whether or not demolition is the appropriate request and then it's up to the board to make a further determination as far as letting the building rot there are requirements in the ldrs per ldr section 4.5.1 e9 that are relating to maintenance of structures you can go and review them i encourage the applicant to review them as well you cannot let the building suffer water damage i understand that they're flooding here but it's still their responsibility to do all they can to prevent any intrusion of water termite damage failing structural members this is a code section that's being utilized on other property owners too and if it becomes a case that there's maintenance violations and the building rots and falls in on itself there are further limitations per the code that say the board has the ability to not let a permit for five years on the property if the owner doesn't maintain the property so i just want people to be fully aware that that's not truly an option i don't know about the house on the mound but i'm curious to talk to george about it the size of the building in the square foot calculation site data table just so we're clear yes the existing structure contains 987 square feet the garage is being proposed for demolition the air conditioned space um combined with the 987 square feet will result in 3321 ac but if you include the garages the total square footage of the building is 4921 just so we're clear um there was a member of the public that said it's fully compliant if it were fully compliant there wouldn't be requests for waivers relocation demolition variances the spiral staircase comment i don't remember who made it the site plan technical item is in the staff report it's not a negotiable item they either comply or they don't comply it otherwise they would have to seek a waiver to not comply with the requirements for rooftop uses as far as marine way marine way plans and the seawall i apologize i'm not up to date on the current status so i can't provide an update to the member of the public that asked however a site plan technical item included in the staff report does require that the applicant confer with the public works department to ensure that their plans are correctly designed to reflect any improvements happening in front of their property again a non-negotiable item and then just a final final this has not been in the process for three years if we were going to do a cumulative look the original application came in april 17th 2024 went to the board august 19th 2025 meeting the board meeting the city commission who then denied the application has come back through and was deemed sufficient this time april 17th 2026 and we are six weeks later here at the board on june 3rd so we're mandated by florida statute and our code about the swiftness with which we review applications so this has not been in the system for three years and i just wanted to make sure we were clear about that thank you thank you okay um i'm not going to put anybody on the spot let's just get right into it um pete thanks thank you um so i did go to the site and see it in person there's no denying that there's a lot of damage it needs to be raised and i'm all for that and also i want to say the renderings they all look beautiful it all looks really nice really nice but the issue is with the given site it could it comes off it's asking for a lot for this site um the massing of what is being proposed it does overwhelm the current historic structure i'm okay with the setbacks the pool one it's it's not completely necessary but it i'm okay with it um but it gets to the point where the historic structure it becomes an add-on to this big mass and and i know it's presented that it's only 987 square foot but um it's still something you could work with it doesn't mean that you have to add thousands of square foot you could be more generous to the site and the given conditions and like when you buy this property you know that's historic it's um it's part of this this historic district and it's you're limited to what you can do so i just want to point out those things but the biggest thing would be that it is overwhelming the court the current historic structure yep um start so um this is my third term on this board and i have to say that um this is probably one of the worst um i mean worst in the terms of the the amount of waivers and the amount of variances and just being out of compliance and out of spec that that that i've seen and as a board if we were to allow this to to go forward we would have to to answer to ourselves and to the community of who who who allowed this to happen because it is really it's really that bad for for all the reasons that um staff brought up as well as the points that um mr patton mr snyder mr zeller brought up i mean they're all they're all right on right on point as well as what um jake just mentioned is it's just it's just way out of scale i mean you look at the the the new streetscapes and the existing uh structure just gets the existing building just gets lost the new the new addition i mean it completely changes the character and the style of the architecture i think of i i might not be able to define what the old style is and what the new style is but they're definitely not the same it's just it's just not right i i just can't uh describe how just kind of inappropriate this um that this plan is i know it's 987 square feet but like jake said you you know the applicant bought a historic property in a historic zone that was 987 square feet i mean you knew what you're getting i just you know there are ways you you this could be improved um but not this way this is just this is completely completely off the mark i also have to say that you know i find it completely disingenuous and um personally professionally insulting for somebody to come before the historic preservation board and say if i don't get my way i'm going to tear my house down i mean that's just that's just out of line i i don't respond to threats very well okay um so i have a series of questions for the applicant so whoever wants to field them up on the some someone needs to come up yeah i need to swear i wasn't here sorry well first i agree with everything that my two fellow board members said so i'm not going to uh repeat that um and i wasn't here for the original presentation um i do uh commend the applicants for for sticking with this and coming back um i do understand that it is a significant investment in time and money um to to build this structure to propose it so i i definitely commend everybody for for sticking with it because the alternate could have just been to tear it down or to to seek to tear it down um and i agree that there are limits with this property that are beyond the control of the applicants the home was built or placed or however it ended up there in its current location it doesn't meet setbacks on the side and um um so so there are there is a need for discussion and a need for for some consideration um also from a matter of style i do like the style of architecture i think it reminds me you know it's mediterranean revival and it reminds me of of an addison meisner or a you know fascio home in palm beach with the windows and the different steps um so i i think it's pretty cool um and i think on marine way it's such a prominent street because you not only have the street but you also visible from the waterfront there is a lot of pedestrian traffic a lot of people walking through um so i i i think there's there's a certain duty to the neighborhood and to the community and to the structure to to to preserve it um my questions are and these are in really no specific order you you propose a pool but there's no barrier shown on any of the renderings so what would the material be so the pool is usually a separate part of metaphors just to start with um so pool barrier um i mean we didn't really think about a four foot aluminum fence in a bronze with hedging and landscaping some landscaping yeah okay something nice okay um since you are asking for a variance on the pool could you go smaller on the pool we could okay um in terms of the maintenance area on the roof what is going up there because i don't see any maintenance any any mechanical equipment on the roof there are um roof um emergency roof uh drains and drains and that area it's going to be just like sloped to the emergency drains so it's just for the homeowner to go up there and clean and maintain and do whatever they need to do okay so it's not supposed to be any finished material if that answers okay and i guess from a three-story building having a flat roof and no way to access it that's a hardship correct without the access is from the second floor so no public will be able to access okay um in terms of some of the the abutter questions and and issues that were in some of the letters um about the massing and the scale of it would it be feasible to maybe add some more architectural features to the existing structure whether it's stucco or a treatment or something to really create the look that um or the differentiation of that structure and make that somewhat prominent of a feature because if you look here it does get lost even with the landscaping around the the pool and i mean it's not you know that north area is going to be blocked but it does get lost and the the north area above the balcony above the living room in the main bedroom that's really where the eye is drawn because it's taller um but in looking to preserve the original structure um would you be able to add again more features more cladding to that um to to really just create more prominence of that structure i mean we could but i feel that the existing structure is very simple so by adding that it will also change the style of the architecture so it will become almost two separate homes and we're trying to just keep it as close as possible as the existing okay um and then one of the things that somebody brought up is the um windows there's lack of windows so in the main bedroom um where the i guess on the floor plan it shows a bed placed yeah again that elevation if you're gonna speak if you just come to the mic yeah um that's the rear elevation uh nobody really will see that for for starters and there's no closet space so in order for that to be a bedroom we need there are actually closets next to the bed like it's gonna open up and you'll have oh those are gonna be cabinets so millwork again i mean we're working with actually it's a very tiny floor plan and so the bedrooms they're not very big so in order to incorporate that those are actually closets i know they seem like maybe they'd be nightstands but they are closets and then you get the window as you come excuse me as you come into the bathroom yeah see see here's here's the issue is and this is this is where you had me until that one statement because you said we're working with tiny bedrooms but you have the ability to build a whole new house if you were saying that the mat the main bedroom was going to be in the existing house in the blue i could understand the hardships of closet space and and existing space but you're building a whole new house you have the ability to to to to create an entirely new house and now you're you're saying that there's a hardship in in tiny bedrooms but you're building a whole new house that you have the ability to to really create the bedrooms of your size and the bedrooms that you you want so if i may i would just say there's not a question pending so unless he asks yeah and so so and so my my i guess my question is yeah okay and so i mean i guess then my my my question would be um could you look at adding those adding windows there and maybe rejiggering that that bedroom floor plan and the the other side to to figure something out we can add windows yes of course okay okay that's that's what i have yeah i'm going to defer until the end well that was a good point about the the west elevation does seem pretty much devoid of of any character whatsoever um so as far as the variances go well first of all i i was here for this for the first um application last year and i did not approve that sitting here on the board i wasn't in favor of it um i do think you've done a lot of work i think you're going in the right direction um but there there's still some problems with massing i really didn't have a problem too much with the variances um you all obviously have this historic structure that's taking up a couple of those the pool you didn't need it you could have just come in here without a variance for the pool but you chose to do it um you don't need a the dimension wasn't on the site plan for the pool i didn't know how long it was until um the city had a had a graphic that showed it was 30 feet um that's a standard pool size that's that's fine you don't really need it but i don't think it's a deal breaker you're about 30 feet from the edge of pavement from the street so um you would have a fence up and you're going to have landscape because you're not going to want to you don't want privacy if you're in that pool but i do think the massing still um that's the biggest problem you got the massing with the existing structure so you have 12 foot ceilings is this true no 10 foot ceilings okay because on the um elevations it shows doesn't it show 12 like there's a there's no it's 10 feet plus two feet of structure it's it looks like 12 but there's a like a two foot space between ceiling and floor so it's 10 foot as you're in the room and there's two feet between floors so that's another thing i mean it's just like you you do have that mousing you could lower the ceilings you could make it less you could you could um make it better i mean most farms nowadays are 10 foot ceilings and that's the minimum if we're not talking about 12 or 14 and i just if you're asking a question that's fine but i i didn't hear the question so my question is can you lower can you can you make the ceiling height lower so that the massing would be less and that therefore um creating you know less of an issue in the compatibility i mean we could lower the ceilings but we already took a third floor down and we're not even at the 35 foot maximum height that we could go so well you could go to 35 feet but you also have to get through the board and the you know the waivers that you're asking for so or so there are waivers but for the ldr we can go up to 35 feet without i mean without a question asked that's just yeah i don't know if you'd get approved though if you did that yeah to lower just want to note to the board while 35 feet is the permitted max height in this zoning district it is not the only standard that's applicable obviously there are the visual compatibility standards and the historic preservation requirements and then i just thought maybe do you know what the standard minimum seal interior ceiling height is um i believe it's seven foot six a minimum ceiling height on a new house is eight feet nobody builds eight foot ceilings anymore they're all minimum but the florida building code what is the florida building code yeah i i had it as seven foot six the last time we did a report from the building official so it's somewhere between seven foot six and eight yeah but that is my question is the florida building code not what the um industry standard is the florida building code minimum standard minimum is eight thank you the building code is in between between that you're right between seven six and eight okay and i just have one more comment um i i i do think you've done better than you know the last one was just i can't even believe it got approved from by this board from the first application so um the cantilever that's like behind the pool to me can you is there an elevation that you can put up okay so uh this is a comment regarding just the architectural in general i just feel like that cantilever needs two columns to connect it to the ground um i feel like it looks um unstable like like visually um like right there yeah yeah i think it just needs some visual stability sure to anchor it in it you know that's yeah that's that's these are my comment um that's fine sure what's the comment i'm sorry what was the i feel like it needs um columns to come down from that cantilever to visually stabilize it continuation from the arch we just we just gotta be careful we don't design from the dais i am i think if you think it's if the reasoning is something to do with the visual compatibility yes i'm talking about visual compatibility and and stability of of the structure so kelly what what was the rest of what you were going to say if you feel like it's a visual compatibility i was just saying it just needs to be related to something that is visual compatibility standards if you think that it's the rhythm of solids to voids is off because there's not the columns then that's an appropriate comment but if you're just saying i think it looks better with columns and that you know then it's more designing from the dais so just um if but if you do think it's visual compatibility standards such as visual compatibility yeah we can accept anything anything uh that those are my comments yeah thank you that's great thank you carol pete yeah um i'm very familiar with this project i was on the board a year ago and i actually approved it and i stand by that decision i know we have different people on the board and uh it's unfortunate that we have so much contention over the project i think the applicant has done a very good job in trying to meet all the ldr criteria with a very difficult site and a difficult location that is being heavily impacted by weather and and conditions that move forward every year um it's it's challenging i mean i do object to the large pool i have to say that a 30-foot pool is a standard pool you'd find in a a lot double this size and you can see some of the new construction around town they put in basic plunge pools they just have to check the box they've got a pool so i don't know why you're pushing for a waiver there i would say that right off the bat i i would not put a pool that big on this property um and the bigger issue is that historic districts as i've learned are not to be frozen in amber and there are people in this room that would like to just see that house stay the way it is at 987 square feet with a hundred square foot addition and unfortunately with the economics the way they are that we're not supposed to consider um it doesn't really work i mean if we want to preserve marine way and we want to have houses that are improved and that will last 50 years or more people are going to have to spend money and they're going to have to build something that the market will receive pay for maintain and and enjoy and this is right on the intercoastal as well it's a valuable property and it should be preserved and it's admirable that the existing structure is being preserved i've walked it it's in in very bad shape as it is and it's going to take a lot to preserve that structure um is this a perfect architectural specimen no it's not i don't think it's going to go up for any awards but is it a good solution for this site it is good i think it is good and i think it it's something i can support i mean it's again we have to allow some flexibility and there's a reason we have a board made up of professionals i'm a general contractor we have another contractor on the board we have at least two architects i believe and and other people from the community and these decisions are hard and we really have to to consider them and i am in i'm going to vote for approval i think it's a project that should go forward thank you thank you um i don't have a lot of questions for the applicant um just a couple of comments um for you know the audience and whatever as far as the variances so i agree with pete on the swimming pool that was kind of a self-inflicted uh wound on this one that wasn't necessary however the um the side setback and the front setback variances are existing non-conformities you're elevating the property in place um in my mind those are completely justified the waiver the second waiver or the first waiver the building height plane again existing non-conformity so whether you're going to you know argue that it's 25 or 50 or 80 violating that uh building height plane it's still violating it and it always will i don't i don't know if you could put anything on this lot that's not going to um in fact as a measurement i'm not a big fan of that standard um but that's neither here nor there uh i think what it really comes down to is a is the secondary and subordinate um and along with pete i voted for this last time and i think it would be hypocritical if i would not support this because it is lower um it's just just want to say you don't have to consider that this is a new application a de novo application i'm just you know stream of consciousness here um i think the treatment from the front is a lot better um with the fact that this thing has to be elevated in place um if you if you took that whole bottom floor off and dropped it to the ground um i don't think it's that unreasonable so i think the the visual shock of seeing it up that high when it has to be elevated is one thing it is a small lot there's not much you can do with it we didn't really talk about the accessory structure in the back um you know there seems to be some contention of when it was actually put up there was something on the original site or one of the sanborn maps from the 40s um whether it was exactly that whether it was replaced i don't know if anybody could prove one way or the other on that but there was something back there definitely uh i personally don't have a problem with that going away um i don't think it has very any redeeming historic value at this point um and then so my my vote is going to be for this moving forward um seeing how this is tonight i don't think uh probably has the votes to pass um and then my only question to the staff is or to the applicant is do you want us to vote on this or do you want us to postpone it for future consideration without having to go through the whole thing again sure because we can postpone it to a date or we can go ahead and vote can i address some of the board's concerns to make those minor changes here now because i liked some of those richard mr kessler i mean i liked your you guys have the concerns i think that could help you make the decision of whether you wanted to continue the direction but i would just say if the board wants that you need to stick to the ones that i will stick to the three the three prominent ones carol first for yours may i ask a follow-up i'm sorry are you saying that he can proffer some solutions and the board can vote on those solutions without seeing the design no not necessarily i'm just saying if he wants a continuation to like i still think that continuation may be a thing that might have to exist for this board i'm just saying if that weighs into whether they're either going to deny or continue this project they can hear your concern your statements so that they can make those decisions of whether they'd be conditions and or if there are just small minor details that you do think could be made i just it feels like what the applicant is saying is that he potentially would proffer some changes that they could vote on tonight like i'll tell you like going down to nine feet ceilings like that can't be done that's not one of them like that can't be that's that's not one i think let's i mean okay i think we owe you to hear it out perfect well i listen and i appreciate your time because i know this is not easy carol to adjust yours first i love your idea of the two columns i like that i like the look of it so if if someone was to make a motion i would in that motion to have those two columns pete i understand your concern with the pool and i would and part of that motion not only with the columns is to reduce the pool back by five feet so we don't have that variance i like that and richard i'd like to i liked your comment of some variation with the texture of the existing building i know it doesn't quite fit but i like what you said there because i'm trying to figure out aesthetically how this is going to look to people on the atlantic going down the intercoastal and how nice this is going to look so my thoughts would be if the motion was to move forward is also you holding us accountable to those three things thank you you're you're welcome um we didn't get to the item so you want us to vote on this tonight yes i do okay all right somebody want to proffer a motion before we go there i just want to be clear that the appealable if it were to go into the direction of denial um the appealable would occur in it would be on the appealable list in july so the city commission would see that and if the applicant chose to do not to appeal a denial then the board the city commission would choose a date within 60 days of that july meeting date to rehear it again as a de novo hearing i just want everybody to be really clear so that somebody doesn't come back later and say that we didn't advise as to what the process is if it's a continuation you i would suggest that you discuss with the applicant the date that you would be looking at for continuation um because we do have to re-advertise we cannot do a continuation with the public notices to date certain anymore right we actually you can do a date certain but i don't know if you know if you can make that decision of when you can come back and make those changes you know so it just depends on whether it's i just want the applicant to be fully informed and so this would be if if we did continue it would most likely be the soonest would be the august hearing well i mean it they've been working pretty fast to turn things around however you would need to ask them that question if they would even be able to come back in july it's possible for us based on today being june 3rd that they could come back on july 1st or it could be august or whatever um but if there's changes happening to the plan and you're going to continue we need an opportunity to review that and the direction about adding features to the existing structure is kind of flying in the face of some of the code requirements so i'm a little i don't i don't want to get too in the weeds on that but well it doesn't sound like the applicant is interested in the continuance anyway okay are we sure that well i would like to say that um my the columns was one thing but the massing and reducing scale was my bigger issue so i saying that so just to confirm you would prefer a decision be made today approval or denial approval or not a continuation okay correct okay all right somebody want to have a go at it i mean you could just vote to approve as is you could vote to approve with conditions or you could vote to deny so what would be the the i guess we we would figure out the conditions whoever wants to make the motion so um let ben at it i know where that's going to go but uh if somebody wants to you know try and craft something that would be uh you know appetizing to everybody here i don't know if that's going to exist but we can you know give it a shot i would just say if it ends up being a motion to approve with conditions then i would just want to again check with staff before we make the vote just to see if those are conditions that can even be done you know without seeing a new so the three can uh concerns that were brought up by the applicant were the pool setback which he said he'd take that back adding some columns which are more visual and you know uh aesthetic to the cantilevered section and then some um topical treatment on i guess you could call it on the surface of the structure to make it look a little bit more different than the new edition correct those would be those were the three he brought up but are those uh allowable or or feasible under the code the applying to the existing structure more architectural details does not meet the standards of the secretary of the interior standards says you shouldn't add conjectual conjectual features that are changing any architectural style so that's completely inappropriate and we would be writing that in the staff report i guess if that was a condition she would require that it came back to the board to actually see how that and then we how that played out so then you'd be out of report that it's inappropriate so why would the board suggest an inappropriate treatment it's really to me the only one that was applicable that we could actually support would be or vote on would be the removal of the pool from the front setback the columns would have to be reviewed to come back and honestly in looking at one of the things that when we review reviewed this as a team and from the the gecko we actually thought that the cantilevered portion of the building was completely appropriate because it provided differentiation from the old to the new adding columns there are no columns really being utilized elsewhere so you know you i wouldn't split hairs if you really wanted columns and they wanted to design that and come back we would probably you know have a comment about it but i don't think it's the only thing that was holding this project up that would uh if those were something but it's there seems to be a lot more than that so um i'm really oh god just go ahead and make a clean motion however which way you feel so i'm i'm gonna i'm gonna try my hand here at something um just because there's so much discussion about a lot of the minutiae and i know you want to vote i know the applicant wants to vote tonight but i'm going to make i think that it needs to come back and certain things are going to need to come back so you'll be back with certain features they can't deny if he wants it to come back i'm not okay i'm making a motion to continue this to a following meeting you're moving yes i'm moving to continue with direction i'll second all right discussion so the applicant hasn't asked for it but you want to i just think if we either they agreed to certain things that we or agreed to consider certain things that we so at this point you would provide the direction so i think you're in board discussion so you have an active motion right kelly they would have to you would have to provide some direction because everyone has a little something different in order to provide clear guidance to the applicant what is your direction is it the columns the pool the massing the blank walls like you know you got to kind of lay it out for from where i sit i think it's it's you can obviously tell that there's some concerns i think it's the massing i think it's the columns i i understand that my nitpickiness about the original structure probably isn't isn't a feasible thing to to impart on you and it's a would be putting a hardship on you so that's that's fine um and the windows you know i i think and and the pool obviously coming back and i would also i know the pool is separate but because we're looking at the overall structure i'd like to see um on the renderings something that shows the pool barrier um so that would be my direction to come back with you know addressing those concerns or or at least considering them and coming back with responses in terms of a plan before well before yeah before i would support a motion like that i would want to have pass the applicant is this something that you would be willing to make material changes to this to come back if not i'm not going to support a motion to continue is there a way not to have to come back my son's getting married in italy june 23rd so and i've changed five different vacations to come back over the two years so what i'm trying to do is i hear the pool and coming back and i know with carol with the columns if you took a hundred votes there's going to be a hundred different people that want different colors different things so we've really in the in the three years done everything we can to get to this point right tonight and i understand it's not an easy vote i understand that it wasn't easy a year ago so i would prefer i need to know which direction i'm going with this property because if i do nothing it's just literally out of my control with a flooding so i have to get going get and for the contractors in the room there's a lot of lead time to raise the structure and jq is an architect we know that so yeah the you i mean you heard the comments and the concerns of of the board so i would prefer a motion with reducing the pool and the rest of it stands okay okay but the question if that is denied then you could still end up with motion to continue the board can still make that motion right whether the applicant supports it or not you can but we typically do try to you know i mean you have the motion on the floor yeah we have a motion we're gonna you guys can do it i but we do typically try to you know give them a decision if they want a decision then the commission hears it on appeal if they appeal it and pay the fees and you know all that stuff so all right so we have a motion and a second is there any more discussion on this motion before we go discussion that i'd like to have is that every time we've sent somebody back and said you can do better you can do better you can make this work they always come back with a really good solution i'm just you know so what i'm saying even if that's not what the applicant wants right now it can be done what this applicant was continued the first time and this is the third time they came back with bigger unless there's another question i would just okay let them discuss so yeah and and i agree that it does typically get better in our opinion over time or our by the board's opinion so the applicant said he didn't want a continuation so that's where i'm kind of if we're going to continue it and it's going to come back the same thing what's the point or with a pool or a column which staff doesn't like the column so i don't think the columns were my thing it's yeah i mean the the elephant's room is the massing and the scale columns are a little irrelevant and so we would have to redesign the structure which we're not going to do that so the applicant would and if the applicant's not amenable to that then what's the point of the continuation so i mean let's have a motion or let's we have a motion we have a second let's vote on a continuation and then it goes from there can michelle ask you guys a question it might be helpful just so the applicant's fully informed once it goes up to city commission they don't typically continue with direction so if the applicant is thinking that they'll go to city commission on an appeal and it gets denied they start over again with the fees again so i just want everyone to be fully aware of the process i don't want there to be any surprises and we you didn't tell us that i just want everyone to be aware that if it should get denied an appeal is you have a question about the appeal or a continuation i'm i'm not looking to go to commission and i never was it went to commission for the first time i think in the history of del rey to be denied so i'm wondering could someone make a motion for approval with reduction of the pool obviously putting a barrier around it honestly at this point it's either do you want a motion to continue with direction or do you want them to make a motion and i think you've already answered can only one person make a motion i think in fairness to mr edwards he's trying to understand yeah he's asking if the board can make a motion to approve with the condition that the massing be adjusted or that the pool be removed or or something like that and if it requires design changes it has to go back through the review so i just want him to be aware and the board to be aware of what that process is because i understand his commitments that he has in the coming month and and whatever is going on i want to be equally fair to to the applicant that it's yeah so if we vote to continue this then you have the opportunity to come back at some point in the future and represent um if it votes to uh vote approval or denial whichever way that goes if it's denied then you have a right to appeal to the city commission uh i'd rather not appeal i'd rather have an approval or yeah and i understand i understand i understand the massing but it's far less than five thousand it's it's thirty three hundred it's a nice livable i can't let the arguments continue i'm not arguing i'm just trying to you're making an argument for yourself i'm not saying you're arguing i'm just saying so what i think we should do is we'll we'll vote on this waiver because there's a motion on the table or i'm sorry the uh continuance and so where that goes then we will have to make another motion if that fails unless there's an amendment to the motion that's it yeah so go ahead all right thank you guys all very much i appreciate your time thank you so do you want to continue your motion as made with a continuance well i mean i would question for staff um you if if the conditions were design related the applicant would have to come back they'd have to resubmit to you and it would have to come back to us yes potentially i mean unless you said if the only issue you said was take the pool off i i think that that could go yeah right but if we're suggesting it in the staff report but if it's massing related um it's got to come back we have to do a review of that if it's denial he has to start again whether he appeals or not he can't come back he can't go with the denial and decide all right i'm going to go ahead and change the plans the application is dead yeah okay so i'm going to amend my motion he could appeal but he just said he doesn't want to appeal it to city commission yeah but that's not what yeah okay okay i'm gonna i'm gonna amend my motion and it's going to change to approve certificate of appropriateness hp-544-2026 for the property located at 46 marine way marine historic district by finding that the request and approval thereof is consistent with the comprehensive plan and meets the criteria set forth in the land development regulations subject to the following conditions which are to reduce the pool to be within the setbacks as specified by the city of delray beach land development regulations and also to reduce the massing or amend them it's designing okay so then to review the massing if you're continuing with direction you can mention the massing if you are just making a motion to approve that cannot be a condition okay then the only condition is the pool okay we have a motion is there a second i'll second that we have a motion in a second is there any discussion can i please ask a question okay if this motion fails it's a denial right yeah could they yeah i think they can come up with a different they could yeah i mean sorry go ahead well if it fails it's a denial yeah yeah but the motion fails so somebody could make another motion you're correct right exactly okay yes just wanted to be super clear just in case so we could make a motion to continue afterwards let's go ahead and do that i think we he wants to you know let's give it a vote okay so we have motion we have a second any other discussion seeing none brittany can please take the roll richard casser yes carol perez no peter dwyer yes chris cabezis is absent benjamin baffert no jake liopolis no john miller yes so it's a three three motion fails wow so the motion fails so i mean you guys i mean technically since the motion fails that there's no action on it but um you would typically do a motion to deny to um basically just affirm what the failure is i mean to affirm the failure so if there is a motion to deny though and it's continued to be a three three vote that motion fails as well that's correct yes let's do it again um somebody want to make another motion or we vote you know a a motion to continue to the next meeting when there would hopefully be a full board wouldn't it can't be a motion to postpone at this point it would have to be a motion to continue with direction well yeah yeah yeah yeah um yeah i think but you didn't vote we didn't vote we didn't vote it was modified yeah okay i'll i'll make him he doesn't want to continue it but why would we do that because a a unless there is an agreement among this board on a you know a four to two vote whether to deny or uh um you know accept it um we're kind of in a stuck pattern here so well i think we're i mean i think the motion fails and see what what happens here and then go from there so you're you want to go back to your original motion to continue i'll i'll make a motion to move to continue with direction based on the conversation of the meeting yes based on the conversation and board comments staff comments and applicant comments okay kelly it needs a second and then we can discuss all right i'll second that um is it is your direction what you had said earlier because i i think you need to be clear on what the direction is he said massing let me read it i'm just making sure that's the same motion that he's making yeah then it would be massing in the pool you had four items before do you care to hear that or no well the the fenestration i think we can't do feasibly so get rid of that you you said blank windows blank walls columns cantilever massing pools and barrier and uh the original building fenestration yeah take then all three but the original building fenestration so massing windows blank walls pool barrier pool and barrier yes so to be clear the direction to the applicant and to staff is to address the massing the pool barrier the pool the pool itself set back and that's it or was there one oh the blank door on the blank wall like blank wall on the rear on the west elevation okay yeah so we have a motion and a second we have a second any more discussion please take the roll richard caster yes carol perez yes peter doyer yes chris cabezas is absent benjamin baffer yes jake leilopoulos yes john miller yes on a continuous so we got a continuance so motion carries motion carries all right all right all right so i'm going to move on to reports and comments there's no legislative items um we have had a question posed by a um board member about term the term limits britney did you happen to print that i didn't have it it's okay i can pull it up here hold on one second so if you're i think two of you have a term getting ready to um end right if you want to stay on the board you're um required to reapply for board membership so this occurs every time your term is ending i'm out john miller is out unfortunately well that's depends how you define that to us maybe you're happy about it but um i'll miss you we'll miss you for sure like not yet it's in all i think it's august so i had did have a question on that so my term ends august 5th the meeting is august 5th the meeting ends after that meeting or before that meeting i think you have to be at that meeting i have to be yeah okay no fishing or camping um i'm free that week so our other board member here who's on their second hold on bear with me second term august 31st that's you john sorry i'm looking at it on a small screen here was it carol and chris yeah but i i'm looking at what you shared britney and you have jake um i think mine ends you're an unexpired term so what happens with an unexpired term is it just gets added to your first term so you still have to reapply and can be reappointed you did yeah perfect so you're all handled the other one in that same situation is mr cabezas and i will reach out to him directly and then i think it's carol yeah because i gotta i got an email notifying me of that situation yeah so you're still on your first term we obviously would love for you to be reappointed but you have to apply yes okay um also mind your absences we are not going to warn you when you start getting close to it's four i think in any 12 month period um so just three yeah three okay just mind it's 30 percent it's 30 so yeah just please mind that because we're not going to give you a warning and if we've had board members who didn't catch that there was one in the end in the beginning and they coincided and they you're automatically removed there's no begging for forgiveness on it so please just mind that the next meeting is july 1st if anybody has plans to not be here it would be helpful to know in advance so we can plan the agenda and if it looks like we're not going to have a full board i would try to um find an alternative date so that we could still have a meeting should an applicant come back so keep me posted um she is gone there was a young lady sitting here tonight um i i'm sorry if i butcher her last name sophia we think it's irauguay um is our planner and training which is similar to like an intern level it's just more of a professional level and she'll be with the city um rotating through the four divisions over the next 18 months to two years time here's sophia um so uh thank you for staying tonight and watching the board meeting and we'd like to welcome her to our team so if you hear from her at all or you you know she reaches out to you this is sophia hello thank you sophia um i'm kind of my brain's kind of fried so i feel like i'm missing something if i am i'll email you but um i think that's all i have does anyone have anything any other board comments um what's on the horizon moving forward as far as projects i know you want to continue to ask me that every meeting and i can't break it down for you and no just high level high level yeah do you have a full docket yeah just a lot of interesting stuff yeah fun stuff they're piling on i apologize for that i'm going to ask that you stop asking because the board doesn't direct staff on this i think it's fair to say like are we going to have a busy meeting next month like that's i'm not asking for addresses or pictures no you're asking to manage the workload um which i've never been supportive of this question i've been getting for 10 years we are busy um this last round of tac we had was it eight all were due like within the same week it was unbearably busy and applicants not understanding that they can't go in the system and respond to comments as the comments are rolling in and they can see them so we were fielding a ton of calls questions emails people coming in which dragged us down significantly so we're looking into how can we better manage that expectation for the applicant that you have to wait till the comments are released to respond um so we're supremely busy and that is just application that's what i suspected i think there's some misconception by um i have heard just recently by a couple members of the public that they think this is all we do is review applications and it is maybe 50 percent of the work we do um we have quite a list of responsibilities that we're tending to with historic preservation and that's not including building permits that now the state legislature has changed to a five-day turnaround um for the entire city to review not just my team for single family so we're slammed it's it's a tough time to be a municipal employee but we have a lot of other things that are highly rewarding that we get to work on so it kind of evens out we're thankful for that ben do you have any questions what's going on at docs so docs has been in front of code enforcement um code enforcement uh special magistrate meetings occur i think it's once or twice a month i believe there's one tomorrow it's not on tomorrow i don't believe but it was on the one before that i went to and testified they had some maintenance violations including the small knee wall that a car had hit to get that repaired so they've got that blocked and i think stuccoed and now they have to paint and cap it and then we'll re-inspect they did put up a construction fence and they have submitted or some permitting but they're not permit in hand yet well that order is that no it's got approval that was approved years ago so it it's kind of lifelining on a legislative extension um and it has a in lieu of parking approval with it as well it's a three-story building um that's kind of like in addition to the back side of docks with docks staying in its exact configuration and location with the sign and all that plan that came through and yeah and it was historically designated so it's now on the local register is um individual listing so we have a they have to get their plat finished which is why we can't move the permit forward because they have to finish their plat comments so i think they kind of jumped the gone a little bit with submitting the building permit but at least it's in so hopefully they can get the plot done and then we could review the permit i just saw the fence and i got all excited things yeah yeah we it could be a marketing tactic i'm not sure i think they have every intention to build the project but um we'll see anything else thank you everybody