Historic Preservation Board on 2025-09-17 5:01 PM - Sep 17, 2025

hello this will call to order the historic preservation board meeting of september 17th 2025 it's 5.03 pm uh britney could we have a roll call please peter dwyer here carol perez john miller here vlad dimitrescu here richard caster here chris cabezas here benjamin baffer here and i'm going to slightly move the order to allow for approval of the agenda before the election of officers um i think you might have a request to change something on the agenda as well yes so we need to take item 9a and move that to 9c we typically load the agenda with the more complex projects at the end and that was my error the applicant is aware so if someone could yeah move the agenda with the amendment second all right if we could have a roll call britney please peter dwyer yes chris cabezas yes richard caster yes vlad dumitrescu yes carol perez yes benjamin baffer yes john miller yes okay and so the next item is election of officers that's why i'm starting this out today um how this will work is we're going to have a chair a vice chair and a second vice chair if you can just make a motion to make whoever chair um and then if you guys have we'll just need a second and then if you guys have any other thoughts um if you want to propose an amendment you can do that um and then we'll go into the vote so can i ask you um who made the motion on the agenda john miller okay thank you i'll make a motion to to have carol perez as chair is there a second i thought you'd be good you still need to vote or you could amend the motion amend it to nominate someone else amend for john miller there a second i'll second that we could have a vote please britney unless sorry unless there's any other discussion okay peter dwyer yes chris cabezas yes richard caster yes vlad dumitrescu yes carol perez yes benjamin baffer yes john miller yeah okay and congratulations john john and if we could have a nomination or a motion for the vice chair nominate chris cabezas for vice chair is there a second is there any discussion okay have a vote peter dwyer yes chris cabezas yes richard caster yes lad dumitrescu yes carol perez benjamin baffer yes john miller yes and lastly can we have a second vice chair please yeah you're good with that one okay make a motion to nominate carol perez for second vice chair i'll second there any discussion you could please call the role britney peter tward yes chris cabezas yes richard caster yes vlad dumitrescu yes carol perez yes benjamin baffer yes john miller yes okay well congratulations everybody and i'm ceremoniously passing you the gavel but it's right there thank you you have a taste of power grace you're in the right spot so good to go all right thank you we are at the point where minutes we have minutes we have minutes from may 7th i believe 2025 is there anybody that wants to make a motion or comment on the minutes i'll make a motion to approve the minutes second second second peter dwyer yes chris cabezas yes richard caster yes vlad dumitrescu yes carol perez benjamin baffer yes john miller yes thank you all right uh now at this point anybody who's a member of the public who may want to speak on any item here tonight uh if you think you may please stand up it's time to be sworn in don't think you're going to speak but the feeling overcomes you later you want to stand up now by the authority vested in me as the notary of the state of florida do you swear to affirm that the testimony you're about to give is the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth all right comments from the public so if there's any member of the public who would like to comment on any item uh that is not on the agenda tonight so anything related to the board or its operation or the city in general seeing none we are going to move on to presentations michelle we don't have presentations but i just want to take a second to say congratulations to our new board chair vice chair and second vice chair and welcome to our new board member benjamin baffer and richard kasser welcome to the board my name is michelle hoyland i'm the principal planner in charge of the historic preservation division and just for the public so that you understand what the action was the agenda moved so that the smaller requests moved up on the agenda which means that 9b became 9a and 9c became 9b so our first item on the agenda is for 19 south swinton avenue you'll also notice that there are new file number formats for some of our requests because of our new digital software intake that we have so the first item i'll enter into the record is hp 96 2025 michelle hewitt will present but the applicant presents first so if we could please have the applicant for 19 south swinton come to the podium i'm before we get started i'm going to read the quasi-judicial rules yes and i'll help the applicant okay thank you um so this is a quasi-judicial item 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 the personal views as to whether a project is a good project or not nor may a decision be based on the number of citizens who support or oppose a particular project the law requires that all decisions must be made on the basis of whether the project meets the requirements of law the comprehensive plan and the land development regulations so for item b which is now a can i ask the board if there's been any ex parte communications on this item no no no okay all yours all right uh good evening board members my name is lee cohen 11 south swinton avenue i'm here uh to speak on behalf of the owners of 19 south swinton avenue as a request for a uh material and color change for the roof here is a the location of the property it's about a half a block south of atlantic on swinton ave directly across the street from the sunday village project as i mentioned here for a request for a level one site plan application to for material and color change for the roof the current roof is asphalt shingle roof and we would like to install a new mill finish standing seam metal roof it is only for the material that's being changed there is no modifications to the existing shape or the pitch of the roof here is a picture of the front of the property picture from the back a couple pictures of some nearby metal roofs the picture on the left is 23 south swinton directly next door to our property and then about a block to the south there's a very similar looking uh structure that had a metal roof installed on it um in addition to the lengthy justification that was filled out with the application just wanted to touch on what we believe a few of the high level talking points are but we think it is a respectful update to the property um with the only change in material and not the structure at all we would like to we believe it's maintaining the historic character by not touching anything else with the project we believe it's visually compatible and driving through the old school square historic district we see this color roof chosen for many of the projects and it improves the longevity the existing roof is nearing the end of its useful life and it's time to put a new roof on and we've owned it for 10 years and plan to own it for a lot longer so would appreciate your consideration for this thank you thank you you can sit while while staff presents and then they'll call you for any additional questions thank you for the record michelle hewitt planner and again this is uh agenda item 96-2025 for level one site plan and certificate of appropriateness application for 19 south swinton avenue here we have an aerial with the subject property outlined in red uh to the u.s it faces south swinton avenue in the rear there is an alley and then it's um on the sides there are two properties so going over some brief history the subject property sorry the subject property is located within the old school square historic district it is a one-story minimal traditional structure constructed in 1940 as a single-family residence the structure is of reinforced masonry and wood construction on a concrete foundation in 1997 the historic preservation board approved a certificate of appropriateness application for a conversion from the original residential structure or use to commercial and in this particular instance a hair salon which was approved and completed at its meeting of july of june 1st 2005 a certificate of appropriateness was submitted for the installation of aluminum frame windows indoor impact resistant glass and then there were administrative approvals of the replacement of the existing asphalt roof shingles so here is an image of the front or west elevation this space is south swinton avenue where you can see the existing asphalt shingle roof this is another angle of the front or west elevation this is the rear east elevation this faces the alley another angle here of the rear and so here is the proposed material in color as mentioned by the applicant and in the staff report it is a standing seam metal roof which you can see the profile there at the bottom and it's proposed to be in the mill finish or natural metal color here we have a staff report excerpt specifically from the visual compatibility standards where we discuss that the material has been utilized on a case-by-case basis particularly in wood frame structures as the existing or original structure utilize asphalt shingle that would be the most compatible however the use of metal roofing could also be considered appropriate such as aluminum shingles the request before the board to determine if the proposed standing seam mill finish roof would be appropriate for this particular minimal traditional style structure here are the highlighted standards that we utilize to analyze this request within the secretary of the interior standards and within the visual compatibility standards the relationship of materials textures and colors is utilized to analyze this request here are the certificate of appropriateness findings and that concludes my presentation thank you is there any member of the public who would like to comment on this item see none public comment is closed uh the applicant do you have any uh rebuttal none from staff all right get into board discussion um anybody want to start comments thoughts sure i'm in agreement with the roof i have a question for the applicant in the in the photos and it could just be the exposure of the photos but what's the exterior color is it a bright yellow more of a dull yellow it's i would say say it's more of a dull yellow um we have discussed doing uh repainting the property but we wanted to get the roof on first and then we'll probably be coming back to do a paint job at a later time but you in your ownership you haven't painted the exterior it might have had a fresh coat when we first purchased it so yeah i think it's probably been some time anyone else ben yeah so i think the the standing seam metal roof in a mill finish will look fine and be fine i know that we have a lot of these and historic um properties but just for the board you know it is changing the historic character of of the building i would say i i i you know i support the the the metal roof but we we need to we need to be aware that we are changing the changing the historic character from from one type to another were the metal shingles ever considered they were not uh only because we hadn't been aware of it or exposed to it um it was something that actually we recently learned about within the last few days uh but didn't want to go back and change the application at this time but is that like an example of one is it the house that was just recently redone right over here on swinton i believe so yeah it it looks nice on there i will say because that that would keep more of the historic integrity by using that material though i don't have a problem if you really wanted to go with standing scene because the neighbor has it and it has been approved before but if that would keep the integrity of the the look a little nicer would that be something you would be open to changing it to yeah if yeah if it could if it's not gonna hold up the process maybe if that could be like an administrative approval after or if it's something that we can do but but yeah it's something that i'd be happy to explore further with our vendor and see if that's something that they can do so may i yes because you asked about process um had this come in with a change from typical shingle to metal shingle we would have gone straight to permit with that he wouldn't have had to come to the board i'm sorry we didn't have that conversation sooner um but the board could make that a condition if if you wanted to or just to say that your motion would change you know to be a metal shingle roof but that would be an appropriate material that we would have admin authority over or whoever makes the motion could say a hand or situation um i think that's a great idea um i'll make a motion that we go with the um this metal shingle and that could be handled administratively so i i think you might want to just do it as a motion to prove with the condition that it be metal shingle would that make most sense for you the to pick one and make that motion with a condition before before you finish that vlad did you have anything you want to say no wait i think the applicant had a yeah yeah i mean it has to be cost prohibitive i mean it's cost is a big factor with this as well so i i i don't know the difference in cost but like i said it's something that we will explore and consider okay just i would say whoever does the motion you know allow either the standing seam since nobody seems to have an issue with that or right the uh well would we would we even need a motion would it even need to be noted if they could just go in administratively and go right to permit with metal shingles so we could approve it and then if they went in for metal shingles we could approve standing seam understanding that we don't have any jurisdiction over shingles and then if they went in with shingles they decided you have jurisdiction over shingles and it's easier for staff if you if you make the motion with what the material is that you're approving rather than an either or situation because at the end of the day if it's an either or the applicant could just do the metal standing seam but if the board is open you know to it being a standing seam roof you could give that direction with still the action being the shingles from our experience the cost is not prohibitive and you get the same life out of the roof the extended warranty that you get with the standing seam metal so for us it would be easier if you made the decision with the motion and because the applicant's here already it's you might as well make the action in the motion so it doesn't result in no action but to be clear if you guys only approve the metal shingle roof he he would not have approval for the standing seam metal roof if you approve i agree with mr cassar that if you approve the standing seam metal then he could administratively get the shingles i would be as an applicant i would be hesitant to say yes to anything that i don't know what it's going to cost right so that is my concern there so um he's had to go through the process to get here for a standing seam um you know i i would think we would want to go with that and then if he changes his mind and decides to go with a dimensional tile or a metal tile then he could approach staff and go on it from there and his staff said it doesn't need approval to support at that point so the if i may is that okay um the standards in the code aren't designed to take into consideration the cost the standards are designed to take into consideration what's most appropriate for the structure the most appropriate material for the structure is what it originally had which would be a shingle roof they could do a three-dimensional shingle um so i i just want to make that note that costs should not be part of the board's consideration and kelly you can correct me if you think i'm wrong there no she's correct i i correct me if i'm wrong i think you were just saying that he didn't want to agree to it because of the cost but i mean you guys can make whatever decision you want i mean and my thought is we're kind of changing things up in the middle here and uh if we're only going to approve something that hasn't been considered in the past that's kind of a you know not a fair situation to the applicant i don't think and another option is i mean continue with direction but that's you know i mean if yeah we've we've approved lots and lots of standing seam metal roofs in the past yeah i think you guys should make a determination whether you think the standing seam metal is appropriate and then make your motion accordingly what do you think you would do if we approve the standing scene would you really put the effort to to look at the other option and yeah i would i really would yeah okay it was it was a conversation that i had before this meeting but you just learned about it recently it's exactly we just it wasn't something that we were aware of somebody want to make a motion actually yours is still on the table right yeah you want to amend or you want to continue with that i will just i'd make a motion to approve um like to make a motion to approve certificate of appropriateness hp 00096-2025 and level one site plan application for the property located at 19 south swinton avenue located within old school square historic district by finding that the request and approval thereof is consistent with the comprehensive plan meets the criteria set forth in the land development regulations we have a second any discussion they go peter dwyer yes chris kabasis yes richard kasser yes vlad dimitrescu yes carol perez benjamin baffer yes john miller yes thank you very much okay item previously c now b certificate of appropriateness for 321 northwest first avenue any ex parte communications on this item none no for the record again michelle hewitt hewitt and i'm reading to the record file number 30-2025 for through 21 northwest first avenue certificate of appropriateness within the old school square historic district good evening okay to go yeah okay great my name is jason bregman um i'm a resident and business owner in delray beach my address is 227 lake terrace is where i live this property is uh actually the property of the estate of michael singer um and i'm one of the personal representatives of the estate i work with mr singer for uh pretty much my whole design career um and uh he passed away last year um i'm honored to be his personal representative and uh taking care of this property um as well as his properties in vermont and uh quite a collection of artwork um this application is specifically for a certificate of appropriateness uh for the replacement installation of windows and doors on a non-contributing single family structure um we might want to clarify some of the documentation might say it's contributing i i believe it's non-contributing it's a ranch style house from 1975. um so uh who is michael singer uh kind of matters um sometimes properties are kind of defined by who who used them or who lived there uh he's actually a pretty uh renowned artist um you may not know because we didn't advertise as a studio he wasn't someone that would go out and do shows um but he uh was a pretty uh well-known artist he actually had a one-person show at the guggenheim in the 80s uh in new york city uh and i'd like to say i had the honor of working with him for about 20 years on numerous projects including projects abroad um he passed away last year but he had a 50-year uh career of doing really beautiful environmental sculptures and uh that post that you can see is that's from the new york times they did a really nice obituary on on his work and his career um these are just some of his projects you may have traveled through like denver airport and seen this this amazing garden on the inside of the airport that that's his from 1993. uh this is a memorial garden in uh germany um water cleansing gardens in the netherlands uh queens plaza which i worked with him on for 10 years in new york city uh which is the fourth business district of new york city so he's a pretty well-known uh designer in that world uh of what we call a kind of regenerative design and uh and a very type of a specific type of uh environmental sculpture if you will um like say he didn't advertise much but they did do a little piece on him i dug it up uh this is from atlantic uh magazine avenue magazine uh from uh 2012. uh so they did a little piece and actually all the photography that day was from 321 which is just down the street here it's first avenue so it's really the end of the street uh city hall street um so this is the property uh it was a quiet home-based art studio and office kind of still is now as it's being held by the estate uh there's no noise he just did some prints there there's an office space um he did his prints uh in the garage in vermont he would do them in a barn and here he did them in a garage um there's no signage most people do not know we're there um and it's been that way uh since he purchased this property in 2008 i believe maybe 2007 2007 but he modified it when he bought it and that was all proved through this board um now the estate is gonna uh it's gonna hold this and it's gonna be gifted to his foundation i'm also on his foundation so if there's questions about the foundation i can represent the foundation right now it's called the bermill foundation in honor of his mother and father but we will be renaming it as the michael singer foundation the intent is to retain this property and not sell it we've had a lot of offers from this property it's big enough probably to build two luxury homes and fit them in there our goal is to retain this property uh as the phone as a foundation office um and also to um eventually we might have certain type of thing going on there there might be in the future an artist in residency or something like that that's why we're hesitant to change it in any way so it's still like a home-based office right now our plan is just to try to maintain what we have there and to secure it critically to secure it for hurricane and uh security reasons just in terms of where it's located it's really on the edge of the district across the street the homes are not a part of the uh part of the district uh the old school square historic district uh we think the most notable historic feature is actually the mangoes it's an old mango orchard that stretches this side of the block um and we have one of the neighbors here to speak to that about the mangoes and how the neighborhoods really worked hard to preserve those mango trees um and so it's been something we've done over the years including trying to protect other properties nearby the existing windows and sliders there's there's a lot of sliding glass as you can see in that image above um and then the the uh those are actually casements in the front um they're uh either anodized aluminum or they're great so we went out of our way to get anodized aluminum even though everybody's trying to sell us bronze and white as you might now um we went out of our way to pay extra to get to get the aluminum frames to match and for consistency uh what we didn't realize is that you have a thing about the logi glass so um we figured we were just doing something that would protect the property um and we did we were not aware of a low e glass situation uh over the years uh when uh mr singer would be up in vermont and if there was no one going to be no one here for a period of time this building got shuttered for all the openings that weren't protected weren't impact glass so it looked like this and um if there's a storm coming up right now this is what we're going to do and um we have to you know pay to put the shutters up take them down sometimes i end up doing it and it doesn't look great for the community if they stay up for an extended period of time and of course um it's it's something that we just want to fix properly by having proper hurricane windows and the estate will pay for that and the foundation has agreed um why we want low e on the most facades it's shaded uh we have a ton of vegetation michael designed the gardens here kept all the mango trees in this beautiful set of gardens but there's artwork inside i don't want to get into the nature of the artwork and everything like that uh there's but there's a significant amount of artwork that's here um and we uh we need to protect that artwork and the the light that's coming in is is problematic for our use um so uh also again there might in the future be a new artwork created uh which we would want to protect as well the other all the other openings are are perfectly well shaded we went ahead and when we did low e of course to keep it um similar we put the low e on this west facing facade at the garage here and also at the front door so if you were approaching uh the property you would see the glass would have that similar tint this is just use of the garage um and how it opens up it's a screen garage there's no cars going in and out or anything like that um and uh again the uh it's a lot about uh art handling is really critical he was creating artwork in the space in terms of history our goal is to kind of retain the space as an art space if you look closely i don't know if it's in this image but in some of the images you can actually see um his um his print press in there and the intent is to keep that so it's an important part of its history so we'd like to keep these things in place um we don't know exactly what's going to happen in the future but right now our goal is to to stabilize um and keep everything in place and secure this is what it looks like across the street that's a city well they keep digging up the site a bit because there's an issue with that well i don't know but they're out there often um not a part of the historic district as far as i understand um neighbors um great neighbors that's their lane and kirk and they're they're not a part of the district uh this is the property to the south which at one point in time mr singer owned and helped make sure it stayed in the hands of someone who built a low structure with keeping the mango trees this is 313 and then um to the north uh case united methodist uh we have a good relationship with and they've just fenced that area though um and put up clusia so they're really not a part of the street i wanted to show this video real fast so it's a bit fast but it just goes to show you how much vegetation there is that's how much vegetation there is on this property um you can see that the this uh this is uh northwest first uh michael planted it out with a ton of native vegetations all native hedges in the front there um and the mango trees between that you really can't see much of the property um what you could see if you approach it further is the garage um and that one window which again is one of the ones that we're requesting for low e um so i just want to be clear that again a lot of this is just simply not not visible um and it's part of it's really nestled in the garden that he created which is part of his work and the aesthetic that he was trying to create so just to wrap up um the state and foundation are seeking to retain and preserve the property if at some point in time you know we we can't do what we need to be doing there um the foundation will probably i've been fighting because i'm here in florida and everybody else is up north to keep this property um it'll get sold to the highest bidder and developed so just i'm doing everything i can to prevent that and i think that's in line with your mission and goals um the old openings with shutters are being replaced for security hurricane protection energy efficiency and aesthetics these are all good reasons and go right along with what we're trying to do in this community especially in terms of historic preservation and also honoring the use of the space historically uh that you know mr singer was there working for the last um so many years um and the low e for the west side again is due to the western exposure and the need to protect artwork um staff has been great to work with they came by they looked at everything they understood the unique nature of the property um we greatly appreciate your service and um hopeful that you know you can improve this so that our foundation can remain in delray beach and continue to do some really interesting work in south florida thank you so much i'm here to answer any questions thank you we'll get back to you as soon as staff presents once again this is for 321 northwest first avenue certificate of appropriateness here we have the subject property outlined in red with northwest first avenue to the west some brief history the subject property is located within the old school square historic district it contains a non-contributing ranch style single family residence constructed in 1975 and it contained an asphalt shingle roof stucco siding and awning windows the current single family residence use is this current property is also still classified as single family at its meeting of october 15 2008 the strike preservation board recommended approval for a coa and waiver request to allow the parking to be within the front setback which exists today the subject request is for the replacement of existing windows and doors specifically for anodized aluminum frames low e-glass and the replacement slash installation of horizontal roller windows and doors going through some photos here we have the front or west elevation this faces northwest first avenue and this is within the property um also the front um or west elevation we can see the front door on the left and the existing casement windows on the right here is from an angle here of the front or southwest elevation we can see the garage door portion of that front door there as well here is an image from the side or north elevation and then from the rear or east elevation more kind of from the rear slash side um southeast elevation also from the southeast and then here is the side slash south elevation so this is the layout of the existing windows there's no new openings proposed for the windows um there is a the existing single entry door supposed to be double entry door um which i'll show you later um and they are proposed on any of the existing um awning windows are proposed to be horizontal rollers all to be the anodized aluminum frames and then the west windows to be and front door to be low e glass so here are some of the existing door frames this is looking within inside of the building um outside some of the existing window frames i think this face is northwest first avenue these are the casement windows so here is the existing front west front slash west window this is the only window um that currently utilizes this current um window pattern in appearance but it also utilizes that anodized um frame metal frame so this is the proposed low e glass sample um you can kind of see the distinction between the back and the front there and then here is the existing entryway on the left there and this is proposed to go from a single um entryway to a double entryway here um with those glass panes on either side of the door so here are some staff report excerpts specifically from the secretary of the interior standards as mentioned before this includes the replacement of the uh replacement and new use of horizontal roller windows which is typically considered a more modern uh slash recent appearance and is not typically utilized historic structures it is important to note this is a non-contributing ranch style structure where these types of windows may have been utilized during the time frame going to the proposed low e glass it is a modern application not utilized during the time frame of current historic structures this particular type of glass is inconsistent in its color grading and appearance when installed thus creating concern for its overall use within the historic districts as like and kind replacements come through for consistency that may not be able to be achieved the low e glass is proper for the board per direction from the board where uh contributing structures are to use clear and no tint on reflective no low e glass and that non-contributing structures may utilize gray uh colored windows to assist with meeting the energy requirements here is an image here or a staff report except for the vision compatibility standards the elevation on the screen is the front so you can see what was originally there in terms of the window pattern and appearance um and the proposed and the existing single entry door um there have been modifications as you can see from what was original and what's currently out there now as mentioned before the single entry door is going to double entry door um there to be full glass consideration could be given um to the to other potential door types that aren't as modern in terms of the full glass um appearance so here is the secretary of interesse and super rehabilitation with the subject standards highlighted in yellow that we use to analyze the report or request and here is the vision compatibility standards that were utilized to analyze the request as well here are the certificate of appropriateness findings and that concludes my presentation thank you uh any rebuttal just one minor comment um thank you michelle could you go sorry if we actually we're gonna go to public comment first just in case you have anything to say about public comment as well oh yeah just be a minute any members of public want to comment on this item just come state your name and address for the record please i think i need to be sworn in do you as as well jim jim jim you were sworn in well john i'm sorry to hear about your election as a chair i know it's a big burden you can handle it you have big shoes to fill uh my name is jim chart i live at 401 southeast fourth avenue in delray beach uh and i'm here to support my good friend jason bregman and his mentor uh who i was honored to know quite well michael singer uh many of you probably do not have not heard the name michael singer before tonight but i think uh as you can see from what the new york times had to say about him he is a very famous person in the design environmental art and uh and also the aquatic world which jason didn't mention um and i think that his home is going to be very much like the fontaine fox home in the sense that it's historic because of who built it or who lived in it and we all know the importance of that of that building um the real reason i believe for what jason is trying to do is securing the art it's very valuable art it uh is something that uh is very valuable to dalray 50 years from now it'll be even more important i think also you saw from uh the the view it contributes substantially to the tree canopy in on north swinton and is a very very special place if you haven't visited i highly recommend it so uh i am strongly in support of this and i hope all of you are as well thank you for your time thank you my name is annette anchild i live at 300 north swinton avenue in delray beach and my property is around the corner from this property i actually identified the property to michael who was a dear friend for many years he's very famous though we don't all know his name if you look at michaelsinger.net it's quite something and what he did was something with this property that we both live on which is a mango field mango lot that's been there for forever and i've really fought to preserve myself having a continuous lot with his so anything they do they're going to do the best thing the best thing for the environment the best thing for the the town and certainly the best thing to protect uh the artwork i don't know if you've seen the sun or felt the sun the way most of us have recently but it's so hot and the sun is so strong and that little house really heats up so that's why it's so necessary thank you for your time thank you annette and child anybody else hope george is okay um we're going to close public comment and now any rebuttal yeah it's not quite a rebuttal it's actually just a um something i forgot and also something you presented michelle thank you if you could go back to the um the west facade has the one window with the muttons on it and um to i just wanted to point that is indeed the only opening that has that and um as michelle showed on the historic drawing if you could go to that too i don't know where that came from there's what it's supposed to look like so i just want to make sure that you were you were seeing the same thing that we're trying to show which is that uh that there are everything else with those awning windows of course they don't make those anymore anymore for hurricane rating um actually if they did i would choose that by buying on any day they only make the big panel ones which are awful um and so and i don't know i don't know that they would meet your approval um and they're problematic but the so if we had that option we'd absolutely take it um to do you know multi-pane awning windows like that um so because we don't have that option that's why we've gone in the direction that we have in terms of type of the window functionality uh the building does open up beautifully in the in the cooler months um and is completely passive and that's part of why mr singer designed it the way it did so about five or six months out of the year we use absolutely no air conditioning um that might have to change a little bit because of the artwork um but the uh that's how we always used to do it previously so again thank you thank you staff any comment rebuttal i do do you okay um so i just want to say thank you to the applicant uh for their presentation uh for their presentation and just more so as this is somewhat rebuttal but a point of um process the home is just that it's a home it has approval for a single family residence we have had uh staff has had a discussion with mr bregman about that use which means the home is to be occupied by somebody living there um and i heard some of the testimony tonight um talking about that they're figuring out what they're going to do with this property which we fully understand and respect but should it tip over to um purely being office art studio or even storage of art without anybody residing in the home it technically needs to be converted for commercial use so i'm just putting that here on the record um so that we're all clear but we the the applicant has indicated that it's a home where also happens to be a place where mr singer did some work and had space to be creative so the primary use has always been all right we're gonna move into board discussion at this point anybody want to start yes i had a question for the applicant so so i'm looking at the you you included with your application that your order from south florida windows and doors with es windows so you're you you are ordering windows that are clear glass with low e coating um did you consider like a solar band 70 or a tinting or something to to give you the the performance that you could get from low e yeah so uh like i mentioned uh we're always not aware that low e was actually a concern for a non at any structure but non-contributing it just wasn't anything i do look at the ldrs because i've served on scrap before over the years and um so i'm familiar with it but i just i i know that you of course have a complete authority over anything affecting aesthetics but it hadn't didn't even cross my mind that the the low e tint would have been an issue on this property so if that that could be my me overlooking that so the short answer is no okay as a result so the the low e is an issue because there's a reflective quality right so we we get clear glass so this is always a problem with with historic restoration work and so i mean for those of you who don't know what i do on a day job i'm usually on this side pleading my case with the historic preservation board about why why i need to use uh higher performing windows um than clear glass and no coating and and low e the reason why it's problematic is it it gives a reflectivity that that's you know not not consistent with um with historic um architecture and the the problem is clear glass with no coating is inconsistent with the florida energy code so we usually i'm i'm usually making this argument not on behalf of you know the artwork that's in the building but because the energy code the energy model doesn't work because the the glass doesn't doesn't perform and what i'm saying to the the board is i think when we run into these things and we will over and over again we have to come up with some type of uh acceptable we did compromise to to make to make it to where we can like we did with noas right when we had to go in that class if if i can address that um it might have been the time you've been off the board um because i know this topic was coming up quite a bit when you were serving on the previous your previous terms um so we had this over and over and you know applicants coming to the the board and showing the different types of glass and the color and you know we've had meetings with window manufacturers and window contractors and what resulted from that is we learned that every manufacturer manufactures the green that comes in the low e a little different and depends on what country it was made i remember you talking about this before so the direction from the board because we asked as staff please give us the pointed direction so we can move permits administratively is non-contributors as this structure is can use the gray colored glass which meets the requirements for the energy calculations because a non-contributor has to meet the florida building code energy calculations so gray is permitted this was the board's direction um not low e the board said they do not want low e for non-contributors absolutely not permitted for contributors contributors don't have to meet low e um or i'm sorry the energy calc contributor can get a waiver on the energy they don't even need a waiver they just automatically don't have to meet those energy calculations and for those who may not be aware the energy calculations are prescriptive in that they are not just for windows so when that is applied it's looked at for air conditioning floor covering windows number of different things so you can exceed maybe your energy performance standards on an ac that might let you do something a little different on a floor covering or a window so it's it's not just windows it's a holistic look but the direction sorry this is a long answer but i wanted mr castor also to hear the background um from the board was gray for non-contributors clear for contributors that that that answers my question i was thinking if gray may give you what you need or for the the protection of of the artwork instead of instead of low e and i know this is a non-contributor but i'm saying that it was built in 1975 so at some point it probably it's 50 years old now right so at some point it i i think this is a mid-century contributing structure in my mind even though by definition it's it's still it's still non-contributor but that that was my question meaning that at a future historic resource survey it could be designated a contributor and changes that are made now shouldn't have a negative effect on that potential classification if we can say that but yes we are we can say that i mean it's i'm sure kelly would say it can't be the the consideration by the board what's going to happen in the future because it's not happening now right um but that is how the process works and sometimes when we're looking at properties we will say like we're getting close to that time frame but you can't um tell an applicant like they want to tear it down that they couldn't tear this down right now because technically they could come through for that application due process you you can't treat this property like a contributor because you believe that it's going to be a contributor but you can as the board you can think about that you are protecting the history of historic properties and you know apply the land development regulations and the design guidelines as appropriate i guess for the board my point is i i want to do everything we can to let the applicant you know achieve his goals but in in a way that you know is it's consistent with with what we want to do should we ask the applicant if he's willing to to change this one of my concerns was i'm assuming from the language that these have been ordered they've been received they're waiting to be installed they are they're sitting in a warehouse yeah and i apologize for that again i i did look at it i it's you know if i i was not aware that low e would have been an issue and specifically because of energy calcs in general it would be a requirement um especially on a west facade like that it's get the boss it's getting blasted i mean it's just bad but uh that's they are in a warehouse they are completely sorry we're gonna let the rest of the board we're talking about three openings right uh two uh it was double door so i guess you could three openings these could be reglazed in the field so you could install these and the glass could be changed no different than if you had a hurricane event where you had broken glass they would be able to change it or or vandalism or just random breakage so that that is an alternative and i'm familiar with the es windows so these are coming from columbia but they make their own glass so they could have glass for you in probably five weeks so that's just from my basic knowledge so that's an alternative your comment is you my comment is is that something you would consider ordering going ahead and uh changing to gray glass on those three openings i mean yeah i i'm at the in the board here decides what happens ultimately those windows exist um my only other option is to not install them and keep shuttering those areas um and not use those spaces uh for anything close to the artwork i mean i'm limited in what i can do uh reglazing them you know as a personal representative i have a fiduciary responsibility to the to both the estate and the foundation so i was told by the contractors we're replacing one of the sliders that's there now because of a of a heat stress crack which they told me that i got quotes on it that they told me that it was more expensive to redo the glass than to replace the slider and multiple contractors told me that so they quoted the slider so in this case basically i would imagine someone's going to tell me the same thing i mean i'm sure they can be reglazed on site it's just i imagine they're going to come back and say the exact same thing which is i'll just get you a new window because i don't want to spend time reglazed they're sizable open sure yeah so it's probably uh maybe under ten thousand dollars but it's definitely over five thousand dollars it's probably somewhere around eight thousand dollar change so i can't readily and meet my fiduciary responsibility i can't readily say that that i'm in favor of that so you've looked into the change yeah i've i've discussed with the the current contractor i just said he just said they're done sorry we're not you know um but the uh and if they were going to change them i'd assume they change them in the factory rather than install them and that would give you a better product yeah we think but uh you know like i said the factories in colombia for that one so so the sliders and the ones that are being replaced those are just clear glass so that the slider that's the one that's being replaced uh yes the ones that are being replaced in the back are completely shaded you got these massive mango trees tons of philodendrons you know they're they're lovely and either to my knowledge they're clear um the contractors had different opinions on what was up with the glass um so some of them said that they felt that there was a coating on some of them said that they didn't i know you know i am not an expert on low e glass so i'm not going to claim to know but um but it doesn't seem like that they seem clear yeah and we haven't noticed anything with reflectivity all right so just can we put up the illustration there the elevation that shows the two windows we're talking about yeah so that's this is on the front of the garage correct yes that is on the uh facing west that's probably the most visible opening even the front door is not visible because of that hedge that's there that's really the the visible window in question and that's the door if you were to enter the property so the windows to the right of the door those are sliders those are actually casements and they're staying put yeah correct they were put in when mr singer modified the space they're originally approved as casements and um so it's just the front door which is going to go to a double door and then the garage window and and a ton of other windows going around the the building yeah um which are are my understanding is not um not in question per se that's the one that's what i'm curious about just which ones are we talking about in here all of these that are indicated here uh so yeah the ones that say remains yeah this is the highlight you said so the west the garage opening the west on the garage the sliders near the pink area but the um you can see on the right there's a new slider there yeah that's the one that's cracked yeah and number three is going this remains here it's easier to actually say what's remaining those casement windows in the front are remaining this slider is remaining this one here in the corner this one's fine but except for the crack so we were told by the contractors pretty much all of them that it's cheaper to actually replace the slider than to it's really where the numbers are so three four five six seven eight nine ten eleven twelve this is a three panel one and two so there's that's it so this slider here remains this slider remains these casements remain and the garage door which is actually it's a hurricane rated garage door with a with a screen on the front of it so that he could right but they're asking which ones are being replaced everything but those it's all the ones with the numbers in the circles okay so but with low e it's only three openings it's 13 two and what's just 13 and two just 13 and two that's that's what i was the ones facing west yeah the low e ones yeah so rest are administratively approved and um the others are administratively approved yes okay i don't know if um the approach from the interior could be you know blinds or shades or something like that it's a non-contributing structure it's completely surrounded with vegetation of course it's preferred to not have the low e and we try not to approve that in the historic district so i'm a little bit uh i don't know quite yet where i'm i'm falling on this one um it's only two windows or one window and one door to replace i if it was everything then i would be you know then it would be such a financial burden but it's only the two the two areas so i think i still want to hear other board members uh talk about this before i make a decision i just want to say that i didn't know michael singer i knew of michael singer when i was a student at fiu getting my master's of landscape architecture he actually came and spoke as a as a keynote speaker so he presented a lot of his projects and it was it was inspiring as a student so i i really respect him and sad to see he he passed thank you is there a photo of the we've seen the front door that faces west but is there a photo of window number 13 or where it is on the so that's that's window 13 that's the garage window the reason and the reason for just reiterating um and just to confirm the reason for wanting the low e at this window is because the garage was used as a studio and also an art storage space correct and then what would be the reasoning for utilizing the low e at the front door number two yeah you might see it in one of the interior images i think in my presentation but the the interior space is a lot of it's open and there's quite a bit of work artwork that's within that space and so they the we do get quite a bit of light and heat coming in through that again the west is just so strong and that's not where we have the trees so yeah you can kind of see there but there's a some open space area where not only do we have current art but also uh there may very likely artwork moving you know through the space over time and was there a a slide that had a comparison of a low e window versus a non low e window there is a tint to it but it's not like a limo tint on a car yeah low e tends to be green so the glass on the part of the issue is the reflectivity there are some that come with a mirror finish almost or um iridescent reflectivity you'll notice it now that i've said it when you're driving around town but there are also some that are just green which this really it's hard to see in a photograph you know we've tried to communicate it in a photograph which is why we had you know that showed the board a bunch of glass once before the part of the issue with the low e is there's different colors of low e so you know in a year from now window has to be replaced and maybe he doesn't use the same manufacturer they're not around and someone else does a different you know replacement maybe side by side windows the greens don't always match so it's the complex issue more than the you know fact that it's green um but i also if i could make one comment would that be okay yes it's up to the board okay um there are instances where we see front doors have some different type of theme to them maybe it's a reeded glass or a wavy glass or a stained glass um so perhaps that could be something it sounds like the board is kind of wavering on what to do perhaps it's the front door that's allowed to be the more artistic green look um and the other window would match the gray windows that already exist on the structure just i had a question so the the illustration that was up there showing the rendering of the front door it looked like it was a frosted door it didn't look anything i mean is that just blinds behind it or what was the concept here because i don't know too many front doors that are completely clear and they are frosted indeed they are frosted for security that's okay as part of the proposal or as existing no the existing is looks nothing like that um that yeah that's the existing yeah i don't think we understood that they were frosted i thought i think yeah we thought they were just low e it's in the uh south florida windows and doors it's on this quote it says frosted doors on the yeah front entry which to me that kind of makes the whole thing moot on the front so we're only talking really about the garage window number 13 which i've never seen a louvered window or a pullout window with buttons on it like that yeah but that's not the same photo that we see this just helps vertical mountains as well yeah that's so i don't know i just want to understand yeah are we talking about the 13 was the photo from the street that you can see the window that's it oh it is the same carol any comments just to stay consistent with permitted in the district you should we're really only talking about the one window we're not talking about the doors i don't understand the door i don't understand what what are you doing with the door the front door it'll be frosted a low e frosted that's correct low e frosted a single door is turning to a double i don't even know what that would look like i mean to me it looks like it's just a white so this almost i just don't understand that it'll almost look like a green frosting that's a photoshop yeah correct it's not completely accurate no it's not totally accurate the frost it'll be frosted but it will have a slight green tint to the frosting i mean that's not what it's showing here no this is a photoshop i don't know what it's i mean it okay well that's my mock-up ready all right um so i think we've gone around the table on this does anybody want to make a motion on this we're going to have to make a decision here tonight whether we allow what has been proposed to continue forward or deny it and send it back or proceed with direction you know if you are amenable to changing that front window to a gray tint so that would mean approval of the doors um as as in the application if anybody have any comments i mean the doors are going to have a frost to them it's not going to show that green i agree i don't think it's going to read through i'm not so concerned with the doors yeah it's back in it's shaded there's a there's a cover that's going to help with the reflection it's really that front window that's very prominent from the street i think just because it's it's not noted in the staff report they didn't realize it was frosted it might be worthwhile to put that in your motion that it's frosted as a condition whoever makes a motion needs to qualify that the front door will be a frosted glass but just to just to circle back um so the window right now is that is visible from the street the one window that we're talking about it's into a garage where yes somebody's work there that was a studio space but the light was not on for during the day or at usually garage lights garage windows are just dark you know my my window on the side of my garage it has very little tint to it but because it's a garage you can't really see into it because it's just dark um and that window right now in that picture looked very dark gray to it um so i guess my my question is how active is the garage planning to be used um to where the window would the the tint or the low e or the visibility through the window would really come into play that's a great question it's about the future use and i've had conversations with the foundation board and there's it's still early you know he only passed about a year and a half ago so there's a lot to do um so there's consideration also in his will that some of his properties might be used for as artists and residencies that's part of why we don't want to change the residential use just yet because we might find ourselves changing it back um and that could be a problem for us um to be doing waffling um so i was told that you know we should be considering this uh for the future possibility of artists potentially working in that space as mr singer worked in that space um including leaving the press there um there's a print press there kind of for for his prints um and so that's what i'm doing you know because that's what has been discussed by the board um and so that to answer your question the plan is to have artwork in there you know and when we're doing this as a foundation it's very different than as an individual artist mr singer doing what he feels like um it's a it's a different animal in terms of how we protect artwork like previously he didn't have to ensure his work i have to ensure his work to the teeth so it's a very different animal i guess is what i'm saying and because of that um we need to make sure that work is protected including work that will be in that space temporarily because we're moving it around so on so forth but also future artists that might be working in that space and protecting their work and there's no there's no window treatment on the interior of that window right now no i mean the natural light is a big part of the the allure of this space as a working space right he if you look at the plans from from what was there originally and how he kind of blew out the building which was approved by this board then to create like a ton of natural space we barely turn on a light bulb in this building during the day even with all the shade and that's for me that's the history of this space is that it's a building surrounded by natural light there are no window coverings there are no shades there are no nothing and that's part of what he created and that's true in all of his buildings by the way there's not a single curtain or shade in any michael singer building right but so where where my point being that if the low e-glass is needed for protection of the artwork would a understanding that that garage space functioning as a studio and functioning as storage come gallery space uh will not be utilized 24 hours a day or only during daylight where you know glad so when it is not being utilized would a protective interior window covering be suitable should should low e not be approved would that a protective e or protective window covering in on the interior that is able to be raised and lowered at the will of whoever's in there be something that would still protect the artwork and still give the the light that's needed on on a kind of an on-demand basis i totally get what you're saying and as from a practical functional standpoint yes but um you know again the future use let's say in the future we have ten of his pieces hanging in the space and and it is commercial it's changed to commercial in the future and people can move through that space michael would want that to be presented with all the natural light that we could and and that's really the crux of the issue um he he would not want it to be a shade to come down that would then block the natural light presenting his work so that's that's where i'm that's what i'm left with because you know like i've worked with him for 20 years i know exactly how he presented his work and so you from a practical standpoint you know sure we close the shade and no one's in there or whatever but um from a presentation standpoint and so on uh on a regular basis should this be a place people can enter we're not going to go run and open the shade you know what i'm saying it's it's just it's going to that's going to be open and the natural light's going to be there and people can come and go and so on and so forth i don't know what the future holds but that's the that that's the thought and the intent and to get to your point of what you're asking thank you i appreciate that anybody one last comment sorry is i i don't like approving things or reviewing things after the fact i really you know as a board i hate it when people come in and say oh it's already been installed please approve it or it's already been ordered please approve it because i feel like that puts pressure on us that we shouldn't have to deal with you know just just just have to have to say that because i i'm looking at this thinking had this come to us before the window order was made before the they were we went forward with it um i don't know that i would be in favor of having windows where three of the windows are different glass compositions than the rest where we've got low e on some of the windows and clear glass on some of the other windows because just within itself the house doesn't match you know forget about what does it do with the rest of the neighborhood the historic character it's just i don't think we as a board would would approve that we would say no this doesn't make sense that you've got windows on one part of the house that are different glass types than the other side of the house other than other than the front door so just that point i do want to say i i know these are just ordered they're not installed so it's not like it's a subject of code enforcement or anything like that but like the as a negative or a positive you're it shouldn't be used that it's been ordered or that it's been installed or any of those things um you should be basically analyzing it how you would if they came to you with no no order in place no um yeah so just want to throw that out there i mean a suggestion can can we actually look at the window there and decide i mean somebody from the staff or if it's really that noticeable the reason i'm saying because sometimes in this special this environment the the windows do reflect a lot of the greenery around and i don't know what type of glass actually this particular window has i agree with you sometimes it has like all kind of iridescent purple reflections looks like an like an art show you know it's not really a flat glass but maybe i don't know would that matter i mean can can you can you put a condition that maybe they can actually you guys can i would feel more comfortable if the board made a decision with what they want to move forward with um mainly and respectfully because we have studied some of these instances where we're given that authority right to make a call and then it's installed and it doesn't actually look like what we expected it to look like and then what are we bringing them back to the board um so yeah let's make a motion anybody want to make a motion yeah i will make a motion to approve certificate of appropriateness hp-000030-2025 for the property located at 321 northwest first avenue old school square historic district by finding that the request and the 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 window 13 will be a gray tint and that the or clear or clear and that the front door window two will be approved as um as noted okay any second i'll second that okay any discussion and as noted meaning frosted glass yes frosted glass yes so this this is approving the low e window on the door on the door door not on window not on window 13 which will have to be modified to be either clear or gray tint okay take the role peter dwyer yes chris kabasis yes richard casser yes vlad dimitrescu yes carol perez yes benjamin baffer yes john miller yes thank you so much have a good evening thank you thank you baby forgiveness in front of us happens all the time all right now we go on to item previously item a which is now item c uh certificate of appropriateness 2023 one two four three four 139 and one to 143 southeast 7th avenue is there any ex parte communications on this item i've been to the site yes we did receive several emails from neighboring residents yes i haven't seen anything other than those did everybody receive the email that's mr miller cabezas everybody yes so thank you for introducing the file into the record 2023-143 for 139 to 143 southeast 7th avenue the applicant agent mr simeon i'm sorry i do this every time no problem um architect for the project is here and will present and could you remind me is it 15 or 20 minutes 15 minutes it's 15 minutes okay thank you so much i'll do my best i'll speed through it uh thank you very much my name is simeon kirilov with steve siebert architecture here on behalf of ownership uh we are at 1010 gateway boulevard this is regarding the uh 139 142 southeast 7th avenue in the marina district um in terms of the history of the property i i i believe it may have come before you at one point with one of the original developers i'm not sure if it made it to the board or if uh just the historical board reviewed it but i think there was a coa application at one time uh it didn't go through the new owner purchased it uh and unfortunately it was not in the greatest condition because it was about halfway through renovations i'm not sure exactly what was done before the new owner took over but the new owner now wants to fix it up clean up the property we bring it back to how it originally was and basically restore it as much as possible with a few minor modifications which i'm going to go over right now so here is the existing property it is made up of four houses two of those houses have two units in it the true story has a unit on the actually right now the true story has two units on the ground floor one unit on the above floor and then the um how do i do this one here that has two units in it as well the other buildings are single units and single story buildings and there is currently an existing what was a one car garage but at some point it was converted into a uh storage unit and we are requesting to uh demolish that particular unit it technically already is demolished and i'll go over that uh and the reason why it was so this is the site plan that we're proposing all of the units are going to remain exactly where they are so all of the units will stay the parking lot along the front will stay we're going to redo the interior with a new paver kind of make it look like four individual houses within a cluster and then back here was that old garage and we're proposing to uh demo that garage technically the garage is already uh demolished it's not there the current owners did not demolish it on their own it fell apart the original structure was neglected neglected for many years and unfortunately it did fall over at some point so ownership had to come in and clean it up and they took it all the way it was made from bricks none of them are reinforced there was no steel in it uh the roof was made out of just two by sixes and just over the years the the two by sixes rotted away fell down and the building itself collapsed and ownership current ownership took it away so we have to go in for a after the fact demolition permit uh on this case but even if the building was there we'd still we're going to request to uh to remove it all the other buildings were not really requesting any major demo other than a couple of minor uh renovations this building here we're planning on we're just requesting to enclose a current concrete patio it's open we're proposing to do this little addition back here and enclose the patio so this room used to be part of an open patio which we're enclosing and then we're adding a new little bathroom off to the side which is not there and in this building we're just proposing to extend the second floor but the footprint will stay the same no changes for this building and no changes for the other building all of those the footprints are going to remain as is and just be uh rebuilt so here's the floor plan of what we're calling building one so building number one is this guy over here so for building number one really the major additions is right now there's an open patio back here we're planning on squaring it off to add additional square footage this is the original uh front porch we're planning on expanding on that area portion of that porch and expanding the back half of the building so this is one of the buildings that has the majority of the renovations on it so here is the floor plan of building two which is the two story so this is the uh the this is the existing so right now this is considered its own independent unit which we're going to get rid of and convert it all to a single unit and then on the second floor this is the current second floor right over here we're proposing to add an addition back here to just make that unit a little bit taller this addition will still stay within the footprint of the original building so it's not going to expand beyond the original uh footprint right now this area here where we're putting this addition which is back here is a uh is a flat uh roof so right now it's just a flat roof area there's nothing above it this is building number three this we're really just doing an interior renovation we're not changing we are changing out the doors and windows but we're not changing any of the openings or locations of the openings this building is actually in pretty decent condition we're just going to renovate it and clean it up and then this is building number four which is the one at the front again we're really not doing any additions on this particular building we're just renovating uh the building itself but for the most part the building is staying as it is floor plan wise so this is going back to building one on the elevations as you can see one of the major items that were coming before the board to request is to raise the buildings the buildings are currently i believe at around four feet and fema is at eight feet so they're very very below the uh the flood zone so they are going to have to be raised nearly three and a half feet which is one of the biggest things that we're here for so the buildings are going to have to be raised to meet current fema and of course to protect the uh the buildings so as you can see on this case it's going from this to this it's going to be raised same thing with the true story the true story is going to be raised as well again so the finished floor can meet the fema requirements uh lifting this one's going to be a little bit tricky if you guys have any questions i'm here to answer uh if you guys read the reports but one of the issues with this building is that it's not a an individual building if you will it was originally a shed and then eventually they did an addition down here and then eventually they put the second floor so it's a building that was kind of hodgepodge together within the years so lifting it will be tricky on this case what we're proposing is since the first floor is concrete block only at this portion this is all wood the wood portion will be lifted from the base however for the two-story portion we're going to have to lift the second floor not the first floor and we're going to have to expand the concrete block on the first floor just to make sure that the building is stable because we're worried if we lift it from the from its base since the concrete block walls are only on three sides not all four it could cause a stability issue so we're proposing to raise the second floor on this and building up uh the first floor rather than raising the entire first floor and doing the foundation which is how you would normally do it and how we would do it on the other remaining buildings building number three we are not lifting that building that is a con a concrete building that sits on a monolithic slab so this building is the only one that we're requesting to to leave as is and it also makes as a good ada unit for especially now that this is going to be a complex it's going to be an accessible unit and we're going to keep it at the level that it is and then building four uh same thing we're going to raise the building and this one just like building one we're raising it from its base so it's a standard lift rebuilding the foundation and yes the foundations will be a stem wall and concrete block while the rest of it will be um the existing wood framed walls here is a couple of renderings of what it's going to look like that's it presentation just really quick i want to go over the variances because that is one of the key items oops so we are requesting uh six variances well not necessarily variances i think it's three variances an internal uh adjustment uh two waivers and a demolition permit so one of the waivers is regarding building number two so building number two sits nine foot three from the existing property line the as a commercial property it requires a 15 foot setback so the renovations that we're proposing from this building uh is going to go beyond that 15 feet so requesting to keep the existing nine foot three setback i know there was some concerns from uh from neighbors to not go beyond what the current setbacks were and i just want to make it clear we are not going beyond what's actually there so even though we're going in for a variance to go beyond the 15 feet we we're really sticking with the existing nine foot three setback as the building already sits at nine foot three so we're not going to go beyond the nine foot three mark or beyond the footprint of the existing building same thing with variance uh on number two with variance number two this little addition back here it's the same case we're sticking with the same uh setback that's already there so even though we are requesting a waiver of the 15 foot setback we are still keeping the setback of the existing building and the existing structure and we're not going to go beyond the existing uh setback the internal adjustment is since we are enclosing this area it's now getting close to the building uh and again we're not making that worse the existing open porch is already at that distance and we're just matching the original uh open porch uh with with our addition for that building uh variance number uh let's see variance number four which is the third variant is to keep building number three at the existing height so really the variance is to just leave the building as is and to uh and to not lift it uh waiver number five that one is oh uh waiver number five is going back to the second floor addition since this building is turned sideways and it faces internally even though i consider this the front elevation of the uh of the property since that's where the main entrances are realistically this elevation is the front which faces the street since we're doing an addition on that elevation uh we're getting a waiver we're requesting a waiver from the board to be allowed to do an addition that is on the front of that building and as i mentioned before even though it is on the front of the building we are not going beyond the existing footprint so that uh addition will stop right at this wall right here so you still have this entire element that's still beyond that addition so we're not really going in front of the building which is part of the ldr requirements and then finally the number seven which is the demolition again we are requesting to demo the uh what was the existing single story uh garage at one point it was used as a garage but eventually it was converted into a storage space and again over the years it just it collapsed and it fell apart um and that's it thank you thank you reminder michelle hoyland principal planner for the record so 143 south swinton is on the east side i'm sorry i don't know why i said 143 south swinton 139 to 143 southeast 7th avenue is on the south end of the marina historic district on the east side of 7th avenue this request is a multi-family project that includes two lots with four structures and a fifth that is i'll explain a little more about later on this property so that it's multi-family which in the planning and zoning realm we look at this not as a standard coa so many of the applications you see are single family and it's a coa this is a coa with a site plan approval so it elevates almost to the review as a commercial building would be uh per our code so that's why unfortunately it was somewhat of a lengthy staff report along with the relief requests and all the the citations for the city um code and just for our new board members anytime you see bold in the code that's a code citation and non-bold is the staff analysis um so this is uh the property here in aerial view that you can see the four structures and then this is a an older google street view of the the property the marina historic district has a very um interesting background and history which we've provided in the description of the staff report i won't read the entirety of those paragraphs um just for the essence of time but it's notably associated with the blank family with the blank family nurseries they were settlers to um delray beach original pioneers referred to as the michigan connection because they um hailed from michigan and they established this area for a business that they had with a tree nursery which is why there is such a gorgeous established tree canopy in the marina historic district still to this day and a lot of different types of species exist throughout the historic district as well so of the four structures that are on the site they were all predominantly built original builds in the 1920s with the exception of this duplex structure that you see on the right side of the screen important to note that ken jacobson was associated he was the architect of this structure and for those who don't know mr jacobson um he was an architect who uh established here in delray beach an architectural firm jacobson curry architects which he was the father-in-law to our esteemed architect bob curry and he designed many buildings in the same time frame and era we were seeing a lot of work from roy simon um dick hannah a lot of work throughout this area ken jacobson worked in lake ida a lot as well so some of your lake ida homes and this mid-century was kind of one of his specialties so this is a very unique building i almost wish that the south side was facing the north side because it is really arguably the more interesting side of that mid-century um building but that's a duplex the site contains today technically seven units which is non-conforming from the um density perspective which is units per acre the request involves elimination of one of those units and one of the buildings and kind of combining the footprint or the floor plan to create six units so it will continue to be non-conforming it's a grandfathered situation with respect to density and it's also non-conforming with respect to the parking spaces along the front which is the west side as they back out onto southeast seventh avenue that historically has existed in that configuration for many years ironically this property fell right on the edge of the sanborn maps those fire insurance rate maps that we use from the 20s 40s and 60s to see the footprints so this property doesn't show up just because it was on the cut line um so these are i'm going to go through a series of views of the property here you can see the only two-story structure on the property which is in the back corner we'll be referring to these by their building numbers buildings one two three and four so on the right is the two-story structure that had multiple units on the left is what was a um smaller one story also mid-century style structure and what you can see on my note here is the slab or the area where the garage once was it was like utilitarian accessory structure and it had been demolished by the applicants largely because of a condition issue so building four originally was a missionary structure when i'm sorry mission revival structure when it was built in the 1920s and we believe at the time that the mid-century duplex was constructed that the introduction based on permit records and and things that we had access to there was this introduction of this kind of funky mid-century porch which would have occurred in the 1950s and the back porch so we can still see the scuppers the rough texture of the stucco pattern exists around the non-primary elevations of that building and we think it was when this was built was really when that was introduced potentially to create cohesiveness across the site so this building exists literally and its original design even down to the jealousy windows in the 1950s this is the west view of that structure interesting piece it's hard to see but um the wing wall that's dividing the two units in the back and then they've got these really interesting mid-century style window pattern this is the front porch of the building in the back corner one of the smaller buildings on the site you can see that the site really is in need of tlc these owners are envisioning bringing this property up to a much better standard for the neighborhood so i may come back to that we move in a counterclockwise direction when looking at building numbering so south east corner is building one building two is northeast building four is northwest building three is southwest but remember the lots are divided they're going to be joined through the plot exemption process that's an administrative level process that staff will handle so here's our existing site plan there are additions occurring to building one you can see here we try to illustrate this with the use of red whenever something is new or being removed and the blue is is typically the existing with the exception of a new swimming pool that that swimming pool blue in the south east corner the parking is being reconfigured to incorporate some level of landscaping buffer on either side of the parking tier the waiver that's being sought is because the code technically says you have to have a nine foot wide landscape island and if they were to do that they would lose yet another parking space so they are already reducing the parking by one largely because of the introduction of a handicapped parking space where they have integrated the handicapped access panel to be the walkway up to the property here's that garage that was once there there's a small picture of it in the corner it had a man door essentially as a single pedestrian entry door but at one point in time it did actually have which we had guessed was probably carriage doors that opened on the front of it overlay plans are utilized to really show the board what's old what's new and all together on one plan that's why there's hatching there this is a rendering of the proposal with the proposed paint scheme incorporated it is a very dark beige and brown trim style and i'm going to move quickly through these because we can come back if you have questions but this is really more of an interior detail where we're showing all the existing and proposed plans from the architect for the footprints and the floor plans for second floor so each of these buildings are coming through for modernization and upgrade building one is having additions added onto it which is why there are these relief requests related to internal adjustment which is the distance between buildings and i'll cover that a little bit more in a few minutes and then the the setbacks on the south side so the the additions in this case look like original sides of the building are changing but let's not forget this is the addition of this is plus space not changing existing space so again this is in the back corner the proposal includes the alteration of some of the window openings and moving the window openings this is very we tend to see this and a lot of the applications it's a it's a tough ask when this happens because technically the secretary of the interior standards talks about retaining the existing window openings but a lot of times this is dictated by what's happening on the interior footprint of a structure so this is what you're seeing is making windows longer shifting them on on the sides of the building building two this is our two-story structure does have a second floor addition a new deck which you can see in the back of the property it's on the right of your screen highlighted in a beige color with a covered patio they've had to reorient the stairs so that the stairs are pulled out of the setback because they didn't want to seek yet another relief request to continue with that condition here you can see in red on the left that's the upper floor addition so that's an expansion of to the west which is really more of the almost front even though the south feels like the front so there's a secondary and subordinate waiver included with this as well that's a visual compatibility standard requirement and then you can see here this is the one that involves that vertical relocation so all of these structures are required as they are in the marina historic district to meet the fema finish floor elevation currently that's eight plus one foot for the florida building code which means these buildings have to move from their existing grade to nine feet and that that is resulting in you know four to five feet increase in the overall height of these buildings that is the minimum required so they are not going over the minimum required but again you've got alteration of the structure i know we've had a lot of conversations with other applications on how to stabilize and make sure there's stability of these buildings and you can inquire more with the applicant about that method so here this is the east or most rear part of this building with additional changes to the elevation that are occurring the north which would almost be an interior side but somewhat feel like a rear of the building as well with some alterations of the windows and spaces you can see the difference from top to bottom and then the west elevation so this would be facing southeast seventh avenue and the top of this building will peak over the one story that's in front of it and be somewhat visible from the street building three is largely untouched the most of the the proposed changes here are footprint layout i'm sorry floor plan layout on the interior which the board doesn't really or staff have purview over this is the existing non-change proposed north elevation the main change here is windows that they're coming in with single hung we put this in it's a kind of a neat drawing the top drawing is pretty common when we see these historic drawings where you see a building that is symmetrical fundamentally from front to back so what the architect did is they drew what would be the front on the right side and the rear on the left side but it's a mirror image so you see he's labeled it north and south it's kind of kind of neat to see that but that most interesting side of the building really is i wish i had a better photo of it but you can see it illustrated here on this drawing with these clear story type windows and then the west elevation with new windows as well i in my opinion i think one of the second most interesting structures on the property is the building in the northwest corner we refer to this is building four this was what in the staff report we mentioned that this has is having somewhat of an identity crisis because there's still evidence of that mission revival style with the stucco pattern the scuppers the dog gear parapet detailing and the square nature of the building but it has been altered you can see so that the front reads as mid-century and ironically it almost reads as a a deco building as a result of that change so the applicant is going to retain this building largely and its existing proposed appearance with the exception of vertically elevating this as well they could have come in to remove these mid-century elements and approach a restoration of this building to bring it back to mission they are not proposing that and they can leave these elements and it still is considered a contributing structure so there are some minor elevation changes on the west which involve primarily the window and the style of the door this window here is becoming fixed did i hit my time oh my gosh i'm gonna need more time i'll move faster is that okay yeah i'm so sorry um so obviously that's the architectural elevations there's some rendered uh sketchup style drawings in the plan um set as well that the applicant provide us additional information here you can kind of see aerial view of renderings the color palette the rendering of the color palette and then these are here for informational purposes secretary of the interior standards that we apply which all 10 of these have to be met and you can see one two three five six nine and ten are all applicable and the review for that is in the staff port with the analysis there's concern regarding the addition to building two this is the two-story structure as putting an addition on top of a historic contributing structure is really not necessarily the most recognized approach to additions putting an addition adjacent to historic structure is the most appropriate method and that's to ensure that the addition is minor in comparison subordinate and also that could be removed in the future which is a standard noted here the visual compatibility standards we have them here if you want to look at them but these standards generally talk about height with mass scale facade openings rhythm material color texture roof shape direction of the front elevation and other criteria for specifically additions to the additions to the buildings and those are oftentimes the most important which are additions shall be located to the rear or least public side of a building and be as inconspicuous as possible and so on and so forth here with with this section m so we have done an analysis here in the color palette while it's very interesting typically this time frame whether it was mid-century mission art deco whatever might have been um you know a more muted color palette but might have included some pops of color so think 1960s you might have a beige building with an orange front door so we are making some notes here that it might be helpful to apply some color to avoid washing out that defining character characteristics of this building there's also a note in the plan about this almost eyebrow feature that continues over it's not correctly illustrated in the plan that's an existing feature and we believe the intent was to retain that feature you can see it continues over the top of the windows and it seems to be missing from some of the drawings demolition so this was an after the fact demolition so they did not come to the board to request demolition of this structure and these standards and requirements for that are in your staff report but here is what the board needs to consider when making an approval for demolition should the board want to get into the the area of reconstruction or requiring something like that or discussing it with the applicant we've included these standards here and in the staff report as well as to how that happens historic reconstruction you can recall we've had other applications where this has happened and the board is required a reconstruction as a treatment relocation criteria so for those you know projects that have to go through a vertical elevation there is a set of requirements submittal application requirements that includes a report from a moving contractor so this contractor is provided that information is also in your backup of what the method is for vertical relocation and the applicant explained that a little bit more in detail than i did there's three variance requests the north building two the south building one so the two-story building number two and the southeast corner building one have variance requests to reduce the required 15 foot setback on the north and south side respectively to allow for nine foot three inches and five foot nine inches on those structures the other request is to allow the duplex to remain at its existing finished floor elevation rather than vertically elevating that building the board has processed and approved some of those in the past these are your variance findings which are also in the staff report biggest one typically is could the proposal be achieved an expansion um where modernization or improvement of the of the site is it necessary is it necessary to have a non-conforming setback for the new addition you know to maintain that or um in its configuration so it's a literal interpretation of the code is is really what we're looking at with these findings so here is where the nine foot three setback is happening again this is on top of the existing structure so that nine foot three setback already exists in this configuration and the building is going on top of it and the requirements that we have to apply do require a new variance for that second floor space um variance number two which is on the south building again bringing that setback down to five foot nine it would maintain an existing um setback that's somewhat in that location already for a portion of the building for a small expansion west so you can see where this red arrow is the building is sitting at five foot nine inches there already so the board will need to determine is it appropriate in this case to be having a literal interpretation of the code and and so on other things in your staff report with findings um and then here is that um finished floor elevation variance request again you have to apply the variance findings would it help maintain would any of these variance requests help to maintain the historic integrity of those structures the waiver requests for the terminal landscape islands i think i already covered i think you got that um let me know if you have questions on that but here are your waiver findings um you know it's again in your staff report we're looking at um adversely affecting neighboring area or diminishing public services creating unsafe situation would you grant a waiver like this under similar circumstances for another property or property owner this is a view of that landscape area so you're kind of looking down on it so this image is here should you wish to discuss it further waiver two is for secondary and subordinate this is to allow the addition to be not secondary and subordinate to the existing massing of the existing structure and the fact that that addition is being built on top of an existing one-story portion of the building here it is circled in red on the picture you can see circled in red as well so essentially be an expansion west of the second floor over top of the existing one-story the internal adjustment so this is to allow a reduction in the distance required between buildings these are applied when you have multi-family or commercial buildings on the site and you can see here that they do not meet the required 16 foot 3 inches that should be set here and they're asking for 7 foot 10 spacing this is a streetscape view of the the street so immediately to the north is a multi-family piece of the marina townhomes project which technically is on marine way so there's one unit that comes you know west of that development onto southeast 7th avenue almost with its front facing there and that is the immediate north and then to the south is a one-story structure again the rendering is a reminder and then our findings so i'm going to move through this quickly the coa findings that are applicable in the report the site plan findings these are here should you wish to refer back to them the architectural elevation findings and then as i noted commercial and multi-family we review as a full site plan application which includes performance standards so we have to review and make sure they meet traffic the concurrency requirements for streets traffic drainage solid waste and then there's a few site plan technical items just as a reminder these are not the board cannot edit these these have to be met with the resubmittal should the project get approved for certified plans these things need to be addressed and these are things that sometimes should be tac comments but we don't want to hold the project from going to the board and we feel like they can be addressed at the time of certification sorry i went over but that concludes my presentation thank you any members of the public like to comment on this item please come to the podium and state your name and address for the record thank you i'm i'm grant potest i actually am on the marina bay uh board homeowners board and just just to correct the record 142 is two units not one uh and i actually live at 140 marine way kitty corner behind the lot if you could put the pictures back up the ones you put up that you took recently not from google please we uh my wife and i went over and walked this the last few days and took a lot of pictures i'd invite all of you before you approve this to go over and check and look at the site this is completely dilapidated and the entire thing needs to be torn down the reason the garage is actually caved in and done that is because that's indicative of all the structures this proposal is basically new construction and you're actually not even conforming with fema and we have massive flooding in the area that's been going on with the king tides and with all the issues we have over there and we're leaving you would leave one of the units down at level for at flood level the biggest issue i have with this is safety um the your association or whether your prior or people have approved the lots on the corner of the first and second on marine way and there hasn't been sidewalks put in and there's going to be no sidewalk put in here and this is a walking area i have a seven year old and i live there full time now this is no longer just uh you know a snowbird you know a half year community any longer and the work that was done on one of the corner units on the corner of second and marine way was an absolute danger zone eyesore it's a miracle somebody didn't get hurt there if i was as a city and the board i'd be incredibly concerned about the liability that you guys are assuming by letting something like that take place it was unbelievably unsafe um the density is a huge issue these units if you walk the units there's numbers on the doors it looks like it was a hotel or some sort of apartment complex where people were renting it out this this if you could get to go to the other slide this slide there hasn't been i've been i've lived there for almost five years there's never been living in any of these buildings there's no cars or anything in the front this has completely been vacant and it's it's rodents and everything else going on here i encourage you guys to work with the owners of this property and with the district to tear this entire thing down and to beautify our neighborhood i encourage you to actually abide by the setbacks abide by fema and do the things we're supposed to do and beautify this neighborhood and make this lot aesthetically pleasing pleasing and get rid of the multi-family density parking with no sidewalks that's not what we need in this neighborhood and that's what none of us is at the in the hoa there there's 10 of us want and none of the neighbors want this this should have been torn down years ago and somebody should be working with these people to actually build appropriate like maybe two single families or whatever it is here that actually fit into the neighborhood and have sidewalks in front proper setbacks it makes delray more beautiful place it'll help our tax base and we can't have the density and all the the the danger this is going to attribute to the area thank you thank you anybody else roger hey for the record roger cope architects inc 701 southeast first street i think uh in the marina historic district i didn't want to say this but i totally disagree with that gentleman's point of view these are historic buildings so they cannot be torn down maybe he doesn't know that but the reason i want to come up and say something is to applaud uh the applicant uh but point out something that hasn't been discussed in the presentation uh building number two which is the two-story in the back on the north east corner uh is uh its entire skin is being changed i just want to point that out because the lower level exists as exposed concrete block it wasn't it painted but it was never had a stucco coat on it and i think they're going to put a stucco finish on it and maybe the architect can confirm that and the upper level is board and batten wood and they're going to change that to stucco i'm in favor of those but i just want to point it out so when you make some of your motions and approve of all this stuff that you know they're changing that material and i think they should be allowed to and this is a multi-family district so multi-family aspects of properties like this are what makes this neighborhood totally different than anybody else's if if if we're single-family residential neighborhood uh you have to look at it in a totally different light but it's all right thanks thank you anybody else yes hello i'm kim potas my husband grant just spoke uh like he said we live at 140 marine way um i would echo what he said in that the current photos that you are using uh are wildly outdated and i would encourage you i think someone mentioned they hadn't been by in a couple years to visit not only this but all of the homes and properties that are on your docket it looks like you i don't know how often you guys meet but you had three tonight take a walk it's right down the street it would be really helpful for you to understand the current status of this property it is a mess boarded up windows broken windows uh foliage uh as tall as i am taller than our sun it's it shouldn't be left in that state even if you are still debating what it's supposed to be done you should still the owner should still have a responsibility to keep it safe and beautiful for our neighborhood that's not historic to have boarded up windows to have broken garbage to have rats it's gross it is one of the most heavily walked streets i would argue in delray if you come by in the morning everyone's doing their morning walks it is dangerous for that regard but it's also beautiful i think on your historic website you know note that the marine way is one of the most walked neighborhoods so um please in the interim i would encourage you to do something anything it can't stay how it is thank you anybody else seeing none public comments are closed see applicants have any rebuttal i just i just have one uh just to go to mr rogers point uh that is correct the two-story building technically has three different finishes on it because it was three separate or at least i think it was done at three separate times so the one-story portion does have a stucco finish uh then they they did an addition which had a stucco finish a rough stucco finish and then they came in they built a concrete block wall around an original stucco structure so it's actually double walled on the ground floor uh the the cmu wall was only on three sides not on all four and it was just painted block and then they put the second floor which i wouldn't consider a traditional batten board it's really just plywood with a couple of nailers in between them uh and we are requesting to make it all uniform and a stucco finish on it but that is correct we are planning to make that building completely uniform rather than keeping the original three finishes and doing a smooth stucco finish around the entire building for the other ones we're we're matching and patching the existing stucco textures thank you stuff i'll be quick with this rebuttal i recently learned i get three minutes so there is a sidewalk proposed in front of the property on the west side adjacent to the or within the southeast 7th avenue rights of way so you can actually see it's indicated here on the survey but it will be more defined as part of the project and as far as tearing the whole site down that would require demolition requests public notice just so you're aware it's not something the board could deliberate on tonight the applicant would have to make such an application and then the condition of the property actually has been a bone of contention for some of the owners maintenance concern and people being on the property and so we have let the property owners know that and i don't know if if or what action they've taken um for that so thank you so has code enforcement been involved um not that i know of but we you know the reach out to the property owner occurred with us in writing okay thank you okay i'm sorry public comment is closed thank you um but just so you're aware we got an appraisal report in our staff report which did show images of everything and i agree with it is in very rough shape but i think that's what we're here for tonight so anybody want to start on commentary thoughts concerns um i have a quick question about the uses so it was previously a and the applicant or staff so it was previously a multi or always multi-family yes whatever condos it was just rent or it was just apartments apartments okay and that is the intention to keep it as apartments yes rentable units they're not going to be for sale so that was one and then i ask is it short term or long term that i don't know the answer to and then if there was no variance so if the variance for the second floor addition wasn't granted um would that building still be able to move forward or in some way shape or form with the current second floor footprint i i think so uh again the second floor unit is extremely small which is why we're requesting to expand it i i believe it is a one bedroom currently one second your plans show it is a two bedroom i think it's a small it may have been a two bedroom give me one second i don't remember all these on the top of my head it is small okay yes the original was a two bedroom but the bedrooms were very small so that's why we're requesting just to expand the units and make them a little more modern a little more larger size than a very small two bedroom unit and then i can can we comment on the color palette okay so the color palette just my opinion sucks as proposed where ownership is more than happy to change it it it needs to be fitting with the district around it and the homes around it but also something new and dynamic and i think a little more vibrant than beige and beige and brown and gray so i would um obviously you can't do color selection right now um and and come in with a proposal but um i would any approval that that i would vote for would be conditioned on a much more vibrant color palette um in keeping with the city and current current trends in the in in paint and color and we're fine with that and i believe color is administratively approved so i can work with the ladies and yes that's that would not be a problem on us if you guys are not happy with the colors michelle would like to clarify that not all color is administratively approved um our smell test is if a board member drives by and said who the heck approved that so bright pink and purple that's the more muted color tones neutrals things like that can be admin approved but um like this i could not admin approve this would have to come to the board okay um and the visual compatibility standard i think you're reaching for in this is the relationship of um color materials texture and color so that is in the code and that there is a requirement for visual compatibility of um materials and and colors used on the structure and subject historic district and to answer your question yes that can definitely be a condition uh for the board thank you i have no further questions carol uh while you're while you're standing there simeon um first i want to thank you for your justification statement it was all very clear um and it it really went uh in every single point you know you were able to address each variance and waiver that that you are asking for and i really appreciate that um and i think you are sensitive to the site and um and i'm i'm glad nothing's really going outside of those footprints so i think you've done a a good job uh so the eyebrow that's going across uh what is it built uh building four are you going to add that back in no we're we're going to leave it the problem is our modeling software it's it's it's it's good but it's really difficult to model things 100 but yeah it is missing we are going to put it up all the way across okay because yeah i definitely agreed with that i mean it's it that's part of the the beauty of that building so i think uh that's good and then to the color point yeah it looks a little bit more like colorado than it does del rey i think you need to dive into the del rey character on the color palette and uh is there a fence going around the property uh there's an existing there's a couple of existing fences that are noted on there uh we're not proposing to put any fences because there is an existing a white aluminum fence along the north there's a concrete fence along the east and then i believe there was an existing privacy wood fence on the south side and i is that fence yours or is that no i think i think all of them belong to the neighbors i don't think any of those fences belong to us if i were okay the reason why i ask is because those patios there for the uh for building um what is that three yeah so there okay i meant the eyebrow on building four then but on building three they have the patios very close to the property line i believe that's an existing condition oh yes those those patios on building three are existing they are existing um i think if people were to use those patios you know a six foot high fence would be appropriate there that's why i was wondering if there was something there for yes there is an existing privacy fence there and i believe that belongs to the neighbor and just a matter of if i may make a note is that okay about the fence yes so there is a six foot high wood privacy fence and hedge on the south as mr um can you say your last name please kirilov kirilov kirilov kirilov four foot high cmu wall in the east and then the aluminum rail fence that's actually part of the marina townhome project on the north and one that we forgot to mention is a new four foot high privacy fence is occurring in front of the parking spaces there'll be hedges and then fence so the property will be fully enclosed that's required because there's a pool happening on the on the site too so that would have to be a four foot high yeah yeah that that is correct there is going to be a four foot high fence along the front with the hedge yeah and then just to touch on the landscape in the parking lot i i think um that's i know you've reduced the spaces by one i think the the spaces that you've uh got for the landscape is fine you've also provided the trees in those islands yes so you've you've made the situation better than it was before so just say i'm in favor thanks except for the colors what yeah i don't know about the colors it's true the same i have the same comment um i don't know if that means that they have to come back for in front of us or what it depends will be a game time decision when they bring it in and whether or not you know we think we could admin approve it or if it has to come back but don't forget this is going to take time so it's not like they're running to get a permit tomorrow he still has to go to 100 construction drawings i'm sure he's only at 30 percent so there's time i just didn't know this is how important that decision is but it could potentially be the board if it's um maybe something that we wouldn't feel comfortable approving administratively i understand that i have a general question why did you have to raise the other buildings because the other one down the other buildings sit at about they're on four and a half i think one of them's a little under five feet so they're very low and they have to be raised to meet the FEMA requirements but one of them doesn't so uh one of them is that's the um the 1950s building and one of the technically we can raise it but because it's a concrete block uh building with a monolithic foundation and then it's got a lot of more intricate details than the other one if we were to lift it it would cause a little more damage than the other ones which are just wood and standard framing uh we didn't want to damage some of the details on there so we felt it would be a little difficult to lift so we're requesting to keep it and also as rentable units it does allow for an ada space or else we would have to have about a 20-foot ramp just so we can hit the floor so that's one of the reasons it was multiple reasons on why we decided to keep that one there also out of all of the buildings that one is in the one that was in much much better condition so we we prefer not to touch it it's just unusual mr jumitrescu may i address your FEMA question yes please yeah yeah um so they are required to elevate it um it's all four of them the whole thing and even in the situation where air conditioning units go in those also have to be up high so they're going to have to accommodate you know the ac units for the other buildings but this one the request for the variance would be to leave it where it's at and just as a matter of note um you know the city attorney's office the chief building official and myself have reviewed the process for this and FEMA allows for the relief mechanism it's up to the individual jurisdictions how they want to handle it so our code says it's a variance but some other cities keep a list where they allow that relief because of the historic integrity so in this case the variance does have to have action by the board to leave that building where it's at which is allowed because it's a contributing historic structure and it's in the spirit of preserving that historic integrity thanks i'm sorry and which one are the contributing ones they all are all i thought that only four there was another four they all are there were five there were five the garage garage yeah okay i missed that okay um is it any i mean i know i understand that there was a reason for the building uh two that's the one in the northeast corner right the the the the stairs are did you try that i understand there's a restriction you didn't try to put it towards the back you try to put it's very predominant the new new stair in the middle of the courtyard it's not ideal it could have i don't know if you could have handled it a little bit uh we we looked at it with the structural engineer there's just no way to keep that existing stairs because that building is going up another four four and a half feet we can't keep that existing stairs it's a concrete stairs it would have to be re-poured which is why it became new and because it was new we had to take it out of the um the setback no and so we so you took it out okay yeah was encroaching the setback yes and if they touched it they'd have to get another variance yeah actually two okay one for the setback and one because they exceed the height of the stairs within the setback so there's actually two reliefs there it's a little it doesn't fit with anything it's kind of not very not a very nice feature to look at and it becomes a center point almost to the courtyard but um oppose the building because of that how important do you think are the those uh issues that the addition on the second floor is not separated from the existing do they have to actually do something forcefully change the footprint a little bit just enough to change the stock of texture or it's not that important i mean this is why this is why it's at the board right um if this were there's no admin level for that even if there weren't variants it would still have to come to the board so there's a variety of concerns in the addition section but the biggest concern was that secondary and subordinate as far as you know the differentiation of an addition from old to new you know the nuance we've talked about before is picked up by the trained eye we try to respect the design professional and that it's their design and not tell them how to do the design as staff but we rely upon the board for your feedback as to whether or not you feel like it meets the requirements actually you know it actually helps the building it's going to look a little more more complete more finished not not so i mean it's a little stronger than it was so it's not really bad the stair i'm not too happy but the building is okay the um all right well anything else nope okay then you have any comments so i'm glad a couple of your comments on the building that doesn't get lifted we don't have to i think we're here because when they go through permitting they'll probably require some flood proofing and flood barriers and panels and those types of things i think that'll get taken care of and when they get good no they're going to have to mediate that so what happens when it goes to permit is fema does audits on all of the ones that are in the flood zones and when there's one that has a variance they look at it more closely but when you grant the variance you grant the variance they don't have to meet any of the flood requirements um the flood proofing and the flood resiliency requirements if it were a garage we would encourage them to put flood vents in just to protect what's in the garage but you can't really have um you know you aren't required to have those once you grant the variance for that structure they just they just get to leave it so you may not be required but you might want to to consider flood proofing and make making that building flood resistant and i don't know we may we comment on that or not i just telling you as a as a design professional you you might want to consider that and then with respect to the second floor and the subordinate and some kind of cleavage to make it look like it's you know the addition i i have seen now i'll get scolded for designing from the dais but um but but i have seen where like on a second floor edition within the stucco you'll you'll make it look like a shiplap or you'll make it look like a board and band or something within your within your stucco pattern to to kind of give that fenestration so you've got a little bit of differentiation which is something that you you might consider um coming back but just overall just for your reference i actually think that's an okay comment you're allowed to you're allowed to give ideas and comment on different types of ways that you could do it it's when you're actually telling him exactly how to do it you know that that becomes an issue or conditioning a project on doing it in a service so so that was okay thank you um but just just overall i mean i'm really really happy to see that there's somebody that is coming in and restoring these buildings because due to the neighbors comments i've been by this place and it's we're really really close to losing all of them i mean um and so to have somebody come in and and and rebuild this i'm it's really really really excited uh as a preservationist to to to see this happening gentlemen i'll go yeah overall i'm very happy with the project i think you're doing the right thing to keep this property um you know bring it back to a a usable level and it seems things it seems to be done in a in a in a good way um okay so i agree with the color that definitely needs to be looked at um i would have liked to have seen with that second story addition for it to have remained um with the 15 foot setback because i think now that you're adding that chunk it does affect the neighbors within the setback and i did see that that's basically just a closet space in that master or in that bedroom um i think that was something that maybe would have you wouldn't have had to needed the variance if that second level was just pushed back at the setback um i'm not so concerned with the other building where it's just that little corner piece i think you said it was a bathroom yes yeah and it's on the it's on the first floor ground floor yeah this is the second floor which the neighbors have a little bit more of a you know a view of that space so i would have preferred to seen that um really oh in the parking um carol made a good point your took out a spot you added those islands on the side with the trees which is a great um a great addition to greening up the space but it is still a big parking lot and i think an idea that that um i would have liked to have seen is maybe if you made those end spaces a little smaller you could have added maybe a parking um sorry landscape area to break up all of that parking spot and added a tree somewhere to just green it up add more shade it is a big just concrete or uh asphalt space so um but there is a sidewalk remaining i do see so that's nice it's behind the parking space so there's no cut from that um we we are looking at the landscape on this too so we can make comments regarding the landscape correct um i do like the meandering paths that are through the through the the complex i think that adds a little bit of you know uh looseness and a little bit of interest but in looking at the plant palette um i don't see many native shrubs and i also see that all the trees were owner removed and i don't know what that means when i look at the tree disposition plan if that was done why that was done you know before any permit was was given when you look at the old pictures with the sable palms in front i that gave such character to the units uh they feel historic almost you know say that sable palm is our stake tree those seem to have been removed for some reason and there's no sables being brought back a lot of the plant material being brought back is non-native and i just feel like with a historic property native plants just go better i would like to see more native plants in this palette um i know michelle said we're only at 30 cd so i think the landscape can be looked at again okay i would like to see you know more natives i would love to see these sables brought back that were removed maybe without a permit maybe you know by mistake i don't know why um but overall i do like the lushness i do like the meandering path um those are just some some minor comments on the landscape portion but overall i mean those few items i don't know if that's a condition to be adding if we want to go that route i'd like to hear what the other board members think about that for for which were the conditions i'm sorry more native planting okay i mean i'm okay if if that does end up being a condition in particular sable palms and more native shrubs and just to answer your question on the uh the landscaping the current owners purchased this from a previous developer and the previous developer did start working on the property i don't know if they got a permit for that or not uh but the but the original developer did start working on this property they gutted all of those units uh so when the current owner purchased that none of the units were rented uh so work was already started by the previous developer and a lot of the trees were taken down at that time when was that what do you think uh they purchased this in 2022 i believe and like i said i thought a co uh a coa application did go in at one point by the previous developer but i don't know how far it got i think it was window permits but there were like pre-apps happening okay i don't think that he ever asked he was a developer architect i think yeah i'm i'm not sure all i know is when when the owners purchased this property and i walked it for the a few days after they bought it uh all of them all the units were gutted uh a lot of the landscape was gone um so someone started doing all the work and we did site visit the site so we saw that condition right when they had purchased yeah and we did uh covid site visit videos yes i think that's what we were doing because it was in the height of covid um so we did see a lot of that condition and had gotten we were getting complaints on this before these these owners purchased so it's a long time coming can i bring up something about the landscape plan too it's also missing um native and drought tolerant calculations so um you know maybe that would take care of some of these things too okay yeah it might meet the bare minimum native but i'd like to see more if we can review landscape on the dais here that i i would like this to be over the minimum yeah i think we i think to the same you know to the same qualifications it's like you can't design the building from the dais you also can't design the landscape from the dais but you can make recommendations as i mean you can make determinations whether it doesn't meet the land development regulations and the design guidelines and if there are points that can be stated to change or make adjustments based on that you know are we reviewing this because it's commercial and not so if it's single family we don't review the landscape plan you have full purview to review the landscape and mind you it's been through review with our senior landscape planner and determined to be board ready meet the requirements to come forward but certainly if the approach is coming from the aspect of compatibility with the historic district then you get to say that what rather than saying i'd like to see more native if it meets the minimum requirements of code they don't technically as kelly's saving have to do that but if you're saying it from the perspective of what's appropriate for the architectural style the neighborhood the character those are the things that you have the purview over from a code perspective so i think you just got to frame it right and that you're saying it in the i think the way you intend right if you don't think it's meeting the design guidelines and yes you know then you can make those i think i made that point like the sable palms added to the historic nature and i think you did plants also do that and also missing a calculation so we don't really know you do get to say that too yeah yeah definitely yeah and i also would like to know if the trees were removed without the permit and if there you know are any extra mitigation needed because of that i don't i don't know but maybe that could be looked at we could include that um to look at i don't recall if they received permits for this or if it was a result of a storm or why what the why is um but if the owner's purchased in that condition it's in you know that's and there was a code enforcement violation it would have transferred to them then they would be responsible for that so i'm not really sure how that shakes out um we'll have to see okay looks like according to pop anyway this was under same ownership since the early 70s until 2020 and then it sold again from 2020 to 2024 or 2022 it's like somebody had it for a couple of years there yes that's that's correct yeah so yeah okay um i'll be real brief um very ambitious project and i'm surprised to see it coming forward but it's a great opportunity to save four structures and i'm definitely in support of it i think that it the applicant has strived to meet the intent of the ldrs there are some little waivers and variances required but i'm i'm in support of it and i think it's be a nice addition to the neighborhood you um i do have a question have you considered any type of uh screening or of the front i've seen i've seen some examples of similar kind of cases in second where they build some kind of a privacy combination pergolas or something like that to give more privacy to it and emphasize yeah we we looked at it but the problem is adding all of that stuff to buildings that it was not there it wasn't appropriate which is why we didn't go that route originally we wanted to put a concrete block wall along the front but again the board brought up that it may not be appropriate so i spoke with uh ownership and that's why we changed it to a metal fence with a hedge because that seemed a little more appropriate for historical district there's actually you have a couple of properties along the marina district which are also little individual houses and they all have a nice hedge uh rather than a concrete block wall so that's why originally we came in with something a little bit more different more private but we realized it's it's more appropriate to open it up and just do something smaller and in more smaller scale which is why we went with a four foot and a four foot metal fence and a hedge and i'm not sure i didn't see there's lighting involved in that side lighting yes perhaps there there is sight lighting it's it's lights that are on the buildings themselves to help light up the uh the property there's no there's no poles if you will no poles and nothing to i was just trying to find a way to accentuate the entrance for light with landscape planning there is landscape yeah oh yes there is landscape okay lower lines just to circle on that question you had about the front and screening um we did work with um simeon and the front area so you can see there's like this you see the parking right and right in front of the parking is a walkway that's kind of blue on here and then it's green for the landscaping and then the metal fence so when this the first iteration came through there was no sidewalk in front of the parking spaces and that was a comment we had that the sidewalk needed to be in the front so that pedestrians could safely traverse the property and then there's a very narrow landscape area there that's you know not going to be very thick tall meaningful landscaping because of its proximity to the buildings but we have had that similar comment where they needed to have landscaping on that front and the aligning the parking and access panel for the handicap ramp the applicant also switched that to be central to the site because originally the handicap space was on the south side so it could entrance right into that unit but we suggested and worked with them on a an alternative so that handicap access panel is leading right to the gate um simeon is this these are pavers in the front what are you doing i forget for uh which one there's a gate for the parking well the parking is concrete but everything else we want to do is pavers yeah could could that be pavers as well which one the parking parking the divider because it would beautiful i think it would beautify the front better than just plain concrete i i don't know there's a storm drain there i i'm not sure i have to ask the civil engineer because right now we are keeping the existing asphalt that's there and we're going to fix it up but we are keeping the existing asphalt that's that's there is that a condition we could ask for you're saying asphalt not concrete oh i'm sorry yeah it's the parking lot is asphalt yes and it'll stay asphalt yes yes other than the sidewalk and the papers so in the way that it would be stated is there are sections in the code that talk about driveway materials and that those materials be historically accurate or characteristics of um which would include concrete or papers or so you could make a suggestion or you know attach some type of condition that they incorporate a more historically accurate um driveway material parking area material you could say something like that yeah such as give options rather than saying it has to be pavers like yeah saying it has to be pavers without something in the land development regulation saying specifically that um that would be an example of designing from the dais but if you give them you know we want it to be a more historically appropriate and you know using your you know architectural experience you can make they can make that determination i just only have a couple of comments um as far as the second floor on building two i believe i think that is appropriate i think it actually balances the building makes it more symmetrical and matches the building three down there um or four whatever that is um and it's a it's a minor adjustment there i'm okay with raising the properties i think it's obviously appropriate and you know whoever lives in the one that's not that's the roll of the dice so um you know i completely understand for a historic property why that waiver exists i mean if it's concrete block on a slab that's like jacking up a saltine cracker from one corner and trying to lift the whole thing evenly it's just not going to work uh the garage demo we never really spoke about it but it doesn't sound like anybody misses it and uh um you know it didn't look like it was architecturally significant um at least in its current form so obviously this the property's been neglected the fact that they're going to take this on like pete said this is ambitious um i'm okay with it as far as what the neighbor is concerned is about you know putting two houses up there we're not here to make that determination or decide what we want there we are here to look at what's in front of us and make that determination whether it's appropriate or not so um is anybody ready to make a motion i'll make a motion wait may i say one thing yes to your point of the driveway materials at the top of page seven which is a continuation of um what's at the bottom of page six driveway type and design should convey the historic character of the district and the property so if that was important to you you could utilize wording like that yep i think in agreement with that i'd like to make a motion to approve level three site plan certificate of appropriateness relocation variance waivers and internal adjustment 2023-164 for the property located at 139-143 southeast 7th avenue marina historic district by finding that the request and approval thereof is consistent with the comprehensive plan and meets the criteria set forth in the land development regulations subject to the following conditions that historic historically accurate materials will be used for the driveway and for the landscape design notably historically accurate native plantings shrubs palms and trees colors the colors and the colors will be altered to more historically accurate anybody want to second right i'll second that any discussion is that clear we think peter dwyer yes chris cabezas yes richard casser yes vlad dimitrescu yes girl perez yes benjamin baffert yes john miller yes good luck thank you all right item number 10 uh legislative items we have anything no great uh reports and comments 11 staff europe so our next meeting is this is unusual kind of pointed to you mr casser that the meeting is on the third wednesday of the month typically they're the first wednesday of the month um so there was scheduling conflict that occurred for our first meeting which is why we are here um our on the third wednesday our next meeting because of a holiday is also on say october 15th um so just please mark your calendars and make that notation um okay so our team has binders for both you and mr baffer mr baffer is probably more just a refresher because he's had one before i already have one um and if you want to take the info in it and give it back feel free but i want you to take it um these are training manuals that we prepare for our new board members and this has the requirements that we apply as a board and staff relating to the city's ldrs the secretary of the interior standards design guidelines and then the other thing that um i think you were searching for in discussion not to revisit the previous project but um the flood adaptation guidelines that exist that were put out to be a companion document to the secretary of the interior standards so they have approaches is how as to how people can make their properties more flood resilient whether it's vertically elevating which is usually the least um desirable approach but sometimes most necessary to flood vents or abandoning the lowest floor these things are there for you to look at we will kelly and i and our director have talked about an upcoming training um that we'd like to try to make time and put together for the board so we will be looking for available dates for that to do a training but do we have the um links to the training in here some of those others there should be an in your binder um links to training opportunities where you can put a webinar on and listen to it in the background um mr jumitrescu attended yes and mr chard a former board member attended one that was in person right um but there are good resources online so i think you guys did great obviously you've done this before ben so it's you know four years yeah you've done it so it's like riding a bike right um but it's there are a lot of regulations that have to be applied and when we're bringing it forward in the staff report i know a staff report seems like it's a beast but if you just kind of coast past the bold and read the non-bold sections that's where the analysis is um so you know the bold stuff is important the bold stuff is what you're what you can use like historically appropriate materials you know things like that for a driveway so you can always call staff everybody can call you get an application ahead of time you want to talk it over you get these a week in advance so just shoot us an email and we can schedule a team's call with you and go through the plans and be able to share them on screen any questions you might have you have every right to talk to staff some applicants will also lobby to talk with you before their project occurs and you are allowed to talk to them you do have to disclose it as ex parte you can visit the site drive by the site however you might want to get you know really familiar with the projects that are coming before you but we're here as your resource as much as we are the resource to the applicants um so thank you for joining our board and we appreciate the service of all of our board members um that's i think all i have to share any board members have any comments sorry i would just say like echo what michelle said if you guys ever have any questions you always know you can reach out to our office and you know if i'm not there to help you there's always somebody there to help you um most the time i will be but you know if if you need anything we're always here for you you know if if you're like i know this person i i'm the neighbor of this person i'm any of those things come up i used to work for this person i currently work for this person please reach out we'd rather you know do an ethics analysis before the night of the meeting um and we're always happy to do that and then if if you call early enough we can also get an opinion for you you know so from like the commission on ethics so um we're here and always happy to help so you can email or call great yeah welcome gentlemen i mean jumped in with both feet so great what what's your backlog look like right now and staff so you're not this is gonna be the last time you asked me that no it's hard to say right because we um went digital so i'm sure you've heard about eplans uh permitting has been on eplans for a year and a half year and a half but development applications went on eplans this summer um so is roger still here he's still here he knows it's a learning curve and it's not just a learning curve for roger and the applicants but it is for us too so we can see there's a queue of projects that are in the approach to submitting um but they haven't dropped in all the way yet because the applicant has to get the application sufficient uh so it's hard to say so you see them in draft form so we can see that i'll use if it's okay i'll use roger as an example application i can see that he started an application and that he's got the base information in and once it's correct we then say okay now upload your plans so he's got to get it sufficient on document first and then once that's ready he can start putting plans in and then we check that that's sufficient and this is all really put in place like this because of the legislature pushing down certain deadlines um and we have to stick to that sufficiency deadline it's a 10-day window so we gotta we have to do it um so we can see that there's stuff sitting in that queue um getting ready to come in as far as what's on for october we have to kind of wait and see if the resubmittals are going to make it in in time to be on the board so i don't know in some very rare instances we cancel a board meeting in fact august was cancelled which was odd um usually we're we're packed on the agenda and trying to negotiate timelines with applicants and asking like can you wait a month um so it is a busy a busy board for only about 600 properties in the city so yeah all right another question yeah one of our past um projects we looked at there was the the house that had the they did the whole siding around the house and then now they have to change the front to wood what's the time frame for them to do that they're already in process okay they might even have started work permits are in what's usually the time frame for them to get that it depends how fast they move and i tell all of our applicants okay can i have the staff report back please the one i just was using i just want to draw your attention to the very last page in the staff reports this is um new edition since um mr baffer was on the board but you can see there is this timeline that is in the back of the staff report and this is showing when the application was submitted and when we provided comments to the applicant and then you can see their resubmittal time and when we provided comments so we're we have to abide by a 30-day review period which we tend to try to hit two or three week reviews um so i tell my applicants we tell our applicants if you run we'll run um so we we want these things done moved off our desk and moving to permit phase uh so it's really hard for me to estimate that i'm it depends how fast they're going to go so i i know the permits and i believe i saw it already with you guys appendix b is also new in the reports the one that says consistency findings and standards for site plan actions that's for the bigger projects so when you see commercial or multi-family your those are the review for performance standards um concurrency consistency so those appendixes get add or appendices get added um to the staff report those aren't required for coas i see for single family duplex so that last one i mean it started in 23 so it's 25 so yeah they two and a half years almost there was quite a bit of time between the resubmittals where you also once you're in process and we make comments the applicant is required to respond in 60 days if they're not going to hit the 60-day requirement to resubmit they have to ask for an extension which is what happened with this one you can see i think there were seven submittals with this one um number seven a lot of repeat comments happening on this one and fine-tuning um by ownership i think so they needed that time to really kind of figure it out and also fully bake the relocation plan all right if nothing else meeting adjourned thank you thank you