Historic Preservation Board on 2026-10-07 5:01 PM - Oct 07, 2026

Okay, the recorder is on. We're going to call the meeting to order. As anyone who wants to speak from the public, please sign in. If you're from the public and you want to speak, please make sure you've signed in. Call the roll. Chris Cabezas. Here. Richard Kasser. Here. Benjamin Baffer. Here. Jake Eliopoulos. Here. Gregory Pitts. Here. Zach Perdue. Here. Peter Dwyer. Here. Before we move to the minutes, can I make one minor announcement? Yes. Please remember to get as close as you can to your microphones. I know some of you share microphones. We're having a hard time hearing the minutes when we have to go back and listen. So if you could just lean in. A lot of you do a really great job at that, but we need some of you who are sharing microphones to make that effort. Thank you. Okay, we're going to move on to the agenda. Are there any changes to the agenda? Okay. No. Very good. Let's make, would someone make a motion to approve the agenda, please? I'll make the motion. I'll second. Chris Cabezas. Yes. Richard Kasser. Yes. Benjamin Baffer. Yes. Jake Eliopoulos. Yes. Gregory Pitts. Yes. Zach Perdue. Yes. Peter Dwyer. Yes. Okay, we're going to move on to the minutes. Can we have a motion to approve the previous minutes? I'll make the motion. Second. Chris Cabezas. Yes. Richard Kasser. Yes. Benjamin Baffer. Yes. Jake Eliopoulos. Yes. Gregory Pitts. Yes. Zach Perdue. Yes. Peter Dwyer. Yes. Okay, can we swear in the public? Anyone who wishes to speak will need to be sworn in. Please stand. Raise your right hand. Authority vested in me as a notary of the state of Florida. Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Yes. Thank you. Okay. Any comments from the public not related to the items on our agenda this evening? Please approach the, if you'd like to speak. Any comments? Okay. Seeing there is none, we will move on to presentations. I'd like to just make a note that I'm going to have to leave around 7 p.m. today. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Good evening. My name is Rebecca Dossery. I'm a principal planner in the Long Range Planning Division. And we are here tonight to discuss an amendment to the LDR regarding a parking exemption that's available in the West Atlantic Subdistrict of the CBD. And I'm reading into the record file PZ0009002026. So, the West Atlantic Neighborhood Subdistrict of the Central Business District has a parking exemption available for businesses that are adding an outside use area or commercial buildings associated with outdoor use areas subject to outdoor provisions, and they're not required to provide on-site parking. And this exemption is available through 2026 currently, and we're looking to expand that to extend the exemption until 2031. So, the reason this amendment is before the board years is because the West Settlers Historic District is in a portion of the area, and then that puts it under the purview of HPV. So, initially in 2017, this exemption for existing commercial buildings was adopted for a change in use or outdoor use area. Or, sorry, the initial one was for a change in use, and then in 2020, it was extended and outdoor use areas for existing commercial buildings were added. And then, again, it was extended through 2026 in 2024. So, the idea is that if someone adds an outdoor use area and it's an existing commercial building, it provides an incentive here in the West Atlantic Subdistrict rather than having to pay the in lieu of parking fee amount within the West Atlantic Subdistrict. That is $6,000 at this point. So, while it's much less than other areas of the CBD, we still have this option available because there's such a need for economic activity in the West Atlantic. So, today we're asking to extend this exemption through 2031. This is a five-year extension. Previously, it had been approved for three-year intervals. And to extend the eastern boundary from northwest 4th Avenue to northwest 3rd Avenue. So, the reason for the five years instead of three is just it's onerous to come every three years. And it comes up a lot faster than you would think. And at this point, we haven't seen significant commercial development in the West Atlantic. So, this is just extended to five years to give it a little extra amount of time to start working. And then the extension from northwest 4th Avenue to northwest 3rd Avenue is to incorporate both blocks of Atlantic Grove. It's a little awkward that only one half of the development is able to use this incentive, but not the other. We have a number of policies throughout the comprehensive plan about incentivizing small business development, particularly related to creative parking strategies. So, we feel that this is consistent with the goals and objectives of the comprehensive plan. It's coming to you all tonight, to the Planning and Zoning Board on the 19th. And then in November and December, we'll take it to commission. So, if you have any questions, I'll be happy to answer them. Thank you. Any questions from the board? Yeah, I have a question. For tenants that are renting space, how does that work from a parking requirement or if they come in to get a business license or the building permit, you know, for their build-out? What is the, I guess, what would the protocol be for parking, looking at a tenant in Atlantic Grove before extending it to the other half? Sure. So, it would work the same way it would work if it was owner-occupied versus tenant-occupied. And so, I think I skipped past the two examples of who has used this before. So, Ziri has used this to allow their outdoor dining area without having to park for it. And then the same thing for Tropical Smokehouse. I believe Tropical Smokehouse owns the building, whereas Ziri does not. So, the same way, rather than having to figure out and find out how to park it, they're just off the hook for having to do it at this point. And so, yes, regardless of the ownership, that would be how it would be applied consistently. Yeah, I've been to Tropical Smokehouse a number of times and parked on the street. And it was actually really nice to park on the street. So, I'm in favor of the extension. Yeah, in five years it makes sense because every three years it comes up quickly. So, I'm in favor. Any other comments? Does anyone want to make a motion? I'll make the motion. To approve. I'll second that motion. Chris Cabezas? Yes. Richard Kasser? Yes. Benjamin Baffer? Yes. Jake Giliopoulos? Yes. Gregory Pitts? Yes. Zach Perdue? Yes. Peter Dwyer? Yes. So, we don't need to read that anymore? Should I read that? I think it's okay for this one. I would still recommend it on quasi-traditional items. You guys are recommending this to the commission, so I think it's okay. And just for the record, it was option A. Perfect. Thank you. Okay, we're going to move on to quasi-judicial items, and I'm going to go ahead and read. This hearing shall be conducted in accordance with the City of Delray Beach quasi-judicial rules. The applicant and city shall be permitted to present their case. The public shall be allowed to speak for three minutes each, or a maximum of six minutes, if the person represents an organization or a group of people who represent but agree not speak, the city commission, board members, staff, and the applicant may be allowed to cross-examine a witness. The city or the applicant will be allowed to offer rebuttal testimony. The decision to approve or deny an application or appeal may not legally be made upon personal views as to whether a project is a good project or not, nor may a decision be based on the number of citizens who support or oppose a particular project. The law requires that all decisions must be made on the basis of whether the project meets the requirements of law, the comprehensive plan, and the land development regulations. Okay, let's see. We'll have to read this item into the record. My apologies. I'm reading a four-page letter that I just received, so I'm trying to multitask. We understand. Okay, Michelle Hoyland, principal planner for the record. I'd like to enter HP 649-2026 into the record for a level one site plan application and certificate of appropriateness for the old school square property at 51 North Swinton Avenue. The applicant, Mr. Jess Sowards, representing the city, is here and will make a presentation. Any ex parte communication from the board? None. None. None. None. Okay, none. Okay, I'm good. I'm used to you starting out and going first, and I've replicated everything you say. But anyway, good afternoon. Jess Sowards, principal architect with Curtis Sowards, Agile Architects. We were brought on to assist the city in basically bringing more illumination to the site. There's an ongoing homeless problem that's happening, and so we're trying to brighten up the site. We're trying to take care of some of the SEPTED issues that are resolving from a lack of light on the grounds. And so let's see here. Let me go on next. So this is turned around, so north is actually to the right. Swinton is on the top part. The area that we're looking at is along Swinton Avenue, so the area that's in kind of the pink area, that's the area that we're illuminating. And you can see, is there a pointer here? Yes. Around the yellow, this is always so awkward. The yellow is the area that we're actually illuminating the building, okay? So we're actually illuminating the facade. So that's one of the strategies that we're doing. So right now, facing the original schoolhouse towards Atlantic, there's these big old spots that one works, one does not work. They're up on stanchions, and it just floods the building. So we're getting rid of those. We're getting rid of those things that are out in the middle of the lawn. And people are attaching, they're using them as bike racks. They're, you know, doing all kinds of weird things. So I'll share with you what some of these lights look like. Whoops, go back. So on top is an array of the different fixtures that we're using. And the one in the, whoops, this is so fickle. These are small, linear lights that are going just underneath the hedges. So you will not see them, and they're flooding up the facade. So they're LED uplights that flood the facades. The other thing we're doing is we're replacing the light poles. So a lot of the light poles, the acrylic lenses are yellow. They're not illuminating at all because they've got cataracts. So we're actually changing those out to the new city standard light poles. And we're actually adding about three more, or six more, to the site around the sidewalks, especially in front of the theater building. That area is kind of dark. So instead we looked at doing ballers, but ballers become a problem over the long term. So we're staying with the theme of using the acorn lights, the city standard. So that's another strategy that we're doing. The other thing that we're doing is we're illuminating the arcade. So we're doing some work in the arcade, and we're illuminating that. The other thing that we're doing is there, you may or may not know, I'm sure you know. A while ago when we first put in that connecting arcade, it was to secure, visual, obscure any kind of people watching the band performances from the outside. So you had to pay to get in, et cetera. That was a long time ago. The overhead doors are breaking down. They've become a maintenance nightmare. So we're removing those, and we're putting in aluminum fencing that looks like wrought iron. We didn't want to do wrought iron because it's just not going to last here. So we're doing aluminum. So let me try to get to those. So this is an elevation of the west elevation facing Swinton. So there will actually be these security aluminum gates that have historic in nature. They'll be black, and they actually will act as egress gates. So they will be, so during a performance, they can actually be used as egress. So, but you will be able to see in, and we all agree that that's an okay situation as times have changed. So we'll still have the security, but it'll be in more historic nature, and instead of those old roll-down shutters, those will be completely removed, stuccoed over, the casings, all that taken out, et cetera. The other thing we're doing is, and I think I have a picture of that coming up. So, well, I'll come back to that then. So the other thing is, on the gymnasium building, we've got some nice little pin lights, because that area is kind of dark. We wanted to accentuate, one of the beauty of this is the archway, of the entrance to that. So we are enhancing that whole archway with these nice little pin lights that illuminate that arch. And this is really more of a picture of how we're illuminating the back of the facade of the theater building. That's really more of what that's about. And then this is the north facade and how we're illuminating that. So you see the hedge row. We're actually, some of the, part of the procedure that we're doing is we're having the contractor properly trim those hedges, because right now they kind of go up and down. So we're going to have a trim to where they're even with the bottom of the sill of the windows. So, and then the lights go right underneath those window sills. So the other thing that we're doing in the arcade is replacing the pendant lights. So that's been kind of an ongoing problem with the lighting in the arcade. And it actually doesn't have the proper current, bless you, photometric foot candle requirements. So we're updating all that. These are lights that we're using because we can't put the linear lights in the walkway paths. We're putting them in the planters in the front entrance to the theater building. So those are the kind of lights we're using there. So we're putting these coach lights, these more traditional Hinkley coach lights. Right now, and I've got another picture showing there, they're square boxes. It was a modern approach as to, at that time, we're trying not to replicate what the historic nature was, because this arcade was not historic. But we're putting these coach lights and replacing those. So currently those don't work, and they're providing very little to no illumination right now. And in the arcade, there are recess lights in that arcade. And so we're replacing every other one. We're replacing the recess lights with new recess lights in between there at each arch. And then every other one we're replacing with these pendant lights. So I still had to get my foot candles, and I'm using the recess lights to get that foot candle, because it's a means of egress. So we're doing that. And then you can see the gates to the left, which is facing west. And recess can light. This is a fixture that we have to use at the entrance to the original classroom building. We go up the steps. It's on the north side of the classroom building. We can't get enough light on those steps. So this is a smaller light fixture that has a lot of foot candles, and it's more obscure. It's going to be going up into that gable end space. So it's the most unobtrusive light that we could come up with that would perform. The other strategy that we're doing is we're putting these up lights up around the... We really have some very nice, significant canopy trees out there. So we're putting these LED lights to up light our trees. Right now, there's a bunch of stream lights that we're doing, and we're trying to do that. But they burn out. It's a long-term maintenance kind of issue. But as you can see on the right, they're going to be on... Because our concern is with the mowers and the people doing lawn maintenance are going to run over them, hit them, et cetera. So we're putting these on concrete stands. So that way, they can be seen. That way, if they're hit, they're not destroyed. And then we have a few monuments out there. I think something from Sister Cities and a few other little monument signs out there. We've got a little pin light that goes up for those. And then this is the City Acorn Standard. This is the picture that shows those little square lights that's in there. So we're basically pulling those off and putting the coach lights in that place. So this just kind of makes a better connection between the theater building and the classroom building. Better than the shutters. So we're trying to figure out a strategy. What was the best strategy to use there and get rid of those shutters? And we all kind of seem to agree that this is the best method. So with that, entertain any questions. Thank you. They'll call you back up if they've got any questions after staff presents in the public comment. Thank you. For the record, I'm Katharina Palavota, Senior Historic Preservation Planner. And I'm entering HPA-649-2026 into the record again. It's a Level 1 Certificate of Appropriateness. And this is for Old School Square. It's located at 51 North Swinton Avenue. There's a very elaborate history of the site located in your staff report. I'm just going to go over just a brief history. The subject 3.67-acre property involves the Old School Square site, which is located within the OSHA at Old School Square Historic Arts District, zoning district. And it's locally and nationally designated with the Old School Square Historic District. The property consists of several structures, including the Cornell Museum building, the Crest Theater, the Old School Gymnasium, the Amphitheater, and associated restroom concession buildings. The site is also listed on the National Register of Historic Places. So here's the location. This is on the east side of Swinton and the south side of Northeast 1st Street. So here's a west existing elevation. As the applicant did mention, they do currently have these roll-down doors. And then you can see the lighting that's on the exterior of the structure. The arcade is not original to the site. It's currently non-contributing. It's a non-contributing structure to the site. Okay, here's an image of the roll-downs closed. This is the northwest elevation. Southwest. So you can see that they're connecting the existing structures, the historic structures. East elevation. Another view from the east. This is a full site on the east elevation. And this is the existing arcade. North elevation. Elevation again. And then here's a proposed rendering with the lights and the gates. So for the most part, Michelle Hoyland and I were working with other city staff. We had several meetings to look at the site plan, go over all of the proposals. And for the most part, the lighting, the maintenance to landscape can mostly just be approved. Specifically, we felt like the board should look at the changes to the gates as well as the changes that were happening with demolition purposes, like minor demolition to this arcade in order to put in the gates and the lighting. So here we can see the proposed site plan of the site, and the area that's highlighted is specifically the arcade. And here we can see an enlarged area with the scope of work. And then here we can see the proposed lighting. These are all the changes here. There's the maintenance lighting with landscaping. There are no changes to landscaping minus the maintenance to the hedges that were noted. This is the proposed lighting for the entire site. Proposed elevation. So for the most part, we're bringing this before the board for the demolition of specific areas of the arcade structure. It's mostly going to be the area that's highlighted at the bottom. You can see the ceiling. You can see the area that's highlighted in the smaller areas are all the light fixtures. And then on the top portion, there are areas of the columns, the roll-down doors, a lot of the stucco is being removed. There are no major concerns for this because this is non-contributing to the site. But because of all of the work that's going into this, we felt the board should weigh in on it. So here's some more close-up details. You can see the overhead doors and other specific areas that are being proposed to be demolished but to be replaced. The stucco will be replaced to match what is existing. So here's the proposed areas that are going to be removed. And then so here is a column detail. So you can see on the sides of the column, they have the roll-down gates. For the most part, the structure is still going to be intact, but it's mostly the materials on the exterior that are being removed to be replaced. Here's some proposed gate images and the proposed rendering again. These are the Secretary of the Interior standards that apply to this request. I did note that there were no concerns with regards to materials, any specific changes. There are no concerns with any parts of the proposal that would affect or have any issues or concerns with the Mediterranean revival architectural style that's on site. And these are the visual compatibility standards that apply. I mentioned again, with walls, openings, there are no major concerns. And I did mention that this is a newer addition to the property, so it's going to be a nicer change, a nicer project. So architectural style-wise, relationships to materials, textures, everything is visually compatible to the site. These are the Certificate of Appropriate Findings. Site plan technical item. And that concludes my presentation. Thank you. Any questions from the board? Let's see if there are public comments. Yeah. Let's see if there are any public comments as well. This is pretty straightforward. Hey, board. For the record, Roger Cope, Cope Architects, Inc. I certainly didn't plan on speaking on this item, but because I'm here in the room and I have the next item. Mr. Cope, sorry, could you state your zip code, please? Oh, address. 701 Southeast 1st Street in the National Marina Historic District, 33483. Thank you. Listen, Jeff Sowers and his firm have been fabulously in charge architecturally of this campus for decades. So this is the perfect consultant to be doing all this. Listen, I think it's an aesthetic issue in terms of the comment that I'd like to make. I'm all in favor of everything that he's showing, especially the removal of the garage, the overhead garage doors. To me, when they're down and in place for security purposes or for whatever, they look very industrial and very commercial and not necessarily the image that you would kind of expect a cultural campus like this to exude. So I think this is a, in terms of an aesthetic proposal, is a beautiful upgrade to that. And ironically, it could be one of the only times that the Secretary of the Interior Standards, that item that says, when those doors were approved, I don't know, a decade ago, whenever they were approved, one of the criteria back then was if they could be removed, you know, could they be easily removed if they had to be? And here we are now asking for them to be removed, so I don't know how it could be much better in terms of meeting the criteria of that Secretary of Interior Standards. He's got all the lighting concepts. I'm sure the city has backed him on all that. So I think it's a beautiful project. Mr. Long asked me to, the pendants that are being hung in place, maybe they can be hung in such a fashion that they, you know, survive a windstorm event. Or what have you, you know, that might be the only little minor thing, rather than taking it down. So thank you very much. We support it very much. Thank you. Anyone else? Any rebuttal or cross-examination from staff or from the applicant? Okay. None from staff. All right. We'll move on to board discussion. Anyone would like to open it up? So I have a question for the applicant. Overall, I think it's beautiful additions and it's much needed. And it will really give this cultural campus, as it was called, a true sense of place. And just the little details that are being added, nothing structural, just, you know, these kind of finite details are exactly what's needed. My question is about lighting fixture L5. Okay. I don't know if we could go to that. So is that an exterior chandelier? L5. That's the one in the arcade. That's the bigger pop-up. Yeah. Yeah. So that's rust-proof. It's not going to decay. It's aluminum. Okay. All those pendant lights are aluminum fixtures. Okay. So, yeah. It's perfect. They're made by Hinkley Lighting. Yeah. Hinkley is. An outdoor brand. Yeah. We use them a lot. Yeah. Okay. And I guess for the city, is there contingency funds for replacement if something happens to these lights because they are somewhat high-end and they're of good quality? So are they, if something happens and one falls, is it just going to be not replaced? Or, you know, is there funds in place for a replacement? Given that the city is the applicant, I would defer that to Mr. Sowerts. And if he needs to confer with the public works director, she is here. Okay. Yeah. That's my question because obviously these are decorative and not as industrial in nature as the other ones were. So should something happen, will it be replaced with the exact model or will it just be capped and not replaced? I would say yes, that the city would have that. Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't see you. That's neat. Good evening, Missy Barletta, public works director. Yes, we would replace all of the fixtures with light fixtures if they're available at the time that they fail. If not, it will be with something very similar of the same quality. Other than that, just again, great job to the city and the applicant for working collaboratively to really, like I said, give this the true sense of place that it deserves. Great. Thank you. Okay. What else? I have a question for the applicant. So on the gates, I see the gates open out? Correct. Is the idea that the gates most of the time would be open or closed? We have, I'm not sure, quite frankly. I would hope they'd be closed most of the time. But if they are open, we do have concrete stanchions in the ground with cane bolts so that way they can stay open. Yeah, that's where I'm going with this is to make sure because when they're open, it creates kind of a bad situation. We can't secure them. Correct. So you've got means to be able to secure them in the 90-degree position. That is correct. Yeah. That's the only question I had. And then, you know, for Ms. Marlento, glad that she's here. The whole key to landscape lighting is the maintenance, you know, right? It looks great at first, then the landscaping grows, covers it up, and then you get shadows and stuff gets wet and foggy. But that's not an issue for you, but definitely an issue for the city. For the maintenance is the whole key to this point. Yeah, I understand. Yeah. Fortunately, we've got an excellent maintenance team. Yeah. Yeah. What it takes. Just if I could add one note, is that okay? In the review of the application, we considered, along with the applicant, you know, and discussed different options for changing the solid doors to something clear. And I'm so glad that we landed on this because one of the original iterations was a clear overhead garage door, which I don't think was ideal for what we were trying to achieve. But I think this will also not just allow light through, but sound, given the amphitheater use beyond. So the idea is to keep these closed most of the time, and is that for security reasons? I think that we're, you know, the applicant could answer that, but we did discuss that as well during the review, that it could be either way, open or closed. I think we're trying to figure out how we want it to go from a usability perspective. Not that I like the roll-up, but the nice part is that it was open most of the time, right? And it allowed that. And they're out of the way. And they're out of the way. Here now you have, I mean, they look good when you need to close them, and they have that historic feel to them. But now when you keep them open, I don't know if they act as a little bit of a barrier that you have to walk around a 90 degree open door. I think this is, of course, a better, more, you know, classic look. It looks great. I'm just wondering if that will change the use of the space, rather from an open promenade type of corridor to, now you have to, I guess, walk around the building, or you have one little passageway if it's closed mostly. Most people do walk either, you can see in this picture on the left, there's a sidewalk. So if you've ever spent time out there, and we have, we see people utilizing the footpaths and the sidewalks. So they're walking in that area, which will always, you know, be left open. You can see it on the left. And then over on the right, there's an accessible ramp. And that's where you see a lot of people coming and going to. But we also discussed the importance of using the dark metal, the black or the bronze color, rather than white. So it didn't become a visual obscurity. The black allows you to see beyond, which is why we see it used most with, you know, some of the landscape fencing. I see on one of the plans that the door just goes to a 90 degree. Is there any way that this can go all the way back? So it just connects back to the, to the column and there's no more obstruction. But if they're both open, I think the applicant could probably answer that, but we have also discussed that as well. And I, again, you know, the pathway, the footpath is where people are coming and going using the sidewalk rather than coming across the grass. Because during the green market time, that's, there's a lot of people walking around. When those are open, that's, that's going to be a lot of moments of, of emptiness and you have to sort of find your way around, it would be great if those doors could just swing all the way open and there's no more obstruction. Is that possible? Yeah. I mean, it's a, it's an excellent comment because, but the issue is that you could have every other door that could do that every other opening because they're going to hit each other, right? If they all opened up. So, but, you know, we can get the hinges to open fully 180 degrees, but it's going to hit the next pair of doors beside it. Yeah. It's hard to tell. It almost, it almost looks like it could make it on the drawing. Yeah. Not quite. Yeah. It's close. Maybe they could just swing in almost all the way and they'll just be like that. I'm just thinking for, you know, especially the green market time. I was just there recently and, and I think the, the flow would be better if that wasn't just sticking out 90 degree. But it's, but it's also, you know, looking at, at the septet of it all and, you know, trying to, I don't want to say limit accessibility, but limit openings to where people can come and go and having the, you know, set opening right there. And then you have the, you know, on the, on the right hand side here, and then you have the ramp. But I mean, there's, there's options to get from Swinton into the, the open space. And, you know, I'm, I'm always, always thinking about crime prevention through design. You know, I think having the gates closed does create a little bit of a visual barrier to people that may want to just hang out in there. Um, and it also protects the grass so that people aren't walking on the lawn through each one of those openings and people are utilizing more of the pathway, especially if we're making the investment as the city, ergo taxpayers in the city, um, you know, making the investment in all of these improvements. I want to see that, you know, the grass is going to stay there and that the, the, you know, this, this area is going to be beautiful. Um, so I, I mean, I would, I would definitely want more of the gates in the, in the, the forward facing in the closed position, again, from a safety and just maintenance perspective. Did those doors stop at 90 or that's where that anchor is, where you're going to tie them to the ground? Well, that's, that's where we put the acres, but I do like your comment and, and, and exploring that a little bit more because maybe we put more of a rectilinear concrete, uh, base at the level of the grass and maybe where they come and hit, they both, so they not 90 degrees, maybe it goes a hundred and, uh, 20 degrees or whatever it is to where they're, they're kind of touching. So it has an opportunity to open it further. And I, and I think we can look at that. I think the flexibility to do that, right. That it just doesn't stop at the 90, but you could open it all the way, just gives it more flexibility. You'll have to see how the use is during these different events that we have. And I also have to make sure I'm not going to hit my coach lantern too. That's true. So, so, so, but I, but I, I do like the comment and I think we'll, we can address that. So would that be, how would we say that? I don't think, I don't think you need to. I think it's more functionality. Um, it's not something that's identified on the plan to that level. So I think we can just address the comment through when he's, when Jess and the city are submitting for permit. I don't think it needs to be a special condition. Okay. Great. So I had a question for the applicant. The, the intent is these gates will be locked most of the time. I mean, they're not going to be. Well, they will have that. Okay. In general though, people are not going to be able to open and close them at will. You're generally closed and locked. I, I, I can't answer that because the, the, the, the nice thing about this site is that it has to be flexible for whatever, like right now there's an event going on there now. Um, so how they use that for the event versus, you know, green market versus a concert, all of that's going to be different, you know, 70% of the time, maybe the city finds out they do need to lock them, you know, for whatever reason. And to me, I think the flexibility of how those doors are being used is, is, is pardon the pun, a key component, uh, you know, of having it lockable and unlockable, having those options. I think that what I, what I'm thinking about is they need to be secured however they're used. If, if, if the doors are closed and nobody's around and they're not locked in the closed position, then you're going to come in the next morning, half are going to be open, you know, flopping around in the breeze. I think we probably have to have a locking mechanism on so that, so that operationally, whoever's maintaining the day-to-day operations has them either locked or open and, but secured either way, whether they're, they're in the open position or the closed position, otherwise they're going to be just randomly all over the place. Yeah. Good point. It's a beautiful addition. Really beautiful. Thank you. You did a great job. Love it. Any other questions for the applicant? It was a lot of collaboration with the city and Michelle and everybody, so it was collaborative effort. Are there going to be any changes to the lighting on the amphitheater side? Just the pendants. The pendants. On the arcade. So we're only addressing, uh, the Swinton to the, to the building. We're not addressing anything in the, um, performance area except for changing out those coach lights. Mr. Cope had a good point about swinging in hurricanes. Is there going to be those, I've seen like multiple chains that can, you know, it's, it's a matter of how much we hang it. Um, and they're also fairly protected because they're above the archways. So they're not hanging it below the archways. So they're, they're protected. No concern with the hurricanes. Okay. We talked through that too. Yep. Okay. So we don't need to make any sort of, um, amendments to the, to the motion just to prove the, the, the locking mechanism for the door in any position, that'll just be something that they'll figure out. Yeah. I think that's fine. I don't think that needs to be a condition of the motion, but they've heard comments. Okay. Um, Chris, do you want to make a motion to approve? Yes. I'll make a motion to approve the level one site plan modification and certificate of appropriateness HP 649 2026 for the property located at 51 North Swinton Avenue, Old Historic Square, Historic District, by finding that the request and approval thereof is consistent with the comprehensive plan and meets the criteria set forth into land development regulations. Do we have a second? Second. Second. 15 seconds. Terrence. Chris Cabezas. Yes. Richard Kasser. Yes. Benjamin Baffer. Yes. Jake Eliopoulos. Yes. Greg Pitts. Yes. Zach Perdue. Yes. Peter Dwyer. Yes. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. I wish they had those gates when Jimmy Buffett played because I walked by and they had the things down and I'm like, I wish I could see in there. Did you hear? Was that? Did you hear anything? I could hear it. Yeah. I couldn't see it. All right. For the record, Michelle Hewitt, Senior Planner, and this is agenda item 9B for HB20 through Northwest First Avenue, Certificate of Appropriateness and Waivers for HP 2022-2025. We have the architect here to present on behalf of the property owners. If you could do it. Okay. Any ex parte communication? Just say verbally. No. No. I got a four-page letter email. Quite honestly, it was TLDR. Okay. None for me. You all should have received that, I think, to your emails. I think we all have the email. I didn't get the email, but I was handed the letter. Okay. I didn't get the email. I got the letter. That's all. Yeah. I skipped the box. Roger did ask me to drive by and look at the property. That's the extent of my ex parte. Okay, board, good evening again. Roger, for the record, Roger Cope, Cope Architects, Inc. I am located at 701 Southeast First Street in the National Marina Historic District. A hundred-year-old structure. It also happens to be adjacent to the item that you're going to hear after my item. So, very proud of my office and my location, and thank you for allowing us to be here tonight. I'm here with my beautiful owners, Rosanna and Giacomo Breglia. We've been working on this project for two years. Our team also involves Mr. Michael Weiner, who is our legal counsel, and we're all going to be available at the end of the presentation to answer any questions that you might have. It's really impossible to limit ourselves to 15 minutes after working on this project for so long, but we're going to try. And again, thank you for hearing the item. And we did send emails to everybody. I hope you had a chance to read them. I hope at least you had a chance to drive by the site, because it's worth – it's just the visual of it, it tells a big story. And so, the blue box here, guys, this is the staff report. This photo is right off the staff report. And I want to thank Michelle Hoyland and Katharina and Michelle Hewitt for working diligently on the project. They did a fabulous job. We analyzed so many things throughout the process, and we think at the end of the day, we've got the best solution possible that satisfies everybody's demands, including those of my client. But this is the project right here where the little hand is. Our city attorney's office is right here, you guys. So, you know, and the site is a block away from where we're sitting tonight. So, this is all to the north of us. You know, City Hall is down here at the bottom of the screen. And if you permit me, just let me say, this is the edge of the Old School Square Historic Arts District. West Settlers District is to my left. And so, we're on the fringe of the district. And from the south moving north, where my hand is there, this is a non-contributing commercial piece. And I'm pointing that out because there's a little bit of parking off of the back of it, off of the alley, and that's important because we were asked to consider parking our site off of the alley. And I'm going to explain to you why we studied that diligently and what direction we went in. And so, then the first residence, oops, first residence that's of relevance is our immediate neighbor to the south, a good friend of mine, Mr. Harold Jonas, I was hoping he'd be here tonight. But this is his home. And so, you can see the relationship, the 25 feet, they're both set 25 feet off the front property, that being Northwest First Avenue. Then our property, which is set further off than the two of them. And then we get into a very, very, very interesting, obviously, we'll spend the next 13 minutes talking about our site. But the house to our north is also on that 25 foot front yard setback. And it's a two-story house. I'll show you the massing on it later. And then, as we move further north, you can see the rhythm that they're all basically in alignment with one another in that 25 foot front yard setback. Those to our north and these two to our south. Why ours wasn't, no idea. But it's relevant because we studied how to push a piece of it up to that 25 foot setback. So, here's our project. That's our main residence. That is a 1930s, single-story, wood-frame, vernacular home that is in this condition. This photo was taken a couple of days ago. There's, you know, there's nothing more to say. It's shrouded by a gigantic tree that's off to my right. This is the front door of the house, believe it or not. It goes into what we believe was a, at one time, originally an open-air front porch that had a flat roof on it. The scallop sort of hurricane-type shutters are over windows that are behind those two and this one and that one and the end. And then there's another flat roof piece over here in the back. It has an asphalt shingle roof that is, I'm being kind, it's been patched and puttied and it's got some elastomeric paint on top of certain sections of it. We have two active leaks in this house, coincidentally one happening at each flat roof element and landscaping up against it. It's real wood siding but patched. It's been patched over the years. There's nothing consistent and beautiful about it. But we will retain it and endorse it and embrace it. And then next to us on our site is our casita. I'm going to refer to it as our casita. It's a detached, single-story, flat roof, little element that I believe Citi is going to tell us used to be a garage. We agree with that. We think it used to be a garage. We don't know, and maybe staff does, if our main house was built in 1930, this was probably built, if not at the same time, maybe a year or two later. So we did administratively a few months ago come to staff and we changed out the windows and the front door in this thing. And we think we've done a great job with that. But it's subordinate to our site. It's subordinate to our concept. But yet at the same time, it's going to dictate everything that we do moving forward, at least with our solution. So a couple of quick photographs and then I'll get into some drawings. This is Mr. Harold Jonas' house immediately to our south, well-manicured, beautiful, low-slung, single-story. He changed out his windows a few months ago as well. This is our neighbor to our north. Very, very odd. We're not sure how it was approved to be in this historic district. I think 25, 30 years ago, I remember this being some sort of an experimental home. It might have been a vacant lot at one time and this was just an experimental situation. It's a flat roof, I would say a mid-century modern type structure, two stories, no parking garage, no patio, no parking carport, no parking element whatsoever. And it is our immediate neighbor to the north. We chose not to use any of it as inspiration in the direction that we went. And this, of course, is our city attorney's office right around diagonally across the street. Last but not least, look what we have directly across the street from us. This is an open field. It's a CF zone piece of property, which is a community facility, very rare zoning designation. But the point being, we have no neighbor across the street from us. We may never have a neighbor across the street from us. So there's no inspiration to call upon in terms of the architecture across from us. So here's our existing site. And I hope somebody's timing me. I don't know if anybody is. Okay. So here's our existing site plan. Here's the main house. Here's the front porch that was enclosed over the years. We don't know when. And if you could take two seconds and recognize that we sit right on the property line. We are on the property line of our neighbor. We're not picking the house up and correcting that. We're going to run with it. But it's considered nonconforming, and we did not create that nonconformity. But we are going to deal with it. Here's the casita in the back. So, board, what I would say to you is our first submittal into the city was a beautiful design that represented the demands and wishes of my client. And it went through one cycle of review, came back to us, and the biggest thing that we had to respond to was the fact that the city was requiring us to give dedications to the city. So a dedication of the city asked for five feet across the front of our property and for two feet off the back of our property, which they justified in terms of making someday the improvements down the alley would require that the alley be widened and made more accessible and made more of a rather from a one-way street to a two-way street and that someday a sidewalk would fly across the front of our property. We circled the wagons, consulted with our entire team and our owners, and it's not every day that you're being asked to give away dedications, pieces of your property, but we agreed to. But it affected our initial design. It affected how we planned for the property because once we gave that five foot in front and in back, frankly, all the setbacks went with that. So, in other words, the neighbors to our right and to our left who were all designed, had houses that respected that original 25-foot setback, ours would now really be a 30 from the original property line or 25 from the dedication that we were about to give. But we chose to abide by the city's request. We want to give those dedications to the city, and it sent us back to the drawing board. So we went back to the drawing board and came up with a better solution. This is our proposed site plan. It's in your package. I hope you've had a little bit of time to study it. It's attempting to also show the two-story strange house to our north, and then this is Jonas' house over here to our right who also has a casita that is jammed into this corner of his site. And so this is what I want to spend two minutes on because we took six months to study where we were going to plan for our expansion. And our expansion contained a little bit more living space, and we absolutely had to have a two-car garage as part of the solution. A two-car garage is critical to my clients and their scope. And there isn't another two-story, two-car garage on our side of the block. In fact, there is only one enclosed garage on our side of the block. It's a single car, and it doesn't face the alley. It doesn't face first. It, in fact, faces due north because it's at the extreme north end of this block, and I think it's been enclosed, and it's actually a little tiny apartment. The point that I'm trying to make is there isn't a real enclosed garage anywhere on our block, and so the introduction of that in our mix is setting a precedent on the block. We believe we should have the right to house two cars. The code says that. So you're going to hear some testimony tonight from staff that we should have had the garage off of the back of the property accessible from the alley, which would have been in this area right here where my hand is. We can't deal with the area where the casita is. That's obviously existing, and we're going to keep that in place. But the garage would have taken this entire area right over here where my hand is, and that would have limited us to where then our buildable, expanded footprint of habitable space would have been if we would have kept it on a single-story solution. So the swimming pool, which is also critical to our scope, would have to have been in the front yard and not the back. And so the garage and expansion in the rear and the swimming pool in the front might represent some of the testimony you're going to hear from staff. And it's what we studied for a few months and decided that's exactly what we don't want. We don't want the garage in the back. We don't have to want to go down a 13-foot-wide paved alley that's essentially made for trash pickup to enter into our multimillion-dollar residence, nor do we want our swimming pool in the front yard where we have kids, children, and activity that would front the street in front of us, that there isn't another swimming pool on the block that's in the front yard, and we don't want to be the first people to have a swimming pool in the front. We would have to come to you for a variance if that were the case. So we're taking a path of least resistance and planning for the garage to be much more traditional off of the main street that fronts our house. It's a simple two-car garage. It's way back here. We loaded it in exact alignment with the existing piece of house that we're inheriting way over here, and we did not want to push our addition so that it touched and consumed the casita in the back. We want complete separation between these two structures. So the infill between the existing home and our garage became that additional habitable space that is representative of a beautiful four-bedroom, single-family, custom, private residence. And so this, you guys, is the existing footprint of the house as it stands today. So many issues, so many problems. As the front door is here, you go into this crazy enclosed floor-to-room. You're at time. We'll give you another minute, just a minute to wrap it up. Peter, I'll wrap it up. Okay. That's the gigantic floor plan. Here are the elevations, you guys. Existing house is from this point right here over to here, and then, excuse me, from right here over to there. And the addition is from here to the left, anchored by the two-car garage. You've got all these drawings in your package. We stand behind the design, and we're showing you the existing elevations versus the proposed elevations. Love to talk in cross-examination about more, and so I'll wrap it up very quickly. Okay. You guys, the streetscape is at the end. Here's the two-story monster to our left. You can see how low-slung and single-story we are. The last thing we wanted to do was go two-story, and so we created a beautiful low-slung single-story residence in the best, most appropriate way that we could, and we fit very handsomely into the rest of the block, in our opinion, and this is a slightly larger scale of that. It's drawing below, and you guys, there's a black-and-white rendering of the project. There's a colored rendering of the project. We're defending a green accent with a White House, and we don't think the colors are objectionable in any way, and I wish I had another three hours to talk about it, but I don't, so we'll wrap it up at this point, ready to answer any questions after their presentation. Thank you, Roger. Thank you. Thanks. Okay, Steph. Once again, Michelle Hewitt, and this is for 220 Northwest First Avenue, Certificate of Proprietness and Waivers. On the screen here, I have an aerial with the subject property outlined in blue. To the west is Northwest First Avenue, and to the east is an alley that currently exists. Brief background, the principal structure is a 1930s Rain Vernacular Saw residence, and the accessory structure is a 1953 Rain Vernacular structure, originally constructed as a garage. In 2002, the Historic Preservation Board approved the conversion of the garage into a guest cottage with the removal of the overhead garage doors. And then in 2024, staff administratively approved the replacement of windows and doors, along with their painting of the rear accessory structure. The lot itself originally was two separate lots, but was joined or grouped in 1957. Going through some pictures here, this is the Northwest or Front Elevation. This space is Northwest First Avenue. This is the principal structure here. Here is the north side of the principal structure. You can see that enclosed front porch. This is the west or front elevation. Again, there's that front porch element there. And this is the north side, going a little bit further back on this facade. And then the back half of that north side elevation. This is the south side. This is the one that's right up against the property line here. And this is the east or rear elevation. This space is the alley. Here we have the accessory structure. We have the front or west elevation. This is the south or side elevation. The east or rear elevation. And then the north or side elevation of the accessory structure. So on the left, we have the existing site plan with the existing structures highlighted in blue. The existing principal structure is non-conforming with regard to the south side. setback. And then the accessory structure is non-contributing with regard to its size, as there's a limitation on the size of guest cottages. On the right, we have the proposed site plan. The new elements are highlighted in red. And then you can see the pool and ground coverage elements that are proposed, including that new parking spot by the alley there. The request before the board is for alterations to the existing 1,425 square foot principal structure, a 1,998 square foot addition to the north side of the principal structure to include additional living area and a new two-car garage facing northwest 1st Avenue, exterior alterations to the existing rear 1,018 square foot accessory structure site improvements, including hardscaping and construction of a new swimming pool. The exterior modifications also include new window patterns, size configurations, new standing seam metal roofing, new porch elements, with new roof ridges on the principal structure and accessory structure. The request also includes four waivers. Here we have the overlay plan. Again, existing is in blue and proposed is in red. You can see the new two-car garage, new porch elements in the front and in the rear of both structures on the site. This is the existing floor plan of the principal structure. And here's the proposed. You can see the proposed reopening of the front porch, expanded porch elements, new addition to the north, and then in the rear there's a new porch element. So here we're looking at the rear. This faces the alley. On the top is the existing elevation of both the principal and accessory. And then at the bottom you can see all of the new elements in red, with primarily the siding remaining on the rear of the existing principal structure. Here we have the north elevation. This is the side that's getting the majority of the addition. On the principal structure, so that entire elevation is new. And then on the accessory structure you can see that modified roof and addition of shutters. And here we have the front. This is facing northwest 1st Avenue. Again, all of the new elements in red and the existing in blue. Again, primarily just the siding on the existing structure as all of the windows are proposed for modification. The roof and new overall elements on the existing structure. And here we have the south side elevation. This is again right up against the property line. So again, proposed in red. And you can see some of the modifications to the windows. And then the roof pitch and bridge element on the accessory structure. Here we have the streetscape. There's a close-up one of the two adjacent properties. On the top and at the bottom is kind of an expanded look at the entire block. Here we have the proposed materials and colors. On the top of there is the proposed roof color. And on the bottom right there, you can see the proposed shutter slash awning colors. Everything else is supposed to be white. Okay, going through the secretary of the interior standards. These are the standards that were applicable to the request. So we've got a couple of excerpts here from the staff report. The proposal includes the introduction of new features that do not currently exist on the structure and are considered conjectural to the existing residence's front facade. You saw some of the differences between existing proposed with the red and the blue and the amount of modification proposed. Removal of existing windows, introduction of new front porch elements, new incompatible architectural features, the addition of a new garage. They're all expected to have a substantial impact upon the original front facade on the structure. They're also not considered architecturally compatible as they do not currently exist on the residence. And on the right there is a screenshot from the secretary of the interior standards for not recommended approaches to modifying openings and changing existing elements on the structure. Here we have another excerpt here. There's concern with the size of the addition being placed adjacent to and competing with the front elevation as it overwhelms and modifies not only the scale of the principal structure, but also the Northwest First Avenue streetscape and the site's position in the historic district. Going through some more excerpts here, modifications, the amount of modifications proposed would make it very difficult if removed to identify what is historic resulting in a potential impairment of the integrity of the historic property and its environment. There are major concerns with the request as it is anticipated that the structure's contributing status is at risk of the proposed modifications. Should the proposal be approved, the board would need to make a determination that the requirements of the standards have been met in order to ensure retention of the structure's contributing historic status. Going through the visual compatibility standards, with regards to height, there is concern with the proposal as the new addition puts emphasis on the new structure instead of the existing. It is taller than the existing principal structure and it completely guises the accessory structure. This is also expected to affect the addition's ability to be secondary and supported to the main mass of the existing residents. With materials and colors, the existing roof is asphalt shingle on the principal structure and there is proposal to go to a standing seam metal roof and that modification on the accessory structure, which is currently a flat angled roof, to also have a standing seam metal roof. Frame vernacular structures can have utilized standing seam metal roofing, but they've been in a mild finish. So, the most appropriate material is shingle. However, for longevity, metal shingle could also be considered appropriate as the profile and appearance would be similar to the existing asphalt, but a proposed color metal is not something that would have been seen during this time frame or on this structure. Going through porch elements, the proposed appearance of the porch is not compatible architecturally with the existing structure. It introduces arched cables and a new pitched roof, which are elements that, again, do not currently exist, on the primary structure slash front porch. The introduction of new porch elements adds another layer of architectural incompatibility that will compete with the front facade of the principal structure. I mentioned previously that there's concern with the modified roof on both the existing principal and proposed structure. It's an attempt to make the existing structure compatible with the addition instead of the addition being compatible with the existing structure. Here we have an excerpt or screenshot regarding the openings that are proposed for modification. All original openings that propose to be removed for new openings that currently do not exist in the principal structure but are instead designed around the addition, which is not the recommended approach. Additionally, the directional expression of the proposed addition is also uncharacteristic of this architectural style given the width of the building. Very vernacular style structures tend to be relatively symmetrical. A ranch style is where you'd see a longer, more horizontal-oriented structure. There are screenshots for recommended and not recommended approaches with regards to additions. And then it's important to consider the impact of the improvements on the overall historic integrity of the structure and district to ensure that the structure can remain as a contributing structure when future historic resource surveys are completed. Going through the waivers that are proposed with the request, the first waiver is that addition shall be located to the rear or least public side of the building and be as inconspicuous as possible. Here we have a screenshot from the staff report that indicates that the site itself does not have constraints that would prohibit an appropriate addition on the least public side of the site. Therefore, the impetus behind the proposed location is not compliant with the requirements for additions unless there is concern with the approach to preserve the structure. The second waiver is that additions are to be for accessory structures shall not be located in front of the established wall plane of a historic building. The proposal includes the addition of porch elements in front of the existing structure as well as a two-car garage to the north side. There is concern that the relief request is not being used for the intent that is designed to provide relief when constraints exist for the preservation of the structure. The addition and architectural elements proposed forward of the front wall plane are expected to affect the existing structure's architectural features such as appearance beyond recognition, making the original structure indistinguishable. The third waiver request is that characteristic features of the original building should not be destroyed or obscured. There is concern with the relief request as it would prompt the removal of existing openings, modification of the existing roof, and introduction of new and compatible architectural features that obscure the existing structure. And the last waiver request is that addition shall be secondary and subordinate to the main mass of the historic building and shall not overwhelm the original building. There is concern with the choice to place the addition in the most incompatible location competing with the existing structure. It is imperative the inappropriate additions are carefully reviewed as there have been instances where entire portions of districts have been removed when incompatible and full construction additions such modifications were made. As the request could be accommodated in the rear of the property, there is less justification for its proposed location as it is incompatible and does not aid in retaining the historic integrity of the structure. Instead, it causes concern for the structure's ability to retain its contributing status. Here are the certificate of appropriateness findings that were also used to analyze the request and our site plan technical items for the proposal. And that concludes my presentation. Thank you. Okay, we'll open it up to public comments. George Long, 46, North Slinton. I'm familiar with the neighborhood. When I was 10 years old, there was a dog who used to chase me on my bicycle that lived in that house, so I would be glad if it destroyed it. And then when I was older, I used to drive a car down that block to see Dr. Bomer's daughter. Now, I can't go into the technicalities here. There's too much to deal with when you start looking at the Department of Interior rules, stuff like that. But when I looked at that, I thought, well, they're going to tear that casita, or as you call it, down. That thing is ugly. And that house there is not too much to look at there either. It doesn't look like much. So I'm thinking, well, they're going to tear it down and put something inspired by the Lake Ida Coastal Defense Buildings, two-story, like this one next door, sort of. But it's a big addition, but it's not something we haven't done before over the marina area. And it's, well, the two things I kind of like about it, it's they kept it to a one-story. And it certainly makes sense to put the pool in the back and the garage in the front. I mean, what else could you do? And they have kept a lot of the elements of the old building, the old portion, although they've made changes to make it look a lot better. But anyway, that's all I have to say. Thank you, George. Anyone else from the public would like to speak? Okay. Any rebuttal or cross-examination from staff or from the applicant? Roger Cope? Yes, sir. Just a reminder, rebuttal is three minutes. I'm sorry? The rebuttal is three minutes. Three minutes. Thank you very much. So, yeah. So this was, that slide's appropriate. I was going to ask for that to be put back up. You know, these red versus blue images can be a little bit deceiving. For example, the casita on the upper image, the blue casita on the left, guys, it's still there. It's in back of the edition. So it's not like we're, you know, it's not there. And I make that same point for all the blue versus red comparisons. There's a little bit more blue in our solution than some of these diagrams would like you to believe. In terms of the waivers, we're coming in variance-free. We're not asking for any variances. And we could have, but we chose not to. The four variances, we're able to, we'd love to defend each and every one of them from building forward to the main building front plan to whether something is subordinate or not subordinate. We feel very strongly that we meet the intent of those waivers. And in the letter that we gave you in your package, you know, we're not creating an unsafe condition anywhere on the site. We're, in fact, trying to make the site more safe. And we're not making the neighborhood or the surrounding district any more detrimental than it already is. We're trying to improve the quality of our neighborhood and our district. And maybe lastly, you know, the roof material that we chose to be standing seam metal. The last thing in the world I would want on my historic home would be an asphalt shingle roof. So you guys have approved metal roofs many, many times before. And we don't want a mill finish system. We want a very modest earth green color that my clients adore. And so I hope you can look past the color selection. And a material selection there. Mike, do you want to say anything at all? About 40 seconds. So again, I'll use the last few seconds to ask you to give consideration to the intent of what we're trying to do here. We've gone out of our way to try to make everything meet the intent of the letter of the law. The secretary of the interior standards and all the design lines that are included. No, I just have to say because I made a comment from the back of the room. This is Michael Weiner. Okay. On behalf of the applicant here tonight. You could state your address. With Sachs-Axon-Catlin and the attorney. And... Can you state your address as well? Your name and... Sure. It's 611-Broken Sound Way, Boca Raton, Florida is my business address. Thank you. We would be grateful to be called back to the microphone if you should have any questions concerning the presentation. Thank you. Thank you. Any rebuttal from staff? I do have rebuttal. And I'll move quick so I can get in in three minutes. The letter from the applicant references some case law. Those were not historic preservation-based cases and they were primarily about use. We are not objecting to the use of the home. And also regarding cases where regulations did not exist, which was the case at 1950-1970 time frame when zoning regulations were still being developed or maybe didn't exist yet at that time. These aren't subjective standards. It gives the board the authority to decide a project. You've got quasi-judicial rules that tell you you make a decision based on the code. The code includes the Secretary of the Interior standards, the visual compatibility standards, the design guidelines, and the comprehensive plan. The visual compatibility standards are not subjective. They were based off of the 10 Secretary of the Interior standards with things like not destroying historic materials that characterize a property or distinctive finishes being preserved and methods of construction, not creating a false sense of historical development, preserving historic character, whether it's ugly or not. that's not a factor when determining whether or not a property is historic and minimal change to defining characteristics of the building site. I don't know that this is the path of least resistance with four waivers, but that will be for the board to decide the fate of the project. And other things like the project could have been designed to meet the standards by putting the addition in the rear, which we had multiple discussions with the applicant regarding that and putting the pool to the side, much like Tracy Pickett did at 108 North Swinton, and designed that pool so it was behind a wall with landscaping. So, you know, we even discussed the potential of a second story addition, much like 1120 Nassau did a really great job of accommodating a two-story addition in the rear that was secondary and subordinate to the main massing of the home. So the main concern that the staff has was highlighted in the staff report, and I won't reiterate that. I'm sticking to rebuttal here, but we fundamentally disagree, and I think that's evident in the staff report. So thank you. Okay. I'd like to open it up to board discussion. Someone would like to start? Okay. How about Chris? How about the architect? How about Jake? Well, it's a lot to unpack. It, I do see what Roger's saying when it comes to this slide, like the blue and the red, because it is behind it. But that being said, there is some, it does have a, it loses a sense of its characteristics when talking about the guidelines and the historic district. But at the same time, we're up here to try and work together to find a way to make it work and make the applicants happy with that. That being said, yeah, I don't know. We're going to have to, there's a lot to discuss. I, I feel that I could, I could have definitely be persuaded to approve it, but there would need to be some sort of changes to meet the criteria better. All right, I'll go, I'll go. Yeah, Roger, beautiful project. I mean, it's, it's, I know you put a lot of thought, a lot of effort into this. It's two years in the making. You know, it's, it's, it's definitely a tough one because, you know, the, obviously city staff is saying that they have some issues with it. So definitely want to discuss that more, try to figure out exactly, you know, how we can kind of come to, to total agreement. But, you know, there are complexities with the existing structure with, you know, the entrance being kind of tucked away on the side. So how can you actually, you know, utilize that and make it so that the home has, has better street, street, you know, value. But again, that, that, it's a tough one. So yeah, I just, it's a beautiful project, but I definitely want to talk about how we can make it conform maybe. I like to, you know, you really did an amazing job. I just have a problem with the scale of the addition and having it be flushed to the, the current existing home and not being able to distinguish what was original to the property. And I'm just wondering if there had been a consideration of moving the garage, the two car garage back or changing the existing garage from the casita back to a garage to access it from the alley, which would truly be in, in the nature of that particular block. But I just think the scale is just a little bit too, too large and you'll lose the original historic property. So I, I, similar thoughts that I actually could get along with the waiver for secondary and subordinate with the scale if there was more of a hyphen. I know you've got the, the step in the roof line. I can't really see it on the, on the rendering, but it looks like you've got a step in the roof line, but you don't have a, a step in the front facade. So you end up with this, you know, 90 foot wide, uh, single, single plane, um, front of the, of the structure that you, you really don't, don't get a, a hyphen or, uh, you know, distinguish between the existing and the, and the new. Um, the, the other thing that, that's, that, you know, although it's, you know, really a beautiful, ends up in beautiful rendering, beautiful solution, it's really very, very different, uh, stylistically, uh, from, from what's existing. You've, um, you know, created a, a new, a new style, um, that, you know, I, I don't know that that's really what we want to be doing in the historic district. So, um, I, I feel like, I feel like, well, I, I know that you can do better. I know that you can, you know, come up with a, a better solution and still accomplish what your, what your client's, uh, goals are, but, um, but do it in a way that doesn't require so much in terms of a waiver. I've, I've, a couple questions for staff, um, the front porch, the applicant mentioned that the front porch appears to have been enclosed at one point in time. Do we know any history on the front porch? Uh, yes. The yellow card, which is the original building card for the structure indicates there was a, uh, louvered porch. Um, it was like LP is the acronym, um, which implied that it was open air, but it had like some sort of louvered something panel in front of it. Um, and at some point it was enclosed. Um, so the port element is existing. Um, it's just, they are restoring it to a degree back to the, uh, open air element. But yeah, the, I don't know when exactly, um, and to what degree it was enclosed, but the original yellow card indicates that it was a louvered porch. Okay. So technically open air ish. Yeah. Um, and then you can also, if I could add on to that, we visited the site and toured the property because the applicant did, um, request and receive a demolition, interior demolition permit, which is pretty common when you're doing a restoration or a renovation to a house. So you can actually see on the interior of the porch that the wall, which is the original structure wall, still has a siding and the location of the front door is there. And then the interior walls of the porch, you can see the bottom was solid. So it was likely that the louvered panels were around the top, which was pretty common and having a flat deck. So, you know, while bringing it back to a porch would be a true restoration if it remained a flat deck. But in this case, you know, they've got the gable coming in as well. It didn't look like this is where I'm going with that. So the use of a porch is still the use of a porch, but it's different. Yeah. And then do we know anything about the structure or anything, you know, that makes it a little more special than just being a house that was built in the 1950s in the historic district? So we don't have specific details. When a criteria is developed to designate a structure, it's not specifically that somebody important lived there, built it, was associated with the structure. It represents this one, 1940s style of architecture that was occurring within this area that is now a historic district. So the example we commonly come back to is Banker's Row, which has grandeur on the west side of the road with 1920s Mediterranean Revival style structures that were all owned by businessmen in the town at the time, and A.G. Evans and these fancy, fancy wealthy people, and then post-Depression we had the Banker's Row cottages on the east side of the road, which are a huge juxtaposition in architectural style. Those don't have any less importance because they're not as nice and beautiful maybe as the ones on the west side of the road. Or Northeast 5th Street up in Delida Park, which has a collection of 1950s, mid-century modern, very limited architectural detail on those houses. We get questions about those all the time. Can we tear them down because they're ugly or they don't look pretty? Well, that's not the criteria. So in this case, the criteria was that it contributed to the district because it represented a period of time where the country was in recovery and architecture was simple. And also, this was on the lot to the right. So at some point in time, when we studied this, the lots weren't together, and then they were put together. So that's why you've got this expansive side yard that shows the contributor in the back, the guest house with the flat roof. So it's a long answer, I know, but I think you're asking the question, like, can we say, oh, it's not as historic? The board has to consider these regulations to make a decision so that we can retain contributors per the comp plan, not lose contributors when we reassess later after changes are made. We want to retain those. Even though it might not be the most attractive house on the street, it still has its own historic character. Yeah. Yeah, thanks. And that's kind of the answer that I thought, but I just want to, you know, sometimes we get history that someone noble in the city lived there or something happened there or it was, you know, built by someone, just to kind of give a little bit more context. But I think for the applicant, you know, my, I echo my fellow board members' concerns that, you know, it is, it's a beautiful new home and I think that it was really designed to take an older home and add on to it and update it for modern living in, you know, how people live in 2026 and beyond. I don't have any issue with the garage fronting the street. That's, that's not an issue for me. I think my, my issue is twofold is that we lose the contributing, the design is so different from the contributing house that we really lose, again, what, you know, makes that architecture contributing to the historic district. But we also lose in the design of the actual layout and the actual architecture, we lose the, the context of where that house ever was. It's the front wall of those windows. You can see the red and the blue, the front wall of those windows is, you know, bridges the gap between the two, but it's that one long continuous wall. And I have a problem with the addition of the porch, the second porch off the garage, because again, you lose the original entryway because now you have three doors that, and two porches that somewhat compete for, for access. and I think it, you know, figuring out a way to make the original structure and the contributing structure a little bit more prominent in the design and only having one access to pay homage to that original structure, I think would be, you know, that would, I think, make it a lot more palatable for me. It's a beautiful home, but in the context of the historic district, I don't think it meets the mark. And I think that the two, the second porch was added almost as that's where people would enter, not necessarily the front door. So that front door would never really get used if looking at the way that I would live there, maybe if a guest was coming, but they would come up the driveway and come, you know, into those doors. So then you lose the front door and you lose the functionality of the front door. So, you know, I think it's a good start and it's good to see, but I need to see some changes before I can approve of it. It's a tough one. And there's a lot of, a lot of things with this property and with this, with this project. Those were good points. I appreciate that. I was looking at the gable. Well, okay, let's go back. We talk about what are the distinguishing factors of the original architecture and you look at this side, which is the front and there's really nothing that distinguishable. If you go to a side elevation, you do see that there are gables on the, on the existing structure on the side. So, that almost brings some sort of element and I can see how now that maybe bringing that to the front is using an existing fact, contribute, or distinguishable factor to the front, even though this, you know, the, the, the flat roof here or the, the straight roof line could be considered distinguishable. yeah, the house doesn't have any major significance and the new design is, is really beautiful, but we have to think about the, the interior standards and they're there for a reason. So, yeah, we need to sort of balance that, how to make this house work well on the block. The block doesn't have any really contributing structures. I don't think the neighbor, the neighbor's modern house, this actually brings a historic feeling back to the street. So, I mean, I, I do like the way it's moving, but we made some really great points up here. There, there are three different front doors, it almost looks like here. So that's, that's a little strange. I think I would prefer a, just one singular front, front entrance. The, the long windows, even though I can see the reason for those tall windows, bring light inside, it does take away from the original architecture and the way the windows were. So I probably would love to see that brought back. And then at that moment, you could then do what the standards say and distinguish the old from the new using those techniques. I think it's really close to being, being there, but maybe a few minor adjustments could really make this, have less concerns from staff, meet the interior standards and still look beautiful. I don't have concern with the garage in the front. I think it's functional. You know, the, I know it was in the back before it was changed. I mean, it makes sense to have the pool in the back. So, yeah, I think with a few moves from the board's discussion, we can, we can make this a great project. Is there a way to potentially like pull them apart, like the addition from the existing so that you have that existing really highlighted still? Because it really does get kind of absorbed in the facade being kind of consistent throughout. So maybe creating more of a separation between the two could potentially satisfy some of the staff's comments. Okay. That was really a question for the applicant. Yeah, I'm sorry. But I could really support this with some adjustments to the fenestration. I think that's the biggest issue I have. I support the garage in the front, the pool in the back, very traditional. You get to save the casita. Challenging site and each site has to stand on its own merits. So there's been a lot of brain power put into this design. And again, the biggest issue I have is with the structure of the windows on the front elevation. You've got almost a commercial look in the center which just doesn't really fit. And I think with some minor tweaks on the windows, I could definitely support this. And again, perhaps bringing back some of the traditional elements on the existing, the windows. There has to be a way to show the separation. But I think a lot of this could be fixed through the windows. I mean, you don't need transoms on every opening. That's my opinion on it. But I support most of it. I just have a little problem with the modern facade on the front. There's a project across the street from here. And I recall that they did an addition. There was one window that was sort of had an archway and then there was three new windows put to the side. But there was a spacing difference between those windows. and that was approved by the board. So is something like in that approach a good approach for this one? That is directly across the street, 131 Northwest 1st Avenue. So they did retain the three arched windows. And funnily, funny enough, when they were in construction, they accidentally built the fourth window to be in the same exact pattern. And the owners recognized it and said this isn't what was designed and they had to take it out and fix it and put that gap. So the trained eye picks up on that. That's the kind of detailing, right, that the trained eye will pick up on. But somebody who doesn't have a background in architecture or historic preservation or contracting work probably wouldn't pick up on that nuance. Yeah, so that was an approved, board approved project. So if that technique was used here, you would keep the windows from the original but then have a division point where it shows the new design. I mean, there's, I'm trying not to jump accidentally into things where you're not asking me questions but I think that's a harder ask. This is difficult because I'm hearing the consensus from the board is everybody has some concern from one level or another whether it's, you know, low level concerns to high level concerns. The struggle that you're having is that there's some changes happening to the building and are we going to retain a contributing structure is what I'm hearing across the board. Everybody pretty much maybe with the exception of one or two people have said that and that is the concern, right? If in five or ten years from now if this is built and somebody comes along, a consultant, and looks at the fenestration pattern, are they going to say the fenestration or the porch or these elements were such drastic changes that now the house is not contributing anymore? It's kind of the litmus test where we have to start when it tips like this but what you don't get to see is, you know, on the top picture there you've got some windows that are on the front porch, right, top right. Those were louvered panels so would there be some value to bringing back that look of the original porch? Those are things that are fenestration that you're asking about, separation. I can't get into the specifics of design to tell you so you know what to tell the applicants. Yeah, I would say as far as, like, from the board's perspective what you're looking at is whether you think that it meets the criteria by showing the differentiation between the two, how they determine that they, you know, they would want to bring it back to, if they want to bring it back, or, you know, if you guys made that decision. I'm not trying to put any words in your mouth but do you think that they've made this differentiation clear to you that's appropriate and if you don't then that would be the direction only. Not, not, I think you should make this differentiation with a hyphen. I think you should make this differentiation with a space. I think you should make this differentiation with the windows. I mean, these are all good ideas but ultimately the architect would have to decide if that's something that can fit into their project, you know, so you would just make the recommendation that they provide a greater differentiation because you don't think it meets the code for that portion. Yeah, compliance. It's Michael Weiner. Could I ask a procedural question for a moment? Procedural question? Yes. Sure. I know this board on other occasions has allowed these things to be tabled to a time certain. I don't want to cut off conversation but I'm also concerned that if there was a negative vote as to what it was that we would have to do to start over again. So if you could consider that and procedurally if that is all right but we're here to continue to take notes. I'm not trying to cut off discussion. Thank you. No, certainly appreciate that. So, I mean, if the board is leaning toward a continuation with direction that would be something that you guys are interested in versus getting a final decision. Yes. Thank you. Thank you very much. You're welcome. I think that would be good. So I think if you do go toward the continuation with direction though you guys should kind of make it. Yeah. Because you guys have all said different things. Is there consensus for each thing? Like, you know. So let's get together our comments and have a consensus so that we can make a motion to continue with direction. I think the windows need to be adjusted to look more traditional and that would include I mean, I don't want to do the design work but I'm just going to say we'd like to see a more traditional approach on the windows. And then there's some other comments. Chris? The three entrances is that the original had one entrance so I think retaining a single main entryway and maybe a subordinate secondary if it needed to you know functionality stay and also maybe a more a better separation from the old to the new to the trained eye. I agree with you Chris. I think that was the intent is to have the original structure be reflected and being able to be perceived and yet still allow for an addition but it should be we should retain some of the original. Retain the so I guess the semantics of it would be retain the or the separation of the The original structure should be distinguishable The prominence Should be distinguishable but yet they apply an addition that would still enable that to be distinguished. Yeah. I mean I think that that's where I was going with it again. You just can't tell. So how do we do the continuation again? If you guys are comfortable with the conditions that you set forward and that's a consensus that you guys have which it looked like to me that you guys had at least four of you kind of shaking your head with every recommendation you can just say that you motion to continue with direction. Do you think that a date certain is something that you can manage? I don't think it's necessary. I wouldn't want to pigeonhole them in to say okay come back next month and then they find that they need more time and then we've got to bring it back and say we're not ready. I would just say continue with direction as per the board and as soon as they're ready they can come back next month if they want or if they need a little bit more time they can have that. There's no variance or anything like that. There's no public notice that's reliant on this. I'm just going to say can we leave it up to the applicant if they want to come back next month or if they want to leave it open and if they can get their stuff in yeah they can come back. I was seeing some head shakes from Mr. Weiner. There's a checklist there's staff reports that have to be written in the agenda published like if it were to come in say in a week it's possible that it could come back in the next month it just depends on how fast they can move. I always say if they run we'll run. Since there's no notices do you want to have good manners in approaching the microphone if you want to hear from the applicant on that issue? Sure, come on up. It's fine to leave it open. They are obviously want to move into the house and begin construction right away but we get it we understand so thank you for all the comments though. Thank you. Appreciate it. So I'll make a motion for continuation with the direction that the board has provided. Is the applicant clear? Sorry, just a second first and then you can ask the question. I'll second that. Okay, so question is the applicant clear on the direction? More traditional approach on windows retaining a single entryway and a subordinate entry if necessary and retain prominence of the original structure? The only clarification I would ask you to make is more traditional window placement on the entire assembly of both structures or on the existing only or on the addition only because you can see the diagram that they had up last and to Mr. Cabezo's extremely keen observation the upper right hand blue diagram is the existing condition so what are the I'll stick to those exact window patterns but I expect you to support it if I come back with those exact placements is there any leeway at all or do you want to see that exact replica I just want to say one comment your direction is not you guys giving direction is not binding on you I just want to make that clear but certainly I want you to have the direction that they want to give you but just note that for the record and I can also provide a tiny bit of guidance if the board wants me to please do so sometimes with the window patterns we might see a window that's two foot by four foot right single hung and the applicant might come in with a window that's five foot by two and a half so it looks the same and that it's a single hung and the scale is similar but it's maybe not an exact replica which obviously we see on the right hand side behind the new porch that there looks like an existing window pattern happening there that's in the building now so he wouldn't have to replicate that he could come in with a window that's compatible maybe a little bigger maybe a little smaller so if you want to provide direction just work with staff and see if you can get some staff doesn't have a vote you guys you have the vote I can satisfy staff I can satisfy you I don't think it should be appropriate to do exactly as it is thank you that's all I want to know thank you I don't know if everyone agrees with that no I agree I also think the streetscape is the most important right the back that you don't really see not as important I think that's fair yeah that's fair yeah okay so we have a motion and a second we'll go ahead and vote Chris Cabezas yes Richard Kasser yes Benjamin Baffer yes Jake Eliopoulos yes Gregory Pitts yes Zach Purtough yes Peter Dwyer yes you're welcome unfortunately guys I have to step out thank you I'm going to be going thank you everyone see you next sorry Mark before you leave did you get one of these yes okay let me know if you have questions thank you do we need a break or is everybody good do we need a anything just keep going okay let's go we're powering through I probably need to accuse myself because I've spoke to Miss Delp before just about the project nothing formally or anything but we just talked about it I visited it on site so all right okay thank you okay I would like to enter 2025 2025-039 into the record it's for 110 Marine Way it's a level one certificate of appropriateness and variance the agent for the property Mark Hundley is here to present hello good evening my name is Mark Hundley I'm the principal partner at my architecture firm Shrett International Architecture joined here by two of the owners John Delanobis and Courtney Palmer and then Greg Gravinsky is actually a new addition to our team graduated in May he's a architectural intern and learning about these processes presentations so if you could just state your business address business address 551 Northwest 77th Street Suite 107 and Boca near the corner of Congress and Congress I like to say because the way the exit is labeled as Congress okay so the unit is 110 Marine Way unit 1 I always start off with the location map it's in the Marina District right there at the corner of Southeast First Street and Marine Way and some existing photos just to get you started the existing from the east there on the left my back is to the water as I'm taking that picture shooting into the courtyard it's a five unit five villa property shooting into the courtyard and then I actually stepped into the courtyard for the one on the right and there's a reason I did that that courtyard is extremely important to the overall cohesiveness of the project and the property as a whole in these photos unit 1 is the one that's in the back which is the only one in consideration for this application existing from the north this is on Southeast First you can see two of the units there on the left hand side of the photo and then on the right hand side you can actually see unit one which has garage doors facing first and then from the south the unit in question let's try this feature she talked about yeah that's pretty neat you know this this unit right here is what we're talking about this is the west property line and then over on this side is unit 4 that's not under consideration but that's the from the south and it's this unit here one of the things we tried to do during this we're looking at a Mediterranean revival style architecture we wanted to try to highlight some of the ornamentation that was there so for example you'll start to see things pop up that are existing that we brought into the new proposal that we're hoping will work well so the property history originally is built in 1938 the architect was Sam Ogren Sr. we found out the client Charles Vashore apparently big into vintage cameras and originally the property was known as the Vashore Villas and it was his winter home he was originally from Michigan while we were doing some study into this we actually visited the Delray Beach Historical Society and while we were there we were able to find the original plans for the property we worked with the historical society they actually weren't familiar with with exactly which piece of property these plans were associated with so we were able to help them in their filing system and get that in play and so we have the original plans from unit one and part of this project history I've been working on this for approximately five years and ten months myself the original initiation of this began back in April of 2019 and the first board discussion occurred in November of 2019 where all five units were approved with a few conditions with final approval occurring in February of 2020 I stepped in with a change of architect in early of 2021 and all five units had approved COAs on them that I generated construction drawings off of units two three four and five which are not under discussion tonight continued the building process and actually completed their construction in February of 2026 just here recently there were some site work revisions due to some landscaping and a little bit of hardscape that were administratively approved in April of this year and the site work construction is either done or just about done it's reaching that one yard line right now so now we're trying to look at unit one because unit one was not laid out the way we had hoped it would be so we're looking to a revision for the existing approved unit one so on the first floor all we did we added an elevator and we basically added an exterior accessible washer and dryer space on the second floor we reworked the overall program or party of the project where the it has a more appropriate layout to the overall site it doesn't operate by itself it operates to the site bedrooms are now on the north side where they used to be on another side and I'll get into more detail shortly and the living room opens to the east and it's extension of that courtyard we also needed to accommodate the elevator space and the third floor moves the roof terrace to overlook the courtyard on the elevations we reworked the roof profile to be more compatible with the other units in the on the site we needed to provide the impertinence for the elevator access we changed the stair in order to accommodate the change in roof terrace we reworked the roof roof profile to allow for the slope from the north side to have more appropriate massing because we'd received some comments that the massing from the north side was heavy and then we wanted to develop elevation ornamentation to utilize some of the Sam Ogren senior aspects so this is the site this is unit one it's the only part that's in this application everything else has already been handled those are the other four units and that courtyard that courtyard is extremely important which is why I showed it in the initial picture this was you know or this was the first floor of unit one originally we went from the top left which was the existing floor plan and the bottom left is currently approved we could start construction on it today but we wanted to change that up just a little bit by going up to the here to the top right pretty much all we did was we added the elevator access to the office area and provided for a washer and dryer underneath the steps but even with the original design as you can see we tried to honor some of the service aspects of what's there we left the garage where it was we pulled the stairs forward but left them in place the second floor what's currently approved for construction is right here on the top we're moving down to the bottom and the main reason we want to do it is because what's on the top the blue is the current living room which faces north overlooks from the garage looking down into the street whereas the bedrooms were over behind the balcony looking down to the courtyard we wanted to switch that because the more communal spaces of the living room we wanted to line up with that court or with the courtyard that has that linear flow coming through from marine way we wanted it to come through an intersect just like that and that way we left the more service more private areas over the garage the current roof plan it's a one-story structure has a roof terrace on it the currently approved simply extended that up and has a roof terrace over top of where the garages are but we wanted to rework that and move it and bring the roof terrace over to the courtyard side as well because again that courtyard is important that tie-in that axis so the original plans as you can see we started to take elements there's some scallops ornamentation over top of the garages there's arches over top of the original openings leading into the courtyard the outlookers and the way that they work along the facial line the window treatments again these are from the original plans how that outlook or profile works the the portal that leads into one of the the porches and the spans spindles that are part of it we wanted to work with that then we also found some more of Sam Augren's plans developed around the same time here in the same area where we can see again some of those outlookers along with the facial line we can start to see column capitals and how he utilized those including some details of the heat room these are from the original plans some other window treatments that he did yet were similar but just a little bit different front door treatments so existing elevation on top what's currently approved in the middle what we'd like to go to on the bottom some of the reasons we're going to what we're going to on the bottom include that roof facial line going ahead and going with those outlookers going with that profile which you can see on the archive plans going with the column details that Sam Augren has used on some of his along with that repetition repetition that creates a nice feeling across the front those arches that are already part of the design we want to continue and utilize those some of the window treatments that he used on some of his projects here in the Mediterranean revival architecture in the area door treatments wrapping around the door with the ornamentation another type of window treatment this one happens to be the exact window treatment he used on this building back in 1938 from the north side existing at the top what's already approved in the middle and what we'd like to go to at the bottom where we're able to also use those outlookers where we're able to use that spandrel or spindle that we discussed early on the portal we're going to start using that as part of the railing that's scalloped over the garage we're going to transfer that and allow that to stay from the west side we're working on the roof profile and how that works again more of those facial lines the spindles the window treatments we're utilizing both types of window treatments on this side as appropriate where spacing allows for some of the shutters we keep them where it doesn't we go with the other ones and then from the south side we're going ahead facial lines window treatments we're going ahead and moving that portal with the spindles and then one of the comments that we got from the previous application was that from the street side on the north side it felt very heavy felt very massive so we started working with the overall look this is a little bit tight to see but on this one on the top the streetscape is I'm sorry here to the right side and on the bottom it's to the left and what we tried to do was we tried to make sure to step that elevation back so we were able to bring in the same kind of roof treatments that you're seeing on the other units while also stepping this back in order to be able to create less of a massing to hopefully alleviate that concern from earlier one variance being requested previously we had I don't know 10 of them 11 of them up there we're only asking for one this time and the only reason we're asking for it is its flood elevation we're asking to leave the existing elevation where it is which was approved previously however FEMA has recently updated their requirements we went from a required seven foot to nine foot since those requirements have been updated we've been asked to reapply with the variance that's the reason for it we're maintaining that all of the units should stay at their existing elevation all the other four already are we're maintaining that those should as well so we're just updating the variance that had been previously approved so this is all part of the variance request that was written in part of your paperwork I won't read every single line item in detail but this does respond to the five items that are part of the variance request the intention behind the variance is to keep the elevation where it is so that the units that tie together around the courtyard provide a cohesive design all the other units have already been approved to stay low trying to bring this one up would drastically alter that courtyard and how everything's designed centrally around that the special considerations result from the design of the property as a whole to raise this one unit would be like a four foot raise and would completely and totally change the way that the property works as a whole the courtyard connection and then the variance is being requested in order to preserve the historic nature not diminish it we're trying very hard to stick with it and the intended use of the unit brings it into a more cohesive program for the property as a whole we're utilizing it as a villa the same way that the other ones are a villa it was originally even called the versure villa we're maintaining a villa as a comprehensive use before kathrina starts i i may have missed it but did you guys discuss ex parte communications on this one um yes uh well actually we had one person recuse themselves but we didn't formally ask for it so let's yeah any ex parte communications uh no no no no and no this is a level one and certificate of appropriateness with a variance request for 110 marine way okay this is located in the historic marina historic marina district um and then here you can see an aerial of the location it is directly across from um the marina um you'll see the site contains five historic structures they're mediterranean style and there were constructed with the architect of um sam auburn senior so the area highlighted in yellow is specifically um the only structure for this request mr um mr humley did mention that this project has been going on since 2019 over time a lot of the approvals for the site have been completed specifically a lot of the landscaping um hardscaping there are um there's currently a four car garage which is located it's a part of unit one that we're discussing tonight um there's also golf cart parking spaces that are located on the north and the east sides that have already been previously approved there's been some changes to materials that we've um approved over a series of the last few years um at permit wise the four structures are if not already um co'd they're um almost ready to be completed um so the final part of the site is going to be unit one this the structure does currently have an approval for a second story and specifically they're just coming in to do the modifications to the elevations so here's a few images this is the east side of the site um and it's overlooking into where you can see unit one this is the existing uh east side of the elevation for unit one you can see another area this is where the original garage is north existing elevation this is the south the pool was also originally approved and did come back and we did an admin approval in a different configuration so it's a little different from the 2019 approval but it's now currently existing on site here's more of the south elevation okay so this is the existing site plans you can see the only structure we're talking about tonight is villa one mr hunley did note that when this site was approved in 2019 they went through a series of variances and waivers um including variances for all five of the structures to keep each of the structures at their own individual um existing finished floor heights when fema was requiring um the seven foot um navd heights um here you can see the original there was a scrivener's error when the chart came in and was approved um the approved area specifically only noted for i think that was villa number two for all of the structures so they're actually coming back in and we're just noting this for the record that all of these structures were actually approved at their individual heights and not all specifically at the um 5.2 um foot elevation um they are back in again over time um once the fema elevations change which they are they went from seven to nine since this approval happened um they did need to come back in for an additional or an updated variance for villa one because there's no work that's been commenced on that structure and the other four have continued or put in the 25 percent that was required um in order to um vest those structures so that's why they're in for the variance again so here we can see the existing floor plan currently approved i know mr hunley did um mention in detail the different changes so i'll just go through these briefly this is the existing floor plan that's proposed this is the currently approved second floor okay this is the proposed you can see as mr hunley did mention the different changes you can see the elevator the elevator shaft in the middle and then the change to the different um bedrooms and the living room this is the existing roof plan versus the previously approved here we can see they are utilizing more of the rooftop terrace they do have the spiral staircase um with regard to landscaping there's um underneath our roof terrace section it's noted in your staff report they are covering a specific required percentage of landscaping you can see that more on the south side they have the required landscaping there as well as the four foot high parapet for the rooftop terrace there is no proposed additional uses such as like a fire pit or any additional um request for the top so it's just for essentially just for um sitting in rooftop use this is a existing east elevation this is the approved the areas that are highlighted in um red are just showing like the different changes to the window and door pattern since the approvals let me tell they're just slightly different um there was a little change to the stairs as mr hunley did note um in his presentation okay this is the existing north elevation this is where the four car garages are and then we see the approved second story and then here we have the approved second story next to the uh the newly proposed and then the larger area that's on the top is part of the elevator run um we did review that thoroughly it meets all requirements for height um not just over overall height but heights for um any type of um like rooftop accessories so here's the existing west elevation along with the approved west more changes to the windows you can see were previously approved here we can see the approved west with the approved with the proposed west elevation okay existing south with the approved south we did have some concerns from massing um the different types of roof styles when the application did come in with the revision from the original approved um the changes that were made to a lot of the rooftop elements and um the way the roofs were on the second story are significantly more appropriate than what um the first or second revisions that came in so here we can see some of the renderings this is the north this is the east goes south these are the secretary of the interiors that apply to this request we do note that we have no concerns with regards to materials um as mr honley did mention there are specific architectural features that were existing that make this um sam rogan style structure um special um they are retaining those as long as um along with the stucco any stucco that can be repaired rather than replaced um they did note that on the um the materials that they would do their best to retain any existing materials as well this is the visual compatibility standards that apply to this request we do note that there are um for the most part no main concerns for the proportion of openings or the rhythm of solids avoids so windows and doors that are existing on the structure um for most structures with regards to large expanses of blank walls um we normally have concerns with that however when you look at the original structure you see the stairway on the south side they are retaining that um so for the most part that's the reason that they don't have any um type of windows or doors on that side and we have no concerns with that since um it matches what was originally existing on the structure so with regards to any like materials or roof materials um they are sticking with the same types of um colors textures materials that already either approved with the previous approval or exist on the structure so we have no concerns with regards to any of that as well as um architectural style mr hunley did note that a lot of the changes that they are making are appropriate to the original architectural style and they are visually compatible we did note this was part on the staff report from the 2019 approval um we're just noting this again um when the request originally came in as this whole site was originally five historic one-story villas staff did have concerns with the approval of the second floor on the villa on villa one um there was concern that it changing the heights as well as putting a second story on the existing structure um could compromise the integrity of the site as well as um the structure itself um it is already approved um so that's here just for note of the record however we did add a site plan technical item that they the applicants include a shoring plan that needs to be submitted to help address the method of protecting the one story of the um villa one of the structure okay going into the variance request um they do already have a previous approval to keep the existing finished floor elevation at 4.96 feet um however the original approval was when the um requirement for fema was at seven foot it's been a few years now so um the request is now the requirement is now nine so since they haven't um done any um like real specific work on villa one then they needed to come up and update the fema requirement to the nine foot requirement um it's a previous approval these are the variance findings um that are noted in the staff report um the applicants did include justification statements that note their findings and then this is the certificate of appropriate findings for the application so as this uh particular site it is a multifamily um so that's why we have a level one site plan modification along with the certificate of appropriateness um however any level ones usually don't require um additional findings at a level two and up um would so this just notes that these are the required site plan technical items a lot of it is specific to the requirement for fema um that's needed as well as the um the shoring plan that needs to be submitted and that concludes my presentation thank you okay any public comments comes roger well i'm not sure what how much credibility you have at this stage but uh it's for the record roger cope cope architects inc uh 701 southeast first street in the national marina historic district for the third and last time i'm 50 feet across the street from uh this beautiful piece of property uh and all i really want to say is as a neighbor and as an affected party i've seen the the beautiful improvements that they've been doing to the property uh you know over the years uh and and they've done nothing shy of a spectacular transformation of that corner and we all knew at the beginning of their conception of where they wanted to take the property that this kind of was the crowning jewel the two-story main piece that would now anchor uh that west end of the property i think it's beautifully designed i love every aspect of it i love the spiral stair i love the fact that they incorporate the incorporated the elevator uh the fact that they've retained the existing sam auger and a double garage uh i don't everything that they've done is is spot on and i just want to compliment everybody and and and say to you that i hope you approve of what they've done and and the fema uh variance is a no-brainer you set precedent a few months ago by approving uh 131 i think southeast 7th avenue where four four houses on one property you let one stay down and three were lifted so i think you should support everything that they're asking for thank you very much anyone else from the public okay any rebuttal or cross examination from staff no rebuttal from staff thank you any rebuttal from the applicant i would just like to say thank you to staff and mr cope for the um work that they've done behind this and i'd like to thank the board for their time this evening i certainly don't want to rebut some of the glowing words that mr cope just used so rebuttal is the last thing i would like to do but thank you all for your time thank you okay you can open it up to the board we have a few less people here now i just want to make one quick comment about you guys haven't set precedent it still goes case by case but we don't set precedent right yes question questions for staff michelle i'm having a little deja vu here so i think we i was on the board in 2019 when this came through before i remember this project was this was this where we had a problem with the tile on the on the fountain yes and it looks like it's been resolved they did they resolved it very nicely yeah no it looks really nice all right so i was just thinking like why have i why have i been here before that is exactly what happened did you go cover that in the history just for the it's in the report background of the board there was a snafu that occurred with the tiles on this reflecting pond and resulted in code enforcement the applicants had to take that tile off and they went the distance to have um historically accurate replicas of the meisner tile created and then they retiled the they did a really nice job with it sorry your time's not up quick question for the applicant first compliments to you and and to the the owners for really creating a beautiful project and it is and really going the distance in in um paying homage to the historic design elements because i know that that's not always easy and not always the most cost-effective way um but it it it really is is very beautiful um my only question is the south wall um that faces the interior of the property so that's not seen from the exterior not seen from the street yes correct yeah because it is just sort of a big tall blank wall there so if it was going to be seen from the street then i think i would have some concerns with just the the massing of that blank wall but because it's an interior facing wall and it's seen from a very small courtyard so no one's going to really be looking up at it um i think that that is all correct um yeah i'll affirm your information there um that happens to be the area that faces towards the courtyard that includes the pool as part of it um so really the only people that will be seeing it are going to be the users of the property yeah okay all right other than that no no questions and and full support and again great job thank you sir i appreciate those comments i have one question does this have a commercial elevator in it i'm wondering about the overrun on the roof does it have a commercial elevator yeah why do you need the overrun um the chimney access to be able to get to the third floor with the elevator so it goes all the way to the roof yes okay i didn't realize that yeah very good i think that's the only portion of it that i have a concern on is is just that aperture for the elevator is it um for ada or what's and i see the spiral staircases is being used and well ada would require yeah ada would require the elevator yes that's true having only a spiral stair as access to that particular area my personal opinion and i'm getting into opinion here michelle i know i'm not looking at line items of the the comprehensive plan um i don't like spiral stairs as the only access i think something should always be secondary or able to be able to access an area aside from just the spiral stair um so i think it's i think it's a benefit to it in the sense of being able to make sure that anybody can access it without transitioning through a spiral stair i think the spiral stair works well from a ornamentation from a overall comprehensive plan aesthetic i just wanted to make sure there was also another way to get there correct me if my if i'm wrong but didn't you have approval for a regular staircase on the north elevation and it's now the proposed option of only a spiral staircase and an elevator that's true so it the reason being is because we moved the terrace from the north side to what i believe is to be the more appropriate south side so that it connect with the courtyard and so therefore that stair that was in that approved location had to be abandoned if it would no longer access the terrace i mean that that's my only concern is now there's a second floor spiral staircase as seen from marine way right the east side from the east side as well as now you're going to have this this elevator access seen from 29 feet every elevation right as i will point out that it is also back the pertinence for the elevator is uh is set just about center of the overall plan so unless you're standing across the street say you probably won't be able to see it um it's it's just about the center and even though the elevation does step back it's it it's actually also included in the step back aspects from first street or was first avenue or first street from the north side sure what about from marine marina way marine way well we have an image of that that we could see a couple things come into play there one is that the distance that you're looking at on the site plan in and of itself um you're not going to be able to get close enough to if you can see the distance the elevator is going to be somewhere right about here where the blue arrow is are we getting bogged down on this or yeah and right here is the sidewalk that you can get that is the closest you can get to it plus with the amount of landscaping that's in there i i don't think you're could you see it proportionally yes but especially from that distance it's going to look even smaller and the amount of landscaping that's in that courtyard i doubt you're going to be able to see it okay any questions from staff well um mr pitts you asked about the requirement for the elevator um there is an exception in the florida building code that if the rooftop is for private use not open to the public they don't necessarily have to provide the elevator much less to the level that they are with the commercial nature of it it could be a more it could be a smaller elevator so if that's a concern that you have um or that the board as a whole has you you know could ask the applicant to explore that further the time of permit if if the size of the overrun is your concern this is a single unit so it's not an area open to the whole development would that be something that we could incorporate in the notes that they come back to staff to to to review the overall height of alternate elevators they could yeah we could work with them to reduce the size if the concern is the overall size any reduction of it would be an improvement in your opinion if that's what you say um but yes they could look at some options uh and then in terms of the floor height i have no problems with the floor height definitely jake i don't have too much to say um i don't have a problem with the the fema heights and since we're going off what was approved to what's being proposed today i think there's been a lot of improvements i don't have any issues with the elevator but if the rest of the board members do i'm not opposed to reducing it but nice presentation good job thank you sir yeah just just had a question i'm i'm completely okay with the um you know with the variance for the um for the flame of fema flood elevation but you said that uh the existing finished floors are like 5.2 i'm just curious what what is the what does the owner do about flood protection do they have floodgates or barriers or something i mean so we could jointly answer this question you can i would love for you too from the design perspective so you'll note in the staff report there are some items that have to be done when a variance is granted which involves recording that variance with the county clerk's office and then they have to pay an increase in premium for flood insurance and they have to acknowledge that fundamentally what you're asking is what do they do if they flood the secretary of the interior standards provides guidelines on flood adaptation and there's several different treatment methods with the most drastic that we've seen as a board vertically elevating a structure right but there are also flood control structures that are like a moat quote unquote that they could um incorporate around the property but when we discussed this over the course of five years we've been working on this i don't think that there has been a documented flood on the property because we did ask that question as did previous a previous board um and then additionally the city has a multi-million dollar project that's underway and nearing completion along marine way where there are flood control systems and lift stations that are put in place to draw water out of the area to protect the structures that are the properties that are right along marine way we just had a massive king tide event so i would suggest you ask the applicant what was the condition of the property during that i mean it was uh i don't know if you went out to see it we sent some staff out to photograph because we had some properties that were flooding it's a very very flood prone area so it was a massive if you haven't had a flood a flood event in the last five years that that really yeah i'll add to the time frame you mentioned it was 70 months ago so two months shy of six years when i first walked onto the property so but as you said we haven't had an event in that amount of time other than the one that was most recent where you went out and and i did not go out to go take a look at the property at that time so the owners are here you could ask them if they flooded on the property as well they've done this beautiful multi-million dollar restoration project you know and and they're i i feel like getting in a very very precarious position at 5.2 so that's and the other structures are lower too i think the other four this one's 4.96 this one's 4.96 there's another one that's 5.25 you're going to make me remember i'm off the top of my head um because as um staff mentioned and is in the staff report with the previous approval there was a scrivener's error on the originally approved site plan so the board approved the variances correctly but the scrivener's error continued in saying that all units were 5.25 and you can see here the corrected measurements on the right for the units villa one is 4.96 so it falls about in the middle yeah it's right in the middle there's two that are lower and two that are higher yeah so all of the structures have flood variances that were approved this structure included but what's happening now is that the flood chain the finished floor changed from seven to nine with the one foot for the building code because it's six plus one to eight plus one so it went from seven to nine which is why the variance has to be re-requested because the changes that they're proposing would trigger them um to bring it up to code for fema so yeah but i would ask you know you have the owners here if you're interested in what the history of flooding has been i'm just bringing it up because i feel like you know as historic preservation we're we are allowing you know we're allowing these um property owners to um you know not have to abide by like the the building codes right that that say they need to to elevate their their properties and i you know it's we're i i i don't want to feel like we're we're implicit you know complicit in allowing somebody to do something that that is you know maybe risky for their for their property just because it's because it's historic and that's you know what you deliberate on there are standards in your staff report also when they go to permitting this is the proposed ground floor plan here the garage is going to be required to incorporate flood vents so we're not seeing them on the site plan we expect them to come later they're usually so small and they're down near the grade level but also just to note this is not a unit on the ground floor it's common space still habitable and required to meet the fema finish floor elevation but it's not a space where there's somebody living in the ground floor so i don't know what you think about that but it could be an additional factor in your deliberation it's hard to vertically elevate a concrete block building and i think you know since there's already four buildings on site it just would be you know a disaster to try to elevate the other you know this single one it just would look out of scale and i don't know how it works with the permitting but because the project is 25 vested with the balance of the units being completed and they have an approval in effect right now i'm curious to know if they went to get a building permit if and they did the design they already have approved i think the building department would have to honor the fact that there is already a vesting on the site so the change in detailing of the architecture is what's triggering it to have to go to nine if they didn't do that they're still they still have a variance approved for the site at the seven to stay at the finish floor that exists i don't know if any of that matters but these were things we deliberated about during the tac review okay well i'm in support of it i i think we hit the high points it's a beautiful property um well done nice to see sam ogren's legacy living on so i would say it was it was a lot of fun to find the archive all that detail and real blueprints yes real blueprints uh for this project and then found several others as well that was really neat so the total aside i'm sorry but that was that was a lot of fun i think it's great um so i think that perhaps a motion would be in order motion for approval sure i'll sure i'll make the motion to approve the level one site plan modification certificate of appropriateness and variance 2025-039 for the property located at 110 marine way in the marine historic district by finding that the request and approval thereof is consistent with the comprehensive plan and meets the criteria set forth in the land development regulations subject to the following conditions that stat that the applicant review elevator options with the staff members and i'll second that actually since you're the chair it's got to be somebody else but i'll second thank you chris cabezus is absent richard casser yes benjamin baffer yes jake leopoulos yes gregory pitts yes zach bordeaux is recused peter dwyer yes thank you all very much i appreciate it thank you and thank you to the staff as well two big agendas yeah yeah any staff reports michelle i know that we have training coming up not necessarily coming up so i emailed you all some and i did today so if you didn't see it it's okay but i emailed you a three page memorandum and this provides the i've been promising for a while training opportunities so you're going to see that there are three required trainings um a b and c these are city trainings that my staff and i did as well as a state of florida training the webinar um links or the links for all these videos are in the memo that i emailed you and the instructions of how to access these i ask that you get these completed before the next meeting um three right those three yes the other items because i'm kind of a historic nerd right i think they're interesting and pretty exciting to watch there are um five four or five other options for trainings i would recommend for those of you that are working throughout the day maybe when you have some time to put them on in the background and try to get these other ones done too um you'll see that item d is the federal national park service training on flood adaptation so this was the basis on our training and teaches you how to utilize the adaptation guidelines that the secretary of the interior put out there's a web page with a cute slider that shows you a house that wasn't resilient and then after renovation is resilient so that's kind of cool to explore plus the guidelines are there from flood adaptation we have a past city and state joint training that was done in 2018 which is a little bit the same of what we already covered but we actually had the state of florida come here and do the training to the board so i think it's kind of interesting to hear that joint training the last two are trainings or symposiums so the atlantic avenue historic district symposium was a two-day event event that we held in 2023 when we were considering designation of atlantic avenue it's really i think at least the first day if you can watch it's really interesting we brought in university of florida professor law professor and expert tim mcclendon he's from the college of law and he has provided a really great summary at about historic preservation and the intersection of the law donovan ripkema who is a national um preservation economic development professional where he's going to talk about the benefits of historic preservation versus the economy and i know that's something that comes up a lot where we are challenged as a board megan mclaughlin who is from placerbia and she's going to talk about some really cool architectural examples and then ruben acosta who's from the state of florida he is our expert that we reach out to a lot he's the bureau chief and deputy state historic preservation officer plus myself and anthea day two of that event was a community q a remember this was about atlantic avenue right but the training or the symposium provides a really nice well-rounded view of preservation that's not from a staff perspective it's from the professionals and the consultants in the community and then finally the town of palm beach this one's kind of long um tim mcclendon is at that one too but there are a lot of other people there i believe the director of planning it was either charleston or savannah um his his uh presentation was very interesting as he talked about uh flood resiliency and what they're dealing with which is a lot worse than what we're dealing with here um there was the coral gables historic preservationist who was at this this was just a really great they were also considering palm beach was considering a new historic district so that's why they did their symposium so if you could take some time this is a great way to get educated on historic preservation those recommended um trainings but these required it would be really helpful because this is going to put you in a good position to be making a defensible decision and that is covered in these trainings defensible decision making um so that the decisions you make as a board aren't maybe appealed to the city commission or result in a lawsuit um so yeah that is there they're self-guided i could sit here and do a training for you but i feel like maybe the self-guided nature would be helpful and then if you have questions and you as a board want to maybe set some time aside at a future meeting where we could kind of do a q a and talk through some of the things we're here to help we've also given board members manuals the new board members did you guys get the binder perfect um so we try to give you as much of the background i know it seems like a lot but it doesn't even touch the tip of the iceberg of the documents that we're using so we gave you i think some flash drives too in there yep um all of the documentation that we provide you in a staff report is analysis that is based on regulations that we as professionals have to know not just have access to so we we need to know that applicants want to know you know answer my question right now so we got to know these things so when we're bringing a project to you i think they're the idea that something is subjective or decision is whimsical in nature i understand the case law behind that particular example um i just want you to understand these are we didn't make these things up we were taught to utilize these things to preserve our historic resources um so any questions you have if you want a one-on-one with myself or any of my team members we oftentimes for new board members will set an hour to aside to do a one-on-one q a help you with any questions or you had an item and you're like i'm not really sure did we make the right decision were we making the right comments um you know we're here to help as is kelly with any questions you have from a legal perspective there are also at some of the if you want it there was a legal training that was done at a previous meeting too that if you want that we can forward you the link but i think most of you have saw that already yeah i can find that time stamp and get it over to you guys as well yeah i think i did about a year or two ago so i feel like it wasn't that long because the last year yeah the last year okay the two trainings that are here were from october and november and i think you followed up right after maybe january december january so it wasn't that long ago um but we just ask you to do those trainings and then report back and let me know when you've completed them and if you have any questions and if you we accidentally printed more of these memos so if anybody wants extras to hand out to friends or professional colleagues they've got extra memos if you want them i had a question a question or comment but you know the one that i think about this board is we're able to stay out of city politics but do we need to get involved at all with the cemetery or veterans park um i think it's important for the board to when asked for guidance or feedback to provide guidance and feedback and right now i don't think the board has been asked yet the board has already given direction on the cemetery to move forward with designation which we want to do i'll be honest we are super compressed with the application timelines and the deadlines that the state of florida have mandated for our reviews that jumping over to the designation work is hard so we are talking internally whether or not we can take a staff member offline to work on that solely or if it would be worth you know committing dollars to engage a consultant or what the next step would be so really the commission has directed to move forward with designation local and national if possible for the cemetery and then exploring the next steps for veterans park for designation there so i think the board has already weighed in mr patten from the preservation trust has come and asked the board for their support on veterans park and i believe the board did weigh in and say move forward so i don't i don't think there's anything else to do now but if you have feedback you guys are always welcome to go as you know on your own as as residents to city commission and talk to them about it or if there's something that you want to say i don't want you to feel like you can't say it for sure i was just um i i just hear all this debate about you know it should be designated shouldn't be designated and it's like it sounds but it sounds like the board has asked the board made recommendations and that's that's true and remember that the it's not the entire cemetery so the portion of the cemetery that qualifies for designation is the old section that we call it so it's the northwest corner of the cemetery that was studied it was recommended that we could extend the study and look further into the cemetery the 50 year or older is the threshold so we have not engaged a consultant to do that next step but there are things that we can proceed with in the future um regarding designation and grants and things like that does that answer yeah good okay we've had two very busy meetings the past couple months yeah thank you and right now i don't know what's on for november 4th i'll be honest i didn't ask i just had to get through this one so i can respond to the inbox because the inbox is heavy right now um but november 4th we're on on track for that and keep in mind if you're traveling in january um the board meeting you'll be getting your packets i think on the 29th or the 30th um right before so i think the meeting is the sixth so if you're traveling and and won't be around give us a heads up because we wouldn't want to go through all the work of setting the meeting to then find out we didn't have a quorum so if you think you won't be here for that meeting please let us know that's all i have all right with that i think we can adjourn the meeting unless somebody else has some other comments questions all right great job tonight thank you