Loading...
Agenda 07-11-22 CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH HISTORIC RESOURCES PRESERVATION BOARD MEETING AGENDA K 4^,Y, DATE: Monday, July 11, 2022 TIME: 6:30 P.M. PLACE: Commission Chambers, 100 E. Ocean Avenue 1. Call to Order 2. Agenda Approval 3. Approval of Minutes— May 23, 2022 4. Communications and Announcements 5. Old Business: Historic Preservation Programming & Website Migration — The Board will be provided with an update on the City's progress in merging the existing components of the original historic preservation site with the City's upgraded website. The next stage of the process would be enhancing it for completeness. (no staff report included; item will be presented at the meeting) 6. New Business: Certificate of Appropriateness - 330 NW 1st Avenue— Request for approval of Certificate of Appropriateness to allow a one-story, 1,117 square-foot addition to the rear of the historic house at 330 NW 1St Avenue. Applicant: Edwin J. Bradley, property owner. (see accompanying staff report) 7. Other: Transition Preparation (Board Liaison and Meeting Schedule) (no staff report included; item will be presented at the meeting) 8. Comments by members 9. Announce date of next meeting (TBD) 10.Adjournment The Board may only conduct public business after a quorum has been established. If no quorum is established within 15 minutes of the noticed start time of the meeting the City Clerk or designee will so note the failure to establish a quorum and the meeting shall be concluded. Board members may not participate further even when purportedly acting in an informal capacity. NOTICE THE CITY SHALL FURNISH APPROPRIATE AUXILIARY AIDS AND SERVICES WHERE NECESSARY TO AFFORD AN INDIVIDUAL WITH A DISABILITY AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY TO PARTICIPATE IN AND ENJOY THE BENEFITS OF A SERVICE, PROGRAM, OR ACTIVITY CONDUCTED BY THE CITY. PLEASE CONTACT THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE, (561)742-6060 OR(TTY) 1-800-955-8771, AT LEAST 48 HOURS PRIOR TO THE PROGRAM OR ACTIVITY IN ORDER FOR THE CITY TO REASONABLY ACCOMMODATE YOUR REQUEST. ADDITIONAL AGENDA ITEMS MAY BE ADDED SUBSEQUENT TO THE PUBLICATION OF THE AGENDA ON THE CITY'S WEB SITE. INFORMATION REGARDING ITEMS ADDED TO THE AGENDA AFTER IT IS PUBLISHED ON THE CITY'S WEB SITE CAN BE OBTAINED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK. ,m CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH HISTORIC RESOURCES PRESERVATION BOARD MEETING AGENDA DATE: Monday, July 11, 2022 TIME: 6:30 P.M. PLACE: Commission Chambers, 100 E. Ocean Avenue 1. Call to Order 2. Agenda Approval 3. Approval of Minutes — May 23, 2022 4. Communications and Announcements 5. Old Business: Historic Preservation Programming & Website Migration — The Board will be provided with an update on the City's progress in merging the existing components of the original historic preservation site with the City's upgraded website. The next stage of the process would be enhancing it for completeness. (no staff report included; item will be presented at the meeting) 6. New Business: Certificate of Appropriateness - 330 NW 1st Avenue— Request for approval of Certificate of Appropriateness to allow a one-story, 1,117 square-foot addition to the rear of the historic house at 330 NW 1 sl Avenue. Applicant: Edwin J. Bradley, property owner. (see accompanying staff report) 7. Other: Transition Preparation (Board Liaison and Meeting Schedule) (no staff report included; item will be presented at the meeting) 8. Comments by members 9. Announce date of next meeting (TBD) 10. Adjournment The Board may only conduct public business after a quorum has been established. If no quorum is established within 15 minutes of the noticed start time of the meeting the City Clerk or designee will so note the failure to establish a quorum and the meeting shall be concluded. Board members may not participate further even when purportedly acting in an informal capacity. NOTICE THE CITY SHALL FURNISH APPROPRIATE AUXILIARY AIDS AND SERVICES WHERE NECESSARY TO AFFORD AN INDIVIDUAL WITH A DISABILITY AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY TO PARTICIPATE IN AND ENJOY THE BENEFITS OF A SERVICE, PROGRAM, OR ACTIVITY CONDUCTED BY THE CITY. PLEASE CONTACT THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE, (561)742-6060 OR(TTY) 1-800-955-8771, AT LEAST 48 HOURS PRIOR TO THE PROGRAM OR ACTIVITY IN ORDER FOR THE CITY TO REASONABLY ACCOMMODATE YOUR REQUEST. ADDITIONAL AGENDA ITEMS MAY BE ADDED SUBSEQUENT TO THE PUBLICATION OF THE AGENDA ON THE CITY'S WEB SITE. INFORMATION REGARDING ITEMS ADDED TO THE AGENDA AFTER IT IS PUBLISHED ON THE CITY'S WEB SITE CAN BE OBTAINED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK. Minutes of the Historic Resources Preservation Board Meeting Held on May 23, 2022, at 6:30 p.m. in City Hall Commission Chambers 100 E. Ocean Avenue, Boynton Beach, Florida Present: Barbara Ready, Chair Mike Rumpf, Deputy Director of Development Tom Ramiccio Craig Pinder, Planner II Dr. Ben Lowe Michael Wilson Absent: Bernard Wright Rhonda Sexton 1. Call to Order Chair Ready called the meeting to Order at 6:36 p.m. 2. Agenda Approval Chair Ready requested hearing Item 6 before Old Business. Motion Mr. Ramiccio so moved. Mr. Wilson seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 3. Approval of Minutes — April 11, 2022 Motion Mr. Ramiccio moved to approve the minutes as presented. Dr. Lowe seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 4. Communications and Announcements (next meeting — discuss selection of priority potential historic sites) Mike Rumpf, Board Liaison, stated that the amendments to the Historic Resource Preservation Ordinance and zoning regulations are halfway through the process. He mentioned that the First Reading was approved at the last City Commission meeting and Second Reading will occur on June 7t". He said that he will promote subsequent amendments pertaining to accessory dwelling units and they also had a workshop about affordable housing. Meeting Minutes Historic Resource Preservation Board Boynton Beach, Florida May 23, 2022 6. Local Designation of 330 NW 1st Avenue — Request for designation of 33 NW 1St Avenue, and the addition of this 1924, Mission Style, one-story single-family house to the City's Local Registry of Historic Sites. Applicant: Edward J. Bradley, property owner. (Heard out of Order) Mr. Rumpf advised that the applicant, Mr. Brady, was present and this would be the first designation, and likely approval, in several years, given the status of the house and the outcome of the consultants review of the designation criteria. He said that the prior owner was Susan J. Mize and the property is known as the Susan J. Mize House, according to the Florida State Site File form recorded in the past. He stated that it is an owner-initiated application, and staff worked diligently with Mr. Bradley on the application. He noted that if any of the members have driven by, they had a site sign on the premises and they hope to recycle the sign for other property notifications. He indicated that there were no significant changes to the exterior and said that the property was built circa 1924, but the Property Appraiser's site says 1920 and that the property is among the earliest homes built during the Boom-Time era, It has retained much of its integrity. Edward Bradley, the homeowner, commended the Board on preserving the heritage in the area and thought that the character in the community is wonderful, which is why he fell in love with the home and bought it. He explained that currently it looks the same as in 1994, but it is painted a different color and it has one, two-feet by two-feet closet and one bathroom which is bigger than the closet. They want to construct an addition, while preserving the character of the house and they met with the architect and the front of the home will not be changed. He said that they will build a one-story addition in the back, slightly separated, that will be compatible. He pointed out that he had drawings of the addition the Board viewed and hoped they could work with the City to preserve it with the additional bathroom and closets. Mr. Ramicco thanked Mr. Bradley for preserving the home and said that the addition will be the exact same height and elevation, and the parapet wall will remain. He noted that one would be able to distinguish the original home from the addition and that they also planned to add a swimming pool, and that the home has Pecky Cypress ceilings. Mr. Rumpf had mentioned the Ad Valorem Tax Credit program to Mr. Bradley. He stated that the concessions and new amendments to the Ordinance will help Mr. Bradley, because it is a small lot and they would need a variance on the minimum lot coverage. Mr. Ramiccio questioned if they could get a special exception or variance on the minimum lot coverage. Mr. Rumpf responded that the property came along well timed as the amendments would help. He explained that they would make exception for historic properties to have different lot standards, instead of promoting variances, it would not go through site plan review, but would go through the Certificate of Appropriateness process. Motion Mr. Ramiccio moved approval of Item 6A which. Mr. Wilson seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 2 Meeting Minutes Historic Resource Preservation Board Boynton Beach, Florida May 23, 2022 5. Old Business: Historic Preservation Programming and the local Ordinance—The Board will be guided in a discussion on identifying and establishing a list of "priority historic sites" in conjunction with the pending related amendments to the Land Development Regulations offered the opportunity to continue any discussions regarding desired preservation activities and programming, necessary resources and scheduling. Mr. Rumpf advised that he will keep this item on the agenda as they continue brainstorming, so that as the list and amendments are developed, they can tweak them and adjust as needed. He said that the catalyst that started the process was demolition and that applications undergo a thorough review and the process only applies to designated properties. He discussed the possibility of having a set of priority sites and he noted that Work Plan Priority 4, having to do with program education, dealt with the Board coming up with a top 10 list. He commented there are over 120 potential sites on the 1996 inventory list, and the regulations could be amended to reference the priority list or registry, so that if one of those properties were subject to demolition, they can halt the process, which is written in the Code now. He proposed optional titles and stated that those provisions are in the draft regulations. He also included about 35 sites eligible for designation, which were provided by the consultant. Mr. Ramiccio explained that when he joined the Board, he was concerned about the process they had to designate demolitions. He said that currently the process is that the property has to be designated to be protected and there are many more homes that would be in the process. He suggested that since the list would not be static and would be reviewed every few years, that they look at all the homes currently in the categories of being constructed in the 30's and 40's and designating them all for the purposes of having a demolition review. He mentioned that this designation would not necessarily be for homes with a historic designation. It would be for demolition review only. He thought a cursory review, even at a staff level, would be awesome and that by looking at the age and style of the existing property, they can say whether the home could be protected. He hoped this item would be approved at this meeting, and suggested taking all of the properties in the Registry and designating them for demolition review, only in that age category or other categories, as they may be able to proceed to obtaining a Certificate of Appropriateness. Mr. Rumpf noted that there are two lists. One list is of the 96 inventory, and the shorter list is from when the consultant saw those properties as eligible for designation. Chair Ready asked if there would it be a lot of paperwork to do what Mr. Ramiccio proposed. Mr. Rumpf indicated that the City would just bundle them, but there was nothing preventing them from making a recommendation, through staff to the City Commission, to lower the bar, thereby making more homes eligible. He said that there are no penalties for being on the list, as it only pertained to educating those property owners and he thought education was important because there are a lot of homeowners that do not know they could get hurricane impact windows or put in a pool or add an addition. He 3 Meeting Minutes Historic Resource Preservation Board Boynton Beach, Florida May 23, 2022 commented there is a way to finesse the program, so people would want to come in, buy a historic home, and make the alterations they want. He indicated some of these neighborhoods could be improved through the Paint-Up, Fix-Up Paving and Landscaping program, and they could go block by block and neighborhood by neighborhood. Chair Ready thought two lists may be needed, and that the homes on the list are in good repair, but that would be quite a task because they are starting with older properties. She thought it would be beneficial for the Board to have its own endangered list of homes that are in disrepair. She said that they could conduct a search and if the home is in the Code Enforcement process, they could remove them and see what assistance they can offer. Dr. Lowe asked if any of the subject properties have been purchased by developers as they think about demolition and redevelopment. Mr. Rumpf responded that they have not, but staff needs direction from this Board. Dr. Lowe thought they should prioritize homes based on the possibility of imminent demolition, and there should be some type of assessment for that. Mr. Rumpf conveyed that there is no perfect real time information. that they could look at the current information of the properties being sold in the City and see the commonality of owners. Chair Ready explained that when the changes were made, one big change was following Boynton Beach Boulevard east from 95. Some houses on one side of the street are part of a potential historic district, and some areas on both sides of the street were rezoned for redevelopment and all of the little historic homes are endangered. He mentioned that it was a recommendation to the CRA for mixed-use zoning extending to the full block for redevelopment. Mr. Ramiccio thought that there may be a change on the City Commission and they may be open to protecting homes built in a certain year and some properties may not be included so as to not cause a conflict going forward. He stated that he was aware there was a huge amount of interest within a two-mile radius of City Hall and that something is going to happen. He suggested that if the Board wants to preserve some of the neighborhood, there should be more effort other than taking a picture of the homes and putting them in a file. He noted that he was worried about the next wave of redevelopment. Mr. Ramiccio reported that other cities have protections, but Boynton does not. Dr. Lowe pointed out that all these transactions are being bought up for commercial development. Mr. Ramiccio stated that some buyers would be individual investors, but usually this predicates assemblage and right now, all of the land banking would be under the current Code. He said that he wants to catch the demolition part before the homes disappear. Dr. Lowe noted that homes built in the 60s, by his home, are being demolished, redeveloped and there is a surge to build closer to the ocean. He thought that there would be a shortage of homes from the 60s and 70s and the Board needs to look at the different home designs. Chair Ready expressed that the Ordinance does not stop anyone, but it slows them down or talks them out of demolition. Mr. Ramicco suggested that the Board should find out what they really want to do with Historic Preservation and focus on that and if there is no support, there is no support Mr. Rumpf advised that regardless of how many homes, they will use the same language and intent of the Ordinance and the way it is written right now, it would not matter which list they would use as a base. He stated the Board would need rules and he understood that if they are going to halt a demolition, 4 Meeting Minutes Historic Resource Preservation Board Boynton Beach, Florida May 23, 2022 require them to take certain steps, and if they are going to use the same standards as if the home was designated, it would be pretty intense. He commented that it would require permit documents and drawings of what would be constructed in its place and the list would be approved by the City Commission via Ordinance, which is what Mr. Bradley's property would go through and the Board will need to determine what steps the next group of priority homes will need for designation. He said that if using the same requirement, it may be something the Commission will approve through the process, or maybe not. He noted that maybe it is a temporary halting of it, or a subset of review requirements and that is why they say a local designation is more preserving of a property than a national designation. He noted that if applying the Secretary of the Interior's requirements for modifying historic structures, then they do, but the State's process does not apply to this degree, to prevent something from being demolished or reviewing a Certificate of Appropriateness. He said that it is just local and those get approved via Ordinance by the City Commission. He inquired what would they mandate on the priority list they are going to create and if it is those same steps, Mr. Rumpf will have to think through what the process would be to officially designate that priority list. Mr. Ramiccio said that he saw those as steps for designation and thought it would be too cumbersome for staff and the City Commission to review. He thought that there was a request for demolition within a certain age and characteristic they identified, they would just take a look at them and if it warrants a closer look, then staff could require a second step to provide a report. Mr. Rumpf explained that the Ordinance has a quick relief valve and there is no reason go through this process if not really warranted. Mr. Ramiccio commented that some cities have a number of demolitions and if a developer acquires the entire street, it would be good for the Board to know what it will be replaced with. Mr. Rumpf explained that would only occur with designated properties. Dr. Lowe asked if there was something the Board could do to slow down demolition based on Mr. Ramiccio's idea and learned there was, but it will take longer. He said that the Board can shorten the list of homes by focusing on certain dates. He asked if Delray Beach created a city-wide district and if they always had this process. Mr. Rumpf did not know the answer and he mentioned Delray Beach is not protecting their own homes. He thought they could go with what staff drafted. He commented if they have 127 sites, staff will determine which homes were demolished and review each one to see if they generally meet the criteria and if it was 40 sites, it would be done faster. He stated that it would be a separate process to go on the Local Register and this only creates a priority list, but the first step is to see what homes on the list are still in existence. He noted that Priority 4 involves soliciting the property owners, and educating them as to the process and the benefits and the list is composed of properties eligible for local designation. He said that if the property is 50 years old or older, the property will be eligible for designation or review and that list was compiled by the consultant in 1996. Brief discussion followed about Leisureville and he mentioned that most Homeowners' Associations have design review boards and the Leisureville homes look the same way as when they were constructed. There was consensus to compile a list of properties eligible for designation. Dr. Lowe remarked that there is only one bungalow home in Boynton Beach on Federal Highway and it needs to be saved. 5 Meeting Minutes Historic Resource Preservation Board Boynton Beach, Florida May 23, 2022 Chair Ready indicated the woman who owns Audrey Gerger's historic home, Ms. Ridley, called her and said that she wants to demolish the garage and does not want to replace it. She said Ms. Ridley has been given an estimate, which she feels is too high, but the electricity for her property is accessed through the garage and that she will need an electrician to move the electric from the back of the garage to the back of the house. Mr. Rumpf explained what Chair Ready stated sounds similar, but he was unaware of electrical routing and he was not sure where that plays in. He mentioned that the garage is in a dilapidated condition, needs a lot of repairs and it is a very small home, as it tends to be the case with historic homes. She wants to expand the home in the back. Mr. Rumpf met with Ms. Ridley and her contractor about the expansion and at the end of the meeting he explained the regulations would greatly benefit her. He explained to her that her property is a non-conforming use as a duplex in a single-family zoning district and strict adherence to the Code would prohibit someone from exceeding a dollar threshold in investment or maintenance and would not allow it to be expanded. He commented that without the pending regulations, she cannot expand her property and at the end of meeting they may put the garage on hold and would look more seriously into expanding the home if the regulations were approved. Discussion followed regarding what the funds she spent inside the building had to do with the garage. Mr. Rumpf responded that they do not review interior improvements, but work was done without permits and she has to experience the consequences that while plumbing was being conducted, electrical issues surfaced. He said that Ms. Ridley was frustrated with the permitting process and that Historic designation was available, but she misunderstood the process or she would not be experiencing these issues. He advised that the garage was not a contributing element towards designation of the home. 6. New Business: Local Designation of 330 NW 1st Avenue — Request for designation of 330 NW 1 st Avenue, and the addition of this 1924, Mission Style, one-story single-family house to the City's Local Registry of Historic Sites. Applicant: Edward J. Bradley, property owner. This item was heard earlier in the meeting. 7. Other: Training Topic — Guidelines for compatible expansions of historic buildings — Historically-designated properties can be improved and expanded to meet common and special needs of the owners, consistent with standards and guidelines that ensure that the contributing elements are aa. Can do quite a bit of modern appliances. Mr. Rumpf thought that this was a timely item and that the review process of a historically modified building was an interesting topic. He stated an excerpt was in the meeting backup and was contained in the Historic Preservation Program Design 6 Meeting Minutes Historic Resource Preservation Board Boynton Beach, Florida May 23, 2022 guidelines. He explained that it has the criteria to modify historic structures, define replacement materials for windows, doors, roofs and siding. He mentioned that one topic is expanding structures, which is important because in promoting the program, the impression often perceived, is that if they designate the property, the property owner's use of the building would be controlled, perhaps to an undesirable level and staff sought to eliminate some of the myths. He indicated that this is a top expert review and graphic examples can show how large institutional historically designated buildings were significantly expanded. He said that the Secretary of the Interior standards allow it to be compatible, but not identical and that when people view the structure, they can discern the old and the new. He elaborated that if it is not visible, or is behind a gate or behind the property, that criteria is not as significant and regulations allow for homes to be modernized with appliances or solar or dish amenities. He explained that Mr. Bradley's addition and swimming pool modifications will come before the Board and he will wait until designated before applying for the Certificate of Appropriateness, and the designation has to go before the City Commission. He noted that the Certificate of Appropriateness, unless it is appealed, stops with this Board. 8. Comments by members Chair Ready announced that the Historical Society was taking the summer off. He stated that their Award of Excellence was given to Georgen Charnes, Library Archivist and information about it was contained on the website. 9. Public comments relative to historic preservation None. 10. Announce date of next meeting — June 13, 2022 Dr. Lowe announced that he cannot make the June meeting. Mr. Rumpf stated that he will send an email to the members to see if there are any conflict, and if so, they can reschedule the meeting. It was noted Ms. Sexton was moved to a regular position. 11. Adjournment There being no further business before the Board, Chair Ready adjourned the meeting at 7:54 p.m. � �Aki, Catherine Cherry Minutes Specialist 7 NEW BUSINESS 6 . Certificate of Appropriateness : 330 NW 1St Avenue, DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PLANNING AND ZONING DIVISION STAFF ANALYSIS FOR NO. COA 22-001 REVIEWER: Michael Rumpf Deputy Director of Development Staff Liaison, Historic Resources Preservation Board DATE: July 7, 2022 SITE: 1924 Edwin Bradley House 330 NW 1St Street Boynton Heights Subdivision, 1924 Replat SUBJECT: Review of request for Certificate of Appropriateness for the 1,117 square-foot rear addition and upgrading existing windows with more energy efficient and impact windows. PROCESS This is the review of a Certificate of Appropriateness application pursuant to the City's Historic Preservation Program as adopted in the Land Development Regulations, Chapter 4, Article IX, Section 6. This process to review the addition to a historic site is administered by City staff with final review conducted by the Historic Resources Preservation Board as an action item . This request has been filed by the property owner, Mr. Edwin Bradley, with plans prepared by designer Duane Burrowes of AW Architects. HISTORIC SIGNIFICANCE The Edwin Bradley HouseJ, f was added to the City's Historic Registry on June 21 2022 by Ordinance No. 22- 014 The following description Y , of its historic significance is an excerpt from the Final ° r� Report for the historic designation review dated ; April 24, 2022: h "The property at 330 NW 1St Avenue is amongst the earliest homes built in the ' City during the Boom Time 1 Era. It is a significant example of the Mission style which retains many character- defining features of the style and much of its integrity. The property significantly contributes to the historic fabric of the City of Boynton Beach and is eligible for individual designation and inclusion on the Boynton Beach Register of Historic Places." The original architect and builder are unknown. REVIEW STANDARDS AND ANALYSIS Preservation objectives and review standards have been established taking into consideration the need for properties to adapt over time to meet the changing needs of owners, to address maintenance requirements of the aging structure, and to meet applicable building codes. The review process for additions is intended to accommodate those needs and projects that cannot be avoided by using the existing structure. The guiding principles for the design and review of additions to historic sites are summarized in an excerpt from the City's Historic District Design Guidelines, 2013, which reads as follows: The historic character of a property shall be retained and preserved. The removal of historic materials or alteration of features and spaces that characterize a property shall be avoided. Each property shall be recognized as a physical record of its time, place, and use. Changes that create a false sense of historical development, such as adding conjectural features or architectural elements from other buildings, shall not be undertaken. New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction shall not destroy historic materials that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment. New additions and adjacent or related new construction shall be undertaken in such a manner that if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired. Guidelines applicable to additions to historic sites were adopted within the Land Development Regulations, Chapter 4, Article IX, Section 6.C.2.b. The guidelines used to review this request are as follows: Section 6.C.2.b (1) Locate an addition to the rear or least visible sides of historic structures. Locating an addition on the front elevation should be avoided. 2 Applicant's response: "Addition is located to the rear of the existing historic structure and is only plainly visible from a side approach to the structure." Staff finds that the proposed addition meets this standard without exception. The proposed addition is proposed entirely within the rear yard, and no alterations are planned for the front facade. (2) Minimize the loss of historic materials from the historic structure and protect character-defining features. Applicant's Response: "The residence remains intact with no loss of historic materials or characteristics at the front/sides of the structure." Staff finds that the proposed addition meets this standard without exception given that there will be no alterations to character-defining features on the existing house, either on the exterior or within the house. Existing windows are to be replaced with modern more energy-efficient materials; however, the existing windows are not original, and the existing window openings will remain unaltered. (3) Design the addition to be compatible in terms of massing, size, scale, relationship of solids to voids, and architectural features. An addition should be subordinate to the historic building. Applicant's Response: "The addition will be compatible/comparable and proportionate to the existing structure in massing, size, scale, etc. The addition will not be easily visible from direct approach at the front of the property. (sidewalk/street) The roof parapet proposed for the addition is designed in a curvilinear style to incorporate a character-defining feature of the Mission style as well as for compatibility with the existing house. The height of the parapet on the rear of the proposed addition is higher than the existing structure. However, the new roof line is designed to taper downward to meet the height of the raised corners of the existing parapet to maximize building mass compatibility. The rear of the proposed parapet would mimic the curvilinear parapet style of the existing garage, except that the raised corners are at the rear of the addition in contrast with the raised front corners of the garage. See criterion No. 6 for additional review of the proposed parapet. As for "solids to voids", wall penetrations are generally comparable between the existing and addition, except for the east elevation of the addition which has a slightly larger void relative to the that same elevation on the existing structure. However, this area of the facade will have limited visibility from the street and no visibility from abutting properties given its distance from the street and proximity to the existing garage. (4) Differentiate the addition from the historic structure. Applicant's Response: `The addition and historic structure slightly differ in height. There is a recessed entry along the East wall which delineates the historic structure from the addition. The roof and ceiling heights differ as well. The addition 3 is well under the maximum height stated in the Residential Building and Site Regulations (Chapter 1, Article III, Section 5.B.)" Staff finds that the proposed design consists of a positive combination of compatible and contrasting elements involving, massing, window type and framing, the style and pitch of the parapet, and how the plane of the east (and most visible side) elevation is separated from the existing east elevation with an approximately 9-foot recessed entry. (5) If permitted, rooftop additions should generally be limited to one story in height, should be set back from the wall plane and should be as inconspicuous as possible. Applicant's Response: "Acknowledged" This standard is not applicable to the subject project. (6) Continue the design elements on all elevations of the new construction, not only those elevations that can be viewed from the street. Applicant's Response: "Acknowledged. (Design elements such as stucco, banding, rooftop features)." Staff finds that the request meets this standard through continuing the curvilinear parapet and ultimate consistent window design, including materials and styles, using a combination of grille design and picture windows, and use of both trim and trim-less window framing. Although most windows on the addition will be without window framing/trim, frameless design, except for a sill, is a character-defining feature of this Mission style. The parapet of the proposed structure mimics the curvilinear design of the existing house and garage. (7) Design and construct the addition so that, if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic structure will be unimpaired. Applicant's Response: "Acknowledged. Structurally separated from the Existing historic structure by rear exterior wall." As indicated in the Applicant's response, the proposed addition is constructed separately from the existing improvement, therefore resulting in minimal impact upon the existing historic house. (8) Limit the size and number of openings between the old and new building by utilizing existing doors or by enlarging existing windows. Applicant's Response: 'Acknowledged. There are (3) new exterior doors and 6 windows added to the addition." The spacing and number of openings proposed in the addition appears in scale with the existing structure. 4 In addition to the above 9 guidelines in the Land Development Regulations, is an additional applicable standard not codified in the LDR but recommended in the Design Guidelines. This additional review standard reads as follows. • Slightly offset the wall plane of the addition from the wall plane of the original structure to identify the footprint of the original structure. The addition will be seen as a continuous extension of the existing wall on the west elevation; however, representing the "offset" as described in the above review standard, is the design of the east elevation which is separated by approximately 4 feet from the existing structure, to create an entrance that is recessed approximately 9 feet. This proposed design would provide a deviation in the "wall plane" to help differentiate new from the old, and "identify the footprint of the original structure." Walls & Fencing and other Accessory Structures The Historic Preservation Ordinance allows for the administrative (staff only) review for the addition or alteration of a perimeter wall on the historic designated site; however, the Certificate of Appropriateness process is used to conduct such reviews when the wall is proposed forward of the front facade. The LDR does not provide review criteria for walls and fences; however, the Design Guidelines simply recommend that new walls "...should respect the traditional materials, design, and scale found in the historic districts and should be consistent with those found in the block or adjacent buildings." The Design Guidelines also indicate that "Masonry walls finished with stucco are appropriate for Mediterranean Revival or Mission style buildings". The proposed plans do not label the material of the "new guard wall". Consistent with the Design Guidelines, staff recommends that the block wall be finished with a stucco surface to match the exterior of the house, and painted white or a compatible color with the ultimate scheme for the existing house and expansion. Since the City's Zoning Regulations limit the height of such residential walls located within the front of the property to 4 feet, the wall would not be out of scale with the historic house. Staff also notes that the wide (gated) opening for the driveway and gated pedestrian entrance to the front door should prevent the wall from blocking all views to the lower portions of the historic structure. With respect to the future swimming pool, technically, the City's preservation process does not require the formal review of such accessory site improvements; however, the Design Guidelines document does recommend that new swimming pools be placed in the rear of a historic site, and that screening of the pool equipment utilize natural materials, or "materials appropriate to the style of architecture." The site drawing shows the future swimming pool to be placed in the rear yard where it would not be visible from the front of the property. Staff also notes that given the placement of the pool in the rear yard, and with views to ultimately be blocked by the garage and perimeter wall, staff is confident that the pool and its mechanical equipment would be sited in compliance with the referenced recommendations from the Design Guidelines. 5 Zoning and Lot Standards To remove possible impediments to preserving historic sites, the City's Land Development Regulations were amended on June 7, 2022 (Ordinance 22-013). The subject amendments apply only to designated sites, and in part, removed certain lot and development standards, increased maximum lot coverage, and vested existing non- conforming setbacks and uses of historic sites. The subject improvements are designed to comply with the setbacks of the existing historic structure, and are therefore compliant with the local Zoning Regulations. Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the request for Certificate of Appropriateness as justified by the responses to the review standards/guidelines listed herein, subject to the following comment: • The "new guard wall" should be finished with a stucco surface to match the exterior of the house, and painted white or a compatible color with the ultimate color scheme for the existing house and expansion Attachments 6 CITY F ® N T N BEACH City Applications and Codes Accessed Via Website PLANNING &ZONING DIVISION 100 East Ocean Avenue w,r arr�icgz.Y_c rcrro ra�ar�-lacacl lR,ea. Yw. Boynton Beach, PL 33435 Phone; (561) 742-5260 CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS APPLICATION I. GENERAL INFORMATION: This application must be filled out completely, accurately, and submitted as an original to the Planning and Zoning Division;. an incomplete application will not be processed. Print legibly (in ink) or type all information.. The Certificate of Appropriateness application process is described in Chapter 2„ Article 11, Section 6.A and Chapter 4, Article IX, Section 6.0 of the Land Development Regulations, Application Directions 1. Consult the COA Approval Matrix on page 2 to determine if your proposal requires the submission of a GOA application fours. If your proposal is not listed on the matrix, please contact the Historic Preservation Planner for guidance. 2. If the submission of a GOA application form is required, consult the table on page 3 for detains on the application fee and the submittal requirements. 3. Submit the following to Planning &Zoning Division: • One original and one copy of a completed application form. ® Two copies of all supporting documentation and photographs, ® One pdf copy of the application and supporting documentation. • One electronic copy of the application and supporting documentation. ® The applicable fee as adopted by the City Commission (please make checks payable to the City of Boynton Beach) If applying for new construction, an addition to an existing structure, demolition, or relocation„ applicants must attend a pre-application conference with the Historic Preservation. Planner. It is strongly recommended that all applicants attend a pre-application conference. Please call (561) 742- 6757 to schedule an appointment or ask any questions associated with the application. The Historic Resources Preservation Board (NRPB) meets on the second Monday of each month in the City Commission Chambers at City Hall. Applications requiring Board review must be submitted at least 4 weeks prior to the Board meeting. The Board may approve the application, deny the application, approve the application with direction, or suspend the application if further information or specialist technical advice is required. Applications requiring Staff Review will be reviewed within a days of submittal unless further information is required, Applications are reviewed for appropriateness with regard to Chapter 2, Article 1'I, Section 6.A and Chapter 4, Article IX, Section 6.0 of the Land Development Regulations, the City of Boynton Beach Historic District Design Guidelines, and the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation (page 9). Applicants should consult these documents for guidance while planning any alteration or repair projects. 1 COQ# APPROVAL MATRIX CONTRIBUTING NON-CONTRIBUTING ACTION NO STAFF BOARD NO STAFF BOARD REVIEW REVIEW ADDMONS 1. Visible from the street and 10%or less of the existing building square footage 2 2 2. Not visibie from the street and 20%or less ofthe eAsting building square footage 2 2 3. All other additions 3 3 CANVAS AWNINGS 1. On main fagade and facades As blefrom street 2 2 2. Al otherfacades 1 1 CARPORTS(Addition or enclos ure) 3 3 DECKS,PATIOS,PERGOLAS 1, With a structure 2 2 2. L ithoutastrurture 1 x DEMOLITIONS 1. 10 or less ofanon-historicaddition 2 2, All other 3 3 DOCKS(with orwithouta structure) x X DOORSIGARAGE DOORS 1 Same materials,style&size f i 2. Change in materials or style 2 2 3. Change in openings on the main facade 3 2 4; Change in openings on a secondaryfacade 2 2 DRIVEWAYS&SIDEWALKS 1 1 EXTERIOR WALL FINISH 1, Remowlofnot historic+nnyifaluminumsiding 2 2 2. All other finishes(including painting of an originally unpainted surface) 3 3 INTERIORS(Ad Valorem Tax Exemption Applications ONLY) 3 X LANDSCAPING I x x MECHANICAL SYSTEMS causing an effect 2 2 NEW CONSTRUCTION 3 2 PAINTING X X POOLS X % PORCHES 1. Open an enclosed parch 21 2 2. Enclose a porch on the main facade 3 3 3. Enclose a parch on a secondaryMon-visiblefacade 2 1. RELOCATION 3 3 REPAIR. 1. Same m aatarla i. 2. Change in material 2 2 ROOF 1. Same material&shape 1 1 2. Change in imaterial 2 2 3. Change in shape 3 3 SHEDS 1 1 SHUTTERS 1, Remomble Shutters 1, 1 2. Permanent Shutters Asible from street 2 2 3. Permanent Shutters not wsiblefrom street 2 1 SITZ;WALL&FENCES 1. Walls!fences behind front facade 1 1 2. Walls/fences in front of frontfagade or on a comer 2 2 WINDOWS 1. Same materials,style&size 1 1 2. Change in materials orstyle 2 2 3. Change in openings on the main facade 3 2 4. Change in openings on a secondary/non-Asible facade 2 2 1—Review of Flu ildIng permit application by Planning atafi, 2—Review of Certificate of Appropriateness application and determination by Planning staff. 3—Review of Certificate of A pp ro p riate no as application and d...ate rmination by Board. 2 , r;,v, ,ri�r/� it%ri/ir r, /r// err %err ri r i ,. • '. 'i /�r%r / %Y Required14 ��lSA May be required.Ca1s�3k umtFstaff, I /l-rA' p ri✓ r,. ' %✓i /�jiji r �i /% Jr /L Further , urkher int"ormatirnn may also he.requested. r/' rJ ii%r l/ c r/,/r° r/ ,/r i / /. /ir/ ri6 /i r �� r ri r ,, ,,,,.r,,. /, ,,,,,,,,,. „/, ,,,;, m,,,,O.;�R. il7®$'�' �✓;e, �„ra,,,,//�,,, ,,/,,, �irr;:r,,,,,Gi�,✓ i/,,,�i/ ���3�'���lJi,: ,l%l %i:'” / r/��!��;%f,lr��r,��ri�, f `�r Gr�� ,r"lk•7pk"S;tFJN9', rill, r ;%�is3hke,"fnt�r>T9Cf��t 7�➢?5ky�f�e3m�pf�ati'sJ[rn�.A�g�ILdd�S�`,,,�dk�r&YQ,rJ;�a��,,%li! �c'r$ ,,�'r,' ,5.d�q�/,, ;,.'�'i„�i r r .Z,;;;h7akuFita6efroer'csttt+eek'f7'.�Pries�gfe5ds;dng, osnNdirag;;: l�P;eupdg ✓/ter, i5ta ,., .,,X%,,,, /i dditarfir�;,,i rii %i,r;�,irL%�✓c�".rrir !/,,:T/%� rRF;Brfi%" '4 f// �/ r 1/0 / '%r 52&t3t13/, „3rd, ✓re, /�7C �7G„ J�., ,F <,�7C, 'x ?� .,1•,,^;Cdn[,za�yn;+Ftre' d�;aisq�f�r�actles;�c7siChfs�Ynrgr;{�tii'�fstr�set,�.;;�r %//„r, ��r/�ij r„5'ta(f, X3"5„(7ip�, ?€�'' � rr yr � CAFtPt 5,s !, ! f„ ,r .�.Y.,.%�S�Y '�"ai�� .FA�+t3:.a .,, ,,: % r W ' .oil rr r .,, „rc/o,,, �HE�„ �t7..17�1✓, 7!C// %�r/i� ,r, fw/r; ,,�r : ' ' Staff „ 77,77777777 i 'k„'.'$f14o uY lads of nern kT.estaria ed�ttign r Staff/ Pr�mtnry 5kruckure r ',, ,, ,'d�RP�B� $SS, 'C1(b X, /X a r rj /+� 3 P cress axy,�twa ours 's %- '2;', k+enge1n,,aperian,�e'�pn,theier;s �r3ik,`cpP'h4rd�'iin¢g`%sgi-uu[tu�r3, %r rr ;!,,,,,, R'k'�✓�yl! '[SCP�o4'< ,X/;i!i,yY�,r,�,.r,iA(/s/,{f ,✓/r. � 3, - range ifa�LV�7erB6[tl,,S"©T117F0�dY12lYfY!PSG3�W',''(�YHO&B-S=mnkYafYu#1!P'f�,SR7�:W fr'",'j „m.+ ' c, ai ;.C1U„c ,,.'i., ,o, �i ,�F' t:Faan�aPnsaruork's on a o1�d 'facade , Staff ” ,<,X,r 7, amokal''ofnun-his3o�C�wutylff�isor�ursi stdicY ,„ `, ;.,,"; „o5ta'ff -'535 dtY 7C ,X; 2.=AJI rathfev'CrnisPoes,{�ciugStirg�paiepdfr'g o�;ariY,rifiq�rnaWy;unpslnqr'J"'surtac.ep „;l�lk•31'S!,';�$"sT9,C7CM,;;;;--JC„ ,�]�C``. ,R�„ '6�,` o,�; I4TER10018 T, Ii,HE�ii�4:d+AICAL'S'+f`STEVVSS a. ;Cauing an='efft,, ,`SxaFf; 435 t14�„>iXI 'NRW',C NOTRLC70N,, i. FCe�ed�ratiel 'F9I�F�6/; -;7X,r x x 2' ? , ` �14aB Ra sa•,fR�3: ,, ,,, ',,;' a91b 4 0 ?.i$SSU d36 JI t;,X;, "JC;;, X„ ',7C„ f Yp;'X�., c .,r,'x”%` -X 7i "',�` ,*4' 3-, c �,,HRPB;%;'{,S-[36CIAr f.1C �a arnmereasl(a57��RC74i ;74,9.9'8sq fk�1„ 3C, I Y." CYar+,al7vrtiCl�nsed'jaavrdh, ,„ ,, te, 'i„�;;SG „ F;S'�.5,p�1r .'4r� r➢4 2„rf?na1cr@e,,9:py�aPicEh,arr'2tsgraeiri.acsid r, ,;.. , ,,,,� -w- WOO= ,r!,`fHYk? �✓;; 5f�,k9'�/ /,�7G, ,: ,., % „d,Q''f /.,�' ,.r-r r EmiGIoS WO t+eft, 's�iid Liarylnprr'rns�ls, rlsde;,�'tivi�+brEelrhrx�;�tva�ck++�,d, `rfSt�fF;,,', ', d, ;j Rt=PA'9Et / FYC7F r.,, , Ch€eng®,ip 8B r � a ti an �kP�I,STT•,£R'S�r5Z�7�F�;I�R', CTIf.7A�''. ,,,,< '�' ;�„” '.. 9; ;Perun�xrae�esYar:,�sreafe�'tiry�wesi6�e�in�,skr�Y, ,/�,,,,r_ rr r,Stat� '%'�;�S�U� ��,X ,,➢,L�.� ,X, ,St;, r `�;,; 2-;Prmaceenti,nstatYat a fe4C,nsiaYe krc�r araektrkldititvlOn�sC 'cti�i7.,, StefY,, ,,;; �Ad7„ ,; „,,7k,fi' j ]G✓ r 7Nal�a{Ps res frF�m�nts$sfYggrn�8ttle ar brd corner r„2,„ /,,/i,</,,,, Staff -.-a"S34F�C#�,"iii„ .J(,a',,3E,, cZii %11fI1JESi7YhF5; T, a%a^ `eraucs sc'rvee P", r ' � 9 k 9 n1alS .,i4 �, } 9c �'; /f,% °$A ,e4Y6 ri.dr�4,,,,!i a�r,.lGr '1Q ,✓„ „riiii/f r r ri,., r f a W, r 3'',4�rflacJlyd�tnsger7iteg .esu`%'ottae fnarry;f, arde'�('d�an';cahai�kr�pµ'E4ai cWra r/� 3,,,a✓, r.�, a�F.r,v S.pO,% ,.,L,,.rSr.; %fir, 7 ' ,d ;Ch'e «e,`i' nr sa�n,a seca`tla li�bii=vistb,9�„ d�°�;�r / �StP, r; /f✓' > r '� ,z,• .. �1 kY, ”' „„ / /r /yJ1"'/ !r, 3 PROPERTY INFORMATION 1. Property Name: 2. Property Address: � " 3. Parcel Control Dumber(PCN)*: V CTY RNG TiJIWP SEC SUB BLIt LOT List all PCN's on an attached addendum for applications comprised of multiple acts. 4. Legal Description*: ! 6 -14 C aS Pf 4n C ~-- provide can attached addendum if more space is needed. 5. Existing Land Use Classification (from Future Land Use Map): 6. Existing Zoning District (from Official Zoning Map): 4h 7. Property Type: Residential t4 Commercial E Public Building L1 Archaeological Site l] Other(describe): 8. Existing Use: e 1`11 U- 9.Number 9.Number of structures on the site: l - 10.Current Designation: Is the site or structure individually listed on the National Register? Yes 0 No Is the site or structure individually listed on the Local Register? Yes R No El Is the site or structure located in a Local or National Historic District? Yes El No q If the site or structure is in a district, is it a contributing site or structure"? Yes El. No EK 4 PROPOSED WORK (Check applicable items) IX Addition. El Canvas awnings. On main fagade and facades visible from the street. El Carport. Addition or enclosure. D Deck, patio, pergola. With a structure. 11 Demolition. 171 Doors/garage doors. Change in material or style, change in openings on a fagade. El Exterior wall finish. 7 Interior . Contributing structure Ad Valorem Tax Exemption Applications ONLY, El Mechanical systems. Causing an effect. El New construction. [71 Porch. Open an enclosed porch or enclose a porch. El Relocation. 0 Repair. Changes in material. F-1 Roof. Change in material or shape. El Shutters & storm protection. Permanent installation. Site walls and fences. In front of front fagade or on a corner. Windows. Change in mpterial or style, change in o enings. t4p&ZAD S7 -f7.C- STEL &x-E.'7-4j,6- t &)5 El Other. Please explain. 5 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED WORK If any demolition is involved, please also complete the demolition Section below. (Attach a separate sheet if necessary). d Gtr 0 brnvo ELLA L ,, -- - DEMOLITION Explain the reason for the demolition request. (Attach a separate sheet if necessary) 6 APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER INFORMATION A. APPLICANT: 1. Name: LL 2. Address: 3-1 " 14' City: l 0 �O State: zip Code: Phone: x Email: I Y 3. Interest in Property (check one)*: Owner LX, Agent ❑, Contract 'Purchaser Il. "lnclude a copy of the last recorded Warranty Deed with all applications. a. Include written cors-sent of all property owners of record if subject property is under joint or multiple ownership. b, if an authorized agent, include a copy of the Agent Agreement or written consent by the seller(s)and owner(s). B. PROPERTY OWNER INFORMATION- 1. Name of Property Owner (Trustee): 2. Owner Address: 3 (`J l City: State: L- Zip Code: C. AGENT INFORIVIATION'p: 1. Name: *All correspondence will be mailed to the agent unless there is no agent of record, in which case, all correspondence will be mailed to the applicant. This party will receive agendas„letters,and other material. Company Name.- 2. Address: City: State: Zip Code: Phone: Email: D. AUTHORIZATION OF AGENT: Signature of authorized agent. Date Signature of Owners) or Trustee, of authorized Gate principal if property is owned by a corporation or other business entity. OR r Signature of contract purchaser(if applicant). Date 7 E. CERTIFICATION: (1) (We) understand that this application and all papers and plans mm submitted herewith become part of the permanent records of the Planning and Zoning Division. (1) (We) hereby certify that the above statements or showings in any papers or plans submitted herewith are true to the best of (my) (our) knowledge and belief. This application will not be accepted unless si according to the instructions below. i Sgnaturt�r e —Owner(s or Trustee, of Date authorized principal if property is owned by a corporation or other business entity. OR Signature of contract purchaser(if applicant). Date A representative must be present at all Historic Resources Preservation Board (HRPB) meetings held to review this application. CITY TECHNICAL SUPPORT AT PUBLIC MEETINGS: I. Applicants who wish to utilize City electronic media equipment for presentations at Historic Resource Preservation Board Public Hearings must notify the Planning and Zoning Department representative at least one (1) week prior to the scheduled meeting-, 2. The notification is to include the scope of support to be provided, including the corresponding agenda item, type of media, materials and equipment needed, along with contact information for the applicant; 3. The department representative will notify the I.T.S. Department at least two (2) working days pL[2r to the meeting to schedule technical support if required; 4. A copy of the items to be presented must be delivered to the I.T.S. Department no later than 6:00 P.m. an the working g2y_precedlnq the meeting. At the conclusion of the meeting, these items will be returned to the department representative who originated the request; 5. In the event that media or materials are defective, I.T.S Department. will notify department representative by noon of the day of the meeting. 6. At least thirty minutes prior to the meeting, non-City individuals will meet with the I.T.S. Department representative to finalize procedures. 8 The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation 1. A property shall be used for its historic purpose or be placed in a new use that requires minimal change to the defining characteristics of the building and its site and environment. , 2. The historic character of a property shall be retained and preserved. The removal of historic materials or alteration of features and spaces that characterize a property shall be avoided. 3. Each property shall be recognized as a physical record of its time, place, and use. Changes that create a false sense of historical development, such as adding conjectural features or architectural elements from other buildings, shall not be undertaken. 4. Most properties change over time; those changes that have acquired historic significance in their own right shall be retained and preserved. 5. Distinctive features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a property shall be preserved. 6. Deteriorated historic features shall be repaired rather than replaced, Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature shall match the old in design, color, texture, and other visual qualities and, where possible, materials. Replacement of missing features shall be substantiated by documentary, physical, or pictorial evidence. 7. Chemical or physical treatments, such as sandblasting, that cause damage to historic materials shall not be used. The surface cleaning of structures, if appropriate, shall be undertaken using the gentlest means possible. 8. Significant archaeological resources affected by a project shall be protected and preserved. If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures shall be undertaken, 9. New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction shall not destroy historic materials that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment. 10. New additions and adjacent or related new construction shall be undertaken in such a manner that if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired. SAP1anning\SharedNWP\SpeG Proj4Histofl6Apphcation Forms\COA Application.cl Cr- 9 f y { Y I I I" T -l� ii y 1J bn_. L�J;i I . Y a I_ � � I ! ren p u.7T t �I BRADLEY RESIDENCE RENOVATION m 331)NW IST AVV- a z 9 at BOYNTONR$ACV T IM39 ¢ c�+woa�..aw, rc.�s.cn�a�,..�„a.,..�x�.,�,.A�ca�srr,.uMe.r�==�acrruc�n.cry:.r�rn++mw.�;�mnnacv.ivrx.�=u�w+rncu-rvFn.mr torr,�rssr.Eaem�wnrrn�e.�n�.�.rcxA..rwztiru._r�.�urca�,��m.,.o��W..�, .s-��am .vm�« . \ }) &mom&o&IX�N mwIX �e \ / : E ® El - El � - $ � : _\ El o � o 4o \ On \ - \ � � a _ ) 0 a o \ IQ - LU oa � L - p � \ / } LU / \ } J / :§ : ƒ - \ \\\ < \ \ \\\ 0 < , ::, "L3`HJV3fi NO,LDLIOfi r� U g HAV IST ANX0££ m o a NOI VAONIX ADNEMISIX AaIQVxs o o _ o _ o - � - U' NO :ko =e ss o a N =� L h ooF Ips 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7.r w w � F Y� z H ( 1 F i II'ILllullll w> F x wy FD w; w Ll y� xkn �ro o -z s- d� zzgh O R W o O 0o yK �-w ZO J o Om o� ww m w x. 50 o a m w a &� m 4 4 a z > J� a o� S£b££"L3`HJV3fi NO,LDLIOfi r� g HAV,LSI tANX 0££ m o y -IN " mo - OW NOI VAONIX ADNEQISIX A'J IQV'dS o o x O ms's :a H O g.k � 000 0 £££ O 6o.z zmH_ O� W �H F a wg LL e 5 0 0 w< H� o0p w� oom Z —_—_—_—_—_ W o pN o Of< N 5 g Z S � LL Q o LL 5� W a ww a z o Wo 3do,s 'i v a& w oloo o �� op N`' Up o„ r�:Np �owo o pm � 000w �wy��� 9 moo` �kp&w� ookp m2o�� - Q W- p4 F O< OH V 9 0 U e S£b££'I3`HJV3fi NO,LDLIOfi HAV,LSI ANN 0££ o O O �� NOUVAONAX ADNEQISAX A'JZQV'dg W w o Y � I Z w rc � o o S o H z z z z z z x z z o z z J 0000000000000 Q wy 0 EA z I o� =e �w oN O--O E� � I a O it O D D � O O D i �� I V 9 0 U e S£b££'I3`HJV3fi NO,LDLIOfi �z g HAV,LSI ANN 0££ m o O O F NOIIVAONIX ADNEQIS A'JIQFSo o o W W W F o W o Y W W Z I 0 _ F H 3 Q - - � _ S 3 W o _ H . . . z . . z . o z z zzz zz z z 0000000000000 Wq I p I Wo W =e oa ❑ I I F I Ly ® I rte+ S£b££'IH`HOVHfi NOINA09 m r� g 'HAV,LSI tANX 0££ m o NOI VAONAX AONEQISAX All(MdS o o p mN W� W� W� Qz (D Qz �w �w �w 0-u 0-u 0-u mm mm mm Ij jj m N e 1 S �' `� ��llltiliiioiiuiuououououiouuuuu /�//,/ Current Photographs OR u !i J ~�1 �rr � � I ti hN rr �W �6f1 r� 7 / 1 arra , Fr i � y�"� / nm j( r �XfXf ;;,✓a ���r�/�� � � �J� ,, r y, 1/��"///l/r y l' a ani{����`,� �r �". (1�br� i r �.,, rr l pp , i a/ ,ti �V � itil�plg SIS,I� ii�� i ri➢J�i �I�.�rX � �IVu i� � 'N I N,rF� u r�u r