[{"_1":2,"_99":-5,"_100":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6251659,"mediaKeyId","3193807-cc02abe0a41ad3212c5217debac85977","parentId",3193807,"title","Historic-preservation board reviews draft TDR ordinance changes; staff to refine draft after stakeholder meeting","audioSeconds",1388,"startMs",4152000,"endMs",5540000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3193807-cc02abe0a41ad3212c5217debac85977&start=4152&end=5540","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3193807-cc02abe0a41ad3212c5217debac85977/thumbnail_4152000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6251659/Fort-Lauderdale/Broward-County/Florida/Historic-preservation-board-reviews-draft-TDR-ordinance-changes-staff-to-refine-draft-after-stakeholder-meeting","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6251659-8be93d657a1f06940c634119448e7172/orig.mp4?Expires=1771175990&Signature=LeFP~Usa-y4rx1YK5LFIo4N2aY3zDZ-FBHi19WhbVwPQJlkEvhJwCfItbj9Yr~sWMI-dswx5M5jRjc69hf0z7q60hcfQGXrOyn5KANBSQAZW5~4ETjx3vtXcizqXs7ml3bTol9vOrBUK5PtpTN3x~Y~f8IMs4~h37LmZwb9wJiHPHXuc5ZLg~3PS7RlYQOiRb4guri4Wp779SDdCRzEhOkJrQyVA4MXmqc1NI6cukj8auhdBGlEDRLCGPPzITLuMp48K8-mbRF8FFLiqtdoHUxwKKJTxQq4902kn4k5UwxMiBsPBb7i0T0q-9LIeCUbstKNFYs50NXs2iN8IkxqVlw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","City of Fort Lauderdale, FL","date","2025-05-06T03:56:54.527Z","article","The Historic Preservation Board reviewed proposed amendments to the city’s transfer-of-development-rights (TDR) ordinance, provided feedback on multiple technical points and asked staff to refine the draft with stakeholder input before the board considers a formal recommendation.

Staff described four main proposal areas: (1) narrowing receiving areas by zoning district rather than the broad Unified Flexibility area; (2) extending the certificate-of-eligibility expiration from 18 months to 24 months; (3) adding a formula to calculate transferable residential units for sending sites (a formula using parcel area, FAR and an average unit size was shown and staff said the average unit size in the draft was 725 square feet); and (4) allowing a receiving site to retransfer TDRs after an initial transfer.

Staff emphasized the changes are intended to clarify how to calculate transfer amounts where sending sites and receiving sites currently have different zoning standards, and to add options such as floor-area transfers that increase tower floor plates in specified Regional Activity Centers. Staff also described mapping changes to show receiving areas (for example Uptown Urban Village and Federal Highway corridor areas) and said the certificate of eligibility would remain a required step before a recorded certificate of transfer.

Comments from board members and public commenters focused on several concerns: whether the calculation method treats all sending sites fairly given widely different land values and development potential across neighborhoods, whether certificates should expire at all (several speakers asked that certificates be revisited only at the time of a recorded transfer rather than expire automatically), how unit pools assigned by Broward County are drawn down by transfers, and whether the measure sufficiently helps small sending-site owners who cannot assemble multiple lots. One public commenter with experience using the program urged staff and the board to incorporate mechanisms such as a TDR bank or lot-merger tools to help small owners market rights.

Dwayne Spencer, city attorney, attended and summarized legal limits: impact fees and regulatory fees must relate to the service or nexus asserted; tax-increment-like tools in Florida are administered through Community Redevelopment Agencies (CRAs) and similar statutes; and any change needs to remain consistent with Broward County’s comprehensive-plan allocations of units. Staff noted Broward County policy constrains the county pool of transferable units; if the county pool is exhausted the city cannot unilaterally create additional county units.

Staff and several board members said they have a stakeholder meeting scheduled with applicants’ representatives and attorneys next week and that staff will return with an updated draft next month. No formal vote on the ordinance changes was taken at the meeting.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Historic Preservation Board Meeting on May 5, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","The Historic Preservation Board reviewed a draft of proposed amendments to the city’s TDR ordinance and provided technical feedback; staff will meet with applicants and attorneys and return with a revised draft.","taxTitle","Fort Lauderdale, Broward County, Florida","taxId",4849,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6251664,"Historic Sailboat Bend vision plan praised; board asks city to explore concrete funding paths",3417,793000,4210000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3193807-cc02abe0a41ad3212c5217debac85977&start=793&end=4210","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3193807-cc02abe0a41ad3212c5217debac85977/thumbnail_793000.jpg","/articles/6251664/Fort-Lauderdale/Broward-County/Florida/Historic-Sailboat-Bend-vision-plan-praised-board-asks-city-to-explore-concrete-funding-paths","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6251664-be180bf79900cf7eba636e36e1a641bd/orig.mp4?Expires=1771175990&Signature=dcv-5OSznel-k3daS6NdeAEp3At0dfZsxGz-4ffP5iDhTCQC4remHfbF2IxmmK8nFV3Ap44YQ4Ts16vth4PEkBajsX1Qj~SBcd1QN-59cDrJ94xrOGv0qYwD~KGkQei5BK9-y5NmdeE1jWWrEnwDE950qZrpnqlL-IZIsa-bX28hFog1nN7~8PAfs-V--1q9AUdotauWym7OBm9lRW768Li5yRlxOps6PXa5jtMQTzqAR8jzk8hABkVS9uqF5ugyYxtMZpEX3wLWtXhJZgcz1HoZ3z0VnljaryG6GvPQwo4Z2WJcHu1tZp5w3UkBl0UC54NUPLXksDaO4TIIbztjrg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Historic Preservation Board heard a presentation on a draft vision plan for the Sailboat Bend Historic District and voted to ask the City Commission to explore concrete funding mechanisms to implement plan priorities.

Board and staff members described the plan as a community-driven document that prioritizes adaptation to sea level rise, streetscape improvements, preservation of neighborhood character and enhanced parks, and asked the city to identify funding approaches that would channel resources back to Sailboat Bend.

The plan, prepared for the Sailboat Bend Civic Association and city staff, summarizes community engagement last fall including an October open house attended by more than 60 people and a follow-up online survey with more than 20 respondents. Staff said consultants and a civic-association master-plan subcommittee produced five themes: sea-level rise adaptation, streetscape design, community identity, planning/design guidelines and parks/recreation. The report lays out next steps including public-works stormwater projects (Sailboat Bend is in tranche 2), design-guideline work for elevating historic properties, a green-infrastructure diagram, and streetscape/intersection projects that staff said are partly funded or awaiting grant timing.

Residents and board members pressed staff for clarity on who would pay for construction and neighborhood improvements. One resident asked whether elevating structures would be a public-works expense or owner responsibility; staff said stormwater and some elevations are being planned and budgeted through Public Works, but improvements will be addressed neighborhood by neighborhood. Staff said a prior ULI feasibility study of street-raising for the city exists and that street-raising remains a longer-term, site-specific effort.

Discussion at the meeting focused on implementation and funding. Board members and residents suggested options including directing a share of permit fees, tax-increment financing-like mechanisms, a TDR-linked revenue allocation, a local “TDR bank,” or other developer-related mechanisms to return money to the neighborhood. Staff said the plan’s budget request had been modest; one attendee noted an initial request of $100,000 for plan work and some conversation that the request had been increased (participants said the requested amount changed but the final figure was not specified at the meeting). Board members recommended prioritizing smaller, fundable projects to generate early momentum (for example sidewalks or tactical urbanism), and suggested the civic association and staff pursue pilot projects.

The board made a motion asking that, as the plan moves to the City Commission conference presentation, the commission be asked to examine concrete funding avenues and to work with the neighborhood association and a funding professional to prioritize and sequence deliverables. The motion passed by voice vote.

Staff said the plan will be shared with the board once finalized and that a conference presentation to the City Commission was planned for June. Staff also said some streetscape and stormwater condition-assessment work is already in the city’s capital-improvement process and that certain intersection upgrades are tied to a county surtax (the “penny tax”) grant, though those projects will take multiple years to reach construction.

Board members and residents agreed the plan gives a useful framework but stressed implementation must address funding and coordination across departments and outside entities. Staff recommended that the board record its comments and forward them to the City Commission as the plan is finalized so the commission has the board’s priorities and funding requests on the record.

The board’s communication request does not itself allocate funds; staff said formal budget allocations would require commission action and separate processes.","The Historic Preservation Board heard a presentation on a draft vision plan for the Sailboat Bend Historic District and voted to ask the City Commission to explore concrete funding mechanisms to implement plan priorities.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6251655,"Historic preservation board approves slate-gray metal roof for 420 NE 15th Ave accessory structure",1049,7001000,8050000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3193807-cc02abe0a41ad3212c5217debac85977&start=7001&end=8050","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3193807-cc02abe0a41ad3212c5217debac85977/thumbnail_7001000.jpg","/articles/6251655/Fort-Lauderdale/Broward-County/Florida/Historic-preservation-board-approves-slate-gray-metal-roof-for-420-NE-15th-Ave-accessory-structure","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6251655-7df7213f4b2eda3679adcb4dcb36d428/orig.mp4?Expires=1771175990&Signature=nQvtmMeJkBZElVmh9PIVvc5ujExJD8-6Q06XhozAdLHabBuX1x7ZJpOjgOKERC~bElLPmiQYyVef77JNDJ313ZU26avbve1~0~jAzTd7HxezQ9MKi0LfU5GjyBzJbWL3Nnm1YSUibjbJuWmw6D7Hqih3HqVZ60AV1yBH9mVlO1mhqy5Re6ZfiqkVY6mlOsq~pp7UZW7L0hDu0YVRfxkqMK2NbUzqeVesreLznjnXf0FqpjatqhTx3XbRaV9y~rHCaLoYr6eoPuCJAhZIncuZUpKmqgX41YHC280Dtp3N-8Yho7J2InKI0GQ0wvX9Qd1sRKOf5XJBJGeZb8qIVyTpVg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Historic Preservation Board approved a certificate of appropriateness allowing the replacement of the existing roof on the accessory structure at 420 Northeast 15th Avenue with a slate-gray metal roof, after hearing staff analysis and testimony from the property owner.

Staff presented the application and recommended denial of the metal roof on the grounds that the accessory structure was part of a designated landmarked site (the main house and accessory structure were designated in 2005), that the historic record listed composition/asphalt shingles as the roof covering for the designated property, and that the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards recommend repair rather than replacement of deteriorated historic materials when feasible. Staff cited ULDR criteria (sections referenced in the staff report) and recommended an asphalt shingle replacement to match the existing material and preserve the architectural relationship on the landmarked site.

The applicant, who identified himself as Nicholas and said he had purchased the accessory property to be near a local school, explained he could not obtain property insurance without evidence that the roof would be repaired within a short period; he said contractor estimates recommended a metal roof for safety and longevity. He also said the existing roof was roughly 20 years old and that insurance companies were reluctant to insure older roofs.

Board members discussed past approvals of metal roofs for residential properties and weighed material authenticity against longevity, safety and the homeowner’s ability to insure the property. Several members said they have approved metal roofs in other residential cases because metal can provide greater longevity and storm performance; others noted that the accessory structure sits on the same landmarked site as the main house and that changes should be compatible with the designated resource. One board member suggested coordinating with the owner of the main-house parcel if that owner later re-roofs.

After discussion, a board member moved to approve the certificate of appropriateness based on testimony heard at the meeting and subject to required zoning and permit conditions; another board member seconded. The board voted by voice to approve the certificate of appropriateness.

The staff file notes: property originally built in 1941 as an accessory/garage apartment; the larger site was designated a local historic landmark in 2005 (resolution number cited in staff report). The accessory structure has had past demolition and hardship petitions (applications for demolition and hardship relief were denied by the board and City Commission in 2018–19, according to the staff presentation). The approved replacement material must comply with Florida Building Code requirements for high‑velocity hurricane zones and with any permit and safety conditions required by building officials.","The Historic Preservation Board approved a certificate of appropriateness to replace the accessory structure roof at 420 Northeast 15th Avenue with a slate‑gray metal roof after hearing staff recommendation and owner testimony about insurance and safety concerns.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Historic-preservation board reviews draft TDR ordinance changes; staff to refine draft after stakeholder meeting

Historic Sailboat Bend vision plan praised; board asks city to explore concrete funding paths

Historic preservation board approves slate-gray metal roof for 420 NE 15th Ave accessory structure