Historic Preservation Board approves stucco option for 250 Royal Court, conditions windows and vertical patterning

The Delray Beach Historic Preservation Board on Oct. 15 approved a certificate of appropriateness (HP-117-2025) and a Level 1 site plan for the noncontributing commercial building at 250 Royal Court, subject to conditions that the new stucco or alternative siding simulate the building’s existing vertical pattern and that windows match the dark-blue frames and muntin pattern the city previously approved.

The motion, made and seconded on the record, required that the stucco siding “simulate the vertical elements of the existing façade” and that the windows be “as previously administratively approved with the dark blue frames and mutton patterns that are existing,” and allowed alternate materials such as simulated stucco siding, vertical plank (hardy) board, or cementitious board to achieve that vertical pattern. The board voted in favor (see vote record). The application had drawn attention because white, single-pane aluminum windows without the approved muntins were already installed on the building before a final permit was issued.

Applicant Victor Cook, identifying himself as representing 250 Royal Court LLC, described the proposal as a durability and maintenance upgrade: “...we're looking to replace our decorative siding with stucco as well as update our existing windows with new windows with white frame and gray glass. These windows are impact resistant...” He said the current wood siding had begun to deteriorate and that stucco would be more weather resistant for Florida’s climate.

Michelle Hewitt, senior planner for the City of Delray Beach, presented staff findings and referenced the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation and the Delray Beach Historic Preservation Design Guidelines. Hewitt told the board the property, constructed in 1972 by architect Charles E. Toth with a 1977 addition, is currently classified as noncontributing but could be reclassified as contributing upon the city’s future resource survey. Hewitt warned that “an alteration to the exterior of this structure, namely changing the wood … to stucco, could have a negative impact upon its historic integrity,” and noted staff concerns about the change in window appearance and the loss of the vertical t-111 pattern.

Board discussion focused on preserving the building’s vertical rhythm. Several members said they would accept stucco only if it replicated the vertical T1-11 pattern (or an equivalent vertical pattern) rather than a flat, smooth finish. One board member noted the windows and dark-colored muntined frames were “a very prominent feature” and urged restoring that visual character; another suggested existing installed frames could be field-painted or electrostatically coated to dark blue to match the previously approved administrative COA.

Staff clarified the window permit was not finalized: an administrative COA had approved navy (dark-blue) frames and muntins for replacement windows, but the windows that went in were white-framed and without the approved muntins. Hewitt said the building permit process was paused when staff noted the installed color did not match the administrative approval.

On the motion that passed, the board set these conditions: 1) the new siding must reproduce the building’s vertical patterning (through simulated stucco, vertical plank/hardy board, cementitious board or similar); 2) windows must reflect the previously administratively approved appearance (dark-blue frames and muntin patterns consistent with the original design). The board also authorized staff to administer final color approval for neutral palettes and to require the applicant to return if a bold color was proposed.

The board’s decision does not retroactively resolve the status of the windows already installed without final permit issuance; staff indicated the permit remained in process and code/building enforcement options exist if work was done without a valid permit.

The board’s action appears intended to preserve key character-defining elements—vertical siding pattern and contrasting dark window frames—while allowing a materially durable exterior suitable for the local climate. The decision also included a clarification that the applicant could use one of several approved material types so long as the vertical character is replicated.

Votes at a glance: Motion to approve HP-117-2025 with conditions — Approved. Yes: Chris Cabezas; Benjamin Baffer; Carol Perez; John Miller. Absent: Vlad Dimitrescu; Richard Casor; Peter Dwyer.

What happens next: The approval requires the applicant to meet the board’s conditions during permitting and construction. Staff retains administrative review authority on neutral paint choices; bold or materially different proposals may be returned to the board for review.

(Reporters: Michelle Hewitt provided staff presentation and findings; applicant presentation and excerpts were taken from the public hearing transcript.)