Board continues controversial Marina District elevation and expansion plan for 46 Marine Way, directs revisions to front and upper floors

The Delray Beach Historic Preservation Board voted to continue action on a high‑profile proposal to raise and expand a contributing Mediterranean‑style house at 46 Marine Way, asking the applicants to return with revisions that reduce visual massing of the top level and address the appearance of the elevated front patio and front wall.

What the project proposed: The application, presented by agent Catherine Craig and architect Mariana Wood on behalf of owner Daniel Edwards, seeks to elevate the existing two‑story 1926 house to meet FEMA and Florida Building Code requirements, add under‑house parking, and construct a multi‑story addition tucked behind the existing façade. The design also included retaining the front patio above a new garage and adding rooftop/upper‑level living space said to be largely not visible from the waterfront but visible from adjacent properties.

Why the board continued the item: Board members and staff agreed the house requires substantial flood‑adaptation work but expressed multiple concerns about scale, massing, streetscape compatibility and the prominence of the new elevated front wall. Commissioners requested the applicant bring back visuals that lessen the apparent mass of the Third Floor (for example, a more transparent treatment, loggia/colonnade or other design that reduces bulk) and alter the front patio treatment so the front elevation is less fortress‑like from Marine Way. Several board members also asked the applicant to explore ways to make the garage/base condition less monolithic (more openings, flood vents or detailing) so it does not read as a blank wall at street level.

Applicant position and public comment: Owner Dan Edwards and agent Catherine Craig emphasized the project is intended to preserve the historic house and make it livable while meeting FEMA elevation mandates. The applicant noted the front patio is an existing historic feature, and argued elevating the house without retaining an active front element would create an unsafe drop from original doors; the team said they are prepared to reduce the front patio height and soften it with landscaping. Nearby residents raised concerns about drainage, increased runoff, driveway access and the project’s scale; the applicant and architect presented a drainage concept (swales and exfiltration trenches) and landscape mitigation, and said the driveway and parking will be redesigned to allow forward egress.

Board instruction and next steps: The board voted to continue the item and directed the applicant to return with revised drawings and renderings showing: (1) reduced visual massing of the top level or a design that renders the upper story visually lighter and subordinate to the historic form, (2) a lowered or softened front patio/wall treatment (examples could include reduced patio height, landscape planter, or a smaller porch footprint), and (3) adjustments that make the base/garage condition less visually monolithic (more openings, detailing or a lighter material palette). Staff said the applicant should submit revised plans to TAC/permitting and confirm whether the public‑notice requirements will need to be reissued for any new variances or changes.

Vote and procedural note: The motion to continue with direction carried unanimously (Ezra Craig, John Miller, Peter Dwyer, Chris Cabeza, Vlad Dumitrescu, Carol Perez and Jim Chard voting yes). The board did not set a date certain; staff advised the applicant to coordinate submission timing with TAC to allow full technical review and appropriate public notice before returning to the board.