Historic Preservation Board approves Pershing Way rebuild, denies two proposals, advances shotgun-house code change

The City of West Palm Beach Historic Preservation Board on Jan. 28 approved demolition of an existing house at 24‑93 (Pershing Way) and granted approval for new construction on the lot with multiple conditions, denied separate new‑construction proposals at 3308 Washington Road and a variance request for 300 Marlborough Road, approved renovations and a Class B special‑use permit for 21100 Lake Avenue, and recommended a narrowly tailored code change to allow subdivision of certain shotgun‑house parcels in the Northwest neighborhood.

Why it matters: The board’s decisions advance one major rebuild while rejecting two proposals the board and staff concluded were incompatible with their immediate historic contexts. The board also forwarded a code change designed to enable fee‑simple ownership of small historic shotgun houses on specific lots — a policy outcome the Community Redevelopment Agency is pursuing to increase affordable homeownership while preserving historic fabric.

Pershing Way (Case 24‑93 / 24‑93230) Rafael Rodriguez, the project architect, told the board the revised Pershing Way design reduced floor area and site coverage from the earlier submission and retained existing curb cuts and driveway locations. After public comment from a nearby neighbor who said the project still “burdens the neighbors with the scale of the project,” the board moved to approve two separate motions: one to allow demolition of the existing building and a second to permit the proposed new construction subject to detailed conditions.

Staff presentation and board action: Anna Maria Aponte, Assistant Development Services Director, told the board staff recommended approval of the demolition conditional on approval of the new construction; staff also recommended approval of the new construction subject to Secretary of the Interior Standards and additional site‑specific conditions. The board approved the demolition motion and then approved the new construction with conditions including: limiting the enclosed area on the west elevation to meet the outdoor covered space FAR discount; specified window muntin patterns; product approvals for clay barrel tile, garage and front doors; allowing a standing‑seam metal porch roof that must be compatible in color (no crimped metal); elimination of a front‑yard parallel parking space; reduction of parapet height “as much as possible”; and shifting the accessory (guest) structure 1 foot farther from the east property line to provide a 6‑foot setback. The motions passed and the board recorded the approvals as conditioned.

3308 Washington Road (Case 24‑983308) LCA Architecture representative Ashley Malaford presented an updated proposal for a two‑story Mediterranean/mission‑informed house and accessory structure previously approved for demolition years earlier. Staff opposed the design, saying it did not follow the prevailing materials, proportions, and massing of surrounding buildings in the Southland Prospect Park Historic District and that a full‑length porte‑cochere with a second‑floor mass above it created an inappropriate bulk and wall facing neighbors.

Outcome: After extended discussion the board voted to deny the application for new construction, adopting staff’s finding that the proposal failed to meet the Secretary of the Interior Standards for Rehabilitation (Standards 9 and 10) and the additional criteria in Section 94‑49 of the city zoning regulations.

300 Marlborough Road (Case 24‑106) Architect Anthony Harrington requested a variance to move a one‑story guest house into the corner lot setback (encroaching 10 feet into the required setback). Planner Anne Volsey (staff) summarized that staff did not find the applicant met the variance standards in Section 94‑38(d)(6) and recommended denial. Board members expressed concern that allowing the encroachment would create a visually anomalous condition along Olive Avenue (which functions as the front for the property to the south) and risk setting a precedent for corner‑lot development.

Outcome: The board voted to deny the variance request.

21100 Lake Avenue (Case 24‑107 and Class B permit 24‑107A) Architect Anthony Harrington presented a two‑part request for alterations and additions to a contributing mid‑century house and a Class B special use (to allow a pool in a yard that reads as a front yard on the corner lot). Staff recommended approval with conditions to preserve evidence of the prior carport, require certain window types and framing, and set landscaping and screening conditions for the pool area.

Outcome: The board approved the Certificate of Appropriateness for the alterations and additions with multiple staff conditions (for example: maintain visible carport posts, replace sliding living‑room doors with French doors or full‑height glass panels, require specified casement windows facing the street, and use wood or appropriate board material on the gable face) and then separately granted the Class B special‑use permit for the pool subject to conditions including that the lesser of 1,000 sq ft or 75% of the front yard be landscaped and that screening and pool‑equipment setbacks be maintained.

Other cases and procedural actions - 808 Claremore Drive (Case 24‑108): the board continued the application to the February 25, 2025 meeting so the applicant can revise the proposal to respond to staff comments about the placement and massing of a second‑story addition and other detailing. The board specifically asked for alternatives that would better respond to the contributing nature of the house and to staff’s recommended conditions. - 409 27th Street (Case 24‑113): the board approved an infill/enclosure of a carport with conditions that the new infill wall be recessed to preserve the appearance of the original carport, that certain windows be replaced like‑for‑like (fixed or casement), that the living room sliding door be replaced with French door(s), and that at least 2 feet of driveway adjacent to the infill be removed and replaced with landscaping. - 37100 South Olive Avenue (Case 24‑116): the board denied a new construction application for a two‑story house on a corner lot after staff concluded the proposal did not meet required FAR and lot‑coverage limits and contained design features inconsistent with the district. Board members advised the applicant to work with an architect to revise the designs. - Several other small new‑construction cases (lots 7 and 8 and 409 45th Street, among others) were continued to the February 25 meeting for redesign or additional documentation.

Code revision (Case 25‑01): shotgun‑house subdivision language recommended The board voted to recommend approval of a narrowly written zoning text amendment (Case 25‑01) requested by the City CRA and the project team. The change amends Section 94‑85 (special exceptions) and related definitions to permit, in limited circumstances, subdivision of a single parcel that contains multiple contributing primary shotgun houses so each structure can be sold as a fee‑simple home. Staff recommended two clarifying edits before final adoption: (1) explicitly limit the amendment to shotgun‑house typology within the Northwest Historic District and (2) add a concise definition of “shotgun house” to the zoning code (a narrow rectangular single‑family building typically no wider than 18 feet, gable‑front porch, rooms arranged linearly). The board approved the recommendation with those conditions. The change is intended to allow the CRA’s redevelopment partner to preserve and rehabilitate small historic dwellings while enabling individual homeownership.

What the board emphasized Board and staff conversations repeatedly returned to three themes: (1) the Secretary of the Interior Standards and the city’s additional compatibility criteria remain the controlling tests for new construction and alterations in historic districts; (2) massing, roof form and material, proportion of solids/voids (windows and doors), and the relationship of accessory structures to neighbors are determinative factors; and (3) applicants that seek more substantial departures are expected to bring alternatives and more complete documentation (product approvals, material samples, landscape plans) for staff review before returning to the board.

Notable public comments Neighbor Kevin Lahat spoke against the Pershing Way design’s scale and the proximity of a two‑story guest house to his yard, saying the project “burdens the neighbors with the scale of the project.” Several board members echoed concerns about visual impact and urged applicants to explore alternatives that reduce perceived massing, move parking away from front facades, or relocate garages to secondary streets when possible.

Next steps Several continued cases will return to the board on Feb. 25, 2025. Code revision Case 25‑01 will proceed to the planning board and city commission with the Historic Preservation Board’s recommendation. Applicants granted approvals must return to staff for product approvals or to meet the detailed conditions the board attached to several motions.

A record of formal motions at the Jan. 28 meeting follows in the “Votes at a glance” box below.