Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Historic Preservation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Historic board denies after‑the‑fact artificial turf at Lauderdale Beach Hotel
Summary
The Fort Lauderdale Historic Preservation Board denied an after‑the‑fact Certificate of Appropriateness for about 2,000 sq ft of artificial turf at the historic Lauderdale Beach Hotel/Cafe Del Mar, finding the material disrupts the building's historic aesthetic and was installed without required approvals.
The Fort Lauderdale Historic Preservation Board voted to deny an after‑the‑fact Certificate of Appropriateness for artificial turf installed at Cafe Del Mar at the Lauderdale Beach Hotel, concluding that the turf introduces a non‑historic material that alters the historic building’s entrance and does not meet preservation criteria.
Staff told the board the artificial turf—covering roughly 2,000 square feet in the front outdoor seating area and adjacent entranceways—was installed without prior approval and visually changes the primary frontage of the landmarked Lauderdale Beach Hotel, which is subject to a private preservation easement held by the Broward Trust for Historic Preservation. The staff report found that most criteria in the applicable code sections (staff cited ULDR guidance and section 47‑24.11) were not met, though some criteria were partially met because the turf is removable and does not alter original materials.
Representatives of the Broward Trust told the board the turf is inconsistent with historic photographs and that neither the HOA nor the Trust were notified before installation. Broward Trust President Mikaela Tonka said homeowners living in the historic portion of the property complained and urged denial. The tenant’s representative, Vincenzo Padula, said the turf was installed to make a private covered seating area more inviting, that drains and a drain tile were installed under the turf, and that the turf is fully reversible and removable.
Board members debated competing considerations: some said the turf improved appearance and did not touch the building facade, while others stressed precedent, adherence to the historic code and the potential for a damaging after‑the‑fact approval. A motion to deny the after‑the‑fact COA (case referenced in remarks as UDPHP/UVP225021 or similar) was moved and seconded and carried on a board vote. The chair ordered that the denial be recorded and that staff follow up on enforcement and any next steps indicated in the staff report.
The board’s action preserves the façade easement and the code standard that significant changes to the exterior of designated properties require prior approval. The applicant was told they may remove the turf to comply with the board’s decision and that any future proposal should be submitted through the proper COA process.
