03.02.95A G E N D A
HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD
Meeting March 2, 1995
City Hall
City Commission Conference Room
300 N. Park Avenue
Sanford, Florida
4:30 P.M.
I. Call to Order and Roll Call
II. Excused /Unexcused Absences
III. Welcome New Member
IV. Approval of Minutes
February 2, 1995
V. Application for Certificate of Appropriateness
COMMERCIAL
a) 115 East First Street - Metal Storage Facility
(Previously Tabled)
b) 110 South Palmetto Avenue - Windows
(Previously Tabled)
RESIDENTIAL
a) 1104 South Magnolia Avenue - Re- locate fence,
Open Front of House, Driveway
(Previously Tabled Driveway)
b) 1019 Magnolia Avenue - Driveway
(Previously Tabled)
VI. Discussion Regarding a Historic Guideline Handout
VII. Discussion Regarding a Future Historic Preservation
Officer
VIII. Turn in Changes to Old Sanford Historic Area
Regulations
IX. Turn in Changes to Historic Downtown Walking Tour
Brochure
X. Other Business
a) Code Enforcement - All members are encouraged
to turn in potential code violations in
writing to Penny Turner at the close of the
meeting.
ADVICE TO THE PUBLIC: If a person decides to appeal a decision
made with respect to any matter considered at the above meeting or
hearing, he may need a verbatim record of the proceedings,
including the testimony and evidence, which record is not provided
by the City of Sanford, (FS 286.0105)
Persons with disabilities needing assistance to participate in any
of these proceedings should contact the Personnel Office ADA
Coordinator at 330 -5626 48 hours in advance of the meeting.
M I N U T E S
HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD MEETING
March 2, 1995
4:30 P.M.
City Commission Conference Room
City Hall, Sanford, Florida
Members Present:
Kevin Stubbs, Chairman
Margaret Frison
Jerry Mills
Don Moore
Michael Skat
Laura Sollien
Laura Straehla
Members Absent:
Cal Conklin
Chris Cranias
Helen Stairs
011ie Williams
, Others in Attendance:
Russ Gibson, City Liaison
Penny Turner, Secretary
The meeting was called to order by the Chairman, Kevin Stubbs, at
4:40 P.M.
The Board recognized the absences of Cal Conklin, 011ie Williams,
and Helen Stairs as excused.
The Board welcomed Don Moore, as a new member. Mr. Moore was
appointed by the City Commission to replace Monte Olinger's
unexpired term ending October 28, 1997.
Discussion was held regarding the February 2, 1995, Minutes. Mr.
Mills requested that the minutes clarify that he volunteered to
visit the site at 110 South Palmetto. Avenue to determine if the
existing wood windows could be repaired. - .At the February meeting
Mr. Mills provided Mr. Douglas King, with Charmatt, Inc., his
business card and requested that he contact him to schedule an
appointment to visit the site. Mr. Mills did not receive a call to
schedule that appointment.
Jerry Mills moved to approve the Minutes of February 2, 1995 with
the above mentioned clarification. Seconded by Laura Straehla and
carried by unanimous vote.
Mr. Gibson gave an update on the FINA Station's appeal to the City
Commission. The City Commission upheld the Board's denial for the
Application for Certificate of Appropriateness to erect a chain
link fence at 217' Park Avenue. During that meeting the City
Commission indicated that various Boards need to scrutinize their
Minutes to make sure they reflect an accurate account of the
Board's action. If an applicant presents to the Board information
HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD - Minutes - -- - -- - -- -- - Page 2
March 2, 1995
that is not part of the application, the applicant must be
requested to submit the additional information to the Board for the
record. Mr. Moore stated that he had attended the meeting and he
felt the problem was a slight discrepancy regarding the verbiage
"strongly discouraged" and "prohibit ". _The Design Guidelines for
new construction states that chain link fences are .strongly
discouraged rather than prohibited. Mr. Moore suggested that when
an application is denied or approved the minutes need to reflect
this based on the codes, facts and findings as presented. Mr:.
Gibson informed the Board that the issue regarding the removal of
the chain link fence has been turned over to the Code Enforcement
Department. The Code Enforcement Department has given the
applicant 10 business days to bring the violation into compliance.
The Board asked for an update regarding the signage issue at 217
South Park Avenue. Mr. Gibson explained that the Application for
Certificate of Appropriateness for signage at 217 South Park Avenue
was tabled at the January 5, 1995 meeting. The representatives for
the FINA Station had indicated to staff that it was first priority
to address the chain link fence issue. The signage violation will
need to be forwarded to the Code Enforcement Department. Mr.
Gibson apprised the Board of other regulations which had been
violated. The business was operating without a Certificate of
Occupancy and /or Occupational License.
Billy Painter was present and resubmitted an Application for
Certificate of Appropriateness to erect a metal storage facility in
the rear of the building at 115 East First Street. This
application was tabled at the February 2, 1995 meeting with the
request that the applicant attend the next meeting and submit
photographs of the proposed structure. Mr. Painter informed the
Board he had other plans but the Board informed him he will be
required to submit additional Applications for Certificate of
Appropriateness for any exterior changes to the building.
Discussion was held regarding the location of the metal structure.
It sits in an alcove. It was expressed that this type of element
is very utilitarian and not common in the historic district.
Kevin Stubbs moved to approve the Application for Certificate of
Appropriateness based on his feelings that it is not detrimental to
the district due to its location. Seconded by Don Moore and motion
was carried as follows:
Kevin Stubbs Aye Michael Skat Aye
Margaret Frison Aye Laura Sollien Aye
Jerry Mills Nay Laura Straehla Aye
Don Moore Aye
HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD - Minutes Page 3
March 2, 1995
Mr. Mills explained his reason for denial was based on visuals
alone. He stated that even as unobtrusive as it is, the structure
is not appropriate for the Downtown Commercial Historic District.
An addition to the building would be more, in keeping with the
district. Mr. Mills offered his assistance to Mr. Painter if he
was interested in doing an addition in the rear of the building.
Mr. Lenford Wallace, and Mr. Charles H. Charmatt, supplier
and installer, were present and resubmitted an Application for
Certificate of Appropriateness to replace wood windows with
aluminum windows at 110 South Palmetto. This application was
tabled at the February 2, 1995 meeting. It was requested that the
applicant provide proper photographs and documentation of non -
repair of existing windows. Mr. Mills had volunteered at the
February meeting to visit the site to determine if the windows
could be repaired, but was not contacted to schedule a meeting
time.
Mr. Charmett explained that he had spoken with Mr. Wallace and they
have determined that to replace the existing wood windows with wood
windows is cost prohibited. He further explained that Mr. Wallace
is unable to utilize that part of the building because he loses
most of his air conditioning. Mr. Mills asked that the photographs
of the existing windows and proposed windows be submitted for the
record. Mr. Charmett stated that they were not available. Mr.
Stubbs stated that he had looked at the windows from ground level
and could not see any visible damage that indicates they are beyond
repair. The applicant was informed that there has not been
adequate proof submitted to this Board to prove the claim that the
original windows are destroyed beyond repair.
Discussion was held regarding the cost of repairing the existing
windows with wood. Mr. Charmett explained in comparison to an
aluminum window it would be about 40% more to -do in wood. He
stated his cost of the aluminum windows is $360 to $400 per window
and it would cost $500 per wood window. Mr. Mills disagreed that
the wood windows would cost that much. He stated that Mr. Wallace
may be able to save money by repairing the existing windows. He
again agreed to meet with Mr. Wallace and examine the windows and
frames.
Jerry Mills moved to table the Application for Certificate of
Appropriateness to replace the wood windows at 110 South Palmetto
Avenue, due to lack of the information received, which had been
requested at the February 2, .1995 meeting. Seconded by Laura
Straehla and under discussion, it was stated that if the windows
are in non- repair, Mr. Wallace should receive a price from an
aluminum and wood window manufacture. Motion was carried by
unanimous vote.
HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD - Minutes ____ Page 4
March 2, 1995
Darlene Johnson was present and resubmitted an Application for
Certificate of Appropriateness to relocated fence, open front of
house and driveway at 1104 South Magnolia Avenue. Ms. Johnson
submitted a revised plan. She is proposing to remove the fence
between the house and the garage, move the fence along the sidewalk
back 3', and remove the front part of the fence that surrounds the
porch. She is further proposing to place a gate between the house
and the garage to use as a driveway using alley access and to
replace the existing 6' chain link fence with a 4' feet chain link
fence. This plan will square off one side of the property to
allow space for her dogs..
The Board commended Ms. Johnson on her revised plan. It is a great
improvement comparatively from the Old Sanford Regulations. Access
from the rear alley is exactly what the codes are set up to
promote. The existing 6' chain link fence is not a material issue
at this time for the Board,, it was approved prior to the
regulations. The proposed rework is lessening the impact of a
nonhistoric material on the property. It was requested that the
fence be painted a historic green.
Laura Straehla moved to approve the Application for Certificate of
Appropriateness to relocated fence and open front of house at 1104
South Magnolia Avenue, as presented on the revised plan, with the
chain link fence to be painted historic green. Ms. Straehla stated
that the reason for approving the changes is because it is an
existing chain link fence that was approved prior to- the
administration of the Old Sanford Regulations. The Board is
approving the rework of the fence not the material. Seconded by
Michael Skat and carried by unanimous vote.
Mr. & Mrs. Alex Then were present and resubmitted an Application
for Certificate of Appropriateness to install a new driveway
approach off 1019 Magnolia Avenue. Mr. Then explained that there
is not the ability to bring two cars off the street from the alley,
they have tried as the Board suggested since the last meeting and
it has been difficult, there is a chance of collision. In
addition, they are attempting to get the cars close enough to an
entrance into the house for safety reasons and practicality sake.
Mr. Stubbs stated that Mr. Conklin had visited the site and he
stated in his report that there was insufficient room for a vehicle
access to the back of the lot North of the outbuilding. Mr.
Stubbs felt after reading Mr. Conklin's report that he was being
sensitive to the issue that is proposed but felt he did not address
the codes specifically the way they are written. The Old Sanford
Regulation as far as site planning and approach of vehicular
traffic does not promote curb cuts on primary streets. Mr. Stubbs
stated he drove by the property and feels that the property is a
good situation because they are right there by the alley: It seems
to Mr. Stubbs that as far as their existing driveway that two cars
could be pulled side by side, you would not get them both on the
concrete but you certainly have ample room for two cars side by
side in that location. Pulling one off to the left and the other
straight up.
HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD - Minutes - -. - -_ Page 5
March 2, 1995
Mr. Then stated the only way you could do that would be again to
review the concrete work of the existing driveway. We cannot put
two cars side by side without driving over curbs. Mrs. Then stated
that there was also a concern of the cars being on the other side
of our privacy fence, we cannot really see them and Mr. Then cannot
see me when I get home at night to get out and if we go to - the
grocery we have to get out, unload the car, go to the fence, go
through the fence, shut the fence and put everything up again and
then walk another 65' to the side of the house to the closest
entrance. The applicants only have the front door and the side
entrance to the home.
Mr. Stubbs suggested reworking their fence and put in a larger curb
cut on the secondary street you can get two cars in there. If you
rework the fence and put the gate where you would be getting out of
the door of your car directly adjacent to your gate into your rear
yard. Mr. Then stated there will still be a 6' to 8' obstacle from
the house to where we park our cars and also the fact that is so
far from the house.
Discussion was held regarding a curb cut on Magnolia Avenue. Mr.
Stubbs explained there is designated parking area on site that is
the only area on the property site that is allowed for parking it
is the rear of the property and access is from the alley per the
Old Sanford Regulations. Mr. Moore stated that there are curb cuts
all the way down that street in both directions. The previous
occupants had pretty deep routs where they are proposing to place
a driveway. It was explained that the curb cuts were done prior to
the Old Sanford Historic Regulations and the regulations are
structured to promote existing planning and character of
traditional planning of this neighborhood. Pre - existing conditions
we know exist that are in noncompliance with the codes throughout
the district. Ms. Straehla stated the Board is trying to
discourage people from adding more curb cuts and turning their curb
cuts. that were added back to non curb cuts. Front street curb cuts
are a product of contemporary planning. The alleys are there
because the town was originally planned for access to the rear of
the property.
Mr. Then stated he understands the necessity to try and maintain
the integrity of the Historic District but we are living in the
present day and this Board needs to consider what makes it usable
and practically for contemporary living as well. Mrs. Then
expressed her concern that if they did as the Board is requesting
it would eat up a large part of their back yard where there are
trees and it is shaded to make it a carport. Making it a less
attractive and less useful back yard space.
Mr. Stubbs apprised the applicants that there has only been one
curb cut approved since he has been on the Board and that was a
curb cut on a secondary street and that was because someone had
built a house on her original backyard. She was also willing to
close off her curb cut on a primary street.
HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD - Minutes_ ________ __.__ Page 6
March 2, 1995
Mr. Mills submitted a rough sketch as a solution it calls for
putting a driveway in the back yard but eventually there might be
a desire to make a connection between the back of the house and
your garage /shop area and that still leaves the entire side of your
yard open. You would have to move the fence to the front of the
area. The second idea represents even moving the fence. farther out
which incorporates a whole big side yard that is probably bigger in
square footage. Someday you may wish to have children then you
have a nice driveway for a child to play in and you have a play
grass area in the side yard. Mr. Then stated he certainly
appreciates Mr. Mills coming up with that solution but he is not
convinced that he wants to turn his entire back yard into a
driveway.
Mr. Mills stated that if we approved this curb cut it would set a
precedent and we could not enforce the codes relating to curb cuts.
Mr. Mills stated an alternative is for us to deny this application
and you appeal to the City Commission. You have what you feel are
good solid justification and perhaps the City Commission would
overrule this Boards decision and in that case we have gone by the
regulations.
Kevin Stubbs moved to deny the Application for Certificate of
Appropriateness based on reasons stated. Seconded by Jerry Mills
and motion was carried as follows:
Kevin Stubbs Aye Michael Skat Aye
Margaret Frison Aye Laura Sollien Aye
Jerry Mills Aye Laura Straehla Aye
Don Moore Nay
Mr. Stubbs informed Mr. & Mrs. Then to contact Mrs. Turner for the
process of the appeal. Mr. Gibson informed them that they would
need to write a letter to the City Commission and the City Clerk
stating the reasons for your appeal.
Discussion was held regarding preparation of a historic guideline
handout. Sample of Stuart's handout was provided to the Board for
review. It is a basic handout related to architectural regulations
that have been developed in Stuart. The Board concurred that it
will be a worth while effort to consider. This is another attempt
to make people that are moving into the area and people needing
building permits aware of the historic regulations. This will be
a product that briefly goes through and explains the process and
the finer points of the codes.
Jerry Mills moved to nominate Laura Straehla to set up a committee
to do a small brochure of information on the Residential Historic
District. Discussion will be held May 4, 1995. Motion was
seconded and carried by unanimous vote. -
HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD - Minutes Page 7
March 2, 1995
Discussion for a further Historic Preservation Officer was held.
There is a growing need for a Historic Preservation Officer at the
City. A Preservation Officer could promote education, obtain grant
monies, prepare submittal for awards, and to assist with the Minor
Review for Applications for Certificate of Appropriateness and Code
Enforcement. The Board discussed sharing a preservation officer .
with another local city. Mr. Stubbs stated he is willing to
contact Mr. Simmons to get his ideas on how he would suggest to
proceed with this issue. If Mr. Simmons recommends writing a
letter to the City Commission he will handle.
Members turned in potential code enforcement violations to Mrs.
Turner.
Members were requested to turn in proposed changes to the Old
Sanford Regulations.
Members were requested to turn in proposed changes to the Historic
Downtown Walking Tour Brochure.
Mr. Gibson informed the Board that Gary Winn, City's Building
Official, approached him with a complication that has arisen in the
historic area. The structure at 714 Oak Avenue is currently non-
conforming due to the set backs. The structure is build on the
property lines. The Old Sanford Regulations require 4' set back
from the property line. The contractor for this property is
proposing to rebuild the structure entirely using same materials,
size, colors, etc. To rebuild the structure entirely it must
comply with Design Guidelines for new construction. To circumvent
compiling with these guidelines, the City's Building and Planning
staff permitted the contractor to go forth building the structure
in two phases.
After discussion, the Board concurred that rebuilding the structure
requires approval of an Application for Certificate of
Appropriateness through this Board.
There being no further business before the Board, the meeting was
adjourned.
Respectfully, Penny L. Turner