Loading...
09.12.02Historic Preservation Board Revised Meeting Notice and Agenda Date: September 12, 2002 Location: Sanford City Hall City Commission Chambers 300 North Park Avenue, Sanford, Florida 32771 Time: Workshop 5:00 p.m. Regular Meeting 7:00 p.m. Workshop Workshop with Land Design Innovations to prepare amendments to Schedule S, Historic Preservation, of the Sanford Land Development Regulations Regular Meeting 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call - excused and unexcused absences 3. Approval of Minutes: Workshop & Regular Meeting, August 8, 2002; Workshop, August 14, 2002 4. Applications for Certificates of Appropriateness — Commercial District 120 S. Palmetto Ave. Install 3 French doors & metal roof patio; fence adjacent vacant lot 5. Applications for Certificates of Appropriateness — Residential District a) 715 Myrtle Ave. Construct 1 -car garage with utility room; b) 714 Magnolia Ave. Install white picket fence C) 919 Park Ave. Renew C of A to add enclosure to house d) 911 Park Ave. Remove existing front porch; return to original e) 400 Palmetto Ave. Extend approved picket fence to south property line f) 819 Elm Ave. Return house to single - family; remove 1 front door & close opening, move porch posts, install new posts, etc. g) 918 Elm Ave. Add front porch, add 2 windows with trim, add picket fence with columns, add curb cut on IO' St., repair rear porch and screen, etc. h) 1111 Magnolia Ave. Replace glass in front door with art glass (ATF) i) 1008 Myrtle Ave. Construct new single family residence, 6. Minor Reviews 7. 6 -month Reviews 116 N. Park Ave. 208 S. Sanford Ave. 600 S. Magnolia Ave.: 823 Park Ave. 1109 Magnolia Ave. 408 S. Palmetto Ave. 808 Magnolia Ave. 1015 S. Magnolia 706 Palmetto Ave. 601 Palmetto Ave. 8. Chairman and Bc 9. Adjournment. Plastic sign for law office (2X10') After- The -Fact addition over existing garage; deck Replace windows with wood windows Modify approved plans to add 2 additional feet on north side of house Add 2' high plastic lattice to existing 6' high fence Install picket fence; remove door; replace windows; move windows; install shed Box -in front posts to look like 6X6s Add addition over porch Remove windows, door, renovate exterior Remove siding from front porch; remove concrete from yard lard's items for discussion MINUTES HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD WORKSHOP SEPTEMBER 12. 2002 5:00 P.M. CITY COMMISSION CHAMBERS CITY HALL, SANFORD, FLORIDA Mr. Singeisen called the meeting to order at 5:10 P.M. Mr. Singeisen presented the Land Design Innovations consulting team comprised of Tracy Crowe, Pat Tyjeski, and & Hilary Stevens. Ms. Tyjeski reviewed the Agenda for the workshop and stated that she is expecting a lot of input from the Board. 1st item on tonight's agenda was to define the items that would be in the regulations but the consultants will also make recommendations for things that cannot be included in the S code such as design guidelines, graphics, etc. The city has a wide variety of styles. All building materials, colors, styles of fences, etc are not compatible with all architectural styles. The board had raised concerns about maintenance of structures, parking, alleys, demolition, sheds, boats and RV's. The commercial district also presents issues with regard to various building styles, additions to buildings such as awnings, signs, storage in the alleys, and the overall streetscape with elements in the right of way. Item 2 regards the draft of the revised schedule S. What items will be included, how it will be organized. The new schedule S will include a table of contents, a purpose of the regulations, definitions, the application process and procedures, designations of Historic Districts and Landmarks, maintenance, signs, archaeological resources, new construction and alterations including specific examples of various styles, architectural standards, acceptable materials, colors by style, prohibitions of colors and accessory structures, a brief list of architectural Ms. Tyjeski stated that the regulations would also address the application of materials regarding contributing and non - contributing structure, sheds, garages, and accessory structures and do they compete with the house. Regarding Section 2, Mr. Myers thought it would be good to have as many definitions as possible. Ms. Tyjeski told him they currently had more than 6 pages. Section 3, Ms. Tyjeski spoke to the designation of districts and asked the board about the various districts such as Georgetown, Goldsboro, and Washington Oaks and the possibility of designating them as local districts. Mr. Singeisen stated that they were not under schedule S at this time, mainly due to concerns from representatives of those districts about the economics of maintaining the properties due to the strictness of the code. Ms. Tyjeski explained that there could be criteria developed to fit a district based on style of house, level of requirements and what the area would like to have apply the 1. their code. Ms. Gibbs asked about the issue of conversion from multifamily to single family and then reverting back and could that be a part of the code. Ms. Tyjeski stated that it might be allowed by the zoning. Mr. Singeisen acknowledged that it was more of a zoning issue and not under the purview of the historic preservation board. Under section 4, Ms. Tyjeski spoke to the designation of Historic Landmarks. Mr. Singeisen would like to have the level raised. Mr. Then asked about landmarks not in the district. Ms. Tyjeski mentioned that there would be regulations included for those structures as well. Section 5 is about dimensional variances. Ms. Tyjeski noted that the P & Z board, not the historic preservation board, should handle variances but the HPB should make recommendations to the zoning board. The existing board should also be able to handle the addition of any new districts. Mr. Then brought up the issue of overlapping approval/jurisdiction. To avoid conflict from one board to another, staff recommendations can be included as well as the recommendations of the HPB. One of the criteria can be does it meet the recommendations of each board. Procedures for site plan approval and sign review are also included in this structure. Ms. Singeisen asked about piecemeal approval where each item in itself is ok, but the overall project may not fit together. Ms. Gibbs stated she thinks it may relate directly to a better quality submission. Ms. Tyjeski stated the revised application process might help this problem. Ms. Shreve asked about screen rooms and pools in the new code. Mr. Myers asked about various requirements such as disabilities act and how to encourage homeowners to do improvements that meet code while still being acceptable in the district. Ms. Gibbs had issues regarding more efficient customer service. The board reviews things that could be minor review, but things that are included in minor review that should be the purview of the board. Ms. Tyjeski stated that is where the criteria checklist will determine the review. If the application does not meet the criteria for administrative approval it will have to go the board. Section 6 is straightforward and refers to Secretary of the Interiors Standards. Section 7, Standards for Properties in the Historic District will be delved into further in the next meeting. Mr. Then spoke to the inclusion of non - contributing structures. Ms. Tyjeski stated that the district does need to be periodically updated to determine which houses can be included. Mr. Singeisen asked about edge boundaries. Ms. Tyjeski said it would depend on the existing zoning regulations. Mr. Singeisen asked if recommendations to encourage use of regulations for edge or buffer zones could be suggested to planning and zoning. Ms. Tyjeski asked about restrictions regarding materials, and were there materials the board wanted to be excluded. Vinyl siding and vinyl fencing were mentioned along with some concerns regarding stone. Question was raised about value of repair or renovation and when cost of materials is a concern. Mr. Singeisen asked if there were any specific items that she wanted to address before the end of the work session. Ms. Tyjeski broached the issues of boats and RV's. Mr. Myers has issues with visibility from the street. Mr. Then stated that it was a LDR issue as well. 2. Mr. Then also asked if it could be related to lot size. Someone with 3 lots can place a RV in the rear yard off the alley with no impact, but someone with 1 lot and boat may have a larger impact. Mr. Gibson stated that it is the LDR now and has become more restrictive with the revision of the LDR. Ms. Tyjeski also asked about the section regarding acquisition of historic easements and how the board was currently applying this section. Ms. Tyjeski asked about preferences for the next meeting. Mr. Singeisen stated that handouts and the power point presentation used today were appropriate and useful. Ms. Tyjeski will have information available in advance so the board can review them. Workshop adjourned at 7:00. 3 MINUTES HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD SEPTEMBER 12. 2002 7:00 P.M. CITY COMMISSION CHAMBERS CITY HALL, SANFORD, FLORIDA MEMBERS PRESENT Scott Singeisen Barbara Farrell Rey Sylvester Stephen Myers Denny Gibbs Maria Shreve Alexander Then Mary Valente Thomas Goodman Leslie Stevens MEMBERS ABSENT Marveen Kelly OTHERS PRESENT Russell Gibson, Staff Liaison Jo -Ann Johnson, Recording Secretary Mr. Singeisen called the meeting to order at 7:10 P.M. Mr. Singeisen asked for approval of the August 13 minutes. Mr. Then moved to approve. Ms. Farrell seconded. All in favor, Motion carried. Commercial District Item 4a — 120 S. Palmetto Ave., Kim House. Install 6" black Aluminum fence on vacant lot along Palmetto Ave. and E 2nd St. with two (2) 4' gates, and a 6' high wood stockade fence with 12' wide gates in the rear of property. Ms. House stated that the lot was to be used for the art center. Ms. Farrell asked if a 5' fence would meet Ms. House's needs. Ms. Gibbs motioned to approve amending the 6' high aluminum fence to 5'. Mr. Myers seconded. All in favor, Motion carried. Item 4b — 118 S. Palmetto Ave., Kim House. Add 3 sets of 8' high French doors with side lights along the south side of her building, add a 14' long open porch with a metal roof with 6" x6" wood supports on a concrete pad. Metal roof would slope towards 2nd St. Mr. Singeisen asked about the size of the doors. Ms. House stated that they were 3'. Mr. Goodman asked if they were going to be wood doors. Ms. House stated that she would 1. prefer metal; that her contractor had stated that she would not get approved engineering for the windload requirements for wood doors. Mr. Singeisen asked about the width of the sidelights. Ms. House stated that they were 6" wide. Mr. Goodman motioned to approve the application with wood or fiberglass doors. Ms. Gibbs seconded. Discussion ensued regarding suitability of the open porch style for a 1950's style building. Ms. Valente suggested an open porch style more indicative of the structure might be more suitable. Motion failed 2 -8, (Singeisen, Valente, Stevens, Sylvester, Myers, Farrell, Shreve, Gibbs). At the applicant's request the application was amended to delete the porch and require the doors to be of wood or, if wood cannot be used, fiberglass will be substituted. Mr. Sylvester moved to approve as amended. Ms. Gibbs seconded. All in favor, Motion carried. Residential District Item 5a — 715 Myrtle Ave., Heather Moore. Construct a single car garage with utility room at the rear of the property. Ms. Gibbs questioned if a utility pole and guy wires would interfere with the garage location. Ms. Moore was also asked if the railings would be replicated, if the 4" wood trim would be hardiboard, and if the garage door would be wood. Ms. Moore stated that materials would be in keeping with district requirements. Ms. Farrell moved to approve. Mr. Sylvester seconded. All in favor, Motion carried. Item 5b — 714 Magnolia Ave., Christopher Kabool. Install 3'/2 foot high white fence with a single swing gate in line with neighbors, approximately 6" back from sidewalk. M. Shreve motioned to approve. Mr. Myers seconded. Motion carried 10 -0. Item 5c — 919 Park Ave., Jan Peters. Renew approval to add enclosure to house. Ms. Peters stated that she had received a letter of complaint that she was building a deck without approval; she informed the board that it was in fact a foundation for an enclosure of a stairway for the house. Mr. Then asked if massing was a concern at the time of the original approval. His concern is that the original structure seems to be lost with the addition. Mr. Myers moved to approve. Seconded by Ms. Gibbs. Motion carried 10 -0. Item 5d — 911 Park Ave., David Schwartz. Changes to exterior porches, railings and siding. Ms. Gibbs questioned if the brackets and horizontal boards on the porch were original. Mr. Singeisen stated that he thought the idea of them was original to the house. Ms. Gibbs asked if the stairs were going to stay. Mr. Schwartz stated that the stairs were block and would have to stay. He stated that the porch itself was terrazzo and would also have to stay. Mr. Schwartz stated that the columns would have to be replaced. Ms. Valente moved to approve. Mr. Goodman seconded.. Motion carried 9 -1, (Sylvester). Mr. Myers exited room for the remainder of the meeting. Item 5e - 400 palmetto Ave., Cari Zendell. Construct 4' wood scalloped fence across front of the house with double swing -in gates at driveway and remove upstairs window. 2. Ms. Zendell asked that the side fence be a 6' high in the front setback. Ms. Singeisen reminded her of previous discussions in which the Board indicated that she could start the 6' high fence at the front corner of the house. Ms. Valente was concerned that the existing front gates would not close when the car was pulled in if the gate opened inwards. Ms. Valente asked about the paint color on the fence. Ms. Zendell stated that the fence posts would be the same blue as the house and that the fence itself would be taupe or white. Mr. Singeisen suggested that the application be split in two parts. 5el for the fence and 5e2 would be for the bathroom window. Mr. Sylvester motioned to approve the fence. Ms. Valente seconded. Motion carried 9 -0. 5e2 Ms. Zendell informed the board that the small window in the second story on the north side was rotting from the water in the shower. Mr. Singeisen asked if the window was original to the house. Ms. Zendell confirmed that it was. Mr. Goodman asked if the replacement boards would be keyed in. MS. Zendell indicated they would. Mr. Sylvester motioned to approve. Mr. Then seconded. Motion carried 9 -0. 5f — 819 Elm Ave., Nancy Lord. Reposition the front door, replace and relocate porch posts, back door, windows, porch decking, under skirting, remove air conditioning wall unit and fencing. Mr. Singeisen asked if it would better to split the application into two parts. Mrs. Lord agreed. 5fl, Relocate front door. Ms. Gibbs motioned to approve. Ms. Shreve seconded. Motion carried 9 -0. Item 5f2 Ms. Gibbs motioned to approve the removal of the A/C unit from the front wall with stipulation that it eventually be replace with clapboards. The applicant should return to the Board with elevations drawings of the front wall. Mr. Then seconded. Motion carried 9 -0. 5g — 918 Elm Ave., Colleen & Alan Spring. Change shingle roof to a tin standing seam roof, add a tin roofed front porch, replace screen porch, add vinyl clad windows, add wood surrounds on all windows, stucco the remaining three sides of the house, paint to match 910 Elm Ave, and add a curb cut for a driveway. Mr. Singeisen requested to separate the application into parts. Item 5gl, remove shingle roof and replace with tin standing seam roof. Mr. Spring indicated this would match all other outbuildings. Ms. Farrell motioned to approve. Seconded by Ms. Shreve. 9 -0, Motion carried. Item 5g2, add front porch with tin roof tied into main roof, wood turn posts, gingerbread trim, and tongue in groove decking. Ms. Gibbs motioned to approve in concept. Mr. Goodman seconded. 9 -0, Motion carried. 3 Item 5g3, Replace the screen porch with a wood screen porch with a tin roof. Ms. Shreve asked it they would consider stucco rather than lap siding. Mr. Spring stated he preferred the lapboard aesthetically and it would match the other outbuildings. Ms. Gibbs asked it would be visible from any right of way. Mr. Spring replied that there was a wood fence so it would not be visible. Mr. Sylvester made motion to approve. Ms. Gibbs seconded. Motion carried 9 -0. Item 5g4, the addition of vinyl -clad windows. Mr. Sylvester was concerned with the ratio of 6 over 6 windows when corner windows are 1 over 1. Mr. Sylvester motioned to approve with amendment to read vinyl -clad 1 over 1 windows. Ms. Shreve seconded. Motion carried 9 -0. Item 5g5, add 6" wood trim to new and existing windows. Ms. Valente asked if they had thought to use hardiboard rather than wood since it wouldn't rot or warp and it's inexpensive. Ms. Spring stated that he would look into hardiboard. Mr. Goodman made motion to approve. Ms. Gibbs seconded. Motion carried 9 -0. Item 5g6, stucco remaining block walls. Mr. Then asked if it was to match existing. Mr. Spring stated he would try. Mr. Then asked about the texture on the remaining walls. Ms. Valente stated that the S code allowed smooth sand finish. Ms. Spring stated they would go with smooth sand finish. Mr. Then moved to approve. Ms. Gibbs seconded. 9 -0, motion carried. Item 5g7, Paint to match 920 Elm Ave., Mr. Then motioned to approve. Ms. Gibbs seconded. Motion carried 9 -0. Item 5g8, add 4' fence to front of property. Ms. Shreve asked if fence would be painted. Ms. Spring stated fence would be painted white. Ms. Farrell made motion to approve. Mr. Goodman seconded. Motion carried 9 -0. Item 5g9, add curb cut on 10 St. Mr. Singeisen stated that it was the policy of the board to deny curb cuts because curb cuts add a more suburban feel. Mr. Then said it would be up to the City to grant a right of way easement. Ms. Gibbs motioned to approve. Mr. Then seconded. Motion failed 1- 8,(Then, Goodman, Singeisen, Farrell, Valente, Stevens, Shreve, Sylvester). Item 5h — 1111 magnolia Ave., Mr. Richard Swann. Installation of art glass in front door (after- the - fact). The previous single light glass had broken and he replaced it without board approval. Mr. Swann stated that the door was original and had not been replaced. Mr. Then asked if the trim was also original. Mr. Then asked if the applicant knew he was in the historic district when he purchased the house and was required to apply for any exterior changes before making them. Mr. Swann stated that he did, but hadn't given it any thought. Mr. Sylvester motioned to approve. Ms. Shreve seconded. Motion carried 5 -4 (Valente, Stevens, Shreve, Then). M Item 5i — 1008 Myrtle Ave., Landmark Building and Construction, Mr. Guiliani. Construct new house. Ms. Farrell and Ms. Shreve recused themselves since they stood to gain financially by approval. Ms. Valente asked if the house would be slab on grade. Mr. Guiliani replied that the house would be a monoslab, but would be raised. Mr. Then asked about the two types of siding and if they would be hardiboard. Mr. Guiliani stated that they would be. Mr. Then asked about the setbacks and would prefer to see the house lined up with the one next door. Mr. Guiliani stated that was he was unsure what the setback requirements would be, but he would meet whatever the requirements were. The placement of the house on the lot indicated that there was ample room to move the house forward on the lot so it would align with the neighbors. Mr. Singeisen asked if Ms. Farrell or Ms. Shreve had seen any areas in the drawing where it might be non- conforming. He pointed out the horizontal windows on the right elevation. Mr. Guiliani stated the windows were in bathrooms would be frosted glass. Mr. Then asked if those windows faced the apartment complex next door. Ms. Valente commented about the gables and the recessed front door and they didn't quite fit the district appearance. Ms. Gibbs stated that the rooflines didn't fit the district and had more of a subdivision feel. Mr. Singeisen asked if would be appropriate to give the applicant some suggestions for re- submittal. Ms. Valente suggested that it might be more appropriate to have a more traditional 2 bedroom 2 bath bungalow. Mr. Singeisen asked if it would be more appropriate to table until the 2nd Thursday in October. Mr. Guiliani agreed. Mr. Then move to table. Mr. Goodman seconded. Motion carried 7 -0. Six Month Reviews Mr. Then asked if they were automatic. Mr. Singeisen told him the extensions still needed to be requested, but Ms. Gerli could just sign the request. Mr. Singeisen asked for comments from the Board. Ms. Shreve stated that she was not included in the agenda because she was missing a survey. Several applications were incomplete, no pictures or detail, information was missing, and one was not even signed. She appreciated that she should be held to a higher standard, but the playing field was not even. Ms. Farrell concurred. Ms. Gibbs stated that she still had a concern that was raised in the workshop. A minor review application was indicative of what the change was to be, but no indication of what existed. She was concerned about that lack of information o applications. Mr. Then concurred. Ms. Gibbs stated that applicants were not having applications returned for incomplete information, which made the meetings longer and harder since they had to determine what the applicant was asking. She also stated that she had driven by the Zendell's after having received the agenda packet and could not tell what they were applying for. There being no other business, the meeting adjourned at 11:00. 5.