Loading...
01.14.99MINUTES HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD MEETING OF JANUARY 14, 1999 5:00 P.M. CITY COMMISSION CHAMBERS, CITY HALL SANFORD, FLORIDA MEMBERS PRESENT: Walt Padgett Laura Sollien Barbara Farrell Fred Rogers Scott Singeisen Sica Nacu Don Moore Eline Ransom Eline Ransom MEMBERS ABSENT: Kimberly Kmett- excused Julia Goeb- excused OTHERS PRESENT: Andrew Van Gaale, Staff Liaison Marion Anderson, Recording Secretary Catherine Reischmann, City Attorney's Office Frank Reneke Alesandra Saunders Bill Abdul Judy Gilbreath Ms. Reischmann was present to discuss the Sunshine Law and Rules of Procedure. She stated that if a Board Member receives correspondence from someone, this is public record and should be turned into the City. If correspondence is received from the City Attorney's Office, this also is a matter of public record. Ex -parte Communication is communication from members of the public or from a developer or applicant. In general, you don't want to talk to anyone in private. If you get caught or there is really some good reason why you need to talk to someone, there is a procedure, whereby, at the meeting you need to report the date and time, who you talked to and what was said. This obviously raises a red flag to anybody to appeal the decision and say that there was prejudicial communication. It's something that should be avoided. Meetings have to be open and public meetings. Any communication where two or more members are gathered is considered a meeting. Any communication between two members of the same board on any MINUTES HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD MEETING OF JANUARY 14, 1999 PAGE 2 matter which may even for - seeably come before that board must take place at a public meeting. In fact, even whispering among yourselves during the meeting can be a violation. Regarding reasonable notice, you don't have to have an item on the agenda to bring it up except for the required statutory notices. The notice just has to say that you're having a meeting. Every single item does not have to be listed. Minutes always have to betaken. If you are found to have violated the law, you have to knowingly violate it and you're guilty of a second degree misdemeanor and there is a civil penalty. If there is a violation, you can cure it if you bring it up at a public meeting. There has to be a discussion with all the evidence being presented. Behavior - a disruptive person can be removed from a meeting. You can regulate the time that people speak. When the applicant speaks you must be careful, but when it's a member of the public and it starts to get repetitive, depending on the case, a time limit can be set. It would be hard pressed to limit the applicant's time. Ethics - Neither a board member nor his/her spouse can accept gifts over $100. Gifts over $25 have to be reported. You can't sell or lease goods to your own agency. You can't hold employment with a business entity regulated by the public entity that you're involved with. Quasi-judicial proceedings require that notice be given, a hearing be held, and that the judgment be based on a showing that was made at the hearing. When a motion is made, the motion needs to reflect what is heard and it needs to show that what you're basing your motion on is competency of substantial evidence. A decision can be based on citizen input if that input is on factual matters within their personal knowledge. A decision cannot be based on the desires of most of the people in the meeting. The only way a decision can be upheld is if the basis is stated. Regarding the Minutes of December 10, 1998, under other business, it was requested that the address for the property regarding Mr. Padgett's and Mr. Rogers' memo (500 Oak Avenue) be placed in the record. With this request, Ms. Sollien moved on approval of the Minutes. Ms. Nacu seconded. There was one opposition. All others in favor. Motion carried. The first Application for a Certificate of Appropriateness was for 615 S. Myrtle Avenue (previously tabled), to replace porch railings. Ms. Sollien made a motion to remove this item from the table. Seconded by Mr. Padgett. All in favor. Motion carried. There was no one present to represent this request. Mr. Van Gaale presented a spindle that the applicant would like to use. He recommended that the color of the spindle match the house. Ms. Sollien moved to approve as long as the railing is to code and painted white. Seconded by Ms. Ransom. Mr. Van Gaale stated that he needed to look at the paint colors again because he wasn't sure if some of the do -dads were to be painted another color. He stated that he had approved the paint colors already. Ms. Sollien withdrew her motion and Ms. Ransom withdrew her second. Mr. Padgett moved that the style of spindle be approved for the first and second floor porch railings based on it being historical and fits in the district and that it meets code. Seconded by Ms. Farrell. All in favor. Motion carried. MINUTES HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD MEETING OF JANUARY 14, 1999 PAGE 3 The next request for a Certificate of Appropriateness was for 918 Myrtle Avenue to construct a garage /office Frank Reneke, 918 Myrtle Avenue, was present. He stated that they would like to put a garage in the back yard and use an existing curb cut for the driveway. It will be a one -car garage with a second car to be parked in the driveway. At the far end of the garage there will be a 12'x20' office. Mr. Renke stated that the length of the garage and the length of the office were simply dictated by how much space he and his wife thought they needed. The garage will be seen from the front of the house because it will stick out a little bit. Ms. Sollien stated that she objects to having a long building like this which another can't be found anywhere in the District She feels it would be more appropriate to have it just the way the applicant wants it, but two separate buildings. Have the garage and next to it have the office. Mr. Reneke stated that the windows and everything on the garage /office will match and be proportionate to the house. Ms. Sollien stated that from a historic perspective, long and low is not what we strive for in a Historic District of the early 1900s. She stated that it is our job to protect these plain houses, this is the way they were built and this is the way they should stay. Mr. Rogers moved to approve this project based on the designs and the wood products that will be used and as long as the applicant follows Schedule S Guidelines in the construction. Seconded by Ms. Farrell. Ms. Sollien and Mr. Singeisen opposed. All others in favor. Motion carried. The next application was for 1101 Palmetto Avenue to move a house to a vacant lot. Alesandra Saunders, 1102 Washington Avenue, Winter Park, was present. She stated that her application is to move a single family framed residence to this vacant lot. There has never been a residence on this lot. It is the southeast corner of I P h and Palmetto. It is in the Historic District, the far east edge. Ms. Saunders stated that in the past, they have moved four buildings into the City of Sanford, three into the Historic District. One immediately across the street from this lot and another one south of 46 out of the District. She stated that they have a great consciousness for the architectural value of the Historic District. This is an eclectic block. There are only two houses in that block. There are vacant lots across the street and to the north. Ms. Saunders stated that architecturally, one main feature is that the house has a gambrel roof. The house was probably built in the 50's and is very nice inside. This lot is zoned commercial and a conditional use application has been submitted. The screened porch on the side and the back will be eliminated adding hand rails and ballisters. It will be on a pier type foundation with lattice all the way around and painted in an accent trim color. Ms. Sollien asked that the applicant explain why she thinks this house is appropriate for the Historic District. Ms. Saunders stated that it has some similar qualities. There are two similar homes down the street although they are two- story, but still the gambrel roofs are kind of unusual. Ms. Sollien stated that her house has a gambrel roof and it is as different from this as night and day. The house doesn't have anything in common with the other houses on the street. Ms. Sollien stated that it will look very out of place. Ms. Saunders stated MINUTES HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD MEETING OF JANUARY 14, 1999 PAGF, 4 that they would like to add some features that would make it more similar to the other houses in the neighborhood which they could do that with the front porch. Mr. Singeisen stated that one of the things the Board has been very particular about in the past, that again is an issue here, is while we have been supplied with a site plan, it's a site plan of the existing site and sizes. Not the building's placement on site, its relativity to the easements and other properties. Mr. Singeisen reminded the Board that other C of As have been denied based on simply that because we don't have a good picture of its location on the site. Mr. Rogers stated that the Board needs a site plan with the location of the house. Ms. Saunders stated that she submitted a survey and that she did submit a site plan with the Conditional Use application. The square footage is 1525. The siding is made of wood. She stated that the required front setback in the Historic District is 25'. The houses immediately to the south in that neighborhood, there is a vacant lot, then the next one has a 17' front setback. If this house is put back 25' it would look completely ridiculous. The next house is 13'. She is proposing, through Staff's recommendations, to set this house front setback wise 15'. The alley in the rear would be used for ingress and egress so there would be a beautiful front and side yard which would be the main profile on Palmetto and I P h Street. The lot itself is heavily wooded, there is a tree line that is actually the property line. Ms. Nacu stated that the Board doesn't have enough evidence to see what exactly will be done because, in her opinion, this doesn't fit in the Historic District. If you would take a look at the other little houses, that will be the future neighbors, there are differences between day and night. Mr. Singeisen stated that he believes some of the things that would persuade the Board in its opinions would be different elevations. We only have one corner of the house in a varied sort of skewed position. There is a lot of open - endedness. Ms. Saunders stated that the first thing that needs to be addressed is the overall structure in getting permission to pursue building permits, moving the house and then she would come back with front elevations. She would be more than happy to accommodate an architectural rendering of the front and north side. Ms. Sollien stated that what the Board is saying is that it won't do that and the reason why is because what has happened in the past is that the Board has had promises from other people, that actually construct the house or move it and then nothing is done with it and we have a totally inappropriate house that we have approved. Your chances of getting us to approve are probably greatly strengthened by plans to renovate the house to make it look more in character with the neighborhood. Mr. Van Gaale asked that the Board consider future policy and precedent in moving contemporary structures into the District. Ms. Sollien moved to deny based on the fact that this is a structure that is only 30 years old and does nothave the same historic character as any of the houses in the District. Seconded by Ms. Ransom. Ms. Sollien amended her motion to also say that nor do we have a site plan with placement of the structure on it. Ms. Ransom Seconded. Ms. Sollien stated that she personally feels that the strength of the motion is in fact is that the house isn't historically significant, but on the other hand, were it, she would still not move to approve it without a site plan. Both things are very important for approval and based on the fact that neither is here, this is why she moved to deny. All in favor. Motion carried. MINUTES HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD MEETING OF JANUARY 14, 1999 PAGF, 5 The next request was for 315 Magnolia Avenue to replace wood windows with aluminum windows. Bill Abdul, Executive Director of Central Florida Legal Services which is the owner of the building, was present for representation. He stated that they moved into their building in 1977 and has made about $50,000 in renovations since then. Sky lights to the front and aluminum windows were added. In the 1994 addition, some windows were removed and some aluminum windows were added. They now have 11 aluminum windows and 27 wooden windows. The windows are starting to rot very badly. Half of them need to be replaced because of the rot. Mr. Abdul stated that they didn't realize that they were in the District and went ahead and ordered aluminum windows as replacement windows to replace all the windows. These will be single hung, clear light windows. The same as the existing aluminum windows. Mr. Padgett moved to approve based on the fact that it is not a contributing structure, that it already has aluminum windows in it, and that a good deal of the restoration was done prior to the Historic District being established, and based on the maintenance and upkeep and the organization that owns the building he feels confident that it will be done in a proper manner. Seconded by Ms. Nacu. All in favor. Motion carried. Next was a request for porch enclosure alternatives for 1107 Oak Avenue. Judy Gilbreath, Kissimmee, stated that she is representing her mother's home on this request. She stated that she is trying to enclose the porch. She wants to replace the screen with fixed, plate glass. Ms. Sollien moved to approve that the glass be allowed if the glass replaces the screen, nothing additional, no additional columns or anything else, clear fixed glass in place of the screen. Seconded by Ms. Farrell. Mr. Singeisen opposed. All others in favor. Motion carried. On the Addendum to the Agenda was 601 Palmetto Avenue. There was no representatives. Mr. Van Gaale stated that he had approved some general repair work. The applicants want to tear down the garage in the rear. He stated that he was working with the applicants and would be bringing in more items for this property but wanted to Board to consider the demolition. There are no plans to rebuild. Mr. Rogers moved to table the demolition of the garage until the next meeting so that the applicants may be present. Seconded by Mr. Padgett. All in favor. Motion carried. The next item on the Agenda was the presentation from Ms. Jennifer Oliver, 710 Palmetto Avenue, regarding address plaques. She stated that this presentation will be on date -built plaques. She submitted pictures and a one -paged handout. She stated that she feels this would be very beneficial to the Historic District. She focused on these plaques for some sort of consideration because they are not a heavy brass look and they would be fitting for many different types of structures. Some reasons she feels we should do something like this is because it shows private ownership and pride in the community. It forms a sense of unity in the District, it elevates property values. The plaques would add an item of interest to the various tours that are sponsored. They are inexpensive, maintenance free, and cast either aluminum or bronze. They can be color coordinated to the homes. MINUTES HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD MEETING OF JANUARY 14, 1999 PAGF, 6 Ms. Oliver stated that the plaques have to be sent out to a casting company. Pretty much any local sign company can provide these plaques. She has checked with a sign company in downtown Orlando and in Longwood, and the cost is about $45 each. Some other advantages that would be added to the community is that the plaques create a sense of interest otherwise unremarkable homes. They can help to promote responsible renovations and can prove beneficial in decreasing unwanted foot and vehicle traffic by showing that we really are a community that has pride and are involved in protecting the integrity of our homes. Ms. Farrell suggested that she attend the Historic Trust meeting because this subject has been brought up before. The only obstacle is that someone has not taken the ball and run with it. Ms. Sollien stated that she feels it would be a great idea if we could supplement the cost of this, perhaps 50 %, with our budget. 50% from HPB and 50% from the homeowner. It would be a great PR tool for this Board. Next on the Agenda was the discussion regarding local designation of historic properties. Mr. Van Gaale stated that there are a couple of buildings in the downtown district that are undergoing current renovation. Some are not listed as contributing structures although they are old. If they are not listed as contributing, they fall under the current Building Codes. One building is 114 W. 2nd Street, Rami Yosefian's building. There is a dry cleaner and auto -parts store downstairs. Upstairs there are residential units. In the downstairs portion, under the new codes, a male and female bathroom would have to be installed in each of the rental suits. If we can get it listed as historic, basically, he just has to provide the one bathroom. It could be important for some of the older buildings as they get renovated to be listed as historic landmarks. The Board has the ability to designate them as historic. Mr. Van Gaale stated that he would like to have the Ritz Theatre designated as a landmark and there are certainly many other buildings. As a starting point, he has been asked by the City Manager to bring this one building before the Board for consideration. Ms. Sollien stated that a great deal has been done already on this property and asked what is the motivation here. Here we are saying you can do all this to this property because it is not a historic property, but now that it is time to put bathrooms in, let's get historic things done so we don't have to put in bathrooms. Mr. Padgett stated that this is a way to expand the Historic District without going through the whole process. It is a way that we can do local designations and expand. As a preservation board we are looking at preserving the city and the community. Mr. Singeisen stated that we don't have any criteria to suggest that one property should be or one property shouldn't be. This property is already in the Downtown Historic District. The property owner is suppose to come to us for exterior modifications, this is already preservation of the aesthetics of the structure. Mr. Van Gaale suggested that all buildings be done at one time. Mr. Padgett stated that this is the only way to have it legitimate. Not just one property. Mr. Singeisen stated that it should not include any property already under permit Mr. Singeisen volunteered to be on the committee to come up with criteria before the next meeting to explain the criteria of what local designation of historic properties should be considered. Mr. Rogers and Mr. Padgett also volunteered. MINUTES HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD MEETING OF JANUARY 14, 1999 PAGF, 7 Next on the Agenda was the discussion regarding Code Enforcement. Mr. Singeisen asked that each member come in with five properties that list code violations and put together a form letter that goes out every month to a violating property, not to Code Enforcement, and give the property owner a chance to clean up his act. Mr. Van Gaale stated that the attitude of the Code Enforcement Department is that every department should make one attempt, initially, to get problems solved. Mr. Van Gaale stated that the City Commission wants to appeal the approval of the demolition of the gas station at Park and 13 based on certain conditions. However, their time has expired and a recommendation to submit another C of A to demolish will be made. Mr. Van Gaale asked for a volunteer to serve on the Census 2000 Committee noting that the first meeting would be on February 20 at 12:00 at the Westside Boys and Girls Club. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 7:30 P.M.