Loading...
03.11.99MINUTES HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD MEETING OF MARCH 11, 1999 5:00 P.M. CITY COMMISSION CHAMBERS, CITY HALL SANFORD, FLORIDA MEMBERS PRESENT: Scott Singeisen Don Moore Laura Sollien Walt Padgett Sica Nacu Bart Rush Fred Rogers Barbara Farrell MEMBERS ABSENT: Eline Ransom Kimberly Kmett- excused Julia Goeb- excused OTHERS PRESENT: Andrew Van Gaale, Staff Liaison Jerry Uhran, Architect Richard Morgan Judy Gilbreath The Chairman called the meeting to order at 5:00 P.M. The Minutes of February 1999 were unanimously approved. Application for Certificate of Appropriateness - 919 S. Park Avenue - Demolish and Replace Garage, Enclose Stairwell. Jerry Uhran, Architect, was present. He stated that it is the intention of the property owners to have the existing one story, two car garage structure demolished and use the lumber and materials on the construction of a two car garage with an in -law pad above. Their intent is to keep the character of the existing house and bring that flavor towards the new structure which will include the apartment above for an older family member. Fred Rogers moved to approve the concept with the applicant coming back within a favorable timeframe with the proposed floor plan with materials and color. Seconded by Ms. Nacu. Mr. Rogers stated that this is a motion for items 1 and 3 of this request. All in favor. Motion carried. As for item 2 of this request, to add enclosure to main house for stairs, Ms. Sollien moved to table. Seconded by Mr. Rogers. Motion carried. MINUTES HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD MEETING OF MARCH 11, 1999 PAGF, 7. Application for Certificate of Appropriateness - 401 Magnolia - Paint Exterior Porch Pink and Blue. There was no one present to represent this request. Ms. Sollien moved that the porch be returned to the color pink of the rest of the house, so basically this denies the color that it is painted based on non - conforming color. Seconded by Mr. Padgett. All in favor. Motion carried. Application for Certificate of Appropriateness - 103 E. 13 Street - Install Staircase and Landing /Balcony. Sica Nacu represented this request. She stated that she needs to build something over the back door of the Tea Room because of the rain. The most reasonable thing to do is to restore the balcony with a staircase. The original doors will be used on the 24' longx8' wide balcony with a staircase runnin along the building on the interior yard. Mr. Rogers moved to table until next month so that the applicant can bring in designs. Seconded by Mr. Padgett. All in favor. Motion carried. Item 1 of the Code Enforcement Actions - 1107 Oak Avenue. Richard Morgan was representing this request. Mr. Singeisen read into the record the letter that Mr. Van Gaale had sent to the owners: On January 14, 1999, the Sanford Historic Preservation Board approved a Certificate of Appropriateness to install fixed clear glass on the front porch. Upon visual inspection it appears that plexiglass or lexan has been installed instead of fixed glass. This type of material is not an approved material for windows as outlined in Schedule S. In addition, the request to install tinted lexan or plexiglass was denied by the Preservation Board on December 10, 1998 ". Mr. Morgan stated that the material is called lexan. It is a far superior product. It is 250% stronger. It has ultra- violet. It has 15% better quality product as far as energy efficient. The product is the same product. It is unbreakable, same clarity and actually has more brighter, lets more light through. It is basically the same glazing material which is the 1990, a far superior product than what we know as glass. Mr. Singeisen stated that we denied tinted lexan, then we approved fixed clear glass, and you put in what. Mr. Morgan stated clear lexan, same product, stronger, safety factors, energy efficient, it is far superior. Most people know it as glass. Do you realize we use lexan everyday? Sunglasses are made of lexan, and car windshields are sometimes made of lexan, car head lights are made of lexan. Mr. Morgan stated that he shot a 38 special through lexan and one ricocheted and one went through it. You can take a baseball and hit it, you can take a 28 ounce hammer and hit it, it will not break. You also have a house that is since the 1920's, it also has settlement. You put in basically what we call glass, this will shatter, someone will get hurt. There is no difference in these two products. Lexan was developed over 30 years ago, it was grandfathered in basically before this Committee was started. Golf courses have it. It is considered glass, it is a glazing material. We used clear. Mr. Rush stated that there are a lot of building products, including lexan, that are far superior than what historic districts not only recommend, but enforce. He stated that his issue is not that it is a superior product but that there are a lot of ways in which he would prefer using lexan than glass, but he wouldn't dream of using it in a historic structure. It is not appropriate. MINUTES HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD MEETING OF MARCH 11, 1999 PAGE 3 Mr. Moore stated that he didn't think there is any doubt that we have technically a violation @, but from a practical standpoint everything Mr. Morgan says is true. He agrees that you can't drive down the street and tell whether it is necessarily clear glass or plexi. We are technically head -in- the -sand approach. If we want to deny this based on the substitution, deliberately or inadvertently, clear lexan or clear glass. If we want to find him guilty of a technical violation, then so be it. Mr. Padgett agreed with Mr. Moore stating that there is a technical violation. Common sense has to come into play. We are in the process of revising and looking at new materials because there are manufactured materials today that can be used in historic structures that you really can't tell the difference. We have a Board member who has first hand experience with the product. This Board has to deal on a couple of levels and part of this is compromise. Mr. Van Gaale stated that he drove by and could tell the difference. First he had two anonymous calls. Driving by you can see the glare, that it is not a pane of glass. Mr. Morgan stated that it depends on the way the sun hits it, you can see the glare. The clarity of the glass has improved compared to the 1920's and 1930's. The old glass does have a wave in it that will actually give you a difference appearance when the sun hits it or different lights hit it. It will scratch but nothing will penetrate it. Mr. Rush stated that this community voted for itself to be a historic district. It wasn't something pronounced upon us. Not only on the local but at the national level communities like ours are watched very closely when we apply for things like lots of federal money, national awards that could mean a lot of recognition for the neighborhood and could be crucial to the success of where we're going over the next fifteen years. One thing is that they take tours of towns and they say well we would love to give this committee $10.8 million for this grant but there are a lot of people who put lexan in the windows, and aluminum siding. He stated that he is all for updating our requirements but he would like to see at the national level if they are also updating theirs to find out if what we are doing is in sync with what is happening on the national level or if we are creating major tabu for ourselves by not following national guidelines. Mr. Morgan stated that aluminum siding, vinyl siding, clap board siding, ship lap siding is all the same, that's the exterior of the house. Most criminals will not break in from there, their not worried about this, they will not take a saw and cut a hole through the side of the house. What they will do is bust out the windows. This is 15% better than glass. We are looking at a safety factor here. We are looking at a neighborhood that has crime. An eighty year old lady lives here and she feels so much safer with this. You will find that this house is excellent. It has been brought up to standards and it is neat and clean. What we have used here most people can't tell the difference. The key thing is the safety factor, the durability. It has a 10 year warranty on it. Mr. Singeisen stated that within the last year, the City of Sanford, through a long process application was deemed certified local government. Part of that was the historic community by historic guidelines and the way that we be able to maintain that district. When a certified local government is evaluated for its continuing status, a lot of these issues are taken into effect. That we have to be very aware of in our positions. Mr. Morgan stated that he agrees with what the Board is saying but even the national level has to say that we do have far superior products now. Mr. Singeisen stated that when the Department of the Secretary of the Interior says that in your restoration of this historic college structure, or in the restoration of this historic home for a museum, you can use lexan on the window. Then he would come back to the Board and say that the Secretary of the Interior says in their guidelines, lexan is o.k. MINUTES HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD MEETING OF MARCH 11, 1999 PAGE 4 Mr. Padgett moved, based on the additional information that the Board has received about lexan, that this be approved. Mr. Moore seconded. Mr. Rush stated that there are some basic philosophical differences with ownership of residential in a historic district. Comments made are indicative of a lot of people who own property but don't live here and who own property and do live here. The comment was innocently made but it is true. You (Mr. Morgan) said that you would rather not be working on you house on the weekend but rather going off with your family. We bought into the historic district because we enjoy the mission and the task of working on our homes on the weekend and making sure that we put glass in our windows and make sure we are always in line with Section S. Mr. Padgett in favor. All others opposed. Motion failed. Mr. Van Gaale stated that either the applicant could come back with another material or if he chooses to remain with the lexan refer this to code enforcement for violation of the Certificate of Appropriateness. Mr. Van Gaale made the applicant aware that he had 30 days to appeal the decision of this Board to the City Commission. Judy Gilbreath stated that the house in question is her mother's. Her mother will be 80 this August. Unfortunately, in the last 6 months, there has been much change in her condition. If she had been the way she is today 6 months ago when this was started, she would not have started it. Her entire goal was to try to provide a more comfortable setting for her mother so that she could enjoy her home and whatever time she has remaining. Now she doesn't think it will be all that long. We are talking about an 80 year old woman. Ms. Gilbreath stated that she has congestive heart failure and every time she comes here she gets so upset that she feels like her heart will jump out of her chest. She cannot deal with this forever, we need to get some resolution and we need to have some humanity. You have to mix common sense with the approach to any problem that you may have. She stated that the Board is putting an awful burden on her. She lives in Kissimmee and has to come here every time there is a meeting. She has to prepare for these meeting by doing research and she is disabled. She doesn't work because she can't. She appealed to the Board on a humanitarian level to get this over with. Mr. Singeisen told Ms. Gilbreath that he appreciated her comments and asked if she agreed that at the January meeting the Board approved a material. Ms. Gilbreath stated yes, clear glass. Mr. Singeisen stated that by Ms. Gilbreath coming back today is not the result of the Board not trying to work with her and approved the material. She stated that the Board denied tinted lexan, she thought the problem was tinted vs. clear. Mr. Singeisen stated that he was sorry for Ms. Gilbreath feeling the way she does. The next item under Code Enforcement Actions was 215W. 5 th Street - there wasn't a representative. Mr. Van Gaale stated that this is in response to this Board's questions on Code Enforcement items. He noted that it looks as if the fence has been taken down as a result of this. Discussion with Code Enforcement Department - Dan Florian. Mr. Florian stated that the reason he was here to try to establish some lines of communication. He stated that he knows that there have been a lot of problems with some things the Building Department has done and there are a lot of code enforcement complaints about things in the Historic District. He feels that we all need to get together to find out what some of the expectations are and to better understand what code enforcement's job is. MINUTES HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD MEETING OF MARCH 11, 1999 PAGE 5 Phil Ryan, Code Enforcement, stated that he looks at each complaint, which is stamped when they come in. He stated that he spends a lot of time in the Historic District plus trying to handle the rest of Sanford. Charles Rowe, Director, stated that the Building and/or Code Enforcement has never proactively enforced Schedule S. Soon we will be addressing structures in the Third Zone which contains the Historic District. Mr. Van Gaale suggested that this Board put a formal letter together addressed to the City Commission requesting that if they approve a structure to be demolished in the Historic District, that they be required to get a Certificate of Appropriateness. The Board unanimously tabled discussion of Schedule S, Section 5.0 Amendments until the next meeting There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 7:30 P.M.