DO #21-05_810 Myrtle Avenue_RecordedThis Instrument Prepared By and Return To:
Julie Adams Scofield, AICP
Historic Preservation Planner
Planning and Development Services Department
City Hall
300 North Park Avenue
Sanford, Florida 32771
Tax Parcel Identification Number: 25-19-30-5AG-1006-0030.
File #: 21-000636
Permit #: COA21 -000010
GRANT MALOY, SEMINOLE COUNTY
CLERK OF CIRCUIT COURT & COMPTROLLER
CFN# 2021054265 Bk•9912 Page: 1096-1100(5 Pgs)
REC: 04/26/2021 11:51:01 AM by cjones
RECORDING FEES $44.00
HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD OF THE CITY OF SANFORD DENIAL
DEVELOPMENT ORDER No. 21 -05 RELATING TO 810 MYRTLE AVENUE DENYING
CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS
The Historic Preservation Board (HPB) of the City of Sanford issued this Denial
Development Order relating to an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness
relating to and touching and concerning the following described property: 810 Myrtle
Avenue, which is assigned Tax Parcel Identification Number: 25-19-30-5AG-1006-0030
by the Seminole County Property Appraiser.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Property Owners: Sharon B. Montalto
810 Myrtle Avenue
Sanford, Florida 32771-2525
Applicant: Steve A. Delacerda
Total Service Contracting, Inc.
1250 Swiss Court
Deltona, Florida 32738
Project: Approval of the HPB for an alteration/replacement of the front door
relative to property located at the 810 Myrtle Avenue.
Requested Development Approval: The Applicant requested approval of the HPB
for an alteration/replacement of the front door relative to property located at the 810
Myrtle Avenue.
I I P a &I e
Additional Findings: The project is located at 810 Myrtle Avenue in the Sanford
Residential Historic District. The frame vernacular home was constructed in 1910 as
evidenced by the records of the Seminole County Property Appraiser. The existing
front door is wood with 6 liter. It is not known if the door is original to the house. The
earliest photo located was taken in 1987 and at that time the front porch was enclosed
and the door not visible. The applicant is proposing replacement of the door with a
fiberglass door with 2 panels and a single pane of glass, retaining the existing trim.
The proposed fiberglass replacement door is on a primary facade and is the same size
as the existing door, but not the same configuration. The style is appropriate to the style
of the house. Evidence has not been provided regarding the condition of the existing
LI •OO ,O•
Schedule "S" of the City's Land Development Regulations (LDRs) provides little
direction regarding substitute materials. Most other bodies regulating historic
preservation matters will only allow the replacement of doors on primary facades if the
original door is missing or damaged beyond repair. The HPB has not approved
alternative (fiberglass, steel, composite, etc.) for doors on primary facades, most
recently at 801 Park Avenue and did not approve a 2nd floor composite railing at 818
Palmetto Avenue, but required that the railing be made of wood. The only time that the
subject door has been approved for usage by the HPB has been with regard to new
construction. The evidence shows that the craftmanship of a replacement word door is
available and the applicant stated that a wood door would be available, but was
concerned with regard to the cost.
21Page
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
(a). Pursuant to Section 8.0 of Schedule "S" of the City's LDRs, the HPB has
reviewed the proposed Certificate of Appropriateness and all application documentation
and matters relating thereto in accordance with the procedures for altering historic
landmarks or structures within historic districts as set forth in Schedule "S".
(b). Specifically, Schedule "S" provides as follows:
(1). The historic character of a property shall be retained and
preserved.
(2). The removal of historic materials or alteration of features and
spaces that characterize a property shall be avoided.
(3). Doors, screen doors, and door details, frames, lintels, fan lights,
sidelights, pediments and transoms in good condition or repairable
that are in character with the style and period of the building shall be
retained.
(4). If doors or door details on principal facades are found to be
unrepairable, they shall be replaced with new doors and door details
in character with the structure in material, size and configuration.
(5). Doors with modern designs, flush or sliding glass doors, or any
type of door that is inappropriate to the style or period of the
structures are prohibited.
(c). To the extent that a conclusion of law as set forth herein also constitutes a
factual finding, then such shall be taken to be so as part of this Denial Development
Order.
3 1 P a g e
(d). The proposed Certificate of Appropriateness is hereby found and
determined not to comply with all of the aforestated requirements and provisions.
(e). Additionally, the proposed Certificate of Appropriateness sought is hereby
found and determined to be inconsistent with the City of Sanford Comprehensive Plan
and development of the property as proposed would be inconsistent with and in non-
compliance to applicable land development regulations and all other applicable
regulations and ordinances as set forth in the Code of Ordinances of the City of
Sanford.
10JUK140
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED THAT:
(1). The aforementioned application for a Certificate of Appropriateness is
DENIED based upon the conclusion that the proposed door and trim are modern in
design and are not consistent with the purpose and intent of Schedule "S" of the City's
LDRs and do not comply with the specific design guidelines contained within Schedule
S" of the City's LDRs.
(2). This Denial Development Order disapproving issuance of a Certificate of
Appropriateness touches and concerns the aforedescribed property.
4 1 P a g e
Done and Ordered on the date set forth below.
As approved and authorized for execution by the Historic Preservation Board of
the City of Sanford at its meeting of February 17, 2021.
A TTES T.- HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD
Traci Houchin, MMC, FCRM
City Clerk ,
OF
JYVIE CITY OF SANFORD
n I l� -
my A
9
kUn'qpro ti
fl
U
t6 r�6br*uary 17, 2021,