Minutes
OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE FORT PIERCE HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD HELD ON MONDAY, OCTOBER 26, 2020, IN FORT PIERCE CITY HALL, COMMISSION CHAMBERS, 100 NORTH US HIGHWAY 1, FORT PIERCE, FLORIDA.
1.
CALL TO ORDER
2.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
3.
ROLL CALL
- Present:
- Charlie Hayek; Michael Broderick; Holly Theuns; George Johansen; Anthony Westbury; Suzanne Boardman, Chair
- Absent:
- Kori Benton
- Staff Present:
-
- Jennifer Hofmeister, Planning Director
- Tanya Earley, Assistant City Attorney
- Maria Lewicka, Historic Preservation Planner
- Alicia Rosenthal, Executive Assistant
4.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
a.
Minutes from the September 28, 2020 meeting
Motion was made by Charlie Hayek, and seconded by Holly Theuns to approve the minutes from the September 28, 2020 meeting.
- AYE:
- Michael Broderick, Holly Theuns, George Johansen, Anthony Westbury, Charlie Hayek, Chair Suzanne Boardman
Passed
5.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
a.
Certificate of Appropriateness 20-14 - New Roof - 420 N. 2nd Street
The clerk introduced Certificate of Appropriateness 20-14 for a new roof at 420 N. 2nd Street, Fort Pierce, Florida.
Madam Chair Boardman asked Assistant City Attorney, Tanya Earley, to explain the Quasi-Judicial Hearing procedures as they apply to all subsequent Quasi-Judicial Hearings.
Before commencing this Quasi-Judicial Hearing, Tanya Earley, Assistant City Attorney, reminded the Board that they serve in both a legislative and quasi-judicial role. When acting as a legislative body, the Board engages in law-making activity by passing laws and establishing policies. When acting as a quasi-judicial body, the Board applies those laws and policies and is held to stricter procedural requirements. Quasi-judicial proceedings are less formal than proceedings before a circuit court but are more formal than the normal Board meeting. Quasi-judicial proceedings must follow basic standards of notice and due process; and decisions must be made based on competent substantial evidence.
Therefore, Board members have a duty to conduct the quasi-judicial proceedings more like judges than legislators. That is why the Commission has established the uniform procedures for quasi-judicial hearings that will be followed today.
Madam Chair Boardman called the proceeding to order.
The clerk confirmed the City complied with advertisement and notice requirements.
Madam Chair Boardman inquired with the Board regarding ex-parte communications and asked Clerk to call the roll:
Ms. Theuns – no
Mr. Johansen – no
Mr. Westbury – no
Mr. Hayek – no
Mr. Broderick - yes
Madam Chair Boardman – no
Madam Chair Boardman opened the public hearing.
The clerk was asked to swear in those wanting to speak during this Quasi-Judicial hearing. Individuals in the audience intending to speak on this item were asked to stand, raise their right hand, and administered an oath to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Those that were sworn in were asked to clearly state their name for the record and confirm they were sworn in at such time as they were asked to come forward to testify.
Staff Presentation:
Maria Lewicka, Historic Preservation Planner, provided an overview of the application.
The subject proposal seeks to remove a metal shingle roof and install Standing Seam Metal Panel Roof System which conflicts with the architectural and historical aesthetics of the structure. Preserving roof materials is central to defining the subject structure’s overall historic character. Moreover, the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation do not recommend removal of a major portion of a roof or roofing material that is repairable, as so stated in Standard 6, “deteriorated historic features will be repaired rather than replaced”. Roof replacement, if necessary, should be done on an in-kind basis, with the new roof matching the existing materials. Historical roofing materials such as metal shingles should be preserved when possible. If replacement is necessary, similar metal shingles should be used. Based upon Secretary of Interior Standards 2, 5, 6 and 9, staff recommends that the Historic Preservation Board deny the request for roof replacement, or consider approval of the new roof contingent on submission and approval of an alternative roofing material compatible in architectural texture, style and appearance to the existing historic structure.
Board questions for Staff: Mr. Broderick asked if the roof material is standing seam metal or 5V Crimp because the handout provided by the applicant states both types of roof material. Ms. Theuns asked if the shingles were original and Mr. Westbury asked if the applicant could store the old shingles for use by another historic home. Ms. Lewicka said the application stated standing seam metal roof system.
Applicant questions for Staff: The applicant was not present.
Applicant presentation: None.
Board questions for Applicant: None
Public comment: None
Madam Chair Boardman, seeing no one, closed the public hearing.
Comments by the Board: Mr. Hayek stressed that the Board has approved several standing seam metal roofs in the historic districts and the standing seam metal holds up in a hurricane. Mr. Broderick highlighted that the Secretary of Interior Standards changed to maintain the structure and protect the building.
Ms. Earley noted that the correspondence given to the Board from the applicant will be included as part of the record and if the Board needs additional information the Certificate of Appropriateness can be brought back to the Board at a later date.
The clerk introduced Certificate of Appropriateness 20-14 for a new roof at 420 N. 2nd Street, Fort Pierce, Florida.
Madam Chair Boardman asked Assistant City Attorney, Tanya Earley, to explain the Quasi-Judicial Hearing procedures as they apply to all subsequent Quasi-Judicial Hearings.
Before commencing this Quasi-Judicial Hearing, Tanya Earley, Assistant City Attorney, reminded the Board that they serve in both a legislative and quasi-judicial role. When acting as a legislative body, the Board engages in law-making activity by passing laws and establishing policies. When acting as a quasi-judicial body, the Board applies those laws and policies and is held to stricter procedural requirements. Quasi-judicial proceedings are less formal than proceedings before a circuit court but are more formal than the normal Board meeting. Quasi-judicial proceedings must follow basic standards of notice and due process; and decisions must be made based on competent substantial evidence.
Therefore, Board members have a duty to conduct the quasi-judicial proceedings more like judges than legislators. That is why the Commission has established the uniform procedures for quasi-judicial hearings that will be followed today.
Madam Chair Boardman called the proceeding to order.
The clerk confirmed the City complied with advertisement and notice requirements.
Madam Chair Boardman inquired with the Board regarding ex-parte communications and asked Clerk to call the roll:
Ms. Theuns – no
Mr. Johansen – no
Mr. Westbury – no
Mr. Hayek – no
Mr. Broderick - yes
Madam Chair Boardman – no
Madam Chair Boardman opened the public hearing.
The clerk was asked to swear in those wanting to speak during this Quasi-Judicial hearing. Individuals in the audience intending to speak on this item were asked to stand, raise their right hand, and administered an oath to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Those that were sworn in were asked to clearly state their name for the record and confirm they were sworn in at such time as they were asked to come forward to testify.
Staff Presentation:
Maria Lewicka, Historic Preservation Planner, provided an overview of the application.
The subject proposal seeks to remove a metal shingle roof and install Standing Seam Metal Panel Roof System which conflicts with the architectural and historical aesthetics of the structure. Preserving roof materials is central to defining the subject structure’s overall historic character. Moreover, the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation do not recommend removal of a major portion of a roof or roofing material that is repairable, as so stated in Standard 6, “deteriorated historic features will be repaired rather than replaced”. Roof replacement, if necessary, should be done on an in-kind basis, with the new roof matching the existing materials. Historical roofing materials such as metal shingles should be preserved when possible. If replacement is necessary, similar metal shingles should be used. Based upon Secretary of Interior Standards 2, 5, 6 and 9, staff recommends that the Historic Preservation Board deny the request for roof replacement, or consider approval of the new roof contingent on submission and approval of an alternative roofing material compatible in architectural texture, style and appearance to the existing historic structure.
Board questions for Staff: Mr. Broderick asked if the roof material is standing seam metal or 5V Crimp because the handout provided by the applicant states both types of roof material. Ms. Theuns asked if the shingles were original and Mr. Westbury asked if the applicant could store the old shingles for use by another historic home. Ms. Lewicka said the application stated standing seam metal roof system.
Applicant questions for Staff: The applicant was not present.
Applicant presentation: None.
Board questions for Applicant: None
Public comment: None
Madam Chair Boardman, seeing no one, closed the public hearing.
Comments by the Board: Mr. Hayek stressed that the Board has approved several standing seam metal roofs in the historic districts and the standing seam metal holds up in a hurricane. Mr. Broderick highlighted that the Secretary of Interior Standards changed to maintain the structure and protect the building.
Ms. Earley noted that the correspondence given to the Board from the applicant will be included as part of the record and if the Board needs additional information the Certificate of Appropriateness can be brought back to the Board at a later date.
Motion was made by Charlie Hayek, and seconded by Michael Broderick to approve Certificate of Appropriateness 20-14 for a standing seam natural metal roof at 420 N. 2nd Street, as provided in the applicants application, with the provision that if the applicant wants a different type of roof material, the applicant will have to come back before the Board.
- AYE:
- George Johansen, Anthony Westbury, Charlie Hayek, Michael Broderick, Holly Theuns, Chair Suzanne Boardman
Passed
b.
Certificate of Appropriateness 20-62 - New Wall - 604 Beach Court
The clerk introduced Certificate of Appropriateness 20-62 for the new wall at 604 Beach Court, Fort Pierce, Florida.
Madam Chair Boardman called the proceeding to order.
The clerk confirmed the City complied with advertisement and notice requirements.
Madam Chair Boardman inquired with the Board regarding ex-parte communications and asked Clerk to call the roll:
Mr. Johansen – no
Mr. Westbury – no
Mr. Hayek – no
Mr. Broderick - no
Ms. Theuns – no
Madam Chair Boardman – no
Madam Chair Boardman opened the public hearing.
The clerk was asked to swear in those wanting to speak during this Quasi-Judicial hearing. Individuals in the audience intending to speak on this item were asked to stand, raise their right hand, and administered an oath to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Those that were sworn in were asked to clearly state their name for the record and confirm they were sworn in at such time as they were asked to come forward to testify.
Staff Presentation:
Maria Lewicka, Historic Preservation Planner, provided an overview of the application.
It is staff’s professional recommendation that the design of the proposed wall and gates does not assimilates well with the surrounding area. The basis for this finding is on the long uninterrupted wall area, which is not appropriate nor desirable in historic districts. Based upon Secretary of Interior’s Standard #9, staff recommends that the Board approve the request for the construction of the proposed concrete walls and gates with the following conditions:
Applicant questions for Staff: None
Applicant presentation: Juan Salazar, Owner, sworn, stated the main reason for the wall and gates is for safety. Mr. Salazar stated he would like to preserve the historic nature and style of the home. Mr. Salazar said he does not agree with condition #3. Mr. Salazar noted that on the south side of the property there is 8 foot high bushes and a fence.
Board questions for Applicant: Madam Chair Boardman asked Mr. Salazar if he is set on the wooden gates.
Public comment: None
Madam Chair Boardman, seeing no one, closed the public hearing.
Comments by the Board: The Board suggested breaking up the wall with aluminum gates and landscaping on the inside of the wall, softening the look of the wall by being creative and artistic or wood slat accents throughout the wall.
The clerk introduced Certificate of Appropriateness 20-62 for the new wall at 604 Beach Court, Fort Pierce, Florida.
Madam Chair Boardman called the proceeding to order.
The clerk confirmed the City complied with advertisement and notice requirements.
Madam Chair Boardman inquired with the Board regarding ex-parte communications and asked Clerk to call the roll:
Mr. Johansen – no
Mr. Westbury – no
Mr. Hayek – no
Mr. Broderick - no
Ms. Theuns – no
Madam Chair Boardman – no
Madam Chair Boardman opened the public hearing.
The clerk was asked to swear in those wanting to speak during this Quasi-Judicial hearing. Individuals in the audience intending to speak on this item were asked to stand, raise their right hand, and administered an oath to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Those that were sworn in were asked to clearly state their name for the record and confirm they were sworn in at such time as they were asked to come forward to testify.
Staff Presentation:
Maria Lewicka, Historic Preservation Planner, provided an overview of the application.
It is staff’s professional recommendation that the design of the proposed wall and gates does not assimilates well with the surrounding area. The basis for this finding is on the long uninterrupted wall area, which is not appropriate nor desirable in historic districts. Based upon Secretary of Interior’s Standard #9, staff recommends that the Board approve the request for the construction of the proposed concrete walls and gates with the following conditions:
- Provide enhanced post design, ornamental caps, spatial encroachment from the wall to avoid the monotony of the wall.
- Provide wall landscaping to break and soften the wall appearance.
- Add an additional two (2) to three (3)-foot setback to allow for wall landscaping.
- Replace the proposed aluminum gates with horizontal wood panels with aluminum gates with aluminum ‘ornamental’ style pickets similar in design to the existing gate on the south side of the front facade.
- Provide wall colors that are compatible with the colors of the residential facade.
- Wall shall conform to the clear vision provisions of Section 125-308.
Applicant questions for Staff: None
Applicant presentation: Juan Salazar, Owner, sworn, stated the main reason for the wall and gates is for safety. Mr. Salazar stated he would like to preserve the historic nature and style of the home. Mr. Salazar said he does not agree with condition #3. Mr. Salazar noted that on the south side of the property there is 8 foot high bushes and a fence.
Board questions for Applicant: Madam Chair Boardman asked Mr. Salazar if he is set on the wooden gates.
Public comment: None
Madam Chair Boardman, seeing no one, closed the public hearing.
Comments by the Board: The Board suggested breaking up the wall with aluminum gates and landscaping on the inside of the wall, softening the look of the wall by being creative and artistic or wood slat accents throughout the wall.
Motion was made by Michael Broderick, and seconded by Charlie Hayek to approve Certificate of Appropriateness 20-62, for a new wall and gates at 604 Beach Court, subject to an agreement being reached between the applicant and the Planning department relative to design features.
- AYE:
- George Johansen, Anthony Westbury, Charlie Hayek, Michael Broderick, Holly Theuns, Chair Suzanne Boardman
Passed
6.
NEW BUSINESS
Ms. Theuns asked if a Certificate of Appropriateness approval was given for the canvas over the outdoor eating area at Rooster in the Garden. Ms. Lewicka stated that a Certificate of Appropriateness approval is not needed if a building permit is not required.
Ms. Hofmeister explained that when this first came to the building department the canvas did not extend over the sidewalk. Ms. Hofmeister noted that staff has had conversations with Mr. Gutierrez about coming up with a master sign plan for the Galleria Ms. Hofmeister said staff will make the building department aware that the canvas awnings are extending into the sidewalk.
Board discussion ensued on sending a letter voicing the Boards concerns and having the owner fill out a Certificate of Appropriateness application.
Ms. Earley suggested that staff look into the matter and agenda the item if necessary, at a later date.
Ms. Theuns asked if a Certificate of Appropriateness approval was given for the canvas over the outdoor eating area at Rooster in the Garden. Ms. Lewicka stated that a Certificate of Appropriateness approval is not needed if a building permit is not required.
Ms. Hofmeister explained that when this first came to the building department the canvas did not extend over the sidewalk. Ms. Hofmeister noted that staff has had conversations with Mr. Gutierrez about coming up with a master sign plan for the Galleria Ms. Hofmeister said staff will make the building department aware that the canvas awnings are extending into the sidewalk.
Board discussion ensued on sending a letter voicing the Boards concerns and having the owner fill out a Certificate of Appropriateness application.
Ms. Earley suggested that staff look into the matter and agenda the item if necessary, at a later date.
a.
Administratively Approved Certificates of Appropriateness - September 2020
Motion was made by Michael Broderick, and seconded by Charlie Hayek to approve the administratively approved Certificates of Appropriateness for September 2020.
- AYE:
- Anthony Westbury, Charlie Hayek, Michael Broderick, Holly Theuns, George Johansen, Chair Suzanne Boardman
Passed
7.
COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC
There were no comments from the public.
There were no comments from the public.
8.
CONSIDERATION OF ABSENCES
Motion was made by Charlie Hayek, and seconded by Michael Broderick to approve the absence of Mr. Benton.
- AYE:
- George Johansen, Anthony Westbury, Charlie Hayek, Michael Broderick, Holly Theuns, Chair Suzanne Boardman
Passed
9.
ADJOURNMENT