Minutes
OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE FORT PIERCE HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD HELD ON MONDAY, FEBRUARY 27, 2017, 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:
- Peggy Harris; Jared Osteen; Holly Theuns; Charlie Hayek; Michael Broderick; Suzanne Boardman; Marlene Sherwin; Paul Sampson, Chairman
- Absent:
- Patrick Small
- Staff Present:
-
- Iola Mosley, Senior Assistant City Attorney
- Kori Benton, Senior Planner
- Maria Lewicka, Historic Preservation Planner
- Alicia Rosenthal, Administrative Assistant
4.
CERTIFICATION OF ALTERNATE MEMBER VOTING STATUS
All members were present.
All members were present.
5.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
a.
Minutes from the January 9, 2017 meeting
Motion was made by Peggy Harris, and seconded by Charlie Hayek to approve the minutes from the January 9, 2017 meeting.
- AYE:
- Michael Broderick, Suzanne Boardman, Peggy Harris, Jared Osteen, Holly Theuns, Charlie Hayek, Chairman Paul Sampson
Passed
6.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
a.
Certificate of Appropriateness 17-02 - Install New Roof - 615 South Indian River Drive
Ms. Lewicka gave an overview of the application and answered questions from the Board on the original structure and roof material cost.
Paul Berg, Attorney and Applicant Representative asked questions of his son, Dustin Berg, who presented testimony in regard to the property. Mr. Berg provided pictures of neighboring contributing properties with a metal roof.
Mr. Berg answered questions from the Board regarding color scheme, exterior renovations, history of the building, and roof pricing.
Mr. Menard, Architectonic, provided cost comparison on roof materials and he recommended for durability and hurricane protection a 5V Crimp metal roof over a standing seam metal roof. Mr. Menard stated he believes the process in which older homes roofs were built, were either a metal shingle or metal roof, unless it was the original mission style roof, which only a few are around.
Mr. Benton provided the Board with pictures of neighboring structures that the Planning department had on file.
Ms. Lewicka gave an overview of the application and answered questions from the Board on the original structure and roof material cost.
Paul Berg, Attorney and Applicant Representative asked questions of his son, Dustin Berg, who presented testimony in regard to the property. Mr. Berg provided pictures of neighboring contributing properties with a metal roof.
Mr. Berg answered questions from the Board regarding color scheme, exterior renovations, history of the building, and roof pricing.
Mr. Menard, Architectonic, provided cost comparison on roof materials and he recommended for durability and hurricane protection a 5V Crimp metal roof over a standing seam metal roof. Mr. Menard stated he believes the process in which older homes roofs were built, were either a metal shingle or metal roof, unless it was the original mission style roof, which only a few are around.
Mr. Benton provided the Board with pictures of neighboring structures that the Planning department had on file.
Motion was made by Charlie Hayek, and seconded by Peggy Harris to approve 5V Crimp metal roof system with mill finish.
- AYE:
- Peggy Harris, Jared Osteen, Holly Theuns, Charlie Hayek, Michael Broderick, Suzanne Boardman, Chairman Paul Sampson
Passed
b.
Certificate of Appropriateness 17-06 - Replace Three Windows - 1011 Boston Avenue
Ms. Lewicka gave an overview of the application and answered questions from the Board.
Board discussion ensued.
Kevin Deese, Owner, provided additional information on the home.
Michael Mcleod stated he would like the Board to consider repairing what was damaged and come as close as possible to what was there before.
Cathy Wassylenko agreed with Mr. Mcleod on replacing the old material and she stated there are solutions that are much cheaper than new window replacement.
Ms. Lewicka gave an overview of the application and answered questions from the Board.
Board discussion ensued.
Kevin Deese, Owner, provided additional information on the home.
Michael Mcleod stated he would like the Board to consider repairing what was damaged and come as close as possible to what was there before.
Cathy Wassylenko agreed with Mr. Mcleod on replacing the old material and she stated there are solutions that are much cheaper than new window replacement.
Motion was made by Charlie Hayek, and seconded by Peggy Harris to approve the replacement of the windows with an aluminum style 6 over 1 type window, which should match the existing windows that are being replaced and the trim should stay intact.
- AYE:
- Jared Osteen, Holly Theuns, Charlie Hayek, Michael Broderick, Suzanne Boardman, Peggy Harris, Chairman Paul Sampson
Passed
c.
Certificate of Appropriateness 17-07 - Install Wood Picket Fence - 1115 Delaware Avenue
Mr. Broderick recused himself since he owns the property.
Ms. Lewicka gave an overview of the application and answered questions from the Board.
Mr. Heyek asked how can we be sure the applicant puts in the fence that he is proposing.
Mr. Benton explained when the Board renders a decision they will need to seek clarity and specificity in the motion. If the request is approved as presented, the exhibit will be attached to the approval certificate and the building permit. The applicant or property owner has to construct what is on the building permit in order for it to pass inspection. In the event it does not comply then it would fail inspection. At that point, code enforcement or building stop work order would come into place or they would have to come back to the Board for reconsideration of the style of the product they are pursuing.
Mr. Benton stated staff is improving systems and procedures to ensure from the Board decision, to the paperwork, a better accountability will be in place.
Mr. Broderick provided additional information on the structure and stated he is looking to enhance the entranceway to Delaware by presenting an example of what decorative fences can look like. Mr. Broderick answered questions from the Board on the width of the pickets.
Ms. Monokian spoke in favor of the application and commented that she is in favor of the style of the picket fence, compared to picket fences that have gone up in the past.
Mike Menard, Architectonic, provided a general rule of thumb for all railings, that a 4" sphere should not be able to go through the railings, so any picket spacing, no matter how far off the ground, should be about 3-4" apart so a child cannot get there head stuck.
Mr. Broderick recused himself since he owns the property.
Ms. Lewicka gave an overview of the application and answered questions from the Board.
Mr. Heyek asked how can we be sure the applicant puts in the fence that he is proposing.
Mr. Benton explained when the Board renders a decision they will need to seek clarity and specificity in the motion. If the request is approved as presented, the exhibit will be attached to the approval certificate and the building permit. The applicant or property owner has to construct what is on the building permit in order for it to pass inspection. In the event it does not comply then it would fail inspection. At that point, code enforcement or building stop work order would come into place or they would have to come back to the Board for reconsideration of the style of the product they are pursuing.
Mr. Benton stated staff is improving systems and procedures to ensure from the Board decision, to the paperwork, a better accountability will be in place.
Mr. Broderick provided additional information on the structure and stated he is looking to enhance the entranceway to Delaware by presenting an example of what decorative fences can look like. Mr. Broderick answered questions from the Board on the width of the pickets.
Ms. Monokian spoke in favor of the application and commented that she is in favor of the style of the picket fence, compared to picket fences that have gone up in the past.
Mike Menard, Architectonic, provided a general rule of thumb for all railings, that a 4" sphere should not be able to go through the railings, so any picket spacing, no matter how far off the ground, should be about 3-4" apart so a child cannot get there head stuck.
Motion was made by Suzanne Boardman, and seconded by Charlie Hayek to approve the installation of a 3 foot white picket fence, to be painted white, with the attachment of the picture on the permit so there is no differentiation between what is approved and what is put up.
- AYE:
- Holly Theuns, Charlie Hayek, Suzanne Boardman, Peggy Harris, Jared Osteen, Chairman Paul Sampson
- Other:
- Michael Broderick (RECUSE)
Passed
d.
Certificate of Appropriateness 17-08 - Install Wood Picket Fence - 1221 Delaware Avenue
Mr. Broderick recused himself since he is the owner of the property.
Ms. Lewicka gave an overview of the Certificate of Appropriateness and Mr. Broderick provided additional information on the location of the fence.
No one spoke against the application.
Mr. Broderick recused himself since he is the owner of the property.
Ms. Lewicka gave an overview of the Certificate of Appropriateness and Mr. Broderick provided additional information on the location of the fence.
No one spoke against the application.
Motion was made by Holly Theuns, and seconded by Charlie Hayek to accept the recommendation for COA 17-08 to install the 3 foot white picket fence per the proposed fence on the paperwork.
- AYE:
- Charlie Hayek, Suzanne Boardman, Peggy Harris, Jared Osteen, Holly Theuns, Chairman Paul Sampson
- Other:
- Michael Broderick (RECUSE)
Passed
e.
Certificate of Appropriateness 17-12 - Install Wood Fence - 903 Boston Avenue
Ms. Lewicka gave an overview of the application and answered a question regarding the type of fence on the east side of the property.
The Board discussed issues with approving the fence on the rear property line that has already been installed incorrectly without a permit.
Ms. Mosley explained that the issues concerning code compliance would have to come before the Special Magistrate or the Code Board for approval. If the fence has been installed incorrectly, the Code Board would have the power to require that the petitioner remove it, replace it the correct way, or face fines for putting up a structure that is in violation of code provisions.
Ida Paul, Owner, stated she did not realize her fence was turned around because all of the other fences installed in the alley are installed the same way. Ms. Paul said she would get the fence in the alley turned around to be in compliance, and on the east side of the property she would be adding a shadow box fence to match her neighbors fence.
Cathy Wassylenko spoke in favor of the fence.
After the vote, Mr. Hayek commented that the building department should comply with having the fence turned around but they should not force this one homeowner to comply if they do not force all of the neighbors to comply.
Ms. Mosley stated the applicant can make that point to the building department in consideration of approval.
Ms. Lewicka gave an overview of the application and answered a question regarding the type of fence on the east side of the property.
The Board discussed issues with approving the fence on the rear property line that has already been installed incorrectly without a permit.
Ms. Mosley explained that the issues concerning code compliance would have to come before the Special Magistrate or the Code Board for approval. If the fence has been installed incorrectly, the Code Board would have the power to require that the petitioner remove it, replace it the correct way, or face fines for putting up a structure that is in violation of code provisions.
Ida Paul, Owner, stated she did not realize her fence was turned around because all of the other fences installed in the alley are installed the same way. Ms. Paul said she would get the fence in the alley turned around to be in compliance, and on the east side of the property she would be adding a shadow box fence to match her neighbors fence.
Cathy Wassylenko spoke in favor of the fence.
After the vote, Mr. Hayek commented that the building department should comply with having the fence turned around but they should not force this one homeowner to comply if they do not force all of the neighbors to comply.
Ms. Mosley stated the applicant can make that point to the building department in consideration of approval.
Motion was made by Suzanne Boardman, and seconded by Peggy Harris to approve to the fence on the rear property line and the fence on the east side of the yard will be shadow box style and both fences will be subject to building and code enforcement requirements.
- AYE:
- Michael Broderick, Suzanne Boardman, Peggy Harris, Jared Osteen, Holly Theuns, Charlie Hayek, Chairman Paul Sampson
Passed
f.
Preliminary Historic Designation Application - 1108 Orange Avenue
Ms. Lewicka gave an overview of the application.
Lou Pfeffer, Managing Member of Snyfer Partners, provided the history on purchasing the property.
Mike Menard from Architectonic, provided information on the repair and use of the property.
Mike Mcleod spoke in favor of the historic designation.
Ms. Lewicka gave an overview of the application.
Lou Pfeffer, Managing Member of Snyfer Partners, provided the history on purchasing the property.
Mike Menard from Architectonic, provided information on the repair and use of the property.
Mike Mcleod spoke in favor of the historic designation.
Motion was made by Holly Theuns, and seconded by Charlie Hayek to accept the Preliminary Historic Designation Application for the site located at 1108 Orange Avenue, and direct Staff to complete the Designation Report, and set the Designation Public Hearing for April 27, 2017, to allow time for notification of the proper parties.
- AYE:
- Suzanne Boardman, Peggy Harris, Jared Osteen, Holly Theuns, Charlie Hayek, Michael Broderick, Chairman Paul Sampson
Passed
7.
NEW BUSINESS
Mr. Broderick distributed the original fence COA application to the Board, from the January 9, 2017 meeting for 732 Delaware Avenue. Mr. Broderick expressed his concerns with what was installed was not what was approved by the Board.
Mr. Sampson quoted the approval for the fence from the minutes.
Mr. Hayek stated it is incumbent on staff to give a definition of a picket fence to the applicant with spacing and width specifications and a picture of what it can look like.
The Board discussed that the picket fence style, material, specifications and time frame the fence has to be painted needs to be added to the motion. The Board also discussed providing a picket fence template to applicants that they can attach to the building permit for clarification.
Mike Menard, Architectronic, stated that painting pressure treated fences too quickly will make the paint chip due to the chemicals in the wood so he suggested adding a stipulation for a time limit to get the fence painted.
Ms. Lewicka showed pictures of the fences that were installed at 732 Delaware Avenue after the January 9, 2017 approval. Ms. Lewicka stated the 3 foot high gate style is up for discussion, the east and west side fences are not painted white, the pickets are in question and the landscape buffer may not meet the requirements of a buffer, although it was not exactly specified what type of landscape buffer is required.
Ms. Lewicka read the definition of a picket fence.
Ms. Mosley suggested staff have certain designs offered for picket fences that are accepted by the city and are considered consistent with the historical character of the neighborhood or the house and the applicant provide a picture or sketch, which is subject to approval by the Board.
Ms. Lewicka stated the owner should have a choice if they would like to pick out something else, as long as the Board approves it.
Ms. Mosley suggested the applicant provide a photo or drawing of what they intend to put in, require specifications as to the width of the pickets, the width between the pickets and to make certain the color, such as white picket, is mentioned.
Michael Mcleod stated to prevent confusion and to give the applicant a sense of what is wanted, it would be helpful if staff would be more forceful in specifying to the applicant a very clear definition of what the standards are for fencing, roofs, etcera.
Cathy Wassalenko inquired about historical photos of 732 Delaware Avenue, showing what was there when the house was built.
Chairman Sampson asked Ms. Lewicka to provide examples of what a picket fence should look like at the next meeting.
Ms. Lewicka stated she can come up with guidelines for a picket fence.
Ms. Mosley suggested to show the applicant examples of picket fences that would likely be approved by the Board and let the applicant know they can submit their own style but it needs to be specific and it needs to conform.
Mr. Broderick asked Ms. Mosley why the minutes are the controlling body of information stating this is the allowed installation versus what is in the application.
Ms. Mosley stated the application is telling what they want to do and the specificity of the motion is telling the applicant this is what is required and what is approved.
Mr. Hayek stated the break down is in the building department interpretation of a 3 foot high picket fence and staff needs to provide a diagram of what is approved.
Mr. Broderick distributed the original fence COA application to the Board, from the January 9, 2017 meeting for 732 Delaware Avenue. Mr. Broderick expressed his concerns with what was installed was not what was approved by the Board.
Mr. Sampson quoted the approval for the fence from the minutes.
Mr. Hayek stated it is incumbent on staff to give a definition of a picket fence to the applicant with spacing and width specifications and a picture of what it can look like.
The Board discussed that the picket fence style, material, specifications and time frame the fence has to be painted needs to be added to the motion. The Board also discussed providing a picket fence template to applicants that they can attach to the building permit for clarification.
Mike Menard, Architectronic, stated that painting pressure treated fences too quickly will make the paint chip due to the chemicals in the wood so he suggested adding a stipulation for a time limit to get the fence painted.
Ms. Lewicka showed pictures of the fences that were installed at 732 Delaware Avenue after the January 9, 2017 approval. Ms. Lewicka stated the 3 foot high gate style is up for discussion, the east and west side fences are not painted white, the pickets are in question and the landscape buffer may not meet the requirements of a buffer, although it was not exactly specified what type of landscape buffer is required.
Ms. Lewicka read the definition of a picket fence.
Ms. Mosley suggested staff have certain designs offered for picket fences that are accepted by the city and are considered consistent with the historical character of the neighborhood or the house and the applicant provide a picture or sketch, which is subject to approval by the Board.
Ms. Lewicka stated the owner should have a choice if they would like to pick out something else, as long as the Board approves it.
Ms. Mosley suggested the applicant provide a photo or drawing of what they intend to put in, require specifications as to the width of the pickets, the width between the pickets and to make certain the color, such as white picket, is mentioned.
Michael Mcleod stated to prevent confusion and to give the applicant a sense of what is wanted, it would be helpful if staff would be more forceful in specifying to the applicant a very clear definition of what the standards are for fencing, roofs, etcera.
Cathy Wassalenko inquired about historical photos of 732 Delaware Avenue, showing what was there when the house was built.
Chairman Sampson asked Ms. Lewicka to provide examples of what a picket fence should look like at the next meeting.
Ms. Lewicka stated she can come up with guidelines for a picket fence.
Ms. Mosley suggested to show the applicant examples of picket fences that would likely be approved by the Board and let the applicant know they can submit their own style but it needs to be specific and it needs to conform.
Mr. Broderick asked Ms. Mosley why the minutes are the controlling body of information stating this is the allowed installation versus what is in the application.
Ms. Mosley stated the application is telling what they want to do and the specificity of the motion is telling the applicant this is what is required and what is approved.
Mr. Hayek stated the break down is in the building department interpretation of a 3 foot high picket fence and staff needs to provide a diagram of what is approved.
a.
Certificates of Appropriateness - Administratively Approved - January 2017
8.
CONSIDERATION OF ABSENCES
Motion was made by Suzanne Boardman, and seconded by Peggy Harris to approve the absence of Mr. Small.
- AYE:
- Michael Broderick, Peggy Harris, Jared Osteen, Holly Theuns, Charlie Hayek, Suzanne Boardman, Chairman Paul Sampson
Passed
9.
ADJOURNMENT