CITY OF SARASOTA MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD Note: The City s Website address is sarasotagov.com. Select Videos on Demand from the Main Web Page to view agendas, videos of past meetings, and minutes. Historic Preservation Board Members Present: Historic Preservation Board Members Absent: City Staff Present: Robert Dynan, Chair Dr. Christopher Wilson, Vice Chair Richard Allen Joyce Hart Dan Ionescu Dr. Evelyn Mangie David Gurley Dr. Clifford Smith, Senior Planner Karen Grassett, Senior Planning Technician I. CALL MEETING TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL HPB Chair Dynan called the meeting to order at 3:00 p.m. Dr. Smith called the roll and stated HPB Member Gurley had sent an email stating he would late for the meeting. 1. Reading of the Pledge of Conduct Dr. Smith read the Pledge of Conduct. 2. Waiver of Absences: a. David Gurley - 4/12/16 HPB member Hart made a motion to waive HPB member Gurley s absence on 4/12/16. HPB Vice Chair Wilson seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. II. CHANGES TO THE ORDER OF THE DAY There were no changes to the order of the day. III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. April 12, 2016 HPB member Mangie made a motion to approve the April 12, 2016 minutes. HPB member Hart seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
Page 2 of 7 IV. CITIZEN INPUT [Citizens may address the Board on items of interest including those matters on the regular agenda. Time Limits will be established by Historic Preservation Board members.] There was no citizen input. V. CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS [COA] APPLICATIONS Dr. Smith administered the oath to those wishing to speak 1. Brody/Murrell House [547 North Shore Drive]: Application 16-COA-04 proposes work relating to main house as follows: Main House Exterior: 1) To the rear of the home, build an addition to create a one-story covered patio; 2) Add a utility room addition off the existing kitchen with access to patio area; and 3) Infill original side and back window as part of the kitchen utility room remodel. Main House Interior: 1) Remodel kitchen, washer and dryer area, remove built-in bookshelf, and closet; and 2) Relocate rear entry door to utility room. Mr. Ron Scott, Patricia Vulopas and Gregory Vulopas appeared. Mr. Scott stated the Vulopas wished to construct a utility room off of the kitchen in order to relocate the washer and dryer out of the kitchen area and remodel the kitchen area; stated the existing patio area was unusable for about 4 months during Spring due to boll weevil larva droppings from the large Melaleuca tree in the back yard so they were proposing to cover and screen the patio area; the existing roof tiles would be matched as close as possible; and the existing doors and windows would be kept with the exception of the kitchen window that they believe was originally a door and would like to reconstruct for easy access to the patio area. Ms. Vulopas noted the window in the powder room and the three arched windows were the only original windows and they were not proposing any changes to those windows. Mr. Vulopas noted the bookshelf was not built-in; they wanted to keep the structure as authentic as possible; and the utility room addition would be offset from the original structure. HPB member Mangie noted the attachment to the COA application stated the arched heads would remain as open as possible when reframing the door and questioned what as open as possible meant. Discussion ensued. Mr. Scott stated it meant as much as structurally possible and noted the details were included in the plans that were submitted. HPB Chair Dynan questioned if elevations had been provided; what materials would be used for the screened-in enclosure; and if the stucco would match the original. Mr. Scott stated elevations were included in the application packet; coated white aluminum would be used for the screened-in enclosure; and the stucco would be different so that the addition could be easily distinguished from the original structure. HPB member Ionescu questioned if the proposed door from the kitchen to the patio was the same as the double door shown on the plans; and if the area of the extension that looked like a closet was necessary. Ms. Vulopas stated the proposed door from the
Page 3 of 7 kitchen was currently a window. Mr. Scott stated once they investigate and confirm that was originally a door they will coordinate with Dr. Smith regarding reopening the doorway; and stated the area of the addition that appeared to be a closet was actually a vestibule to access the laundry room and provide access to the kitchen from the patio area. HPB member Ionescu discussed the roof stating he liked the design however he recommended putting the addition by the flat roof noting the different heights of the tile roof behind the building. Discussion ensued. Mr. Scott stated they had attempted to match the existing pitch of the roof as much as possible. HPB member Hart stated she had similar issues when putting an addition on her 1926 home and commended the applicants on their efforts. HPB member Allen made a motion to find Certificate of Appropriateness 16- COA-04 consistent with Sections IV-808 (a) and IV-809 (a) and approve the proposed scope of work, subject to the following condition(s): (1) All construction plans for the proposed scope of work shall be in compliance with those received with Permit # 20164483 by the Building Department on April 19, 2016. All final construction plans shall be subject to a full review for compliance with all other applicable codes by Historic Preservation Staff and the Director of Neighborhood and Development Services. HPB member Ionescu seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 2. Meyer House [540 South Osprey Avenue]: Application 16-COA-05 proposes work relating to the exterior of the main house as follows: Main House Exterior: 1) Restore missing historic window in front of house at one-story covered patio with moved repurposed side kitchen window; 2) Replace side kitchen window with repurposed smaller kitchen window from interior back porch location; 3) Infill original window from the kitchen interior room remodel; 4) Complete front porch and roof repairs using like materials; and 5) Put in new concrete with shell aggregate driveway to left of house. Main House Interior: 1) Remodel kitchen, to place sink under smaller historic side kitchen window. Mr. William Luthy appeared and discussed the proposed renovations stating it was a small project that involved reopening a window on the right front of the house with an original window from the kitchen; filling in that window area in the kitchen in order to remodel the kitchen; making repairs to the front porch and roof using the same materials; and installing a driveway to the left of the house where there is a ½ lot. HPB member Ionescu questioned where the house was located and stated he would like to see better pictures as well as floor plans. Mr. Luthy stated the house was on the west side of Osprey between Cherry Lane and Oak Street; stated interior floor plans for the kitchen layout were included in the application
Page 4 of 7 packet; and stated a previous opening was being used for the front window. HPB member Ionescu questioned what plans had been submitted with the building permit. Dr. Smith stated the plans that were provided to the HPB were the plans submitted with the building permit. HPB member Ionescu questioned if the Building Department had required plans for the window renovations and where Mr. Luthy would be purchasing the front window from. Mr. Luthy stated the Building Department did not require plans for the windows since the structure was historic and they were reusing existing windows, and since they were reusing existing windows no windows would be purchased. Discussion ensued on the lack of visual information in the submittal and the reason the original front window was taken out. HPB Chair Dynan questioned if the FMSF for the property was up-to-date and if the proposed renovations would be included in the files. Dr. Smith discussed the FMSF and Local Designation databases stating those were mutually exclusive of each other. HPB Chair Dynan questioned if accurate photos were in the designation file. Dr. Smith stated the file consisted of the designation report and photos of the structure at the time of designation; stated historic photos would only be in the file if those were submitted as part of the designation application; and noted the structure was designated in 1999 so any photos in the file were likely from 1999. HPB Chair Dynan questioned if Mr. Luthy owned the home when it was designated. Mr. Luthy stated he had recently purchased the home. HPB Chair Dynan questioned if Dr. Smith reviewed the designation file. Dr. Smith stated that was part of the review process and noted there was nothing in the file indicating the front window was there at the time of designation. HPB Chair Dynan questioned what information was included in the file. Dr. Smith stated a designation report and photos were in each file; stated a condensed version of the written description in the designation report was provided as part of the staff report; and the staff report also included the period the house was from and what type of example the structure was. HPB member Allen stated the proposed renovations were minor however the pictures submitted and lack of floor plans made it difficult to determine the details of the work. HPB member Ionescu questioned if Dr. Smith had floor plans. Dr. Smith stated those were not normally part of the designation process; noted the proposed changes were very minor; the residential use was being maintained; stated the most significant aspect was the addition of the driveway; noted the materials for the driveway were from the same period as the house; the installation of the driveway had no impact on the historic structure; and noted the proposed driveway was in the view corridor. HPB member Hart made a motion to find Certificate of Appropriateness 16- COA-05 consistent with Sections IV-808 (a) and IV-809 (a) and approve the proposed scope of work, subject to the following condition(s):
Page 5 of 7 (1) All construction plans for the proposed scope of work shall be in compliance with those received with Permit # 20164480 by the Building Department on April 19, 2016. All final construction plans shall be subject to a full review for compliance with all other applicable codes by Historic Preservation Staff and the Director of Neighborhood and Development Services. HPB member Ionescu seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. VI. TOPICS BY BOARD MEMBERS HPB Vice Chair Wilson stated he was going to ask about the letter the HPB was going to submit supporting the Newtown Conservation Historic District project however notice the letter had been drafted and a copy provided to Board members. Dr. Smith stated HPB member Ionescu had drafted the letter and it would be included in the backup materials presented to the City Commission for their deliberations. HPB member Ionescu stated he had been approached by Ms. Oldham at the City s Advisory Board member reception at the Van Wezel and offered to draft the letter. VII. TOPICS BY STAFF 1. Joint Meeting With Sarasota County Historic Preservation Board to be held May 24, 2016, 4:30 PM, at the Sarasota County Administration Center, 1660 Ringling Blvd, 3rd Floor Think Tank. Dr. Smith stated the draft agenda for the 5/24/16 joint meeting with the Sarasota County Historic Preservation Board was provided and if the HPB members wished to add anything they should let him know so he could pass that along to County staff. Dr. Smith stated he would be attending the Florida Trust for Historic Preservation conference in Tallahassee. HPB member Hart stated she would be attending as well. HPB member Ionescu discussed the 2003 maps of historic structures in the City he had brought to Dr. Smith s attention previously; stated Dr. Smith had indicated he had more recent information; and stated he would pay out of packet for the recent information. Dr. Smith stated the information HPB member Ionescu had consisted of ¼ section maps from the Phase I survey in 2003 which was the first of five phases; stated the first phase was incomplete so it had been updated; the updated phase I survey replaced the original one HPB member Ionescu had; stated all five phases were combined into the FMSF database; discussed previous efforts to combine the information into layered maps; stated he had books in his office with the five individual phases; and noted the books contain the database and history for each ¼ section. HPB member Ionescu requested the HPB members be provided with copies of the failed attempts at mapping; stated the HPB was looking for a project; and stated he would like to see the information from the five phases used to initiate projects such as suggesting buildings for local designation. Dr. Smith stated he would be happy to
Page 6 of 7 retrieve the maps requested; noted the maps were inaccurate and unreliable and he would not use them; and stated he would show those to the HPB members so they could see what was attempted. Discussion ensued regarding the five phases, the consultants used for the phases; the process used to develop the FMSF; the information that was included in the FMSF database; investigating how other communities document their historic resources; the value of mapping historic resources; and what projects the HPB could pursue. HPB member Ionescu questioned if there was any effort being made to do a current survey. Dr. Smith stated he would like to continue with the surveys; stated that was critical to maintaining the historic fabric of the City; noted all of the original phases were over ten years old; each survey needed updated; suggested a HPB project could be to update a phase every other year; each phase would be a two year project with the first year being spent updating the survey and the second year implementing the results of the updated survey; and noted every January additional structures are eligible for listing on the FMSF due to the 50 year rule. HPB member Ionescu questioned what implementing the results meant. Dr. Smith stated that would be recommending structures for designation and/or recommending historic district designations; stated he would bring the books to the next workshop; noted the information was available on the City s website; stated the HPB could be proactive as a Board by recommending a project to update the surveys in a systematic fashion; and noted using that approach all the surveys would be updated in 10 years at which time the process would start over. Discussion ensued regarding using the information in the surveys to determine recommended historic districts; local versus national designations; and the process for designating structures and/or districts. HPB Chair Dynan requested Dr. Smith provide the HPB members with information on a path to identify the top 50 structures he would recommend for local designation stating the HPB could then dwindle those down to 5 possibilities. HPB member Ionescu stated the challenge was the HPB members could not contact each other and therefore could not come up with ideas collectively. Dr. Smith questioned what types of structures the HPB was specifically looking for and what the goals were. HPB Chair Dynan stated the goal was for the HPB to collectively work on a project and see it through completion. Discussion ensued regarding public versus privately owned structures; the types of projects the HPB could embark on such as survey and planning, education, and historic districts; and when the next workshop would be held. HPB member Ionescu suggested each member bring a recommended neighborhood or building they could research for possible designation to the next workshop. HPB member Allen stated it bothered him that there was no overall planning; discussed master plans for other communities; stated master planning was important in maintaining a vision; and noted the City of Venice had a master plan developed by John Nolan. HPB member Ionescu discussed the Form Based Code project noting staff was using outdated maps; stated while that process was occurring tall buildings were being built; noted the City Commission had recently commissioned a massing study; noted the difficulties in creating a vision for a boom and bust community such as Sarasota; and stated the need to take preemptive steps to preserve certain aspects of the City s history. HPB member Allen discussed the Duany effort
Page 7 of 7 stating he and several other architects had worked together to develop a master plan at the same time; discussed the entrance to the City and changes in traffic patterns; and stated he would like to see previous studies to determine how best to address the future. Dr. Smith stated the studies were available on the City s website and noted Sarasota was a John Nolan planned city like Venice and that plan was still the basis for city planning. Discussion ensued regarding delays in the renovations to the old Sarasota High School building; and the potential for a workshop in June if no actionable items were submitted by the deadline. Dr. Smith noted the next meeting would be the joint meeting with Sarasota County. HPB Vice Chair Wilson stated he would not be able to attend the joint meeting. HPB member Mangie questioned if it would be possible for the HPB to recommend undoing previous projects in order to restore historic buildings such as the green space in front of City Hall that is now a parking lot and bus station. VIII. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 4:26 pm. Robert Dynan, Chair Historic Preservation Board Clifford Smith, Senior Planner Secretary to the Historic Preservation Board