Submitted By: Charlita Whitehead
presenter
Presentation By: Roberto Ellis
end
Department: Growth Management
FORMAL TITLE:
title
Case File #105; COA26-0062; 723 E Fort King St. - Install 98 linear feet of four-foot-high aluminum fencing with spear-top pickets in the front yard of the property
end
OCALA’S RELEVANT STRATEGIC GOALS:
Quality of Place.
PROOF OF PUBLICATION:
N/A
body
BACKGROUND:
|
Petitioner/Property Owner: |
Denice Bellido De |
|
Applicant Request: |
A request to install 98 linear feet of four-foot-high aluminum fencing with spear-top pickets in the front yard of the property. For a copy of the Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) application please contact the Growth Management Department. |
|
|
|
|
Parcel Information: |
|
|
Acres: |
±0.40 acres |
|
Parcel(s) ID: |
2820-000-010 |
|
Location: |
723 E Fort King St. |
|
Future Land Use: |
Neighborhood |
|
Zoning District: |
O-H, Office Historic |
|
Existing Use: |
Residential |
Background:
The existing home, known as the E.H. Cox House, was constructed in 1891 using a frame vernacular-colonial/Italianate building style. The home is a contributing structure to the Ocala Historic District. It was recommended that this property be rezoned from R-3, Multi-Family Residential, to O-H, Office Historic, with the approval of COA05-0066. The property also contains existing aluminum fencing, including a six-foot-high fence along a portion of the western property line and a five-foot-high fence along the northern property line.
Previous Certificates of Appropriateness:
• COA05-0066 (2005) - Conditional approval, recommendation to rezone property from R-3, Multi-Family Residential, to O-H, Office Historic.
• COA06-0014 (2006) - Approved, reroofing
• COA06-0049 (2006) - Approved, exterior alterations
• COA06-0119 (2006) - Approved, exterior alterations
• COA06-0063 (2006) - Approved, demolition of a carport
• COA07-0030 (2007) - Approved, installation of a freestanding business sign
• COA09-0025 (2009) - Approved, repairs under the house
• COA10-0030 (2010) - Approved, deck repair
• COA18-0042 (2018) - Approved, rear deck replacement
• COA23-45221 (2023) - Approved, reroofing
• COA23-45275 (2023) - Approved, window and door replacement under
• COA23-45308 (2023) - Approved, siding repair
• COA24-45614 (2024) - Approved, soffit, gutter, and fascia repair
• COA26-0026 (2026) - Denied, install an eight-foot by 14-foot prefabricated shed on an existing concrete slab
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS:
Staff Analysis
Certificate of Appropriateness Criteria for Decisions (Section 94-82(g)):
The Code states that the Board may issue a certificate of appropriateness for the reconstruction, alteration, new construction, non-permanent structures, demolition, partial demolition, or removal of any building or structure within a locally designated historic district or any designated local landmark, or any other activity for which a CA is required, if such action is not deemed contrary to the purposes of historic preservation and to the special character of districts, sites and resources as designated specifically. The board's decisions will be based on the Secretary of the Interior's Standards, the city's Historic Preservation Design Guidelines, this chapter, and the following criteria:
1. Exterior alterations shall not diminish the architectural quality or historical character of the building or the building site.
Staff Comments: The proposed fence is located at the perimeter of the property and does not diminish the architectural quality or historical character of the building or the building site.
2. Sandblasting of any materials except for iron is prohibited.
Staff Comments: Not applicable.
3. Only through very controlled conditions can most historic building material be abrasively cleaned of soil or paint without measurable damage to the surface or profile of the substrate. Decisions regarding the proper cleaning process for historic structures can be made only after careful analysis of the building fabric, and testing. Generally, wet abrasive cleaning of a historic structure should be conducted within the range of 20 to 100 psi at a range of three to 12 inches.
Staff Comments: Not applicable.
4. Landscaping, signs, parking and site development should be sensitive to the individual building and should be visually compatible with the buildings and environment with which they are visually related.
Staff Comments: Not applicable.
5. New construction shall be visually compatible with the buildings and environment with which the new construction is visually related. When an application involves new construction, the applicant may present conceptual plans to the board for review and comment before the application for a certificate of appropriateness is submitted and before construction drawings of the project are prepared. Aspects to be considered include:
a. The height, volume, proportion between width and height of the facades, the proportions and relationship between doors and windows, the rhythm of solids and voids created by openings in the facades, the materials used in the facades, the texture inherent in the facades, the colors, pattern and trim used in the facades, and the design of the roof.
Staff Comments: Not applicable.
b. The existing rhythm created by existing building masses and spaces between them should be preserved.
Staff Comments: Not applicable.
c. Landscape plans should be visually compatible with the buildings and environment with which the landscaping is visually related.
Staff Comments: Not applicable.
d. Proportions of existing facades which are visually related shall be maintained when neighboring buildings have a dominant horizontal or vertical expression, that expression should be carried over in the new facade.
Staff Comments: Not applicable.
e. Architectural details should be incorporated as necessary to relate the new with the old and to preserve and enhance the inherent architectural characteristics of the area.
Staff Comments: Not applicable.
f. Accessory structures shall be compatible with the scale, shape, roof form, materials, and detailing of the main structure to protect the historic integrity of the neighborhood. The accessory structure shall not exceed the maximum height allowed by the applicable zoning or the height of the existing primary structure.
Staff Comments: Not applicable.
Fences. (Sec.94-86)
a) Generally. All fences located within a locally designated historic district shall follow the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings. Any newly constructed or replacement fence shall require a certificate of appropriateness.
Staff Comments: The request proposes the installation of a new four-foot fence and therefore requires a certificate of appropriateness.
b) Materials. New fences should complement the style, design, color and material of the building(s), the building site and the surrounding neighborhood. A single lot shall contain no more than two types of fencing material. Decorative fences made of cast iron, wrought iron, simulated wrought iron, wood pickets or other historic materials are appropriate for front yards. Privacy wood fences are appropriate for rear and side yards. Fencing material shall be appropriate to the historic time period of the locally designated historic district or local landmark. Other materials may be approved on a case-by-case basis, the board may consider alternative materials. Repairing fencing is preferred over replacement. Deteriorated sections of historic fencing should be replaced with materials of matching design, texture and color whenever possible.
Staff Comments: The proposed aluminum fence is consistent with the existing aluminum fencing located on the property, including fencing along portions of the western and northern property lines. The proposed fence introduces no additional fencing material and is compatible with the district’s residential character.
c) Height. Decorative fences along street fronts shall allow views of the yard and building. Fence height for front yards and side yards up to the front facade is no higher than four feet and for side and rear yards at six feet. On corner lots, the maximum heights are four feet for street elevations and six feet for side and rear yards. Other heights for side and rear yards may be approved on a case-by-case basis if consistent with the standards.
Staff Comments: The proposed fence is four feet in height and complies with the maximum allowable height for front yard fencing within the District.
d) Placement. New fences should be compatible with the site in facade setback, size and scale to protect the historic integrity of the neighborhood. Privacy fencing for the rear and side yards should be placed behind the front facade of the historic building. Placement should be such that it does not damage or endanger any existing tree on the building site.
Staff Comments: The proposed location of the fence is compatible with the site and does not appear to impact existing mature trees or site features.
Staff Recommendation
Appropriate
FISCAL IMPACT:
N/A
PROCUREMENT REVIEW:
N/A
LEGAL REVIEW:
N/A
ALTERNATIVE:
• Appropriate with Conditions
• Table
• Deny