1704-April 6 (Special Meeting)
Planning & Development Department
102 West Main Street Prattville, Alabama 36067 334-595-0500 334-361-3677 Facsimile planning.prattvilleal.gov
CITY OF PRATTVILLE
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
AGENDA
SPECIAL MEETING
April 6, 2017
4:30 p.m.
Call to Order:
Roll Call:
Chairman Langley, Vice-Chairman Price, Mr. Barrett, Mrs. Davis, Ms. Kirkpatrick, Ms. Musgrove, and Mr. Smith.
Election of Officers:
Minutes:
March 23, 2017
Old Business:
None
New Business:
1. CA1703-01
Certificate of Appropriateness
Demolition & Rebuild of existing addition
319 South Washington Street
Lisa & James T. Sherrill, Petitioners
Public Hearing
Miscellaneous:
Adjourn:
CITY OF PRATTVILLE
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES
SPECIAL MEETING
April 6, 2017
Call to order:
The special meeting of the Prattville Historic Preservation Commission was called to order on Thursday,
April 6, 2017 at 4:32 p.m.
Roll Call:
The secretary called the roll. Members present were Chairman Thea Langley,Vice-Chairman Gray Price,
Mrs. Jean Davis,Ms. Lenore Kirkpatrick,Ms. Kate Musgrove and Mr. Larry Smith.Members Absent:
Mr. Will Barrett.
Quorum present
Also present was Mr. Joel Duke, City Planner and Ms.Alisa Morgan, Secretary.
Minutes:
Ms.Musgrove moved to approve the minutes of the March 23, 2017 meeting.Ms.Kirkpatrick
seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
Old Business:
None
New Business:
Certificate of Appropriateness
Demolition & Rebuild of existing addition
319 South Washington Street
Lisa & James T. Sherrill, Petitioners
Mr. Duke stated that this request was presented at the March meeting,but the petitioner did not provide
the required documents for review,therefore, the Chair postpone action by the commission and called for
a special meeting today. He stated that the petitioner is requesting for a Certificate of Appropriateness to
allow a demolition of an existing addition on the rear of building, construction of a new addition on the
rear of building (14’ x 30’, 420 square feet)with a covered porch, modifications to front façade and north
façade. Front -remove one of the existing front doors and replace with window. Side –replace existing
single window with double window (master bedroom), relocate single window, and add narrow bathroom
window and to construct new uncovered, 8’ x 23’ deck on rear of structure.He stated that the portion of
the structure proposed for demolition is an obvious addition to the historic structure. Demolition will not
significantly impact the historic structure or its presentation to the street.
Mrs. Davis moved to separate the items requested to be reviewed individually. Mr. Price seconded the
motion. The motion passed unanimously.
Item 1-Demolition of an existing structure on the rear of building.
Mrs. Davis moved to approve the demolition as requested. Mr. Smith seconded the motion. The motion
to approve passed unanimously.
*Ms. Musgrove was dismissed at 4:51 p.m.
Item 2-Construction of a new addition on the rear of building (14’ x 30’, 420 square feet) with a
covered porch.
Mr. Duke stated that the proposed addition would match the addition being removed. He recommended
that the roof line be lower to differentiate the addition from the historic structure.
Lisa Sherrill, petitioner, stated that they intend to use as much material from the demolition and will
match material as close as possible.
Mr. Smith stated that it would be more cost effective to keep the roof line the same.
Mr. Smith moved to approve the request to add a new addition on the rear building as presented. Ms.
Kirkpatrick seconded the motion. The motion to approve passed unanimously.
Item 3-Modifications to front façade and north façade. Front -remove one of the existing front
doors and replace with window. Side –replace existing single window with double window (master
bedroom), relocate single window.
Mr. Duke stated that he was informed by Mrs.Sherrill that the front door will not be replaced.There will
be no changes to the front windows.He stated that they only requested changes to the window because
the thought it was required by building code.
Mrs. Davis moved to approve the request to modify the kitchen and master bedroom window according to
the codes that the Building Department deems appropriate.No changes to the window on the front of the
house on either side of the dining room and sitting room.Mr. Smith seconded the motion.
Mr. Smith move to amend the motion to include the Planning Department.Mr. Price seconded the
motion.
The motion to approve as amended passed unanimously.
Item 4-Construct new uncovered, 8’x 23’ deck on rear of structure.
Mrs. Davis moved to approve the request as submitted. Mr. Price seconded the motion.
The motion to approve passed unanimously.
Ms. Sherrill thanked the commission for their assistance and anticipates her move to the downtown
district.
There were no public comments.
Miscellaneous:
None
Adjourn:
With no further business,the meeting was adjourned at 5:25 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Alisa Morgan,Secretary
Historic Preservation Commission
CITY OF PRATTVILLE
Historic Preservation Commission
Planning Department Staff Report
CERTIFICATE OF
APPROPRIATENESS
319 S. Washington Street – CA1703-01
DATE
April 6, 2017
PROPOSED DEVLOPMENT
Petitioner: Lisa and James Sherrill
Property Owner: Lisa and James Sherrill
Agent: Thrailkill Builders/Wendy Irvin (designer)
Location: 319 S. Washington Street
Review Status and History
Submission Status: Initial request for a Certificate of Appropriateness for this
address.
Previous Approvals: N/A
Conditions of Previous
Approvals:
N/A
1984/2007 Historic
Properties Inventory
Details
319 South Washington Street, Walker House (1921,
contributing) This one-story frame bungalow has a
broad front gable breaking into an offset secondary
gable that extends over its brick-pier and post porch.
Proposed Alteration, Renovation or Addition
The following changes have been requested by the applicant. See the application
included as Attachment A for the owner’s description of each item.
1. Demolition and removal of existing addition on rear of building (14’ x 30).
2. Construction of new addition to rear of building (14’ x 30’, 420 square feet),
including covered porch.
3. Modifications to front façade and north façade. Front - remove one of the existing
front doors and replace with window. Side – replace existing single window with
000001
Page 2 of 6
double window (master bedroom), relocate single window, and add narrow
bathroom window
4. Construct new uncovered, 8’ x 23’ deck on rear of structure.
PLANNING STAFF EVALUATION
Reviewed by: Joel T. Duke, AICP
Site Visits Conducted: March 21, 2017 and April 6, 2017
Recommendation: Item 1: Consider three questions presented in the
staff analysis. All three questions are satisfied with the
request. Approval.
Item 2 – Approval – essentially meets guidelines.
Consideration dropping roof ridge of addition lower
than the original structure to better define the addition.
Item 3 – Keep two front doors and master bedroom
window to maintain integrity of historic façade. Permit
two side window modifications.
Item 4. Approval
Evaluation:
The requested alterations were reviewed against the standards contained in the Prattville
Residential Design Review Guidelines Manual. The relevant sections of manual are
included. Staff comments/evaluations are summarized at the end of each section.
Item 1. Demolition and removal of existing residential structure.
Demolition (page 55)
Demolition of buildings that contribute to the historic character of the district results
in an irreversible loss to the physical fabric of the community. Demolition of such
buildings is an outcome to be avoided.
1. Demolition is appropriate if the building does not contribute to the historic character
of the district.
2. Applicants for demolition and the Historic Preservation Commission should explore
possibilities for selling or reusing historic buildings, preferably onsite but also in
other locations, as alternatives to demolition.
000002
Page 3 of 6
3. Demolition may be appropriate if the denial of the demolition will result in a
demonstrable economic hardship on the owner.
Analysis:
The Commission’s Design Review Policy adopted by resolution in January 2008 states
the following regarding demolition:
V. Demolition Request
A. Request for Certificates of Appropriateness to permit demolition of
property within the historic district may be delayed by the Commission for a period
of sixty (60) days.
B. The Commission shall use the waiting period to request information
from qualified firms or individuals to determine the structural condition of the
building and its economic viability for rehabilitation.
C. If the building is of architectural or historical significance, the
Commission shall use the waiting period to negotiate with the owner and other
interested parties to preserve the building.
The Commission should address three main questions with this request.
1. To what extent does the individual structure contribute to the overall property and
the historic district? According to the 1984 National Register nomination forms
and survey, 319 S. Washington Street is considered a contributing property
dating to the 1920’s. However, the portion of the structure proposed for
demolition is an obvious addition to the historic structure. Demolition will not
significantly impact the historic structure or its presentation to the street.
2. Can the existing structure be rehabilitated on site or preserved by moving another
site? The existing addition cannot exist without the main structure. There is no
benefit in relocating the structure.
3. Has the applicant demonstrated sufficient hardship to meet the Commission’s
guidelines and justify removal? The applicant has shown the condition of the
addition and testified to the difficulty in repairing the existing structure.
000003
Page 4 of 6
Item 2. Construction of new addition rear of building (21’ 8” x 30’, 650 square feet),
including covered porch.
Additions (page 40)
Additions to dwellings are appropriate as long as they are placed on rear elevations
or non-readily visible side elevations. Additions should be designed to complement
the historic qualities of the dwelling.
1. Additions should cause minimal damage or removal of historic walls, roofs, and
features from historic buildings.
2. Existing openings should be used to connect the building and the addition.
3. Additions should have no or limited visibility from the street. Generally, rear
elevation are appropriate locations for additions.
4. Additions should be compatible with the original building in scale, proportion,
rhythm, and materials.
5. Additions should be distinguishable from the historic building: they should be
smaller and simpler in design.
6. Additions should not imitate earlier architectural styles, but should be
contemporary in design.
Analysis
Proposed addition is located in the rear of the structure and compatible with published
guidelines with the exception of Guideline 5. The applicant proposes to set the roof ridge
of the addition at the same elevation of the historic structure. In order to differentiate, the
addition from the historic structure, the applicant may set the ridge at a lower elevation.
This can be done with little or no impact to the applicant’s proposed floor plan.
Item 3. Modifications to front façade and north façade. Front - remove one of the
existing front doors and replace with window. Side – replace existing single window
with double window (master bedroom), relocate single window, and add narrow
bathroom window.
Doors and Entrances (page 18)
Doors are often buildings’ central visual elements and are particularly important features.
Historic entrances and doors should be retained, maintained, and, if needed, repaired.
000004
Page 5 of 6
Missing or severely deteriorated doors should be replaced with historically appropriate
replacements. Screen, storm, and security doors should not detract from the historic
appearance of their building.
1. Historic doors should be retained and maintained.
2. Deteriorated or damaged historic doors should be repaired using methods that allow
them to retain their historic appearance and as much of their historic fabric as possible.
Epoxy is helpful in strengthening and replacing deteriorated wood.
3. Owners are encouraged to replace missing or severely damaged historic doors with
replacements that replicate the original or other similar examples.
4. Replacements for primary residential doors may appropriately be of painted paneled
wood with or without a clear-glass single or multiple-light opening.
Windows (page 35)
Windows are prominent building components. They help to establish the rhythm of a
building or streetscape. Historic windows should be retained, maintained, and, if needed,
repaired.
1. Historic windows should be retained and maintained.
2. Historic windows should remain visible and their openings transparent.
3. Deteriorated or damaged windows should be repaired so that the windows retain
their historic appearances.
4. The replacement of original windows with vinyl or aluminum windows is
discouraged.
5. Missing windows or elements should be replaced so that they replicate the historic
windows or other historic examples. Window openings should not be added or
removed from locations visible from the street.
Analysis
The two door openings in the front façade and the existing single window in the master
bedroom should be retained to maintain consistency with the residential design guidelines.
The two windows proposed for the master bathroom are a part of the addition and should
be approved.
000005
Page 6 of 6
Item 4. Construct new uncovered, 8’ x 23’ deck on rear of structure.
Decks (page 38)
Decks are popular modern features. If added to district buildings, they should be
constructed on a building’s rear elevation or another location not visible from the street.
1. Decks should be located on the rear elevations of buildings. They may also be
located on a side elevation if screened from view from the street through fencing
or plants.
2. Decks should be constructed of wood or metal.
3. Decks should be stained or painted so that their colors are compatible with those
of their buildings.
4. Decks should be simple in design. Wood balusters should be less than three
inches apart and less than two inches in width and depth.
Analysis
The proposed deck meets the design guidelines.
ATTACHMENTS
A. Application and attachments
B. Location Map
C. Applicant Floor Plan and Elevation – Notes by Staff
D. Staff Photos
000006
000007
000008
000009
000010
000011
000012