08 - August 04 (Special Mtg.)
PLANNING & DEVELOPME NT DEPARTMENT
102 WEST MAIN STREET PRATTVI LLE, ALABAMA 36067 334 -361 -3613 334 -361 -3677
FACSIMILE
planning.prattvilleal.gov
CITY OF PRATTVILLE
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
AGENDA
SPECIAL MEETING
August 4, 2014
4:30 p.m.
Call to Order:
Roll Call:
Chairman Langley, Vice-Chairman Price, Mr. Barrett, Ms. Chieves, Mrs. Davis, and Ms. Kirkpatrick.
Election of Officers:
Minutes:
Old Business:
1. CA1309-01 Certificate of Appropriateness
Alterations-Roof material and kitchen and deck addition
272 East Main Street
Jerry & Pamela Abernathy, Petitioners
Held
New Business:
2. CA1407-01 Certificate of Appropriateness
Alterations-Removal of storage building
134 North Chestnut Street
First United Methodist Church, Petitioner
Public Hearing
Miscellaneous:
Adjourn:
Approved 8/28/14
Prattville Historic Preservation Commission
August 4, 2014 (Special Meeting)
Page 1 of 2
CITY OF PRATTVILLE
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES
Special Meeting
August 4, 2014
Call to order:
The special meeting of the Prattville Historic Preservation Commission was called to order on Thursday,
August 4, 2014 at 4:35 p.m.
Roll Call:
The secretary called the roll. Members present were Chairman Thea Langley, Vice-Chairman Gray Price,
Mr. Will Barrett,Ms. Kate Chieves,and Ms. Lenore Kirkpatrick.Members Absent:Mrs. Jean Davis.
Quorum present
Also present was Mr. Joel Duke, City Planner and Ms.Alisa Morgan, Secretary.
Minutes:
None
Chair Langley changed the order that the items were heard.
New Business:
Certificate of Appropriateness
Alterations-Removal of storage building
134 North Chestnut Street
First United Methodist Church,Petitioner
Mr. Robby Anderson, petitioner’s representative, presented the Certificate of Appropriateness for
alterations to remove a storage shed from the property at 134 N. Chestnut Street. He stated that the main
structure was built in 1950. He stated that the church, First United Methodist had owned the property
since 2004. He stated that the storage building was built sometime after the main structure was built. He
stated that they want to remove the storage building to restore back to its original state.
Mr. Duke presented the staff report for the alteration request at 134 N. Chestnut Street. He stated that the
storage shed was non-contributing. He recommended approval to remove the storage building.
Mr. Barrett moved to approve the alteration to remove the storage building at 134 N. Chestnut Street as
submitted. Mrs. Kirkpatrick seconded the motion.
The motion to approve passed unanimously.
Old Business:
Certificate of Appropriateness
Alterations-Roof material and kitchen and deck addition
272 East Main Street
Jerry & Pamela Abernathy, Petitioners
Approved 8/28/14
Prattville Historic Preservation Commission
August 4, 2014 (Special Meeting)
Page 2 of 2
The requested item to make alterations to roof material and kitchen and deck addition was held September
26, 2013. Mr. Price moved to bring the item off the table for discussion. Mrs. Chieves seconded the
motion.
The motion passed unanimously.
Jerry Abernathy, petitioner, presented the sample color pallet from ATAS International, Inc. of which he
would choose for the roof color. He stated that his choice would be Medium Bronze (03) and Antique
Patina (24).He stated that the he wanted to replace the lower roof with standing seam metal and at some
point replace the entire roof.
Mr. Duke stated that the standing seam metal roof was appropriate.
Mr. Price moved to approve the roof with standing seam metal in the color pallet provided by ATAS
International, Inc. Medium Bronze (03) or Antique Patina (24). Ms. Kirkpatrick seconded the motion.
The motion to approve passed unanimously.
Mr. Abernathy presented his request to cover the existing deck area and add to the existing kitchen. He
stated that he also wanted to add a handicap ramp to a portion of the deck. He presented no concrete
plans for proposed request.
Mr. Barrett moved to hold the request until detailed plans and proposed material could be presented. Mrs.
Chieves seconded the motion.
The motion to hold passed unanimously.
Miscellaneous:
Adjourn:
With no further business,the meeting was adjourned at 5:54 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Alisa Morgan,Secretary
Historic Preservation Commission
CITY OF PRATTVILLE
Historic Preservation Commission
Planning Department Staff Report
CERTIFICATE OF
APPROPRIATENESS
272 East Main Street – CA1309-01
DATE
September 24, 2013
PROPOSED DEVLOPMENT
Petitioner: Jerry and Pamela Abernathy
Property Owner: Petitioner
Agent: N/A
Location: 272 East Main 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
272 East Main Street, Davis-Hobbie House (circa
1907, contributing) This two-story modified central-hall
frame building has a pyramidal roof with lesser offset
gables over projecting bays. A wrap-around porch with
Ionic colonnettes with Scamozzi capitals and brick
pedestals is attached to the façade and East elevation.
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) Approval for use of a different material for low roof areas. Currently using asphalt
shingles; considering (a) standing seam metal, (b) composite slate looking shingle,
(c) or metal panels that look like shingles or slate.
2) Kitchen addition at the southwest corner (rear) of the house; replacing an existing
deck.
a) Add approximately 420 square feet to existing kitchen and den, 22’ x 19’
Page 2 of 5
b) Related items to the kitchen addition.
i) Replace/add 12 x 16 floor level covered deck (porch) at western end of the
kitchen addition with low level landings prior to stepping into the yard.
ii) Extend roof line to cover deck to cover deck at (existing) back door entrance,
and extend roof covering deck (existing kitchen south wall) to entrance of new
kitchen addition.
3) Relocate handicapped ramp and cover ramp area with new roof that connects to the
walkway roof (item 4)
4) Connect roof for the handicapped ramp’s upper landing to the existing detached
carport/shop.
PLANNING STAFF EVALUATION
Reviewed by: Joel T. Duke, AICP
Site Visits Conducted: September 24, 2013
Recommendation: Item 1: Approve with conditions.
Item 2: Additional information is needed concerning
materials and walkway cover design.
Explore possibility of limiting extension into
the side yard.
Item 3: 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. Approval for use of a different material for low roof areas. Currently using
asphalt shingles; considering (a) standing seam metal, (b) composite slate looking
shingle, (c) or metal panels that look like shingles or slate.
Roofs (page 31)
Roofs help to determine building style and are important elements of historic
appearance. Historic roof shapes and, when feasible, materials should be retained
and maintained. Public visibility of modern features should be very limited.
Page 3 of 5
3. If localized damage or deterioration of historic roofing materials occurs,
replacement with matching materials is preferred to wholesale removal.
4. If historic roofing materials are severely damaged or deteriorated or are missing
and are prohibitively expensive to replace, dark grey, black, brown, dark green, or
dark red asphalt or fiberglass shingles may be used.
Analysis:
As long as the shape and underlying construction of the porch ceiling and roof are
retained, a change in the roofing material has not been a major consideration by the
Commission with previous requests. Replacement of the asphalt shingles with another
material is permitted, however care should be taken to use materials that are
compatible with the asphalt shingles on the primary surfaces . The applicant has
presented three different roofing materials with the application. It is unclear whether
these are examples or the actual products the applicant wants approved for use. T he
applicant should choose one of the three for consideration or the Commission could
select one that is most compatible. Traditionally, porch or secondary roof surfaces have
been plain metal panels in a black, gray, or unfinished tin.
Item 2. Kitchen addition at the southwest corner (rear) of the house; replacing an
existing deck.
a) Add approximately 420 square feet to existing kitchen and den, 22’ x 19’
b) Related items to the kitchen addition.
i) Replace/add 12’ x 16’ floor level covered deck (porch) at western end of
the kitchen addition (12’ x 19’ under roof according to drawings) with low
level landings prior to steeping into the yard.
ii) Extend roof line to cover deck to cover deck at (existing) back door
entrance, and extend roof covering deck (existing kitchen south wall) to
entrance of new kitchen addition.
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.
Page 4 of 5
1. Additions should cause minimal damage or removal of historic walls, roofs, and
features from historic buildings. Existing openings should be used to connect the
building and the addition.
2. Additions should have no or limited visibility from the street. Generally, rear
elevations are appropriate locations for additions.
3. Additions should be compatible with the original building in scale, proportion,
rhythm, and materials.
4. Additions should be distinguishable from the historic building: they should be
smaller and simpler in design.
5. Additions should not imitate earlier architectural styles, but should be
contemporary in design.
Analysis:
The proposed 34’ x 19’ addition extending into the western side yard generally
meets “Addition” guidelines 1, 3 and 4. Areas of concern for the Commission should
be location of the addition (guideline 2) in the side yard and the style and materials
of the addition (guideline 5).
The preferred location for the addition would be an extension into the rear yard.
Previous additions to the rear of the structure have maintained its east and west
edges. As a corner lot, the rear yard is generally visible from both Northington Street
and East Main Street. Visibility of the proposed addition from Main Street is
presently blocked by vegetation planted along the front line of the west side yard.
Visibility of the planned addition will be limited from Northington Street. The existing
vegetation limits visibility, but the Commission must consider the impact of the 34’
extension (30’ beyond the western edge of the structure) into the side yard as if the
vegetation were absent.
If the proposed location for the addition is approved, a deeper examination of the
planned architectural style and materials is needed. The applicant does not provide
details on roof or façade materials, railing details, or windows. In their September 13,
2013 addendum, the applicants state their wish to leave the design incomplete at
this time. As outlined in guidelines 3 and 5, the addition should be compatible with
the historic structure, but easily identified as a later addition. Since the addition
would extend into the side yard, compatibility of with the historic structure assumes a
greater importance. The Commission should consider whether the design may be
altered to limit incursion into the side yard and visibility from the street. The
Commission should also request additional information on the planned exterior
appearance before granting approval.
Page 5 of 5
The proposed roof line extension (Item 2 b.ii.) and walkway cover are not well
defined in the submitted application. Given the location and the apparent simple
design, it is compatible with the Addition guidelines. This portion of Item 2 should be
approved once a complete design is submitted or defined.
Item 3 and 4. Relocate handicapped ramp and cover ramp area with new roof that
connects to the walkway roof.
Connect roof for the handicapped ramp’s upper landing to the existing detached
carport/shop.
Ramps (page 39)
Ramps are important means of providing access to buildings. Because they were
not historically common, new ramps should be subtle in design and placement.
1. Ramps should be constructed of wood and painted in colors sympathetic to
those of the building.
2. Ramps should be simple in design. They may be designed to match the porch
railing.
3. The construction and placement of ramps should not destroy or obscure
defining building features.
Analysis:
The proposed ramp and covered walkway are compatible with the design guidelines.
ATTACHMENTS
A. Application and attachments
B. Location Map