Loading...
1706-June 27 (Special Meeting)Planning & Development Department 102 West Main Street  Prattville, A l abama 36067  334- 595- 0500  334-361-3677 Facsimile p l anning.prattvilleal.gov C I T Y O F PRATTVILLE H I S T ORIC PRESERVATION C OMMISSION AGENDA SPECIAL MEETING June 27, 2017 5:00 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: May 25, 2017 Old Business: 1. CA1705-01 Certificate of Appropriateness New Structures-Single Family Residence & Accessory structure 115 Maple Street Tom Miller, Petitioner Held 5/25 New Business: 2. CA1706-01 Certificate of Appropriateness Alteration-Replacing concrete siding with wood siding 163 East Main Street George Walthall, III, Petitioner Public Hearing 3. CA1706-02 Certificate of Appropriateness Alterations-Painting, Replace windows and a door 117, 119 & 129 South Court Street Old Gin Properties, LLC/C.W. Smith Decorating Co., LLC , Petitioner Public Hearing 4. CA1706-03 Certificate of Appropriateness New Structure-Pool 205 South Washington Street Chad Roten, Petitioner Public Hearing 5. CA1706-04 Certificate of Appropriateness Demolition-Storage Shed 213 South Court Street Andrew Jones, Petitioner Public Hearing Miscellaneous: Adjourn: Approved 8/24/17 Prattville Historic Preservation Commission June 27, 2017 Minutes (Special Meeting) Page 1 of 4 CITY OF PRATTVILLE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES SPECIAL MEETING June 27, 2017 Call to order: The special meeting of the Prattville Historic Preservation Commission was called to order on Tuesday, June 27, 2017 at 5:01 p.m. Roll Call: The secretary called the roll. Members present were Chairman Thea Langley, Vice-Chairman Gray Price, Mr. Will Barrett, Mrs. Jean Davis, and Mr. Larry Smith. Ms. Lenore Kirkpatrick arrived at 5:40. Members absent: Mrs. Kate Musgrove. Quorum present Also present were Mr. Joel Duke, City Planner and Ms. Alisa Morgan, Secretary. Minutes: Mrs. Davis moved to approve the minutes of the May 25, 2017 meeting. Mr. Barrett seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Chairman Langley changed the order that the agenda items were heard. Hearing of new business before old business. New Business: Certificate of Appropriateness Alteration-Replacing wood siding with concrete siding 163 East Main Street George Walthall, III, Petitioner George Walthall, III, petitioner’s representative, presented the request for a Certificate of Appropriateness to replace existing wood siding with concrete siding on property at 163 East Main Street. He stated that the replacement material will be of high quality and painted olive green. He requested approval to replace the entire building if replacement is required during the repair. Mr. Duke provided the staff report for the Certificate of Appropriateness at 163 East Main Street. He stated that the structure is a non-contributing structure erected in 1972. He recommended approval. The vote was called. Mr. Barrett moved to approve the request as submitted contingent that the entire façade be replace as needed. Mrs. Davis seconded the motion. The motion to approve passed unanimously. Certificate of Appropriateness Alterations-Painting, Replace windows and a door 117, 119 & 129 South Court Street Old Gin Properties, LLC/C.W. Smith Decorating Co., LLC, Petitioner Ben Lambert of C. W. Smith Decorating Co., LLC, petitioner’s representative, presented the request for a Certificate of Appropriateness for renovations at 117, 119, and 129 South Court Street. He stated that the building is formally known as the old Wood Shed. He stated that the windows and doors on the north Approved 8/24/17 Prattville Historic Preservation Commission June 27, 2017 Minutes (Special Meeting) Page 2 of 4 unit had been replaced previously and they wanted to make similar changes to create a more uniform look. Mr. Smith asked about replacement of the sign and canopy. Mr. Lambert replied that they would be painting the canopy and replacing windows and doors, the signage would be up to the tenants. Mr. Duke provided the staff report for a Certificate of Appropriateness for 117, 119 and 129 South Court Street. He stated that the guidelines encourages maintaining historic character when possible. He stated that the more modern aluminum storefront should be replaced to look more historic, the single pane windows should be retained and the existing divided windows returned to single panes. Mr. Lambert stated that there is no issue to keep the single pane window. He stated that they would like to replace the wood door to look like the existing full glass door. Mrs. Davis stated that she didn’t like the idea of changing from the wood door to the glass door. She would like to see the historic character maintained. The vote was called. Mr. Barrett moved to approve a Certificate of Appropriateness that retained and repaired the existing wood frame single pane windows and replaced the aluminum glass door with wood or metal to replicate the originals or historic character. Mr. Price seconded the motion. The motion to approve passed by vote of 4 in favor, none opposed and 1 abstained as recorded. Favor: Chairman Langley, Mr. Price, Mr. Barrett and Ms. Davis. Oppose: None. Abstained: Mr. Smith. Certificate of Appropriateness New Structure-Pool 205 South Washington Street Chad Roten, Petitioner Chad Roten, petitioner, presented the request for Certificate of Appropriateness to install a pool on property at 205 South Washington Street. He stated that the pool will be a 16x36 Grecian style pool with the existing black fence continuing around to the proposed deck which will be overlooking the pool. He stated that shrubs will be planted along the side of the road (Third Street) as a privacy screen. Mr. Duke provided the staff report for the property at 205 South Washington Street. He stated that pools are allowable in the district and the request for the pool and fence meets the Commission’s guidelines. He stated that insufficient details on the deck were provided, but the proposed location is within the guidelines. Mr. Roten stated that the deck will be constructed of treated wood. The vote was called. Mr. Price moved to approve the request as submitted. Mrs. Davis seconded the motion. The motion to approve passed unanimously. Certificate of Appropriateness Demolition-Storage Shed 213 South Court Street Andrew Jones, Petitioner Andrew Jones, petitioner, presented the request for a Certificate of Appropriateness to demolish a maintenance shed on the rear of the building at 213 South Court Street. He stated that the shed is caved in and is unsalvageable. Approved 8/24/17 Prattville Historic Preservation Commission June 27, 2017 Minutes (Special Meeting) Page 3 of 4 Mr. Duke provided the staff report for the property at 213 South Court Street. He stated that although the building is a contributing structure to the historic district, its removal would not negatively affect the main structure. Chairman Langley asked Mr. Jones if an awning will replace the shed. Mr. Jones stated that at this point he just needed to remove the structure. The vote was called. Mr. Smith moved to approve the request as submitted. Ms. Kirkpatrick seconded the motion. The motion to approve passed unanimously. Old Business: Certificate of Appropriateness New Structures-Single Family Residence & Accessory structure 115 Maple Street Tom Miller, Petitioner Due to potential conflict of interest, Mr. Larry Smith recused himself from the discussion and voting of the agenda item as a commission member. At the May 25, 2017, the request was held and a committee was appointed to further review the design details of the submitted residential building plans to be constructed at 115 Maple Street. The committee members appointed were Mr. Barrett, Mrs. Davis, and Ms. Musgrove. Mr. Duke provided a summary of the meetings held by the committee as detailed in the attached email letter. Although the public hearing was previously heard, Chairman Langley allowed public comments. Jon Lee Finnegan, 211 Deer Trace and Gerald Cimis, 141 North Chestnut, both expressed their support of the revised residential plans. After no further public comments, Chairman Langley entertained comments from the board. Mr. Price thanked the Committee, Mr. Miller and the architect, Larry Smith for working to come to a favorable resolution. After no further discussion, the vote was called. Mrs. Davis moved to approve the request as revised. Mr. Barrett seconded the motion. The motion to approve passed unanimously. Mr. Miller addressed the Commission thanking them for working diligently during the process of his request for approval and expressed his gratitude for all that they do to ensure the historic district remains a viable community. Miscellaneous: Adjourn: With no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 5:58 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Approved 8/24/17 Prattville Historic Preservation Commission June 27, 2017 Minutes (Special Meeting) Page 4 of 4 Alisa Morgan, Secretary Historic Preservation Commission CITY OF PRATTVILLE Historic Preservation Commission Planning Department Staff Report CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS 163 East Main Street – CA1706-01 DATE June 26, 2017 PROPOSED DEVLOPMENT Petitioner: Walthall Enterprises Property Owner: Walthall Enterprises Agent: N/A Location: 163 East Main Street Review Status and History Submission Status: Second submission for this address. Previous Approvals: August 2013 (staff approved) - 4’ tall metal within a wooden frame installed on wood posts. Conditions of Previous Approvals: None 1984/2007 Historic Properties Inventory Details 163 East Main Street – non-contributing structure erected in 1972 (Autauga County Revenue Commissioner’s records). Wood frame office building with exterior of wood siding and trim and EIFS 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. Remove existing wood siding and trim. Replace with fiber cement siding and trim with similar in appearance to the wood siding. Page 2 of 2 PLANNING STAFF EVALUATION Reviewed by: Joel T. Duke, AICP Site Visits Conducted: June 26, 2017 Recommendation: Approve proposed replacement of wood siding with fiber cement siding. Determine to what extent portions of the EIFS will also be replaced. Encourage removal of all exterior material and replacement with approved fiber cement siding. Evaluation: The requested alterations were reviewed against the standards contained in the Prattville Commercial Design Review Guidelines Manual. The relevant sections of manual are included. Staff comments/evaluation follow the relevant sections. Item 1. Remove existing wood siding and trim. Replace with fiber cement siding and trim with similar in appearance to the wood siding. Evaluation: The subject property/structure was built earlier than the fifty year old threshold for historic properties. It is also located in a block of Main Street containing infill structure younger than the fifty year threshold. As a result, the Commission’s primary focus is the impact of the proposed alteration on the overall fabric or character of the historic district. Given the non- contributing nature and age of the structure, the Commission should consider: 1. Whether the appearance of the structure is being significantly altered by the proposed change. 2. Whether the proposed changes are detrimental to the appearance or overall health of the history district. 3. How much of the mixture of siding and EIFS will be removed with the proposed project? Will the project cover the entire structure? ATTACHMENTS A. Application and attachments B. Location Map CITY OF PRATTVILLE Historic Preservation Commission Planning Department Staff Report CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS 117, 119, and 129 South Court Street – CA1706-02 DATE June 26, 2017 PROPOSED DEVLOPMENT Petitioner: C. W. Smith Decorating Co., LLC Property Owner: Old Gin Properties, LLC Agent: C. W. Smith Decorating Co., LLC Location: 117, 119, and 129 South Court Street Review Status and History Submission Status: First submission for this address. Previous Approvals: N/A Conditions of Previous Approvals: None 1984/2007 Historic Properties Inventory Details 145, 139, and 137 South Court Street (circa 1950, contributing) The businesses at these addresses share a one-story commercial building with a brick and display window façade and concrete block secondary walls. Source: Thomason and Associates, 2007 Inventory of Daniel Pratt Historic District. Originally listed as non-contributing in the 1984 National Register of Historic Places nomination – now older than 50 year threshold. Addresses changed since 1984 survey. 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. Page 2 of 4 1. Replace four of the six existing storefront windows with new glass and aluminum storefronts to match windows in northern unit. Windows to be replaced are single pane in a wood frame and trim. New frames will be prefinished aluminum – possibly painted white after installation. 2. Replace solid wood door on southern unit with glass storefront door to match other two units. 3. Paint front elevation of the building. PLANNING STAFF EVALUATION Reviewed by: Joel T. Duke, AICP Site Visits Conducted: June 25 and 26, 2016 Recommendation: Retain and repair existing wood frame, single pane windows. Replace aluminum frame windows with wood frame, single pane windows. If aluminum window frames are permitted, retain single pane appearance. Replace aluminum and glass doors with wood or metal doors that replicate historic units. Evaluation: The requested alterations were reviewed against the standards contained in the Prattville Commercial Design Review Guidelines Manual. The relevant sections of manual are included. Staff comments/evaluation follow the relevant sections. Item 1. Replace four of the six existing storefront windows with new glass and aluminum storefront to match windows in northern unit. Windows to be replaced are single pane in a wood frame and trim. New frames will be prefinished aluminum – possibly painted white after installation. Storefronts (pages 32 and 33) Storefronts are defining elements of the commercial and historic character of the downtown business district. Historic storefronts should be retained, visible, maintained, and, if needed, repaired. 1. Historic storefronts and their component elements, such as display windows, bulkheads, transoms, doors, cornices, pillars, and pilasters, should be retained and maintained. Page 3 of 4 2. Historic storefronts and their component elements should remain visible. 3. Deteriorated or damaged storefronts or elements should be repaired so that the storefront retains its historic appearance. 4. Missing storefronts or elements should be replaced so that they replicate the historic storefront or other historic examples. Windows (pages 34 – 36) Windows are prominent building components. They help to establish the rhythm of a building or streetscape. Sometimes, particularly in industrial buildings, they are the dominant visual element of a building exterior. Historic windows should be retained, visible, 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. Epoxy is helpful in strengthening and replacing deteriorated wood. 4. Missing windows or elements should be replaced so that they replicate the historic windows or other historic examples. 5. Replacement windows should be of wood to match the original. The use of vinyl or aluminum clad windows may also be appropriate if they match the original window. Analysis: The subject commercial building is divided into three equally size leasable spaces. The storefront of each space is configured with a center doorway with matching windows on either side of the doorway. Two of the spaces retain four of what appear to be the original single pane windows set in wood frames and trim. The windows in the northern unit have been replaced with modern aluminum frame storefronts. Each of the aluminum frames is divided by a center muntin bar. The applicant proposes replacing the four remaining historic windows with aluminum storefront units to match the northern space. The Commission’s guidelines encourage preservation of existing storefronts and discourage the proposed modifications. Rather than replacing the four original windows that remain, the applicant should be encouraged to replace the more modern aluminum storefront. At a minimum, the single pane windows should be retained and the existing divided windows returned to single panes. Page 4 of 4 Item 2. Replace solid wood door on southern unit with glass storefront door to match other two units. Doors and Entrances (page 18) Doors are often buildings’ central visual elements, so are particularly important features. Historic entrances and doors should be retained, visible, maintained, and, if needed, repaired. Missing or severely deteriorated doors should be replaced with historically appropriate doors. Screen, storm, and security doors should not detract from the historic appearance of their building. 1. Historic doors should be retained and maintained. 2. Primary entrances to commercial buildings should be universally accessible. If this is not possible, alternative entrances should be available, clearly marked, and maintained to the same standards as the primary entrance. 3. If historic doors do not allow for universal access, they should be retrofitted to provide it. 5. Owners are encouraged to replace missing or severely damaged historic doors with new doors that replicate the originals or other historic examples. 6. Clear-glass single-light painted wood doors with or without paneling are most appropriate for replacing primary doors in the district’s commercial buildings. The opening in secondary entrances may be smaller or doors may be solid wood. Dark or bronze anodized metal, though less appropriate, may be substituted for wood. Analysis: The applicant proposes to retain the aluminum and glass doors on two of spaces and replace an inoperable solid wood door on the third space. The new door will match the existing aluminum and glass doors. Again the Commission’s guidelines encourage the use of glass and wood doors and discourage the use of the modern aluminum and glass doors proposed. The historic structure is relatively simple structure. Much of the structure’s unique architectural character is found in its doorways and storefronts. The Commission should encourage the use of wood or metal doors that replicate original or historic examples. ATTACHMENTS A. Application and attachments B. Location Map CITY OF PRATTVILLE Historic Preservation Commission Planning Department Staff Report CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS 205 S. Washington Street – CA1706-03 DATE June 26, 2017 PROPOSED DEVLOPMENT Petitioner: Chadwick and Tressa Roten Property Owner: Same as Petitioner Agent: N/A Location: 205 S. Washington Street Review Status and History Submission Status: Second request for a Certificate of Appropriateness for this address. Previous Approvals: COA issued on October 1, 2015 for  A new 20’-6” x 16’ (328 square foot) accessory structure  New 16’ x 25’ covered deck with shed roof at southeast corner of existing carport. Conditions of Previous Approvals: None 1984/2007 Historic Properties Inventory Details 205 South Washington Street (circa 1930, contributing) This gable-roofed one-story frame building with aluminum siding has a gable-roofed brick- pier 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. Install new 16 x 36 salt water pool in rear yard. 2. Install black metal fence with appropriate landscaping on Third Street frontage. 3. Install new deck at rear of existing carport. Page 2 of 3 PLANNING STAFF EVALUATION Reviewed by: Joel T. Duke, AICP Site Visits Conducted: June 26, 2017 Recommendation: Item 1: Approval Item 2: Approval. Additional information required from applicant on landscaping and gate location. Item 3: Additional information required from applicant 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. Install new 16 x 36 salt water pool in rear yard. Pools and Fountains (page 51) Pools and fountains are modern elements that can be most welcome on a summer day! New pools and fountains should use placement that minimizes their effect on the district’s historic character. 1. Swimming pools and fountains should be located in the back yards and have limited visibility from public vantage points. 2. Plants and/or fencing should be used to screen views of pools or fountains. Analysis: The proposed pool essentially meets the Commission’s guidelines by being located in the rear yard directly behind the main structure and behind the proposed fencing. Item 2 – Install black metal fence with appropriate landscaping on Third Street frontage. Fences and Walls (pages 46 & 47) Fences and walls have historically been used to define ownership or function and to separate public and private space. Historic fences and walls should be retained and maintained. New fences and walls should use design, materials, and placement that minimize their effect on the district’s historic character Page 3 of 3 2. Wood and metal picket fences are appropriate new construction. If wooden, they should be painted using colors complementary to the adjacent house. They should be less than three feet tall, and the pickets should be set less than three inches apart and be less than four inches in width. 4. Wood board fences may be located in back yards and should be less than six feet tall. Flat tops, dog-ear tops, or pointed tops are all appropriate designs. Fences should be painted to blend with the building. Analysis: The Commission’s guidelines allow significant discretion when it comes to fencing in the rear yard. A simple black metal or coated chain link fence would have minimal visual impact on the surrounding area or the subject lot. The fence proposed for the Third Street frontage and the rear yard is appropriate for the district. Additional information is needed regarding landscape screening and gate locations. Item 3. Install new deck at rear of existing carport. 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 applicant’s proposed deck is not adequately defined in the application. Additional information is needed to determine compatibility with the guidelines. ATTACHMENTS A. Application and attachments B. Location Map CITY OF PRATTVILLE Historic Preservation Commission Planning Department Staff Report CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS 213 S. Court Street – CA1706-04 DATE June 26, 2017 PROPOSED DEVLOPMENT Petitioner: Andrew Jones Property Owner: Andrew F. Jones Agent: N/A Location: 213 S. Court 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 207 – 213 South Court Street, B. W. Moncrief General Merchandise (1910 – 1920, contributing): This commercial edifice consists of a trio of brick units. In 1910, a Prattville builder recorded as “Mr. Smith” constructed the largest and oldest, southernmost section. Its first floor originally consisted of a recessed central entrance flanked by display windows with cast- iron structural members. Currently the entrance is flush with the street and located in the northern bay, while the two southern bays each possess one single-pane display window. The upper floor consisted of regularly spaced arched window openings and possessed brick corbelling topped with dentils at the roofline. The window openings have since been bricked in. Striped awnings historically sheltered the upper windows and lower storefront. In 1913, workers added a one story adjacent unit; its second floor has a circa 1915- construction date and possesses five arched windows, Page 2 of 3 now bricked in. Construction of the one-story third component occurred circa 1920. At that time, workers also added a street-level porch with cast-iron supports across all three facades and a one story warehouse to the rear 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. Demolition and removal of existing shed attached to the north wall of the one story warehouse on the rear elevation. See application for statement of hardship. PLANNING STAFF EVALUATION Reviewed by: Joel T. Duke, AICP Site Visits Conducted: July 24, 2011 Recommendation:  Item 1: Consider three questions presented in the staff analysis.  Item 1: If demolition allowed, then ask if awning or shed roof will be built over rear door. Evaluation: The requested alterations were reviewed against the standards contained in the Prattville Commercial 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 two-story accessory structure west of the main 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. Page 3 of 3 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. 3. Demolition may be appropriate if the denial of the demolition will result in a demonstrable economic hardship on the owner. Analysis: The Commission should address three main questions with this request. 1. To what extent does the individual structure, or portion of the structure, contribute to the overall property and the historic district? According to the 1984 National Register nomination forms and survey, the structure was not considered as part of the historic district nomination. 2. Can the existing structure be rehabilitated? 3. Has the applicant demonstrated sufficient hardship to meet the Commission’s guidelines and justify removal? ATTACHMENTS A. Application and attachments B. Location Map