Loading...
1708-Aug 24Planning & 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 August 24, 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: June 27, 2017 (Special Meeting) Old Business: None New Business: 1. 1708-01 Certificate of Appropriateness Alteration-Door, Awning, gate, light fixtures 243 South Court Street Lia Muier & Kimberly Powell, Petitioners Public Hearing 2. 1708-02 Certificate of Appropriateness Alteration-Driveway 244 East Main Street Ed & Kelley Rouze, Petitioners Public Hearing 3. 1708-03 Certificate of Appropriateness Addition-Front Porch 220 First Street Jason & Thea Langley, Petitioners Public Hearing Miscellaneous: Adjourn: Approved 9/28/17 Prattville Historic Preservation Commission August 24, 2017 Minutes Page 1 of 3 CITY OF PRATTVILLE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES August 24, 2017 Call to order: The regular meeting of the Prattville Historic Preservation Commission was called to order on Thursday, August 24, 2017 at 4:41 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, Mrs. Kate Musgrove and Mr. Larry Smith. Members absent: Mr. Will Barrett. 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 June 27, 2017 special meeting. Mr. Price seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Old Business: None New Business: Certificate of Appropriateness Alteration-Door, Awning, gate, light fixtures 243 South Court Street Lia Muir & Kimberly Powell, Petitioners Lia Muir and Kimberly Powell, petitioners, presented the request for a Certificate of Appropriateness to make alterations on property at 243 South Court Street. The requested proposed changes are to open a previously bricked-up window for a fire door as required by fire and building codes for the proposed restaurant use; add metal gate at the alley between subject building and 235 S. Court Street; and add new lighting over both Court Street side doors. Ms. Muir stated that they initially wanted to add an awning (in the alley) over a side storefront door but is no longer desiring to make that change. She also stated that they are no longer requesting to add new lighting over both Court Street side doors. Mr. Duke provided the staff report for the Certificate of Appropriateness at 243 South Court Street. He stated that the property was formally listed as 176 West Main Street and the structure is a contributing structure erected in 1855. He stated that the applicant proposes to add a new doorway to the alley along the north face of the building. The propose doorway will modify a previously closed historic opening. He stated that the bricked-up window will be open and extended to ground level. The opening is necessary to meet fire code for the proposed restaurant use. The proposed door will be metal with single pane covering ¾ of length. He stated that the door essentially meets the Commission’s guidelines. He recommended approval. He stated that the guidelines do not specifically address fencing. The proposed fence will match the design used in Heritage Park and other locations in the downtown district. Mr. Duke stated that the awning on the Court Street side is included in the request although it was installed prior to approval. He stated that it meets the guidelines in appearance. Approved 9/28/17 Prattville Historic Preservation Commission August 24, 2017 Minutes Page 2 of 3 The vote was called. Mrs. Davis moved to strike the request to add new lighting over both Court Street side doors. Ms. Musgrove seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Mr. Price moved to approve the request as presented. Mrs. Davis seconded the motion. The motion to approve passed unanimously. Certificate of Appropriateness Alteration-Driveway 244 East Main Street Ed & Kelley Rouze, Petitioners The Certificate of Appropriateness for 224 East Main Street was reviewed and approved under the Design Review Policy Section III, Subsection F. Certificate of Appropriateness Addition-Front Porch 220 First Street Jason & Thea Langley, Petitioners Chair Langley recused herself as Chair and turned the meeting over to Vice-Chairman Price. Thea Langley, petitioner, presented the request for Certificate of Appropriateness to extend the front porch on property at 220 First Street. She stated that she wants to extend the front porch from corner to corner, add a pergola, replace iron posts with wooden or permacast posts and widen the front stairs and capstone to the full width of the front porch. Mr. Duke provided the staff report for the property at 220 First Street. He stated that the structure is a contributing structure. The petitioner is requesting to replace non-original, non-historic wrought iron posts with wooden or permacast posts matching the existing half columns on either side of the front door; extend the front porch floor from front corner to corner maintaining a consistent concrete surface – matching the existing porch; add a pergola, as shown in an application attachment, on each side of the original portico and covering the new extended front porch floor. Pergola will be supported by new columns and half columns at the corners of the new porch floor. Columns will match new columns proposed to replace the existing wrought iron; and widen the front stairs and capstone to the full width of the portico. He stated that the proposed replacement of the wrought iron columns with wood or concrete columns is appropriate. The other proposed additions to the porch area will be visible from the street and change the appearance of the historic structure, but will not destroy or alter the underlying historic structure. He also stated that the proposed porch floor extensions, steps, and pergola appear to be designed to be separate from the historic structure and may be removed at a later date. The vote was called. Mrs. Davis moved to approve the request as submitted. Mr. Smith seconded the motion. The motion to approve passed unanimously. Mrs. Langley resumed her seat as chair and resumed the meeting. Miscellaneous: Mr. Duke informed the Commission of a workshop being offered in Opelika on September 7, 2017. He extended an invitation for the Commission to attend. Adjourn: With no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 5:21 p.m. Approved 9/28/17 Prattville Historic Preservation Commission August 24, 2017 Minutes Page 3 of 3 Respectfully submitted, Alisa Morgan, Secretary Historic Preservation Commission CITY OF PRATTVILLE Historic Preservation Commission Planning Department Staff Report CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS 176 West Main Street/243 S. Court Street – CA1708-01 DATE August 24, 2017 PROPOSED DEVLOPMENT Petitioner: Lia Muir and Kimberly Powell Property Owner: Lia Muir and Kimberly Powell Agent: N/A Location: 176 West Main Street/243 S. 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 176 West Main Street, former Prattville Mercantile Company (circa 1855, contributing) Daniel Pratt has this rectangular, two-story brick building with a shallow hipped roof constructed as a commissary for mill operatives. Historic details include a corbelled brick cornice, original upper twelve-over-twelve windows, and a corbelled belt course with dentils above the second story. The current storefront dates from circa 1960. (Source: Thomason and Associates, 2007 Inventory of Daniel Pratt Historic District) 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. Open a previously bricked-up window for a door – required by fire and building codes for the proposed restaurant use. 2. Add appropriate awning over a side storefront door 3. Add metal gate at the alley between subject building and 235 S. Court Street 4. Add new lighting over both Court Street side doors. PLANNING STAFF EVALUATION Reviewed by: Joel T. Duke, AICP Site Visits Conducted: August 2017 Recommendation: Item 1: Approval – Uses existing opening and has limited visibility from street. Item 2: Approval meet guidelines and matches other awning installations on the building. Item 3: Approval Item 4: Per conversation with applicant, request will be delayed at this time. 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. Open a previously bricked-up window for a door – required by fire and building codes for the proposed restaurant use. 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. Page 3 of 4 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. 4. 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. 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 add a new doorway to the alley along the north face of the building. The propose doorway will modify a previously closed historic opening. The bricked-up window will be open and extended to ground level. The proposed door will be metal with single pane covering ¾ of length. The modification will not be readily visible from the public faces of the structure and the door essentially meets the Commission’s guidelines. Item 2. Add appropriate awning over a side storefront door Awnings (Page 16) Historically, shopkeepers commonly used awnings on their stores. As air conditioning became more common after the 1940s, awning use declined. Awnings can add historic character to late-nineteenth and early-twentieth-century buildings, advertise, and conserve energy. Their use is encouraged in both commercial and residential settings. 1. Awnings with appropriate materials and colors may be added to buildings. 2. Awning installation should not damage the building or its architectural features. 3. Awnings should be constructed of canvas or acrylic or be vinyl coated. 4. Awning materials should have traditional patterns such as solid colors or stripes. Colors may vary but should complement the overall building color and be similar to Page 4 of 4 accent storefront or window accent colors. Loud or garishly colored awnings are discouraged. Analysis: The proposed awning meets the Commission’s guidelines. Item 3. Add metal gate at the alley between subject building and 235 S. Court Street The Commission’s commercial guidelines do not specifically address fencing. The proposed fence is a single gate separating the public sidewalk from the private alley on the north end of the structure. The proposed fence will match the design used in Heritage Park and other locations in the downtown district. Item 4. Add new lighting over both Court Street side doors. Withdrawn by petitioner CITY OF PRATTVILLE Historic Preservation Commission Planning Department Staff Report CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS 220 First Street – CA1708-03 DATE August 24, 2017 PROPOSED DEVLOPMENT Petitioner: Jason and Thea Langley Property Owner: Same as Petitioner Agent: N/A Location: 220 First 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 220 East First Street (circa 1850, contributing) This one-and-a-half-story gable-roofed central-hall frame building has two interior chimneys located just beyond the ridgeline. A central vernacular Greek- Revival portico with a pediment remains, though wrought-iron supports now replace the two original box columns. 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. Replace non-original, non-historic wrought iron posts with wooden or permacast posts matching the existing half columns on either side of the front door. 2. Extend the front porch floor from front corner to corner maintaining a consistent concrete surface – matching the existing porch. 3. Add a pergola, as shown in an application attachment, on each side of the original portico and covering the new extended front porch floor. Pergola will be Page 2 of 3 supported by new columns and half columns at the corners of the new porch floor. Columns will match new columns proposed to replace the existing wrought iron. 4. Widen the front stairs and capstone to the full width of the portico. PLANNING STAFF EVALUATION Reviewed by: Joel T. Duke, AICP Site Visits Conducted: August 2017 Recommendation: Item 1: Approval Item 2: Approval Item 3: Approval after determining how pergola will be attached to existing portico 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. 1. Replace non-original, non-historic wrought iron posts with wooden or permacast posts matching the existing half columns on either side of the front door. 2. Extend the front porch floor from front corner to corner maintaining a consistent concrete surface – matching the existing porch. 3. Add a pergola, as shown in an application attachment, on each side of the original portico and covering the new extended front porch floor. Pergola will be supported by new columns and half columns at the corners of the new porch floor. Columns will match new columns proposed to replace the existing wrought iron. 4. Widen the front stairs and capstone to the full width of the portico. Porches (Page 27) Porches are one of the most defining characteristics of historic houses. Historic porches should be retained, maintained, and, if needed, repaired. New porches should be sympathetic to the historic appearance of building to which they are attached. 1. Historic porches visible from the street should be retained and maintained. Page 3 of 3 2. Deteriorated or damaged porches should be repaired and missing elements replaced. The materials used in repairs should allow the porch to maintain its historic appearance. 3. If the historic porch is missing, it is appropriate to replace it. Replacement porches should use materials and styles that are compatible with the building to which they are attached. Analysis: With alterations that impact the front of a contributing structure, the Commission’s goal should be preserving and enhancing as much of the historic character as possible. The proposed replacement of the wrought iron columns with wood or concrete columns is appropriate. The other proposed additions to the porch area will be visible from the street and change the appearance of the historic structure, but will not destroy or alter the underlying historic structure. The proposed porch floor extensions, steps, and pergola appear to be designed to be separate from the historic structure and may be removed at a later date. The Commission should ask for details on how the pergola will tie to the existing portico.