Loading...
1603 - March 24 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 March 24, 2016 4:30 p.m. Call to Order: Roll Call: Chairman Langley, Vice-Chairman Price, Mr. Barrett, Ms. Chieves, Mrs. Davis, Ms. Kirkpatrick and Mr. Smith. Election of Officers: Minutes: February 4, 2016 and February 25, 2016 Old Business: 1. CA1602-01 Certificate of Appropriateness Alteration-Repair 161 West Main Street Jules Moffett, Petitioner Tabled 2/25 New Business: 2. CA1603-02 Certificate of Appropriateness Alteration-Re-roof 403 South Washington Street James & Jackie Brookins, Petitioners Public Hearing 3. CA1603-03 Certificate of Appropriateness Alteration-Repairs 246 Wetumpka Street Matt & Jennifer Holtzscher, Petitioners Public Hearing Miscellaneous: Staff Approval 153 West Main Street (Sign-Replace) 163 West Main Street (Sign-Installation) Adjourn: CITY OF PRATTVILLE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES March 24, 2016 Call to order: The regular meeting of the Prattville Historic Preservation Commission was called to order on Thursday, March 24, 2016 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,Mrs. Kate Chieves,Mrs. Jean Davis and Mr. Larry Smith.Members Absent:Ms. Lenore Kirkpatrick. Quorum present Also present was Mr. Joel Duke, City Planner and Ms.Alisa Morgan, Secretary. Minutes: Mr. Price move to approve the minutes of the February 4, 2016 special meeting and February 25, 2016 regular meeting. Mrs. Davis seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. New Business: Certificate of Appropriateness Alteration-Re-roof 403 South Washington Street James & Jackie Brookins, Petitioners James & Jackie Brookins, petitioners, presented their request to make alterations to replace the existing roof with steel roof at 403 South Washington Street. Mr. Duke provided the staff report for the Certificate of Appropriateness for property at 403 South Washington Street. He stated that the re-roof with steel material is appropriate.He recommended approval provided that a specific style and color is selected from the submitted proposal. The petitioners stated that the replacement roof would be Galvalume (silver) color, standing seam. Mr. Barrett moved to approve the request as submitted contingent that the roof is standing seam galvanized steel roof panel in galvalume color. Mr. Smith seconded the motion. The motion to approve passed unanimously. There were no public comments. Certificate of Appropriateness Alteration-Repairs 246 Wetumpka Street Matt & Jennifer Holtzscher, Petitioners Matt Holtzscher, petitioner, presented the request to make alterations and repairs at 246 Wetumpka Street. He stated that they wanted to replace the front door due to shifts caused by deteriorating of floor beams. He stated that they would be replacing with identical type door and change the color to have a hard pinelook or if it’s unfinishable they will paint black as the one being removed. He stated that they also would like to change the skirting from aluminum to brick masonry. He stated that the skirting change is required by his insurance. Mr. Duke presented the staff report for the alterations requested at 246 Wetumpka Street. He stated that the request for the door is considered maintenance since there is no material change. The brick skirting is allowed under the guidelines. Mr. Smith moved to approve the request as submitted. Mr. Price seconded the motion. The motion to approve passed unanimously. There were no public comments. Old Business: Certificate of Appropriateness Alterations-Repair 161 West Main Street Jules Moffett, Petitioner This item was previously tabled to allow the petitioner to provide documentation for estimated cost for repairs. Donna Duck, petitioner’s representative, presented the written documents of estimated cost repair (attached and made a part of the minutes). Mr. Duke stated that the follow up letter requested was sent to Mr. Moffett on March 2, 2016. The proposal was submitted to the Planning Department by Mr. Moffett on March 17, 2016.He stated that there are still concerns that the proposal does not establish whether this will be an improvement to help preserve the structure and stop the deterioration. He stated that the submitted proposal does not address the structural issues.He recommended obtaining a total picture of the façade modifications before approval is granted so that that it is clear what is being requested. Chairman Langley was dismissed at 5:24. Vice-Chairman Price resumed the meeting. Mr. Moffett addressed the commission. He stated that the building is over 100 years old and has owned it for almost 40 years and it is structurally sound.He said that he is going to look for the most economical way to fix the building. Mr.Barrett moved to table the request to allow the petitioner to provide a rendering showing the profile of the building of proposed repair and a statement from the installer on the integrity and life span of the proposed brick and to call a special meeting when items are turned in.Mrs. Davis seconded the motion. Mrs. Davis seconded the motion. The motion to table passed unanimously. Miscellaneous: The staff approved a Certificate of Appropriateness to replace a sign at 153 West Main Street and 163 West Main Street. Adjourn: With no further business,the meeting was adjourned at 5:55 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Alisa Morgan,Secretary Historic Preservation Commission CITY OF PRATTVILLE Historic Preservation Commission Planning Department Staff Report CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS DATE March 22, 2016 PROPOSED DEVLOPMENT Petitioner: James and Jackie Brookins Property Owner: James and Jackie Brookins Agent: None Location: 403 S. Washington Street – southeast corner of Washington Street and 1st Street intersection Review Status and History Submission Status: Fourth request for a Certificate of Appropriateness for this address. Previous Approvals: September 23, 2010 received approval for: 1. Deck with metal roof on the south side of the rear extension. 2. Replacement and extension of a wooden privacy fence along the front property line. September 22, 2011 received approval for: 1. Kitchen window replacement, 2. Replacement of the rear window with a wood door contingent that the door maintained the same header height by the use of a transom. June 2013 received expedited approval for: 1. Concrete pad in rear of lot. Conditions of Previous Approvals: See above. 1984/2007 Historic Properties Inventory Details Fay-Mercer House (1854, contributing) George W. Coe built this rectangular, one-and-a-half story, frame building with a gable roof and two pairs of end chimneys. Early in the twentieth century, builders elongated the original Greek- Revival portico to its 403 S. Washington Street – CA1603-02 Page 2 of 3 present configuration by adding extensions to either side. The Historic American Building Survey photographed it in 1935. Proposed Alteration, Renovation or Addition The applicant is requesting alterations to the rear and south side of the structure. See the application is included as Attachment A for the owner’s description of each element. 1. Repairing existing asphalt shingle roofing material with steel roofing. PLANNING STAFF EVALUATION Reviewed by: Joel T. Duke, AICP Recommendation: a. Recommend approval provided a specific style and color are selected by the 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 this section. Item 1 – Replace existing asphalt shingle roofing material with steel/metal roofing 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. 1. The historic roof shape should be retained. 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, replacement of the asphalt shingles with metal should be allowed. The Commission should retain final approval over the style of the standing-seam metal panels. Site Visits Conducted: March 22, 2016 Page 3 of 3 It is also appropriate for the Commission to approve or disapprove the color to maintain compatibility with the shingle roof on the remainder of the structure. ATTACHMENTS A. Application and attachments B. Location Map C. 1937 photos of 403 S. Washington Street CITY OF PRATTVILLE Planning Commission Planning Department Staff Report CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS 246 Wetumpka Street – CA1603-03 DATE October 20, 2008 PROPOSED DEVLOPMENT Petitioner: Matt Holtzscher Property Owner: Matt and Jennifer Holtzscher Agent: N/A Location: 246 Wetumpka Street Review Status and History Submission Status: Second submission for this address. Previous Approvals: October 23, 2008 Conditions of Previous Approvals: Approved for demolition and the construction of a new outbuilding contingent that the new building is 20x44x9 wood building, Hardi Plank siding, gable roof pitch no greater than the existing roof (10’). 1984/2007 Historic Properties Inventory Details 246 Wetumpka Street (circa 1880, circa 1905, and circa 1960, contributing) This one story frame building with a hipped roof has a recessed front entry and a pair of bay windows on the west side of the façade. Renovations removed the original porch and added the still present side and rear wings and neoclassical architrave around the front entry. Proposed Alteration, Renovation or Addition Page 2 of 3 The following alterations are proposed for the exterior of the building. See application included as Attachment A for a description of each element. 1. Removal of existing aluminum skirting install between foundation piers. Replacement with solid brick wall. 2. Front door replacement. PLANNING STAFF EVALUATION Reviewed by: Joel T. Duke, AICP Site Visits Conducted: March 22, 2016 Recommendation: Approval of Item 1 Hold Item 2 until additional information on door style and material can be provided. Staff 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/evaluation follow the relevant sections. Item 1 – Removal of aluminum skirting – replace with solid brick wall. Masonry (Page 23) Prattville’s downtown commercial buildings are almost exclusively of brick construction. Brick and other masonry materials, such as stone and terra cotta, are also common in its residential areas. Because it is such a defining construction element, historic examples of masonry should be retained, visible, maintained, and, if needed, repaired. 1. Historic masonry should be retained and maintained. 4. Historic masonry should remain visible and untreated. Exceptions are if bricks have lost their protective outer coating, in which case paint may be used for preservation, or if repairs have failed to stop water from getting into bricks, in which case water repellant coatings might be used. 5. Deteriorated or damaged masonry should be repaired and missing elements should be replaced. The materials used in repairs should replicate the masonry’s historic appearance. 9. If bricks or other materials are missing, replacement bricks or stones should match the surrounding materials. Page 3 of 3 Paint (Page 26) Paint application and removal should support the historic appearance of buildings and their preservation. 4. If existing paint is protecting damaged bricks or other surface materials from disintegration, it should not be removed. Staff Comment: The proposed modification will provide a masonry perimeter wall consistent with other residential structures in the district and neighborhood. Wall should be painted in order to bridge the differences in bricks used in existing pillars. Item 2 – Front door replacement. Doors and Entrances (Page 16 Doors are often buildings’ central visual elements and are particularly important features. Historic entrances and doors should be retained, maintained, and, if needed, repaired. 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 open. Staff Comment: Application contains insufficient information to determine whether planned replacement meets the Commissions guidelines. ATTACHMENTS A. Application and attachments B. Location Map