Loading...
1605 - May 05 (Special Mtg.) 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 April 28, 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: March 24, 2016 Old Business: 1. CA1602-01 Certificate of Appropriateness Alteration-Repair 161 West Main Street Jules Moffett, Petitioner Tabled 2/25, 3/24 New Business: 2. CA1604-01 Certificate of Appropriateness Alteration-Re-roof 218 South Chestnut Street William A. Sawyer, Petitioner Public Hearing 3. CA1604-02 Certificate of Appropriateness Alterations-New windows, roof, front door and add deck 106 First Street Magnolia Wood Properties, Petitioner Public Hearing 4. CA1604-03 Certificate of Appropriateness New Structure-Single Family Residence First Street Joel McCord, Petitioner Public Hearing 5. CA1604-04 Certificate of Appropriateness Demolition & New Structure-Single Family Residence 115 Maple Street Tom Miller, Petitioner Public Hearing Miscellaneous: Adjourn: CITY OF PRATTVILLE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES May 5, 2016 Special Meeting Call to order: The special meeting of the Prattville Historic Preservation Commission was called to order on Thursday, May 5, 2016 at 4:34 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: There were no minutes available to approve. New Business: Certificate of Appropriateness Alteration-Re-roof 218 South Chestnut Street William A. Sayer, Petitioner William Sayer, petitioner,presented his request to make alterations to replace the existing roof with metal roof at 218 South Chestnut Street.He stated that the entire roof would be replaced with a grayish brown standing seam type style roof. Mr. Duke provided the staff report for the Certificate of Appropriateness requested for property at 218 South Chestnut Street. He stated that the re-roof with metal material is appropriate. Mr. Barrett moved to approve the request as submitted. Ms.Kirkpatrick seconded the motion. The motion to approve passed unanimously. There were no public comments. Certificate of Appropriateness Alterations-New windows, roof, front door and add deck 106 First Street Magnolia Wood Properties, Petitioner Linda Steele, petitioner’s representative,presented the request to make alterations at 106 First Street.She stated that a detached deck was added to the property. They also re-roofed and painted the building. Mr. Duke presented the staff report for the alterations requested at 106 First Street. He stated that the property had been significantly altered. It is not included in the 1984 National Register as a contributing structure.He stated that the deck addition was approved in 2014 has been constructed as approved.The windows and door were replaced without the board’s approval. Ms. Steele stated that the wooden windows were replaced with steel windows and the wooden door was replaced with another wooden door of the same solid style. Mr. Duke stated that the requested alterations will not detract from the structure or district. Mr. Price moved to approve the request as submitted.Mr. Barrett seconded the motion. The motion to approve passed unanimously. There were no public comments. Certificate of Appropriateness New Structure-Single Family Residence First Street (between 219 First Street & 345 South Washington Street) Joel McCord, Petitioner Joel McCord and Annie McCord, petitioners, presented the request to build a new structure on vacant lot on First Street.He presented a handout with details of the proposed request (attached and made a part of the minutes). Mr. Duke presented the staff report for Certificate of Appropriateness (COA)requested for new single family dwelling at First Street. He stated that the vacant lot is located adjacent to 219 First Street. He stated that a COA was approved for a new structure in February, 2014 which was not built. He stated that the guidelines require that new dwellings be designed to be compatible with the district and surrounding structures. Chairman Langley opened the public hearing. Becky Snodgrass Davis, 219 First Street, stated drainage was a concern. She wanted to ensure that there would be no drainage runoff to her property. Mr. McCord addressed the public comment stating that the presented plans are the final plans. He stated that the house elevation is 44” off the ground. He stated that along with the proposed gutter system they are also considering a rain garden in the rear yard to help with runoff. Mr. Price asked if he had made consideration to place windows on the 2nd floor. Mr. McCord replied that there was no room to place additional windows. Ed Rouze, 244 East Main Street, stated that he owns property to the rear of the proposed location. He stated that the existing dirt was moved there for building a sidewalk and not for drainage issues. After no further comments, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Smith moved to approve the request as submitted. Mr. Price seconded the motion. The motion to approve passed unanimously. Certificate of Appropriateness Demolition & New Structure-Single Family Residence 115 Maple Street Tom Miller, Petitioner Tom Miller, petitioner, presented the request to demolish an existing structure and plans to rebuild a new single family residence. He stated that it is very costly to refurbish the existing structure. Mr. Duke presented the staff report for the Certificate of Appropriateness requested to demolish the existing historic residential structure at 115 Maple Street. He stated that the existing structure is listed as contributing property in the 1984 survey. It has been added onto many times in its early years. He stated that the guidelines require that demolition of buildings that contribute to the historic character of the district should be a point of last resort. Chairman Langley opened the public hearing. Fred Harris, 148 Maple Street, adjacent property owner, stated that he has resided at his property since 1987. He stated that the structure is an eyesore as it sits vacant. Al Bock, 839 Heather Drive, stated that the property was not beyond hope. He would like to see the structure restored. After no further comments, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Miller stated that he has considered all options to prevent demolition of the structure but this is the most viable option. Mr. Price moved to table the request for no longer than 60 days to allow the commissioners to obtain further information on the structure of the building. Mr. Barrett seconded the motion. The motion to table passed unanimously. 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 additional documentation as requested by the commission. Mr.Price moved to table the request until the next meeting.Mr.Smith seconded the motion. The motion to table passed unanimously. Miscellaneous: Adjourn: With no further business,the meeting was adjourned at 5:49 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Alisa Morgan,Secretary Historic Preservation Commission CITY OF PRATTVILLE Historic Preservation Commission Planning Department Staff Report CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS 218 S. Chestnut Street – CA1604-01 DATE May 3, 2016 PROPOSED DEVLOPMENT Petitioner: William A. Sayer Property Owner: William A. Sayer Agent: None Location: 218 S. Chestnut Street – northwest corner of the Chestnut Street and Tichnor Street intersection 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 218 S. Chestnut Street was not included in the 1984 survey of structures contributing to the National Register Historic District. According to Autauga County probate records, the single-story brick, hip-roofed structure was constructed in 1950. 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. Replacing existing asphalt shingle roofing material with steel roofing. Page 2 of 2 PLANNING STAFF EVALUATION Reviewed by: Joel T. Duke, AICP Site Visits Conducted: April 26, 2016 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. 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 CITY OF PRATTVILLE Historic Preservation Commission Planning Department Staff Report CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS 106 First Street – CA1604-02 DATE May 3, 2016 PROPOSED DEVLOPMENT Petitioner: Magnolia Wood Properties Property Owner: Magnolia Wood Properties Agent: N/A Location: 106 First Street Review Status and History Submission Status: Second request for a Certificate of Appropriateness for this address. Previous Approvals: Approved in August 2014 to construct a new deck and handicapped accessible ramp. Conditions of Previous Approvals: None 1984/2007 Historic Properties Inventory Details The property was not included in the 1984 or 2007 Historic Properties inventories. The construction date of the wood frame structure is listed by the Autauga County Revenue Commissioner’s Office as 1935. 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 existing windows. 2. Replace existing front door. Page 2 of 3 PLANNING STAFF EVALUATION Reviewed by: Joel T. Duke, AICP Site Visits Conducted: April 25, 2016 Recommendation: Items 1 and 2: Application was submitted after work completed. Submission does not include details showing windows or doors being replaced. A description of old windows and doors is needed during the hearing for the record. Given previous amount of modifications to the structure, the requested alterations will not detract from the structure or district. Qualified recommendation to approve. If wood window frames were removed, the Commission should consider requiring replacement with wood frame. 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. Replace existing windows. Windows (Page 36) 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. Page 3 of 3 Item 2. Replace existing front door. Doors (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. 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. Analysis The applicant is requesting a Certificate of Appropriateness to approve work completed without permit and in addition to approval granted by the Commission in August 2014. The applicant is unable to provide samples of how the structure appear prior to door and window replacement. While the age of the structure is sufficient for inclusion in the 1984 survey of historic structures, it appears the once residential building had been alter significantly prior to 1984. Given the previous alterations, the Commission should consider whether the proposed changes are generally compatible with the structure and the surrounding parts of the district. ATTACHMENTS A. Application and attachments B. Location Map CITY OF PRATTVILLE Historic Preservation Commission Planning Department Staff Report CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS Vacant Lot – 225 First Street – CA1604-03 DATE May 3, 2016 PROPOSED DEVLOPMENT Petitioner: Joel McCord Property Owner: Joel McCord Agent: N/A Location: First Street – adjacent to and west of 219 First Street Review Status and History Submission Status: Second request for a Certificate of Appropriateness for this address. Previous Approvals: Received COA for new structure on site on February 27, 2014 for construction a new residential structure at this address. Not built. Conditions of Previous Approvals: Approved as submitted contingent upon adding the 3 step, 4” elevation to the front porch, additional windows on the east side of property and drainage being reviewed prior to issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy. 1984/2007 Historic Properties Inventory Details 221 East First Street – c. 1890 and later – one-story, frame, rectangular (three-bay front) with double gabled wing at rear. Built for Fay family. Renovated c. 1925, including addition of present brick-pier porch and carport. (Note original structure removed since described in National Register nomination. Site presently vacant.) Proposed Alteration, Renovation or Addition The following has been requested by the applicant. See the application included as Attachment A for the owner’s description. 1. Construction of new single-family residential structure – 53’ x 67’ on an 80’ x 180’ Page 2 of 3 lot. Two-story residence containing 3,932 square feet. Slab on grade construction. Hip roof with 26’ x 8’ porch. Hardie siding with brick accent on the lower front façade. (Plans attached) PLANNING STAFF EVALUATION Reviewed by: Joel T. Duke, AICP Site Visits Conducted: April 26, 2016 Recommendation:  Item 1: Approval on condition that additional windows are considered on west and east façade – upper and lower floors. Evaluation: The requested alterations were reviewed against the standards contained in the Prattville Residential Design Review Guidelines Manual. Staff comments/evaluations are summarized at the end of each section. Item 1 – Construction of new single-family residential structure – 34’ x 77’ as presented on attached plans. Infill Buildings (pages 41- 43) New construction is welcome on vacant lots in the historic district. They enable land uses to follow historical patterns and provide for visual continuity of the district landscape. New dwellings should be designed to be contemporary but compatible with the district. 1. New buildings should be compatible with adjacent buildings in terms of height. 2. New buildings should be compatible with adjacent buildings in terms of materials. 3. New buildings should be compatible with adjacent buildings in terms of setback. 4. New buildings should be compatible with adjacent buildings in terms of width, scale and proportion. 5. New buildings should be compatible with adjacent buildings in terms of roof form. 6. New buildings should be oriented toward the major street. Analysis As stated in the Commission’s guidelines, infill development is encouraged to assure the long term health of the district. Infill developments provide an opportunity to complement the historic structures and emulate styles that are unique to the district. The proposed structure uses modern materials that emulate architectural features common to the historic district. Page 3 of 3 The adopted standard for infill development looks at whether the structure is consistent with the district and primarily the surrounding area. Included with this report are photos of the historic structures fronting First Street in the block between Washington Street and Northington Street. The structures date from the late 1800’s to early 1900’s, but share similar features such as single story, gable roofs, wood (or aluminum to cover original wood) siding, partial-width porches, elevation above grade. These structures are contrasted with recent (pre-guidelines) slab on grade units at 219 and 221 First Street. The plans presented for the proposed structure appear to meet five of the six infill guidelines. The proposed hip roof structure differs from most of the nearby historic structures, which have versions of a gable roof. In addition, the structure lacks window or door opening portions of the east and west façade. Windows and other openings in the historic structures are usually symmetrically spaced on the front and side facades. Modern house plans usually focus on the front façade and neglect the appearance of the side. The Commission should examine the blank spaces the west and east facade of the proposed structure. Given the proposed setback from the side line this side will be visible from the street. Additional windows should be considered near the front of the east façade and the upper story. ATTACHMENTS A. Application and attachments B. Location Map C. Staff Photos of Historic Structures on First Street CITY OF PRATTVILLE Historic Preservation Commission Planning Department Staff Report CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS 115 Maple Street – CA1604-04 DATE May 3, 2016 PROPOSED DEVLOPMENT Petitioner: Tom Miller Property Owner: Stanley Murray Agent: N/A Location: 115 Maple 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 115 Maple Street, Wainwright-Smith-Cook House (circa 1860, contributing) - This rectangular one-story frame building has extensive rear additions. Circa 1900, workers moved the formerly detached kitchen and servant’s quarters to connect with the rear of the house. A possible construction date for its deck-roofed porch with chamfered and molded columns and pierced-work wood railing is circa 1880. 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 historic residential structure. 2. Construction of new residential structure on site of demolished structure. Page 2 of 4 PLANNING STAFF EVALUATION Reviewed by: Joel T. Duke, AICP Site Visits Conducted: February 22, 2016 and April 25, 2016 Recommendation:  Item 1: Consider three questions presented in the staff analysis. Hold consideration of request and appoint committee to evaluate the historic significance of structure and structural condition.  Item 2 – Delay consideration until Item 1 is addressed by the Commission. No plans were submitted with this application for a new structure. 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. 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: Page 3 of 4 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, 115 Maple Street is considered a contributing property dating to the 1860’s with modifications in the 1880’s and 1900’s. Will the fabric of the historic district be impacted with the loss of this structure? 2. Can the existing structure be rehabilitated on site or preserved by moving another site? What opportunities exists to preserve the structure or a significant portion of the structure. The house sits on the western end of a 1.17 acre site. Can it be moved to another location on the property? Are there opportunities to move the structure or portion thereof to other site in the historic district? 3. Has the applicant demonstrated sufficient hardship to meet the Commission’s guidelines and justify removal? The applicant states that structural evaluation has been conducted. The Commission should request additional information regarding the condition of the framing and roof rather than focusing on the façade or visible portions of the interior. Item 2 – Construction of new single-family residential structure. Infill Buildings (pages 41- 43) New construction is welcome on vacant lots in the historic district. They enable land uses to follow historical patterns and provide for visual continuity of the district landscape. New dwellings should be designed to be contemporary but compatible with the district. 1. New buildings should be compatible with adjacent buildings in terms of height. 2. New buildings should be compatible with adjacent buildings in terms of materials. Page 4 of 4 3. New buildings should be compatible with adjacent buildings in terms of setback. 4. New buildings should be compatible with adjacent buildings in terms of width, scale and proportion. 5. New buildings should be compatible with adjacent buildings in terms of roof form. 6. New buildings should be oriented toward the major street. Analysis No plans have been presented for evaluation at this time. Suggest delaying discussion of a new structure until demolition request is addressed by the Commission. ATTACHMENTS A. Application and attachments B. Location Map C. Applicant Photos