Loading...
1605 - May 26 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 May 26, 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 2. CA1604-04 Certificate of Appropriateness Demolition & New Structure-Single Family Residence 115 Maple Street Tom Miller, Petitioner Tabled New Business: 3. CA1605-01 Certificate of Appropriateness Alteration-New Front Porch and Re-roof 246 Wetumpka Street Matt & Jennifer Holtzscher, Petitioners Public Hearing Miscellaneous: Adjourn: CITY OF PRATTVILLE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES May 26, 2016 Call to order: The regular meeting of the Prattville Historic Preservation Commission was called to order on Thursday, May 26, 2016 at 4:32 p.m. Roll Call: The secretary called the roll. Members present were Chairman Thea Langley,Vice-Chairman Gray Price, Ms. Lenore Kirkpatrick,Ms. Kate Musgrove,and Mr. Larry Smith.Members Absent:Mr. Will Barrett and Mrs. Jean Davis. Quorum present Also present was Mr. Joel Duke, City Planner and Ms.Alisa Morgan, Secretary. Minutes: There were no minutes available. 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 information as requested by the Commission. Mr. Duke stated that the petitioner has chosen to paint the building rather than implement the repair they were requesting. Ms.Kirkpatrick moved to remove the request from the agenda.Ms.Musgrove seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Certificate of Appropriateness Demolition & New Structure-Single Family Residence 115 Maple Street Tom Miller, Petitioner Chair Langley stated that the Commission met on Monday, May 23, 2016 to tour the property at 115 Maple Street. She stated that they had received the engineer’s report,but did not have enough time to review all the material in depth. Mr. Miller stated that he would rather withdraw his request if the Commission is not favorable of ademolition. He stated that he didn’t expect the Commission to make a hasty decision, however he did not want to endure a long process of extended meetings. Chair Langley explained that the Commission had just received the engineer’s report the day before the meeting and the tour on Monday, she wanted to ensure that the Commission had enough time to review all information was confident that they could provide a definitive answer within a timely manner for the petitioner. Mr. Miller understood and was agreeable to allow the Commission additional time to review all proposals before deciding to withdraw his request. Mr. Price moved to hold the request until the next meeting and form a committee for further review of the reports. Ms. Musgrove seconded the motion. The motion passed by 3/2 vote as recorded. Favor: Mr. Price, Chairman Langley and Ms. Kirkpatrick. Oppose: Mr. Smith and Ms. Musgrove. New Business: Certificate of Appropriateness Alteration-New front porch and Re-roof 246 Wetumpka Street Matt & Jennifer Holtzscher, Petitioners Matt Holtzscher, petitioner, presented the request to make alterations to fix a beam on the front door at 246 Wetumpka Street. He stated to fix the beam the front porch would have to be ripped off. He would like to build a new front porch that would extend the entire front of the house. He stated that he is also requesting to replace the existing roof with steel roof. Mr. Duke provided the staff report for the Certificate of Appropriateness for property at 246 Wetumpka Street. He stated that the proposed request is compatible to the original porch. He stated that the re-roof with steel material is appropriate. The petitioners stated that the replacement roof would be galvalume color. Ms.Musgrove moved to approve the request as submitted contingent that the porch flooring is tongue and groove wood decking.Mr. Price seconded the motion. The motion to approve passed by 4/0 vote.Favor: Ms. Musgrove, Mr. Price, Chairman Langley and Ms. Kirkpatrick. Oppose: None.(Mr. Smith abstained from voting). There were no public comments. Miscellaneous: Adjourn: With no further business,the meeting was adjourned at 5:13 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Alisa Morgan,Secretary Historic Preservation Commission 1 Joel, Attached are two pictures of the type house we would like to build on 115 Maple. This was also requested by HPC. Thanks.Tom CITY OF PRATTVILLE Planning Commission Planning Department Staff Report CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS 246 Wetumpka Street – CA1605-01 DATE May 25, 2016 PROPOSED DEVLOPMENT Petitioner: Matt Holtzscher Property Owner: Matt and Jennifer Holtzscher Agent: N/A Location: 246 Wetumpka Street Review Status and History Submission Status: Third submission for this address. Previous Approvals: October 23, 2008, March 24, 2016 Conditions of Previous Approvals: October 23, 2008 - 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’). March 24, 2016 – Alteration-Repair-replace aluminum skirting with brick masonry-approved as submitted. 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 4 The following alterations are proposed for the exterior of the building. See application included as Attachment A for a description of each element. 1. Remove existing pediment and pilasters surrounding front door. Add 36.5’ wide, 8’ deep front porch with standing seam metal roof 2. Replace asphalt shingle roof with standing seam metal roof. PLANNING STAFF EVALUATION Reviewed by: Joel T. Duke, AICP Site Visits Conducted: March 22, 2016 and May 24, 2016 Recommendation: Approval of Item 1 with minor modifications to match guidelines Approve Item 2. 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 – Remove existing pediment and pilasters surrounding front door. Add 36.5’ wide, 8’ deep front porch with standing seam metal roof Architectural Features (Page 15) Historic architectural features commonly found in Prattville include brick, wood, or terracotta columns and capitals; wood pediments and trim; and window surrounds. These features are important stylistic elements and should be retained, visible, maintained, and, if needed, repaired. 1. Historic architectural features should be retained and maintained. 7. Owners are encouraged to replace missing or severely damaged historic architectural features with replacements that replicate the original features or other similar examples. 8. Architectural features should not be added to buildings where none historically existed. Porches (Page 27) Page 3 of 4 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. 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. 4. Porches visible from the street should remain largely open and unenclosed; if enclosure is desired, lattice panels should be installed behind porch columns and railings and should cover no more than one third of the porch. Staff Comments: The proposed modification will restore a porch that was apparently removed by a previous owner. The removal occurred prior to the house being describing in the 1984 National Register listing (see above). Unfortunately, a search of records by the applicant and the Planning Department has not uncovered a description or a picture of the earlier porch. The 1925 Sanborn Map of Prattville (Attachment B) indicates the presence of front porch across the front of the house and wrapping around the front east corner. It is clear that pilasters and pediment surrounding the front door were added after removal of the porch. Without a drawing or photograph of the original porch, the owner must design a porch that is consistent with the structure’s style and the Commission’s guidelines. The present design is consistent with the relatively unadorned structure. The porch design leaves the top of the front door visible from the street and protects the existing cornice and frieze. The porch design uses natural materials except for the Hardi trim boards and Trek as the floor decking. The Hardi material has been permitted by the board, but the use of Trek has been discouraged. Recommend switching the decking to wood boards. Item 2 – Replace asphalt shingle roof with standing seam metal roof. 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. Page 4 of 4 Staff Comment: 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. 1925 Sanborn Map - Prattville C. Location Map