Loading...
2008-August 27 HPC 1 0 2 W e s t M a i n S t r e e t \ P r a t t v i l l e , A L 3 6 0 6 7 \ 334. 5 9 5 . 0 5 0 0 \ p r a t t v i l l e a l . g o v BILL GILLESPIE, JR. MAYOR J. SCOTT STEPHENS, AICP DIRECTOR C I T Y OF P R A T T VI LL E H I S T OR I C P R E SE R VA T I O N C O M M IS S ION AGENDA August 27, 2020 4:30 p.m. Call to Order: Roll Call: Chairman Langley, Vice-Chairman McCord, Mrs. Davis, Mr. Ferguson, Ms. Musgrove, Mrs. Teresa Nettles, and Mr. Sanford. Minutes: June 25, 2020 Old Business: 1. CA2005-03 Certificate of Appropriateness Alteration- Rooftop solar panels 115 Maple Street Thomas Miller, Petitioner Tabled 5/28, 6/25 2. CA2007-01 Certificate of Appropriateness New Structure-Placement of a new outbuilding 115 East 5th Street Carolyn J. Williams, Petitioner Public Hearing 3. CA2007-02 Certificate of Appropriateness Alteration-Replacing old deck 319 South Washington Street Lisa Sherrill, Petitioner Public Hearing 4. CA2007-03 Certificate of Appropriateness Demolition-Remove an outbuilding Alterations-Roof, porch, awning 171 South Northington Street Scott Ferguson, Petitioner Public Hearing 5. CA2007-04 Certificate of Appropriateness New Structure-Fence 221 First Street Ken Cox, Petitioner Public Hearing New Business: None Miscellaneous: Adjourn: Approved 9/24/20 Prattville Historic Preservation Commission August 27, 2020 Minutes Page 1 of 3 CITY OF PRATTVILLE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES August 27, 2020 Call to order: The regular meeting of the Prattville Historic Preservation Commission was called to order on Thursday, August 27, 2020 at 4:31 p.m. Roll Call: The secretary called the roll. Members present were Vice-Chairman Joel McCord, Mrs. Jean Davis, Ms. Kate Musgrove, Mrs. Teresa Nettles, and Mr. Tim Sanford. Members Absent: Chairman Thea Langley and Mr. Scott Ferguson. Quorum present Also present was Mr. Scott Stephens, City Planner; Mr. Tommie Williams, Planner, and Ms. Alisa Morgan, Secretary. Minutes: Ms. Musgrove moved to approve the minutes of the May 28, 2020 meeting. Mr. McCord seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Mr. Stephens provided an update on the Comprehensive Plan’s status. He stated that the next meeting would be held at the Doster Center on August 31, 2020 at 6:00 p.m. He also encouraged participation in the Census. Old Business: Certificate of Appropriateness Alteration- Rooftop solar panels and home batteries 115 Maple Street Thomas Miller, Petitioner Mr. Stephens provided the background information on the requested alterations to the rooftop to allow solar panels. The request was tabled at the previous meeting (5/28/20) until more details the petitioner could be provided about the placement and number of panels to be used. Tom Miller, petitioner, provided detailed information on the research of placing the solar panels on the rooftop. He stated that in order to the get the most efficient use of the solar panels is best facing the south side which would be the street side of his property. He also stated that they have decided to not install the home batteries. Mrs. Davis asked how many panels would be used. Mr. Millers answer was inconclusive as to the number of panels that would be used. Mr. Stephens stated that the guidelines does not encourage street facing for solar panels, however, the guidelines were adopted in 2007 and panels have changed considerably. After the board’s discussion, Ms. Musgrove moved to approve the request as presented. Mrs. Davis seconded the motion. The motion to approve passed unanimously. Approved 9/24/20 Prattville Historic Preservation Commission August 27, 2020 Minutes Page 2 of 3 Certificate of Appropriateness New Structure-Placement of a new outbuilding 115 East 5th Street Carolyn J. Williams, Petitioner Mr. Stephens presented the staff report for the Certificate of Appropriateness for placement of an outbuilding located at 115 East 5th Street. He stated that the accessory structure was previously approved in January 2020 contingent that that it be moved behind the house and painted to match the main dwelling. Carolyn Williams, petitioner, presented the request to allow the outbuilding to remain where it is located. She stated that the area where the commission previous approved to be located behind the house is not suitable for placing a structure because of constantly wet ground. She stated that her vehicle got stuck in the area and she had to have assistance to remove it. She is afraid that the building would sink once it’s placed there and packed with storage items. Vice-Chairman McCord opened the floor for public comments. There being none, the public hearing was closed. VC McCord asked if she moved would she take the building also. Ms. Williams stated that she has resided as a renter at the property for 14 years and have no immediate or future plans of moving. After the board’s discussion, the vote was called. Mrs. Davis moved to approve the request as presented contingent that the outbuilding is painted to match the main dwelling. Ms. Musgrove seconded the motion. The motion to approve passed by 4/1 vote as recorded. Favor: Mrs. Davis, Ms. Musgrove, Mrs. Nettles, and Mr. Sanford. Oppose: VC McCord. Certificate of Appropriateness Alteration-Replacing old deck 319 South Washington Street Lisa Sherrill, Petitioner Lisa Sherrill, petitioner, presented the request for alterations to replace an old deck on property located at 319 South Washington Street. She stated that the deck was removed because it had rotted and had termite damage. She stated that the proposed new deck would be a 10’x18’ detached structure with a metal roof covering. Scott Stephens provided the staff report for the replacement of the deck at 319 South Washington Street. He stated that if the commission views this structure as a deck, it meets the guidelines, but will require some type of screening. He stated that the requirements for a porch are met. Vice-Chairman McCord opened the floor for public comments. There being none, the public hearing was closed. Ms. Sherrill stated that she submitted as deck because of the size, but is agreeable to it being considered as a porch. She stated that the porch would be pressured treated wood to match the house. After the board’s discussion, the vote was called. Ms. Musgrove moved to approve the request as submitted contingent that the porch has piers (similar to the existing front porch) of brick veneer material and roof material to match the existing front porch as approved by Planning Department. Mr. Sanford seconded the motion. The motion to approve passed unanimously. Approved 9/24/20 Prattville Historic Preservation Commission August 27, 2020 Minutes Page 3 of 3 Certificate of Appropriateness Demolition-Remove an outbuilding Alterations-Roof, porch, awning 171 South Northington Street Scott Ferguson, Petitioner Mr. Stephens stated that the petitioner, Scott Ferguson, has requested that his request be table until the next meeting. After no further discussion, the vote was called. Mrs. Davis moved to table the request until the next meeting in September. Mrs. Nettles seconded the motion. The motion to table passed unanimously. Certificate of Appropriateness New Structure-Fence 221 First Street Ken Cox, Petitioner Mr. Stephens provided the staff report for the construction of a new fence on property located at 221 First Street. He stated that the petitioner is requesting to place a new side fence to connect and match the existing front fence. He stated that approval is recommended with conditions that the fence cannot be over 3ft in the front yard per fence guidelines and the material that is being utilized to build/replace the fence should conform to the neighborhood and surrounding area. Ken Cox, petitioner, presented the request for a Certificate of Appropriateness to construct a new fence. He presented sample drawing of proposed material to use. Vice-Chairman McCord opened the floor for public comments. Becky Davis, 219 First Street, spoke in favor of the request. After no further comments, the public hearing was closed. After no further discussion, the vote was called. Mr. Sanford moved to approve the request as submitted contingent that the fence does not exceed 3 feet on the front and not to exceed 4 feet on the side. Mrs. Davis seconded the motion. The motion to approve passed unanimously. New Business: There was no new business to discuss. Miscellaneous: Mr. Stephens introduced discussion on updating the commission’s bylaws. He stated that the bylaws have not been updated since being adopted in 2005 and felt that this is a good time to review them. The proposed amendments will be mailed out to the commissioners in time to review prior to the next meeting. Adjourn: With no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 5:51 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Alisa Morgan, Secretary Historic Preservation Commission Page 1 of 3 Planning Department Staff Report Historic Preservation Commission CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS 115 Maple Street – CA2005-03 DATE May 28, 2020 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT Petitioner: Thomas M. Miller Property Owner: Same Agent: N/A Location: 115 Maple Street Review Status and History Submission Status: Fifth request for a Certification of Appropriateness for this address Previous Approvals: COA granted for demolition of existing Wainwright-Smith- Cook House on June 9, 2016. COA granted for relocation of front portion of the Wainwright-Smith-Cook House to new location on Third Street on December 15, 2016. COA granted for construction of new single-family structure and two accessory structures on June 27, 2017. COA granted for the construction of a chain link fence for the rear and decorative fencing for the front and sides of the property on May 24, 2018. Page 2 of 3 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. (Note original structure approved for demolition on June 9, 2016. Front portion and porch removed to new location on West Third Street in 2017. Proposed Alteration, Renovation or Addition The following alteration has been requested by the applicant. See the application included as Attachment A for a description of each element. 1. Installation of rooftop solar panels and home batteries PLANNING STAFF EVALUATION: Reviewed by: Darrell Rigsby, Senior Planner Site Visits Conducted: May, 2020 Recommendation: Approve with Conditions, see analysis below. Evaluation: Since the subject property/structure was initially developed as a residence, 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. The following changes are proposed: 1. Install rooftop solar panels and home batteries Roofs (page 32) Page 3 of 3 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. 5. New skylights, solar panels, decks, balconies, and satellite dishes should not be readily visible from the street. Analysis: The petitioner would like to install solar panels on the roof of the house and a battery storage device, likely on the side of the house. Solar panels are most efficient when they face southern exposure, in this case is the front of the home, toward Maple Street. However, exact location will be determined once a home assessment is completed by the solar panel manufacture. Due to the layout of the house, it will be difficult for the rooftop solar panel displays to not be readily visible from the streets that border the property (Maple St., and Bridge St.) and the downtown creekwalk. The petitioner has provided several examples of proposed solar panels from Tesla that show thin (1.57”), low profile, black panels with black frames. See pictures and articles provided by petitioner. As a result of this information, the Commission should address two primary questions with this request. 1. Does the new architectural feature contribute or protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment? 2. Does the material being utilized closely relate to or resemble the existing shingle roof structure? ATTACHMENTS A. Application and attachments B. Location Map MAPLE STBRIDGE ST± Legend Subject Area Address Points Streets Autauga Tax Parcels 0 200100 Feet Locations are approximate Aerial Map - 115 Maple St. MAPLE STBRIDGE ST1ST ST W MAIN ST E MAIN ST TICHNOR ST S CHESTNUT STPL E T C H E R S T SELMA HWYS COURT STDEERWOOD DRPRATTVILLE PUBLIC SAFETY± Legend Subject Area Address Points Streets Autauga Tax Parcels 0 1,000500 Feet Locations are approximate Location Map - 115 Maple St. MAPLE STBRIDGE STR-2 B-2 R-4 R-1 B-2 B-2 ± Legend Subject Area Address Points Streets Autauga Tax Parcels R-1 R-2 R-4 B-2 0 200100 Feet Locations are approximate Zoning Map - 115 Maple St. Page 1 of 5 Historic Preservation Commission Staff Report CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS 115 East 5th Street– CA2007-01 DATE July 23, 2020 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT Petitioner: Carolyn J. Williams Property Owner: Kenneth Chambliss Agent: N/A Location: 115 E 5th Street Review Status and History Submission Status: Second request for a Certificate of Appropriateness for this address. Previous Approvals: Accessory structure was approved by the HPC in January 2020, conditioned on moving the structure behind the house and painted a complementary color 1984/2007 Historic Properties Inventory Details 70. 115 East Fifth Street, Cook House, (circa 1880, contributing) This one-story frame house has a gable roof with a shed roof extension on the rear elevation. It was originally a two-room mill-worker’s house. A circa 1925 update rearranged the fenestration and added the brick-pier and post porch with its broad front gable, giving the house its present bungalow appearance. Page 2 of 5 Proposed Alteration, Renovation or Addition “Would like to request that [structure] be painted as advised to match more to original house structure and remain in the area that it is already.” PLANNING STAFF EVALUATION: Reviewed by: Scott Stephens Site Visits Conducted: July 2020 Recommendation: Approve, with conditions 1. The accessory structure (outbuilding) meets applicable guidelines #1-4. Regarding #5, the petitioner is unable to place behind the house due to constantly wet ground, however, the structure is placed behind the rear plane of the house, and is obscured when viewed obliquely from the east or west. The petitioner should paint the structure the same color as the house or a complimentary color so it blends in better. Analysis: Residential Guidelines, Outbuildings (page 50) Outbuildings contribute to the historic and residential character of the district. Historic outbuildings should be retained and maintained. New outbuildings should use design, materials, and placement that support the district’s historic character. 1. Historic outbuildings should be retained and maintained 2. New outbuildings should be smaller than the adjoining main building. 3. New outbuildings should be simple in appearance 4. New outbuildings should use building and roof forms compatible to those used in the adjoining main building. 5. New outbuildings should use materials compatible to those used in the adjoining main buildings. Outbuildings that are not visible from public vantage points or have very limited visibility may use modern synthetic siding materials. Page 3 of 5 Comments from January 2020 report: The petitioner has placed a pre-built yard barn style accessory structure located adjacent from the building line that is visible from a public street. Guideline 1 can be omitted as this will be a new outbuilding. Guideline 2 will be met as this outbuilding will be smaller than the primary structure. Guideline 3 can be met as the outbuilding is simple in appearance with a metal roof. Guideline 4 can be met as the outbuilding will use the same gable style roof line that is found in the adjoining main building. Guideline 5 will require additional review and consideration by the Commission. It should be noted that the primary structure is off a wood sided material similar to the outbuilding however, the outbuilding does not match the primary structure entirely. Staff suggests that the proposed accessory structure be painted to match the primary structure and/or the structure be replaced elsewhere on the lot that allows it to not be visible from a public vantage point. Comments for July 2020: The petitioner attempted to comply with HPC decision and place structure behind house. However, the site is too wet and muddy to place a structure there. Page 4 of 5 Page 5 of 5 E 3RD ST E 6TH ST 7TH ST E 5TH ST E 4TH ST W 6TH ST W 5TH ST W 4TH ST PINE STW 3RD ST N CHESTNUT STS CHESTNUT STN WASHINGTON STHUNTS ALYS WASHINGTON STWET UMPKA ST BENT TREE DR MARTIN LUTHER KING JR DRRAILROAD ST Location Map - 115 East 5th Street ± Legend Subject Area Address Points Streets Autauga Tax Parcels 0 1,000500 Feet Locations are approximate Page 1 of 7 Historic Preservation Commission Staff Report CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS 319 South Washington Street – CA2007-02 DATE July 23, 2020 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT Petitioner: Lisa & James Sherrill Property Owner: Lisa & James Sherrill Agent: N/A Location: 319 South Washington Street Review Status and History Submission Status: CoA 1703-01 Item 1 – Demolition of an existing structure on thr erear of building – approved as requested Item 2 – construction of new addition on the rear of building (14’x30’, 420 sq ft) with a covered porch – approved as presented. Item 3 – Modifications to front façade and north façade. Front – remove one of the existing front doors to replaces with window. Side – replace eisiting single window with double window (master bedroom), relocate single window – approved contingent to modify the kitchen and master bedroom window according to the codes that the bilding department and planning department deems approprirate. CNo changes to the window on the front of the house on Page 2 of 7 either side of the dining room and sitting room. (Front doors will not be removed). Previous Approvals: Approvals above 1984/2007 Historic Properties Inventory Details 319 South Washington Street, Walker House (1921, contributing) This one-story frame bungalow has a broad front gable breaking into an offset secondary gable that extends over its brick-pier and post porch. Proposed Alteration, Renovation or Addition The following alteration has been requested by the applicant. See the application included as Attachment A for a description of each element. 1. Replace porch on north side of house that was removed due to age and rot with wooden deck PLANNING STAFF EVALUATION: Reviewed by: Darrell Rigsby, Senior Planner Site Visits Conducted: July, 2020 Recommendation: Approve, with conditions 1. If the commission views this project as a porch, it meets all of the residential guidelines for porches. However, if the commission views this project as a deck, it meets guidelines 2, 3, and 4, but, will require fencing or landscape screening to satisfy guideline 1. Evaluation: Since the subject property/structure was initially developed as a residence, 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. The following changes are proposed: Page 3 of 7 1. Porch Replacement Porches (Page 27) Historic porches visible from the street should be retained and maintained. 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. Porches are defining elements of character on district residences. Historic porches and their component elements, including roofs and heights, should be retained and maintained. Scroll-sawn spandrels and railings and beveled posts are appropriate porch elements for Victorian styles such as Queen Anne. The simpler wood spandrels, railings, and posts are also appropriate models for Victorian house styles. Classical porch elements such as the single squared columns and paired round columns, both with Doric capitals, are appropriate models for classically influenced styles such as Colonial Revival and Greek Revival. Brick posts, often with tapered wood uppers were popular elements for Craftsman-style houses and early-twentieth-century forms such as bungalows. Square posts were also popular for those types of buildings. Simple wood railings and posts are appropriate for most district houses. The use of square wood columns and balusters is recommended when rebuilding porches and the original design is unknown. Minimal wooden framework should be used if porch screening is desired. Original porch elements should be retained and be unobscured by the screen. 1. Historic porches visible from the street should be retained and maintained. 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. 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. 5. If screening is desired, minimal structural framework should be used in order to maintain an open appearance. Wood is the preferred material for framing; anodized or baked aluminum is also appropriate. 6. Wood plant trellises are appropriate for porches. 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. Page 4 of 7 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 petitioner would like to construct a 180 square foot (10 ft x 14 ft) deck on the north side (left side if looking from the street) of the residence replacing a previously removed porch. The proposed structure is significantly larger than the previous structure. Proposed structure will be primarily constructed out of pressure treated wood with a metal roof covering angled off of the primary structure. Applicant proposes to paint structure once wood is cured (3-4 months after installation). Steps will be facing the street and the rear will have a slatted wall. If the commission views this project as a porch, it meets all of the residential guidelines for porches. However, if the commission views this project as a deck, it meets guidelines 2, 3, and 4, but, will require fencing or landscape screening to satisfy guideline 1. Page 5 of 7 319 South Washington Street – Current Condition Page 6 of 7 319 South Washington Street – May 2013 Page 7 of 7 319 South Washington Street – May 2016 S WASHINGTON STAerial Map - 319 S Washington Street ± Legend Subject Area AutaugaParcels Streets 0 10050 Feet Locations are approximate 1ST ST E MAIN ST S WASHINGTON STCOLLEGE STS NORTHINGTON STLocation Map - 319 S Washington Street ± Legend Subject Area AutaugaParcels Streets 0 500250 Feet Locations are approximate S WASHINGTON STCOLLEGE STR-2 B-2 R-6 Zoning Map - 319 S Washington Street ± Legend Subject Area AutaugaParcels Streets R-2 R-6 B-2 0 10050 Feet Locations are approximate CITY OF PRATTVILLE Historic Preservation Commission Planning Department Staff Report 1 CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS 221 First Street – CA2007-03 DATE July 23, 2020 PROPOSED DEVLOPMENT Petitioner: Ken Cox Property Owner: Ken Cox Agent: N/A Location: 221 First Street Review Status and History Submission Status: First request for a Certificate of Appropriateness for this address. Previous Approvals: N/A 1984/2007 Historic Properties Inventory Details 221 First Street; 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; also replacement of sashing and front door. Proposed Alteration, Renovation or Addition The following alterations has been requested by the applicant. See the application included as Attachment A for a description of each element. 1. Privacy Fence PLANNING STAFF EVALUATION: Reviewed by: Tommie Williams Site visit conducted on: July 2020 CITY OF PRATTVILLE Historic Preservation Commission Planning Department Staff Report 2 Recommendation: Approve with Conditions Analysis The petitioner is requesting to install a new side fence to connect to the existing front fence. The front fence will be replaced with the same material as the side fence to ensure consistency and aesthetics. City Staff recommends approval with conditions. The conditions are the fence cannot be over 3ft in the front yard per fence guidelines and the material that is being utilized to build/replace the fence should conform to the neighborhood and surrounding area. Evaluation Since the subject property/structure is a residential property, the requested alterations were reviewed against the standards contained in the Prattville Residential Design Review Guidelines Manual. The relevant sections of the manual are included. Staff comments/evaluations are summarized at the end of the section. Item 1. Privacy Fence Fences and Walls (page 46) 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. 1. Historic fences and walls should be retained and maintained. 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. 3. Cast iron fences are appropriate for 19th and early 20th century dwellings. These fences should be less than three feet tall. a. Cast-iron and wood fences are appropriate for front yards of pre-1910 houses. 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. 5. Free-standing brick or concrete walls may be located in back yards or, if not visible from the street, side yards. 6. Chain-link fences may be located in back yards or, if not visible from the street, side yards. Chain-link fences should be painted dark green or black, coated with green or black plastic, or screened with plants. CITY OF PRATTVILLE Historic Preservation Commission Planning Department Staff Report 3 7. Split or horizontal rail, railroad tie, or timber fences may be located in rear yards but should be avoided on the fronts of houses. CITY OF PRATTVILLE Historic Preservation Commission Planning Department Staff Report 4 1ST ST Aerial Map - 221 First Street ± Legend Elmore_Parcels Subject Area AutaugaParcels Streets 0 5025 Feet Locations are approximate 1ST ST DOSTER ST S NORTHINGTON STS WASHINGTON STCOLLEGE STSELMA HWYLocation Map - 221 First Street ± Legend Elmore_Parcels Subject Area AutaugaParcels Streets 0 19095 Feet Locations are approximate 1ST ST R-2 R-6 Zoning Map - 221 First Street ± Legend Elmore_Parcels Subject Area AutaugaParcels Streets R-2 R-6 0 5025 Feet Locations are approximate