Loading...
08 - August 04 (Special Mtg.) PLANNING & DEVELOPME NT DEPARTMENT 102 WEST MAIN STREET  PRATTVI LLE, ALABAMA 36067  334 -361 -3613  334 -361 -3677 FACSIMILE planning.prattvilleal.gov CITY OF PRATTVILLE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AGENDA SPECIAL MEETING August 4, 2014 4:30 p.m. Call to Order: Roll Call: Chairman Langley, Vice-Chairman Price, Mr. Barrett, Ms. Chieves, Mrs. Davis, and Ms. Kirkpatrick. Election of Officers: Minutes: Old Business: 1. CA1309-01 Certificate of Appropriateness Alterations-Roof material and kitchen and deck addition 272 East Main Street Jerry & Pamela Abernathy, Petitioners Held New Business: 2. CA1407-01 Certificate of Appropriateness Alterations-Removal of storage building 134 North Chestnut Street First United Methodist Church, Petitioner Public Hearing Miscellaneous: Adjourn: Approved 8/28/14 Prattville Historic Preservation Commission August 4, 2014 (Special Meeting) Page 1 of 2 CITY OF PRATTVILLE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES Special Meeting August 4, 2014 Call to order: The special meeting of the Prattville Historic Preservation Commission was called to order on Thursday, August 4, 2014 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,Ms. Kate Chieves,and Ms. Lenore Kirkpatrick.Members Absent:Mrs. Jean Davis. Quorum present Also present was Mr. Joel Duke, City Planner and Ms.Alisa Morgan, Secretary. Minutes: None Chair Langley changed the order that the items were heard. New Business: Certificate of Appropriateness Alterations-Removal of storage building 134 North Chestnut Street First United Methodist Church,Petitioner Mr. Robby Anderson, petitioner’s representative, presented the Certificate of Appropriateness for alterations to remove a storage shed from the property at 134 N. Chestnut Street. He stated that the main structure was built in 1950. He stated that the church, First United Methodist had owned the property since 2004. He stated that the storage building was built sometime after the main structure was built. He stated that they want to remove the storage building to restore back to its original state. Mr. Duke presented the staff report for the alteration request at 134 N. Chestnut Street. He stated that the storage shed was non-contributing. He recommended approval to remove the storage building. Mr. Barrett moved to approve the alteration to remove the storage building at 134 N. Chestnut Street as submitted. Mrs. Kirkpatrick seconded the motion. The motion to approve passed unanimously. Old Business: Certificate of Appropriateness Alterations-Roof material and kitchen and deck addition 272 East Main Street Jerry & Pamela Abernathy, Petitioners Approved 8/28/14 Prattville Historic Preservation Commission August 4, 2014 (Special Meeting) Page 2 of 2 The requested item to make alterations to roof material and kitchen and deck addition was held September 26, 2013. Mr. Price moved to bring the item off the table for discussion. Mrs. Chieves seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Jerry Abernathy, petitioner, presented the sample color pallet from ATAS International, Inc. of which he would choose for the roof color. He stated that his choice would be Medium Bronze (03) and Antique Patina (24).He stated that the he wanted to replace the lower roof with standing seam metal and at some point replace the entire roof. Mr. Duke stated that the standing seam metal roof was appropriate. Mr. Price moved to approve the roof with standing seam metal in the color pallet provided by ATAS International, Inc. Medium Bronze (03) or Antique Patina (24). Ms. Kirkpatrick seconded the motion. The motion to approve passed unanimously. Mr. Abernathy presented his request to cover the existing deck area and add to the existing kitchen. He stated that he also wanted to add a handicap ramp to a portion of the deck. He presented no concrete plans for proposed request. Mr. Barrett moved to hold the request until detailed plans and proposed material could be presented. Mrs. Chieves seconded the motion. The motion to hold passed unanimously. Miscellaneous: Adjourn: With no further business,the meeting was adjourned at 5:54 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Alisa Morgan,Secretary Historic Preservation Commission CITY OF PRATTVILLE Historic Preservation Commission Planning Department Staff Report CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS 272 East Main Street – CA1309-01 DATE September 24, 2013 PROPOSED DEVLOPMENT Petitioner: Jerry and Pamela Abernathy Property Owner: Petitioner Agent: N/A Location: 272 East Main 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 272 East Main Street, Davis-Hobbie House (circa 1907, contributing) This two-story modified central-hall frame building has a pyramidal roof with lesser offset gables over projecting bays. A wrap-around porch with Ionic colonnettes with Scamozzi capitals and brick pedestals is attached to the façade and East elevation. 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) Approval for use of a different material for low roof areas. Currently using asphalt shingles; considering (a) standing seam metal, (b) composite slate looking shingle, (c) or metal panels that look like shingles or slate. 2) Kitchen addition at the southwest corner (rear) of the house; replacing an existing deck. a) Add approximately 420 square feet to existing kitchen and den, 22’ x 19’ Page 2 of 5 b) Related items to the kitchen addition. i) Replace/add 12 x 16 floor level covered deck (porch) at western end of the kitchen addition with low level landings prior to stepping into the yard. ii) Extend roof line to cover deck to cover deck at (existing) back door entrance, and extend roof covering deck (existing kitchen south wall) to entrance of new kitchen addition. 3) Relocate handicapped ramp and cover ramp area with new roof that connects to the walkway roof (item 4) 4) Connect roof for the handicapped ramp’s upper landing to the existing detached carport/shop. PLANNING STAFF EVALUATION Reviewed by: Joel T. Duke, AICP Site Visits Conducted: September 24, 2013 Recommendation:  Item 1: Approve with conditions.  Item 2: Additional information is needed concerning materials and walkway cover design. Explore possibility of limiting extension into the side yard.  Item 3: 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. Item 1. Approval for use of a different material for low roof areas. Currently using asphalt shingles; considering (a) standing seam metal, (b) composite slate looking shingle, (c) or metal panels that look like shingles or slate. 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. Page 3 of 5 3. If localized damage or deterioration of historic roofing materials occurs, replacement with matching materials is preferred to wholesale removal. 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, a change in the roofing material has not been a major consideration by the Commission with previous requests. Replacement of the asphalt shingles with another material is permitted, however care should be taken to use materials that are compatible with the asphalt shingles on the primary surfaces . The applicant has presented three different roofing materials with the application. It is unclear whether these are examples or the actual products the applicant wants approved for use. T he applicant should choose one of the three for consideration or the Commission could select one that is most compatible. Traditionally, porch or secondary roof surfaces have been plain metal panels in a black, gray, or unfinished tin. Item 2. Kitchen addition at the southwest corner (rear) of the house; replacing an existing deck. a) Add approximately 420 square feet to existing kitchen and den, 22’ x 19’ b) Related items to the kitchen addition. i) Replace/add 12’ x 16’ floor level covered deck (porch) at western end of the kitchen addition (12’ x 19’ under roof according to drawings) with low level landings prior to steeping into the yard. ii) Extend roof line to cover deck to cover deck at (existing) back door entrance, and extend roof covering deck (existing kitchen south wall) to entrance of new kitchen addition. Additions (page 40) Additions to dwellings are appropriate as long as they are placed on rear elevations or non-readily visible side elevations. Additions should be designed to complement the historic qualities of the dwelling. Page 4 of 5 1. Additions should cause minimal damage or removal of historic walls, roofs, and features from historic buildings. Existing openings should be used to connect the building and the addition. 2. Additions should have no or limited visibility from the street. Generally, rear elevations are appropriate locations for additions. 3. Additions should be compatible with the original building in scale, proportion, rhythm, and materials. 4. Additions should be distinguishable from the historic building: they should be smaller and simpler in design. 5. Additions should not imitate earlier architectural styles, but should be contemporary in design. Analysis: The proposed 34’ x 19’ addition extending into the western side yard generally meets “Addition” guidelines 1, 3 and 4. Areas of concern for the Commission should be location of the addition (guideline 2) in the side yard and the style and materials of the addition (guideline 5). The preferred location for the addition would be an extension into the rear yard. Previous additions to the rear of the structure have maintained its east and west edges. As a corner lot, the rear yard is generally visible from both Northington Street and East Main Street. Visibility of the proposed addition from Main Street is presently blocked by vegetation planted along the front line of the west side yard. Visibility of the planned addition will be limited from Northington Street. The existing vegetation limits visibility, but the Commission must consider the impact of the 34’ extension (30’ beyond the western edge of the structure) into the side yard as if the vegetation were absent. If the proposed location for the addition is approved, a deeper examination of the planned architectural style and materials is needed. The applicant does not provide details on roof or façade materials, railing details, or windows. In their September 13, 2013 addendum, the applicants state their wish to leave the design incomplete at this time. As outlined in guidelines 3 and 5, the addition should be compatible with the historic structure, but easily identified as a later addition. Since the addition would extend into the side yard, compatibility of with the historic structure assumes a greater importance. The Commission should consider whether the design may be altered to limit incursion into the side yard and visibility from the street. The Commission should also request additional information on the planned exterior appearance before granting approval. Page 5 of 5 The proposed roof line extension (Item 2 b.ii.) and walkway cover are not well defined in the submitted application. Given the location and the apparent simple design, it is compatible with the Addition guidelines. This portion of Item 2 should be approved once a complete design is submitted or defined. Item 3 and 4. Relocate handicapped ramp and cover ramp area with new roof that connects to the walkway roof. Connect roof for the handicapped ramp’s upper landing to the existing detached carport/shop. Ramps (page 39) Ramps are important means of providing access to buildings. Because they were not historically common, new ramps should be subtle in design and placement. 1. Ramps should be constructed of wood and painted in colors sympathetic to those of the building. 2. Ramps should be simple in design. They may be designed to match the porch railing. 3. The construction and placement of ramps should not destroy or obscure defining building features. Analysis: The proposed ramp and covered walkway are compatible with the design guidelines. ATTACHMENTS A. Application and attachments B. Location Map