Loading...
12 - December 11PLANNING & DEVELOPME NT DEPARTMENT 102 WEST MAIN STREET PRATTVILLE, ALABAMA 36067 334-595-0500 334-361 -3677 FACSIMILE planning.prattvilleal.gov October 23, 2014 CITY OF PRATTVILLE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES December 11, 2014 Call to order: The regular meeting of the Prattville Historic Preservation Commission was called to order on Thursday, December 11, 2014 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,Ms. Kate Chieves,Mrs. Jean Davis,Ms. Lenore Kirkpatrick and Mr. Larry Smith. Members Absent:None. Quorum present Also present was Mr. Joel Duke, City Planner and Ms.Alisa Morgan, Secretary. Minutes: None Old Business: None New Business: Certificate of Appropriateness Sign-Replacement 310 Washington Street Jackson Thornton & Company, Petitioner Cindy Scott of Jackson Thornton & Company, petitioner’s representative, presented the request for Certificate of Appropriateness to replace the signage on the existing brick structure with monument type with lighted letters. She stated that it was their goal to clean up the area and remove the flood lights that currently illuminate the existing sign. Mr. Duke provided the staff report for the Certificate of Appropriateness request for the proposed sign. He stated that the guidelines require that there should be simplicity in signs design and content. He stated that the existing sign reflects what is appropriate. He stated that there are other approved signs with lighted cabinets in the district. There were no public comments. Mrs.Davis moved to approve the sign replacement at 310 Washington Street as submitted requiring work to begin within six months.Mrs.Chieves seconded the motion. The motion to approve passed by 6/1 vote as recorded. Favor: Mrs. Davis, Mrs. Chieves, Ms. Kirkpatrick, Mr. Barrett, Mr. Smith and Chairman Langley. Oppose:Mr. Price. Certificate of Appropriateness Alteration-Replace fascia wood 178 East Fourth StreetSt. Mark’s Episcopal Church, Petitioner 178 East Fourth Street was approved for a COA as submitted by the Planning Director on November 26, 2014. (Memorandum attached and made a part of the minutes). Certificate of Appropriateness Alterations-Roof replacement and privacy fence repair 225 Wetumpka Street David & Kim Williams, Petitioners Mr. Duke provided the staff report for the COA request for alterations at 225 Wetumpka Street. He stated that the petitioner was requesting to 1) replace roof with different material, 2) remove and replace front porch overlay boards, and 3) remove and replace privacy fence. He stated that item 2 met the guidelines to repair porch decking but additional details and material were needed for COA approval. David Williams, petitioner, stated that the asphalt roofing would be replaced with metal roofing in Charcoal Gray and in the future replace the roofing on the carriage house with like material. He stated that the deteriorating porch overlay and the 1x6 edge trim would be replaced with 5 1/4x6 pressure treated deck boards to be stained light gray. Mr. Smith stated that the proposed deck boards were not appropriate for a front porch. He suggested that a pressured treated #1 tongue and groove boards with a slope built into it to eliminate water damage. Ms. Davis moved to separate the items requested. Mr. Gray seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Item 1-Replace Roof Mrs. Davis moved to approve to replace the asphalt roof with metal roof additionally the carriage house roof to be replaced with the same material. Mr. Smith seconded the motion. The motion to approve passed unanimously. Item 2-Front Porch Mr. Gray moved to table the request for additional material and details to be presented. Mr. Smith seconded the motion. The motion to table passed unanimously. Item 3-Repair and replace privacy fence with same material Replacement is compatible with the design guidelines and treated as repair. Miscellaneous: Adjourn: With no further business,the meeting was adjourned at 5:21 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Alisa Morgan,Secretary Historic Preservation Commission CITY OF PRATTVILLE Historic Preservation Commission Planning Department Staff Report CERTIFICATE OFAPPROPRIATENESS 310 S. Washington St –CA1412-01 DATE December 11, 2014 PROPOSED DEVLOPMENT Petitioner:Jackson Thornton Property Owner:Jackson Thornton Agent:Pine Creek Builders, Inc.(Webb Smith) Location:310 S. Washington St Review Status and History Submission Status:Second request for a Certificate of Appropriateness for thisaddress. Previous Approvals:Front door replacement –October 23, 2014 Conditions of PreviousApprovals:None 1984/2007 Historic Properties InventoryDetails The property was not included in the 1984 or 2007 Historic Properties inventories. The construction date ofthe wood frame structure is listed by the Autauga CountyRevenue Commissioner’s Office as 1993. Proposed Alteration, Renovation or Addition The following changes have been requested by the applicant. See the applicationincluded as Attachment A for the owner’s description of each item. 1.Replace copy on existing freestanding sign with internally illuminated cabinet. New 20” x 80” cabinet will fit within area of existing brick sign. Page 2 of 3 PLANNING STAFF EVALUATION Reviewed by:Joel T. Duke, AICP Site Visits Conducted:October 21, 2014 Recommendation:Items 1:Approval Evaluation: Since the subject property/structure is surrounded by and developed similar to structures initially developed as residential properties, 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 the section. Item 1.Replace copy on existing freestanding sign with internally illuminated cabinet. New 20” x 80” cabinet will fit within area of existing brick sign. Signs (page 34) Signs are important means of advertising and establishing business identities, and establishments should have flexibility in determining what modern signage to usewhile respecting the residential character of their host neighborhoods. 1.Sign usage should be kept to a minimum. In residential areas no more than two signs should be placed on the property. 2.New signs should be of historically appropriate materials such as finished wood, glass, copper, or bronze. 3.New signs should be scaled to be in proportion to the property. 4.Simplicity in design and content is recommended. 5.Colors used in signs should be coordinated with their buildings. Three colors or less should be used per sign. 6.Lighting sources for signs should be external and concealed. 7.New signs should be installed in locations historically used for signs such as on awnings, on upper façade walls covering five percent or less of the wall surface, inside windows, or projecting from the building façade or elevation. Signs should not cover or obscure architectural features. Page 3 of 3 Analysis: The Commission has granted the Planning Department staff the authority to approve Certificates of Appropriateness for signs that meet the adopted design guidelines.The proposed sign has been forwarded to the Commission for review because the staff does not believe it meets the design guidelines for signs. Specifically, the proposal conflicts with the requirements that it be constructed of historically appropriate material (guideline 2), simple in design (guideline 4), and externally illuminated (guideline 6). The proposed sign is more appropriate for a commercial location outside the historic district. It can be easily modified to meet the Commission’s guidelines. The Commission should postpone consideration until a different proposal can be submitted by the applicant. ATTACHMENTS None. See packet for application and photos. MEMORANDUM DATE:November 26, 2014 TO:File –HPC-1412-02 FROM:Joel T. Duke, Planning Director RE:Maintenance –178 East 4th Street On November 13, 2014, St. Mark’s Episcopal Church submitted a COA application requesting permission to replace wood siding on the gable ends of the building shown in the attached aerial with T-111 Hardie board. Given the following factors, the work was deemed by the Planning Director to be maintenance which does not require a COA: 1.Building on the campus is not a contributing property to the National Register or local district designations, 2.Siding is not specifically regulated in the district design guidelines, and 3.While a different material, the Hardie board design closely matches the wood siding being replaced. I contact Mr. Paul Whaley, Church Administrator, on November 26, 2014 to inform him that a COA is not necessary for the work. He was instructed to have the church’s contractor obtain a permit for the siding replacement. CITY OF PRATTVILLE Historic Preservation Commission Planning Department Staff Report CERTIFICATE OFAPPROPRIATENESS 225 Wetumpka Street –CA1412-03 DATE December 11, 2014 PROPOSED DEVLOPMENT Petitioner:David and Kim Williams Property Owner:Petitioner Agent:N/A Location:225 Wetumpka 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 225 Wetumpka Street (circa 1910, contributing) This bungalow is a one-and-a-half story frame building with a broad sloping roof extending over its brick-pier porch and a hipped-roof upper-level sunroom. 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 roofing material. Currently using asphalt shingles; requesting a standing seam metal. 2)Remove and replace front porch overlay boards with period appropriate 5.25 x 6 boards (treated). Stain deck to confederate or battleship gray, including steps. 3)Remove and replace overgrown and deteriorated privacy fence and replace with same material. Page 2 of 4 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 concerningmaterialsand installation. 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 roofing material. Currently using asphalt shingles; requesting a standing seam metal. 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. 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 Page 3 of 4 presented a standing seam metal roof for consideration.Traditionally, porch or secondary roof surfaces have been plain metal panels in a black, gray, or unfinished tin. Item 2.Remove and replace front porch overlay boards with period appropriate 5.25 x 6 boards (treated). Stain deck to confederate or battleship gray, including steps. Porches (page 27) 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. 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. Analysis: Applicant proposes to repair damage porch decking. Appropriate repairs meet the Commission guidelines. Additional details and material samples or pictures are needed before issuing a Certificate of Appropriateness Item 3.Remove and replace overgrown and deteriorated privacy fence and replace with same material. Fences (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 affect on the district’s historic character. 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. Analysis: The fence replacement is compatible with the design guidelines. Page 4 of 4 ATTACHMENTS None. See packet for information.