2008-August HPC Pkt - Draft
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, Mr. Barrett, Mrs. Davis, Mr. Ferguson, Mr. McCord, Ms. Musgrove and Ms. Teresa Nettles.
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:
Draft
Prattville Historic Preservation Commission
June 25, 2020 Minutes
Page 1 of 3
1
CITY OF PRATTVILLE 2
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION 3
MINUTES 4
June 25, 2020 5
6
7
Call to order: 8
The regular meeting of the Prattville Historic Preservation Commission was called to order on Thursday, 9
June 25, 2020 at 4:3 p.m. 10
11
Roll Call: 12
The secretary called the roll. Members present were Chairman Thea Langley, Vice-Chairman Joel McCord, 13
Mr. Will Barrett, Mrs. Jean Davis, Mr. Scott Ferguson, and Ms. Kate Musgrove. Members Absent: Mrs. 14
Teresa Nettles. 15
16
Quorum present 17
18
Also present was Mr. Scott Stephens, Mr. Darrell Rigsby, Senior Planner, Mr. Tommie Williams, Planner, 19
and Ms. Alisa Morgan, Secretary. 20
21
Minutes: 22
Ms. Musgrove moved to approve the minutes of the May 28, 2020 meeting. Mr. McCord seconded the 23
motion. The motion passed unanimously. 24
25
Old Business: 26
Certificate of Appropriateness 27
Alteration- Rooftop solar panels and home batteries 28
115 Maple Street 29
Thomas Miller, Petitioner 30
31
The request was tabled at the previous meeting (5/28/20) until more details the petitioner could be provided 32
about the placement and number of panels to be used. The petitioner has made a written request that the 33
item be tabled until the next meeting (letter made a part of the minutes). 34
35
After no further discussion, Mrs. Davis moved to table the request at the petitioner’s request until the next 36
meeting. Ms. Musgrove seconded the motion. The motion to table passed unanimously. 37
38
Chairman Langley changed the order that the agenda items were heard. 39
40
New Business: 41
Certificate of Appropriateness 42
Sign 43
119 South Court Street 44
Cortney Jones, Petitioner 45
46
Cortney Cox, petitioner, presented the request for a two signs to be attached to the building located on 47
property at 119 South Court Street. 48
49
Mr. Williams provided the staff comments. 50
51
Chairman Langley opened the floor for public comments. There being none, the public hearing was closed. 52
53
After no other discussion, the vote was called. Mrs. Davis moved to approve the request as presented. Ms. 54
Musgrove seconded the motion. The motion to approve passed unanimously. 55 DRAFT
Draft
Prattville Historic Preservation Commission
June 25, 2020 Minutes
Page 2 of 3
56
Certificate of Appropriateness 57
Demolition-Removal of existing outbuilding 58
New Structure-Construct a new outbuilding 59
225 Wetumpka Street 60
David & Kim Williams, Petitioners 61
62
David & Kim Williams, petitioners, presented the request for demolition and new structure request for an 63
outbuilding on property located at 225 Wetumpka Street. He stated that the existing 18’x20’ outbuilding 64
is deteriorating and is collapsing. He stated that the new proposed outbuilding would be constructed in a 65
different location of the old outbuilding, out of view from Wetumpka Street. He stated that the roof will 66
be same color and material as the house. 67
68
Mr. Rigsby provided the staff comments. 69
70
Chairman Langley opened the floor for public comments. 71
72
Matt Holtzscher, 246 Wetumpka Street, spoke in favor of the request. 73
74
After no further comments, the public hearing was closed. 75
76
After no further discussion, the vote was called. Mr. Ferguson moved to approve the request as submitted. 77
Mrs. Davis seconded the motion. The motion to approve passed unanimously. 78
79
Certificate of Appropriateness 80
New Structures 81
Intersection of Northington Street and East 6th Street 82
Steve Till, Petitioner 83
84
Steve Till, petitioner, presented the request for a Certificate of Appropriateness to construct four new single 85
family residences. 86
87
Mr. Stephens provided the staff report for the construction of four new single family residences in the 88
historic district. He stated that the property received preliminary plat approval from the Prattville Planning 89
Commission (5/21/20) for the development. 90
91
Mr. Till provided the details of the materials to be used (detailed in the staff report). He presented the two 92
types of window materials of wood and vinyl. He stated that the vinyl would look like the wood, but it is 93
more cost effective and less maintenance for the owner. He stated that the homes would have raised front 94
porches and colonial style columns. He stated that the driveways will access from 6th Street to the rear of 95
the property. 96
97
Chairman Langley opened the floor for public comments. 98
99
Rex Musgrove, 161 North Northington Street, spoke in favor of the request. 100
101
After no further comments, the public hearing was closed. 102
103
After no further discussion, the vote was called. Mrs. Davis moved to approve the request as submitted 104
contingent that vinyl windows as proposed are installed. Mr. McCord seconded the motion. The motion 105
to approve passed unanimously. 106
107
108
109
110 DRAFT
Draft
Prattville Historic Preservation Commission
June 25, 2020 Minutes
Page 3 of 3
Miscellaneous: 111
Mr. Stephens made mention of the importance of completing the census report. He also stated that the 112
process has begun for updating the city’s comprehensive plan. Additional information about the 113
comprehensive plan can be found at projectprattville.com. 114
115
Adjourn: 116
With no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 5:09 p.m. 117
118
Respectfully submitted, 119
120
121 Alisa Morgan, Secretary 122
Historic Preservation Commission 123 DRAFT
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. DRAFT
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.
DRAFT
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.
DRAFT
Page 4 of 5
DRAFT
Page 5 of 5
DRAFT
Agenda Item #2007-01
DRAFT
Agenda Item #2007-01
DRAFT
Agenda Item #2007-01
DRAFT
Agenda Item #2007-01
Agenda Item #2007-01
DRAFT
Agenda Item #2007-01
DRAFT
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 DRAFT
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: DRAFT
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. DRAFT
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.
DRAFT
Page 5 of 7
319 South Washington Street – Current Condition
DRAFT
Page 6 of 7
319 South Washington Street – May 2013 DRAFT
Page 7 of 7
319 South Washington Street – May 2016 DRAFT
Agenda Item #2007-02
DRAFT
Agenda Item #2007-02
DRAFT
Agenda Item #2007-02DRAFT
Agenda Item #2007-02
DRAFT
Agenda Item #2007-02
DRAFT
Agenda Item #2007-02
DRAFT
S WASHINGTON STAerial Map - 319 S Washington Street
±
Legend
Subject Area
AutaugaParcels
Streets
0 10050
Feet Locations are approximate
Agenda Item #2007-02
DRAFT
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
Agenda Item #2007-02
DRAFT
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
Agenda Item #2007-02
DRAFT
CITY OF PRATTVILLE
Historic Preservation Commission
Planning Department Staff Report
1
CERTIFICATE OF
APPROPRIATENESS
171 South Northington Street– CA2007-03
DATE July 15, 2020
PROPOSED DEVLOPMENT
Petitioner: Scott Ferguson
Property Owner: Scott Ferguson
Agent: N/A
Location: 171 South Northington 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
171 South Northington Street;
The property was not included in the 1984 or 2007
Historic Properties inventories.
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.Demolition of outbuilding (accessory structure)
2.Alterations to roof, porch, and awning
PLANNING STAFF EVALUATION:
Reviewed by: Tommie Williams
Site visit conducted on: July 2020 DRAFT
CITY OF PRATTVILLE
Historic Preservation Commission
Planning Department Staff Report
2
Recommendation: Approve
Analysis
Petitioner would like to 1) replace the roof with architectural shingles (remove two
nonfunctioning chimneys that are also a source for roof leaks). Chimneys are located in
the rear of the property, and a small one on the right side. 2) Repair back porch. 3)
Replace stone veneer with similar stone veneer. 4) Replace front door awning and
relocate window awning to front. 5) Demo old accessory structures in backyard.
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. Demolition of existing Accessory Structures
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.
Item 2. Alterations to 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.
2. Roof-related features such as chimneys, shingles, tiles, finials, parapet walls,
and cornices should be retained and maintained.
3. If localized damage or deterioration of historic roofing materials occurs,
replacement with matching materials is preferred to wholesale removal. DRAFT
CITY OF PRATTVILLE
Historic Preservation Commission
Planning Department Staff Report
3
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.
5. New skylights, solar panels, decks, balconies, and satellite dishes should not
be readily visible from the street.
6. New dormers should not be located on primary facades, should be
unobtrusive, and should be in keeping with the historic appearance of the
building.
Item 2. Replace back Porch
Porch (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.
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.
Item 2. Alterations to awning
Awning (page 17)
Historically, residents commonly used awnings on their homes. As air
conditioning became more common after the 1940s, awning use declined.
Awnings can add historic character to late-nineteenth and early-twentieth-century
buildings while conserving energy. Their use is encouraged.
1. Awnings may be added to buildings.
2. Awnings should not damage the building or its architectural features.
3. Awnings may be fixed or operating.
4. Awnings should be constructed of canvas duck or cotton and polyester blends
and may be treated with acrylic. DRAFT
CITY OF PRATTVILLE
Historic Preservation Commission
Planning Department Staff Report
4
5. Awnings should be located above windows or doors or attached to porches.
They should not hide architectural features.
6. Awning shape should mimic that of the opening to which it is attached. For
rectangular openings, a shed form is appropriate; for arched openings, an
arched form is appropriate. Bubble, concave, convex, and internally lit
awnings are less appropriate than shed or arched awnings.
DRAFT
CITY OF PRATTVILLE
Historic Preservation Commission
Planning Department Staff Report
5
1. Roof: Replace roof with architectural shingle (remove two nonfunctioning chimneys
that are also source for roof leaks). Chimney located on the back property, and a
small chimney on the right side.
DRAFT
CITY OF PRATTVILLE
Historic Preservation Commission
Planning Department Staff Report
6
2. Repair back porch
DRAFT
CITY OF PRATTVILLE
Historic Preservation Commission
Planning Department Staff Report
7
3. Replace stone veneer with similar veneer
DRAFT
CITY OF PRATTVILLE
Historic Preservation Commission
Planning Department Staff Report
8
4. Relocate window awning to the front so that it matches the other awning. Front door
awning will be replaced.
DRAFT
CITY OF PRATTVILLE
Historic Preservation Commission
Planning Department Staff Report
9
5. Demolition old accessory structures in the backyard.
DRAFT
S NORTHINGTON STAerial Map - 171 South Northington Street
±
Legend
Elmore_Parcels
Subject Area
AutaugaParcels
Streets
0 5025
Feet Locations are approximate
Agenda Item #2007-03
DRAFT
E 3RD ST S NORTHINGTON STS WASHINGTON STWETUMPKA ST
COLLEGE STMONCRIEF STN WASHINGTON STOAK HILL CEMETARY
Location Map - 171 South Northington Street
±
Legend
Elmore_Parcels
Subject Area
AutaugaParcels
Streets
0 500250
Feet Locations are approximate
Agenda Item #2007-03
DRAFT
S NORTHINGTON STR-2
R-3
Zoning Map - 171 South Northington Street
±
Legend
Elmore_Parcels
Subject Area
AutaugaParcels
Streets
R-2
R-3
0 8040
Feet Locations are approximate
Agenda Item #2007-03
DRAFT
Agenda Item #2007-03
DRAFT
Agenda Item #2007-03
DRAFT
Agenda Item #2007-03
DRAFT
Agenda Item #2007-03
DRAFT
Agenda Item #2007-03
DRAFT
Agenda Item #2007-03
DRAFT
Agenda Item #2007-03
DRAFT
Agenda Item #2007-03
DRAFT
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 DRAFT
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. DRAFT
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.
DRAFT
CITY OF PRATTVILLE
Historic Preservation Commission
Planning Department Staff Report
4
DRAFT
Agenda Item #2007-04
DRAFT
Agenda Item #2007-04
DRAFT
Agenda Item #2007-04
DRAFT
Agenda Item #2007-04
DRAFT
Agenda Item #2007-04
DRAFT
Agenda Item #2007-04
DRAFT
Agenda Item #2007-04
DRAFT
Agenda Item #2007-04
DRAFT
Agenda Item #2007-04
DRAFT
Agenda Item #2007-04
DRAFT
1ST ST
Aerial Map - 221 First Street
±
Legend
Elmore_Parcels
Subject Area
AutaugaParcels
Streets
0 5025
Feet Locations are approximate
Agenda Item #2007-04
DRAFT
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
Agenda Item #2007-04
DRAFT
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
Agenda Item #2007-04
DRAFT