2112 Nov~Dec 7 HPC Pkt_Draft102 West Main Street \ Prattville, AL 36067 \ 334. 595.0500 \ prattvilleal.gov
BILL GILLESPIE, JR.
MAYOR
J. SCOTT STEPHENS, AICPDIRECTOR
CITY OF PRATTVILLE
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
AGENDA
December 7, 2021 4:30 p.m.
Call to Order:
Roll Call: Chairman Sanford, Vice-Chairman Stewart, Mr. Barker, Mrs. Davis, Mr. Ferguson, Mrs. Nettles, and Ms. Rollins.
Minutes: October 28, 2021
Committee Reports:
Old Business: 1.COA2110-02 Certificate of AppropriatenessNew Structure-Restroom 342 S. Chestnut Street (Creekwalk Area) City of Prattville, Petitioner
Held 10/28
New Business: 2.COA2112-01 Certificate of AppropriatenessAddition & Alterations-Various 260 Wetumpka Street Christine & Kevin Cash, Petitioner
Public Hearing
3.COA2112-02 Certificate of AppropriatenessNew Structure-Fence Gate 331 S. Chestnut Street Wesley Andrews, Petitioner
Public Hearing
4.COA2112-03 Certificate of AppropriatenessDemolition 135 6th Street City of Prattville, Petitioner
Public Hearing
Miscellaneous:
Adjourn:
DR
A
F
T
Draft
Prattville Historic Preservation Commission October 28, 2021 Minutes
Page 1 of 3
CITY OF PRATTVILLE 1 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION 2 MINUTES 3 October 28, 2021 4 5 6 Call to order: 7 The Chairman called the regular meeting of the Prattville Historic Preservation Commission to order on Thursday, 8 October 28, 2021 at 4:30 p.m. 9 10 Roll Call: 11 The secretary called the roll. Members present were Chairman Tim Sanford, Mr. Zack Barker, Mrs. Jean Davis, Mr. 12 Scott Ferguson, Ms. Kristi Rollins, and Mrs. Teresa Nettles. Members Absent: Vice-Chair Taylor Stewart. 13 14 Quorum present 15 16 Also present was Mr. Scott Stephens, City Planner; Mr. Darrell Rigsby, Senior Planner; Mr. Tommie Williams, 17 Planner; and Ms. Alisa Morgan, Secretary. 18
19 Minutes: 20 Mrs. Davis moved to approve the minutes of the September 23, 2021 meeting. Mrs. Nettles seconded the motion. 21
The motion passed unanimously. 22 23 Committee Reports: 24 There were no reports to be made. 25 26 Old Business: 27 There was no old business to discuss. 28 29 New Business: 30 Certificate of Appropriateness 31 Alterations-Various 32 Demolition 33 West of S. Court Street 34 City of Prattville, Petitioner 35 36 Mr. Rigsby provided the staff report for the Certificate of Appropriateness to demolish a structure and for various 37 alterations on property located west of S Court Street. He stated that the petitioner is proposing to remove the block 38
warehouse and two nearby small accessory structures and make improvements to the roof, fence, and windows at 39 the Picker House, and parking on the site. 40 41
Mayor Gillespie, petitioner’s representative, presented the request for the proposed demolition and various 42 alterations on property located west of S. Court Street. 43 44 Chairman Sanford opened the floor for public comments. Jon Lee Finnegan, 211 Deer Trace, made comments about 45 the online draft packet information. After no further comments, the public hearing was closed. 46 47 Mrs. Davis moved to separate the items for individual discussion and voting. Ms. Rollins seconded the motion. The 48 motion passed unanimously. 49 50 Item #1 - Demolition 51 Demolish the existing block warehouse, as well as the two nearby accessory structures; remove trees near warehouse. 52 Mr. Barker stated that his research shows the building was not contributing to the historic district. Mr. Ferguson 53 moved to approve the request as submitted. Mrs. Nettles seconded the motion. The motion to approve passed 54 unanimously. 55
DR
A
F
T
Draft
Prattville Historic Preservation Commission October 28, 2021 Minutes
Page 2 of 3
56
Item #2 Roof-Replace with metal roof on the Picker House. 57 Mr. Barker moved to approved as submitted. Ms. Rollins seconded the motion. The motion to approve passed 58 unanimously. 59
60 Item #3 Remove fence at the Picker House. 61 Ms. Rollins moved to approved as submitted. Mr. Barker seconded the motion. The motion to approve passed 62 unanimously. 63 64 Item #4 Windows-replace with plywood temporarily 65 Mr. Barker moved to approved as submitted. Mrs. Nettles seconded the motion. The motion to approve passed 66 unanimously. 67 68 Item #5 Gates & Fences-improve grassy parking area. 69 Mr. Ferguson moved to approved as submitted. Mrs. Nettles seconded the motion. The motion to approve passed 70 unanimously. 71 72 Item #6 (A/B) Parking Reconfiguration-changing from parallel to diagonal parking along Court Street, extend 73
sidewalk/walking trail, and pave the Performing Art Center parking lot with asphalt. 74 75 Mr. Ferguson moved to separate the items and group items A and B into one and item C individually for discussion 76
and voting. Ms. Davis seconded the motion. The motion to approve separating the items passed by majority vote 77 (5/1, Ms. Rollins abstain from voting). After their discussion, the vote was called. Mr. Ferguson moved to approved 78 as submitted. Mr. Barker seconded the motion. The motion to approve passed unanimously. 79
80 Item #6 (C) Parking Lot Asphalt Surface (Performing Arts Center) 81 Mr. Barker moved to approve as submitted. Ms. Rollins seconded the motion. The motion to approve passed by 82 majority vote (5/1, Mr. Ferguson opposed). 83 84 Certificate of Appropriateness 85 New Structure-Restroom 86 342 S. Chestnut Street (Creekwalk Area) 87 City of Prattville, Petitioner 88 89 Mr. Williams provided the staff report for the Certificate of Appropriateness to add a new structure on the property 90
located on the Creekwalk. He stated that the proposed structure, Ozark 1 Model, measures 10x12, delivered fully 91 assembled, pre-wired, and pre-plumbed. The restroom will be ADA compliant and it will be a single user fully 92 accessible flush restroom. 93
94 Kellie Cook of the City of Prattville, petitioner’s representative, presented the request for the Certificate of 95 Appropriateness for a building to be used for a public restroom to service the Creekwalk area. She stated that the 96
building would be a prefab one stall unit. 97 98 Chairman Sanford opened the floor for public comments. Jon Lee Finnegan, 211 Deer Trace, spoke in favor of the 99 request. Mayor Gillespie also stated that this will probably be the first of many that will be presented for the 100 downtown area because of the need for public restrooms. After no further comments, the public hearing was closed. 101 102 Mrs. Nettles stated that she was excited to see the efforts of the city to provide this public use for the community. 103 104 After the board’s discussion, the vote was called. Mr. Ferguson moved to approve the request as submitted 105 contingent that the material is board and batten or horizontal lap finish. Motion not seconded; motion failed. Mrs. 106 Davis moved to postpone consideration of the request for more information to clarify the material to be used and the 107 placement of the structure. Ms. Rollins seconded the motion. The motion to postpone passed by majority vote (5/1, 108 Mr. Ferguson opposed). 109 110
DR
A
F
T
Draft
Prattville Historic Preservation Commission October 28, 2021 Minutes
Page 3 of 3
Miscellaneous: 111 Mr. Stephens asked that consideration be given to rescheduling the November and December meetings since they 112 both fall on city holidays. The Commission voted to combine the November and December meetings and to 113 reschedule the date to December 7, 2021 at 4:30 p.m. 114
115 116 Adjourn: 117 With no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 5:38 p.m. 118 119 Respectfully submitted, 120 121
122 Alisa Morgan, Secretary 123 Historic Preservation Commission 124
DR
A
F
T
1
Stephens, Scott
From:Cook, Kellie
Sent:Friday, December 3, 2021 4:46 PM
To:Stephens, Scott
Subject:Meeting rescheduled
Hey Scott, is there anyway that I can reschedule to the January meeting. I will be out of town with a work obligation and unable
to attend. Thank you
Kellie Cook
Parks and Recreation Director
City of Prattville
(334) 595‐0801‐ office
(334) 850‐1056‐ cell
DR
A
F
T
Page 1 of 19
Historic Preservation Commission
Staff Report
CERTIFICATE OF
APPROPRIATENESS
260 Wetumpka Street – CA2112-01
DATE
December 7, 2021
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
Petitioner: Christine & Kevin Cash
Property Owner: Christine & Kevin Cash
Agent: N/A
Location: 260 Wetumpka Street
Review Status and History
Submission Status: September 2017 (1709-02) – Request to re-roof
residence, construct pool and pergola in rear yard and
create semi-circular drive in front yard.
Previous Approvals: COA 1709-02 Item 1 was approved September 28, 2017
to re-roof structure. Pool, pergola and driveway
improvements were tabled and the applicant was
requested to provide additional details. No record was
found of these items going back before the board.
DR
A
F
T
Page 2 of 19
1984/2007 Historic
Properties Inventory
Details
260 Wetumpka Street (1935, contributing)
Used as the Methodist parsonage until 1981, this
Colonial-Revival one-story frame house has a gable roof.
Employing a plan commonly used around Montgomery in
the 1930s, a pair of projecting cross-gables flanks its
three-bay porch.
Proposed Alteration, Renovation or Addition
The following alterations have been requested by the applicant. See the application
included as Attachment A for a description of each element.
1. Construct large addition to rear (south) of main house
2. Replace primary structure front door with complementary custom front door
3. Replace current 8’ wide door with 9’-10’ wide door on front of detached garage
4. Add 6’ wide utility garage door on rear of detached garage
5. Replace existing vinyl siding and trim with masonry plank siding on garage
6. Replace wood siding and trim with masonry plank siding on primary structure
PLANNING STAFF EVALUATION:
Reviewed by: Darrell Rigsby, Senior Planner
Site Visits Conducted: November/December 2021
Recommendation: See Analysis Details
DR
A
F
T
Page 3 of 19
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. Construction of attached 1.5 story 26’ x 49’ residential addition attached to rear of main residence via 10’x16’ breezeway connector using matching exterior materials to main house
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.
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 elevation 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.
Item 1 Recommendation:
260 Wetumpka Street is located on a corner lot at the southwest corner of Wetumpka Street and
Northington Street. The house’s primary frontage is Wetumpka Street (to the north) and the
secondary frontage along Northington Street (to the east). The proposed addition is located at
the rear elevation of the main house, on the eastern side of the lot, bordering Northington Street.
Visibility from Wetumpka Street, primary frontage, will be somewhat limited as the addition will
be slightly recessed by a few feet from the eastern side of the main residence and fully
obstructed by the main residence from the western side of the property. However, visibility from
Northington Street is significant. Proposed addition will have a height slightly lower than the main
structure’s primary roof peek, however, slightly higher than the secondary rooflines. Proposed
structure will maintain a similar roof pitch, materials and style as the existing house. The
applicant is proposing to continue similar design elements of the existing house, using masonry
plank siding (item 6 of this case) and similar windows and doors offering compatibility with the
original house.
Addition has a footprint of approximately 1,600 square feet, including connector and rear deck.
The existing primary structure has a footprint of approximately 2,800 including all porches.
DR
A
F
T
Page 4 of 19
2. Replace primary structure front door with complementary custom front door Door and Entrances (page 18)
Doors are often buildings’ central visual elements and are particularly important features. Historic
entrances and doors should be retained, maintained, and, if needed, repaired. Missing or
severely deteriorated doors should be replaced with historically appropriate replacements.
Screen, storm, and security doors should not detract from the historic appearance of their
building.
Photo from Design Review Guidelines (pg 18)
These (above photo) and other historic doors should be retained and maintained. They are also
appropriate models should replacement doors be required. Replacement doors should be of
DR
A
F
T
Page 5 of 19
wood, may be with or without glass lights, and should be sympathetic to the style of the house.
1. Historic doors should be retained and maintained. 2. Deteriorated or damaged historic doors should be repaired using methods that allow them to retain their historic appearance and as much of their historic fabric as possible. Epoxy is helpful in strengthening and replacing deteriorated wood.
3. Owners are encouraged to replace missing or severely damaged historic doors with replacements that replicate the original or other similar examples. 4. Replacements for primary residential doors may appropriately be of painted paneled wood with or without a clear-glass single or multiple-light opening.
Item 2 Recommendation: Approval
The applicant is proposing to replace the existing front door with a similar, custom built, door.
The replacement of the primary door of the residence is consistent with the guidance above.
3. Replace current 8’ wide door with 9’-10’ wide door on front of detached garage
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.
Item 3 Recommendation: Approval
The applicant is proposing to replace the existing front garage door of the detached garage with
a similar, slightly wider garage door. The historic guidelines for outbuildings make reference to
maintaining historic features, which this door and structure is not believed to be, and using
materials and design for new outbuildings that are compatible. This outbuilding is neither historic
nor a new construction. It is compatible is style with the primary home and the new garage door
is proposed be similar in design and aesthetics to the existing door and the garage and home.
The replacement of the garage door of the detached garage with a slightly wider one is
consistent with the guidance above.
4. Add 6’ wide utility garage door on rear of detached garage
Outbuildings (page 50)
DR
A
F
T
Page 6 of 19
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.
Item 4 Recommendation: Approval
The applicant is proposing to add a rear facing 6’ garage door to the existing garage for access
to utility equipment. This door will face the rear façade of the property and not be visible from
Wetumpka Street and will be mostly to completely obstructed by other structures, including a 6’
privacy fence from Northington Street. The proposed rear garage door will be compatible in style
with the primary home, and the existing garage doors. The addition of the garage door at the
rear of the detached garage is consistent with the guidance above.
5. Replace existing wood siding and trim with masonry plank siding on primary structure
Paint (page 25)
5. The painted surface of historically painted buildings or features should be maintained. 6. New or replacement building features of the type that were historically painted, such as wood siding or wood trim, should be painted and their surface maintained.
Item 5 Recommendation: Approval
There is little guidance in the Prattville Residential Design Review Guidelines specifically concerning exterior wall materials. The majority of the guidance is along the lines of maintaining and preserving the finishes, paint, architectural features and historical character and patching or replacing with similar. This home has painted wooden lap siding and wooden trim that may be
original to the home. Per the applicant, the wall board is in bad condition from repetitive water
damage. Applicant proposes to replace exterior wall material with a masonry plank siding material that will be consistent with other homes in the area and consistent with the Historic Guidelines.
6. Replace existing vinyl siding and trim with masonry plank siding on garage
Outbuildings (page 50) 5. New outbuildings should use materials compatible to those used in the adjoining main buildings.
Paint (page 25) 5. The painted surface of historically painted buildings or features should be maintained.
DR
A
F
T
Page 7 of 19
6. New or replacement building features of the type that were historically painted, such as wood siding or wood trim, should be painted and their surface maintained.
Item 6 Recommendation: Approval
There is little guidance in the Prattville Residential Design Review Guidelines specifically concerning exterior wall materials. The majority of the guidance is along the lines of maintaining and preserving the finishes, paint, architectural features and historical character and patching or replacing with similar. This detached outbuilding is more modern than the historic home and is
currently clad with standard vinyl siding material that matches the color of the residence. Applicant proposes to replace exterior vinyl siding with a masonry plank siding material that will be consistent with the primary home, proposed addition (if approved) and with other homes in the area and consistent with the Historic Guidelines.
DR
A
F
T
Page 8 of 19
PICTURES
Existing Front
DR
A
F
T
Page 9 of 19
DR
A
F
T
Page 10 of 19
Proposed Addition Location (Item 1) (provided by petitioner)
DR
A
F
T
Page 11 of 19
View into Back Yard (Proposed Addition Location) (provided by petitioner)
DR
A
F
T
Page 12 of 19
Northington Street View
DR
A
F
T
Page 13 of 19
DR
A
F
T
Page 14 of 19
Addition - Overhead Site Drawing (provided by petitioner)
DR
A
F
T
Page 15 of 19
Side Elevations (provided by petitioner)
DR
A
F
T
Page 16 of 19
Existing Front Door (Item 2)
DR
A
F
T
Page 17 of 19
Garage Door Modifications and Addition (Items 3 & 4) (provided by petitioner)
Existing Garage from Driveway/Wetumpka Street
DR
A
F
T
Page 18 of 19
DR
A
F
T
Page 19 of 19
Existing House Siding and Trim Condition (Items 5 & 6) (provided by petitioner)
DR
A
F
T
E 6TH ST
E 3RD ST
WETUMPKA ST
E 5TH ST
E 4TH ST
S
N
O
R
T
H
I
N
G
T
O
N
S
T
N C
H
E
S
T
N
U
T
S
T
S W
A
S
H
I
N
G
T
O
N
S
T
N
N
O
R
T
H
I
N
G
T
O
N
S
T
N W
A
S
H
I
N
G
T
O
N
S
T
PIN
E
S
T
CO
L
L
E
G
E
S
T
O
A
KHILLCEMETARY
E 6TH ST
E 3RD ST
WETUMPKA ST
E 5TH ST
E 4TH ST
S
N
O
R
T
H
I
N
G
T
O
N
S
T
S W
A
S
H
I
N
G
T
O
N
S
T
±Legend
Project Area
Autauga Tax Parcels01,000500
Feet
Locations are approximate
Location Map - 260 Wetumpka Street
DR
A
F
T
236
246
260
306
WETUMPKA ST
S
N
O
R
T
H
I
N
G
T
O
N
S
T
WETUMPKA ST
S
N
O
R
T
H
I
N
G
T
O
N
S
T
±Legend
Project Area
Autauga Tax Parcels010050
Feet
Locations are approximate
Aerial Map - 260 Wetumpka Street
DR
A
F
T
DR
A
F
T
Page 1 of 5
Historic Preservation Commission
Staff Report
CERTIFICATE OF
APPROPRIATENESS
331 S. Chestnut – COA 2112-02
DATE
December 7, 2021
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
Petitioner: Wesley Andrews
Property Owner: Wesley Andrews
Agent: N/A
Location: 331 S. Chestnut
Review Status and History (May not be exhaustive )
Submission Status: N/A
Previous Approvals: N/A
1984/2007 Historic
Properties Inventory
Details
N/A
Proposed Alteration, Renovation, or Addition
The following alterations have been requested by the applicant. See the application
included in Attachment A for a description of each element.
1. Construct a gate that will match the fence currently installed.
DR
A
F
T
Page 2 of 5
PLANNING STAFF EVALUATION:
Reviewed by: Tommie Williams
Site Visits Conducted: December 2021
Recommendation: Approval with Conditions
The proposed project is in keeping with the Historic
Preservation Guidelines for Residential and Commercial
buildings. The proposed project does not detract from the
existing structure.
Evaluation:
The requested alterations were reviewed against the Commission’s Certificate of Appropriateness review
policy and the standards contained in the Prattville Commercial Design Review Guidelines Manual and
the Prattville Residential Design Review Guidelines Manual. The relevant sections of the manual are
included. Staff comments/evaluations are summarized at the end of each section.
1. Construct a gate that will match the fence currently installed.
Fences and Walls (Residential Guidelines, 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.
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.
DR
A
F
T
Page 3 of 5
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.
Analysis:
The applicant is requesting a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) to allow for the installation of a
decorative gate that will match the existing gate. The gate will be black metal and stand approximately
3-4 feet. There is not currently a dwelling on the parcel. The applicant should be aware that the
guidelines state the gate should be less than three feet tall.
The existing fence is four feet tall and was installed by the City of Prattville several years ago when the
City was leasing the lot for additional parking at City Hall.
Until the proposed gate is constructed the applicant is proposing to install a temporary cable with an
attached sign that reads “No Trespassing” across the entry. The staff is recommending that the cable
be black to match the existing fence.
Current Fence
DR
A
F
T
Page 4 of 5
DR
A
F
T
Page 5 of 5
Example of Proposed Gate
(provided by petitioner)
DR
A
F
T
121
168
104
138
136
143
137123
127
135
131
133131
127 125
342
113
119
108
110
112
114
116
120
122
124
126
128
133
341
335
331
325
102
120
148
106
150
136
141
121
119
114
101
1ST ST
E MAIN ST
S C
H
E
S
T
N
U
T
S
T
OA
K
C
R
E
E
K
C
I
R
±Legend
Project Area
Autauga_Parcels_Nov_20210250125
Feet
Locations are approximate
Location Map - 331 South Chestnut Street
DR
A
F
T
335
331
325
S
C
H
E
S
T
N
U
T
S
T
±Legend
Project Area
Autauga_Parcels_Nov_202105025
Feet
Locations are approximate
Aerial Map - 331 South Chestnut Street
DR
A
F
T
121
168
104
138
136
143
137123
127
135
131
133131
127 125
342
113
119
108
110
112
114
116
120
122
124
126
128
133
341
335
331
325
102
120
148
106
150
136
141
121
119
114
101
1ST ST
E MAIN ST
S C
H
E
S
T
N
U
T
S
T
OA
K
C
R
E
E
K
C
I
R
B-2
R-2
±Legend
Project Area
Autauga_Parcels_Nov_20210250125
Feet
Locations are approximate
Zoning Map - 331 South Chestnut Street
DR
A
F
T
DR
A
F
T
Page 1 of 3
Historic Preservation Commission
Staff Report
CERTIFICATE OF
APPROPRIATENESS
135 W 6th Street – CA2112-03
MEETING DATE
December 7, 2021
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
Petitioner: City of Prattville
Property Owner: Denise Slaughter
Location: 135 W 6th Street – south side of 6th Street, across from
Railroad Street
Review Status and History
Submission Status: None Known
Previous Approvals: None Known
1984/2007 Historic
Properties Inventory
Details
Not listed
DR
A
F
T
Page 2 of 3
Proposed Alteration, Renovation or Addition
The following alterations have been requested by the applicant. See the application for a
description of each element.
1. Demolish/raze the house/structure. Site will be then graded and grass planted.
PLANNING STAFF EVALUATION:
Reviewed by: Scott Stephens
Site Visits Conducted: December 2021
Recommendation: Approval
This property is currently being evaluated by the City’s Code
Enforcement Division for demolition due to it being an unsafe
structure.
It is not listed as an historically contributing structure. It has
been damaged and the general condition of the structure is
potentially dangerous.
Evaluation:
Since the subject property/structure is residential, the requested alterations were reviewed against the
standards contained in the Prattville Residenial Design Review Guidelines Manual. The relevant sections
of manual are included. Staff comments/evaluations are summarized at the end of each section.
Staff Analysis / Recommendation:
Demolish/raze the existing structure:
From the Guidelines section on Demolition (page 55):
1. Demolition is appropriate if the building does not contribute to the historic character
of the district.
This structure was built in c.1955 and is not listed on the 1984 or 2007 surveys. It is a similar
design to the adjacent properties
DR
A
F
T
Page 3 of 3
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.
One of the listed owners on the tax records (Andy Slaughter) is deceased. The other owner lives out-of-
state and has been seeking a buyer. The structure is damaged and in a state of general disrepair that
would make reuse difficult.
3. Demolition may be appropriate if the denial of the demolition will result in a demonstrable
economic hardship on the owner.
One of the listed owners on the tax records (Andy Slaughter) is deceased. The other owner lives out-of-
state and has been seeking a buyer.
DR
A
F
T
W 6TH ST
W 5TH ST
N C
O
U
R
T
S
T
N
C
H
E
S
T
N
U
T
S
T
E 6TH ST
RAILROA
D
S
T
U
P
P
E
R
K
I
N
G
S
T
O
N
R
D
MA
R
T
I
N
L
U
T
H
E
R
K
I
N
G
J
R
D
R
N C
O
U
R
T
S
T
±Legend
Project Area
Autauga_Parcels_2021_Nov0250125
Feet
Locations are approximate
Location Map - 135 West 6th Street
DR
A
F
T
117
137 135 129
123
W 6TH ST
±Legend
Project Area
Autauga_Parcels_2021_Nov05025
Feet
Locations are approximate
Aerial Map - 135 West 6th Street
DR
A
F
T
W 6TH ST
W 5TH ST
N C
O
U
R
T
S
T
N
C
H
E
S
T
N
U
T
S
T
E 6TH ST
RAILROA
D
S
T
U
P
P
E
R
K
I
N
G
S
T
O
N
R
D
MA
R
T
I
N
L
U
T
H
E
R
K
I
N
G
J
R
D
R
N C
O
U
R
T
S
T
R-3B-2
R-3
O-1
M-1
±Legend
Project Area
Autauga_Parcels_2021_Nov0250125
Feet
Locations are approximate
Zoning Map - 135 West 6th Street
DR
A
F
T
DR
A
F
T
DR
A
F
T
DR
A
F
T
DR
A
F
T
DR
A
F
T
DR
A
F
T
DR
A
F
T
DR
A
F
T
DR
A
F
T
DR
A
F
T
DR
A
F
T
DR
A
F
T
DR
A
F
T
DR
A
F
T
DR
A
F
T
W 6TH ST
0 5025
Feet
135 W 6th Street
DR
A
F
T
W 6TH ST
0 5025
Feet
135 W 6th Street
DR
A
F
T
DR
A
F
T