1705-May 25Planning & Development Department
102 West Main Street Prattville, A l abama 36067 334- 595- 0500 334-361-3677 Facsimile
p l anning.prattvilleal.gov
C I T Y O F PRATTVILLE
H I S T ORIC PRESERVATION C OMMISSION
AGENDA
May 25, 2017
4:30 p.m.
Call to Order:
Roll Call:
Chairman Langley, Vice-Chairman Price, Mr. Barrett, Mrs. Davis, Ms. Kirkpatrick, Ms. Musgrove, and Mr. Smith.
Election of Officers:
Minutes:
April 27, 2017
Old Business:
None
New Business:
1. CA1705-01 Certificate of Appropriateness
New Structures-Single Family Residence & Accessory structure
115 Maple Street
Tom Miller, Petitioner
Public Hearing
Miscellaneous:
Staff Approvals:
1. 121 West Main Street-Sign
Adjourn:
Approved 6/27/17
Prattville Historic Preservation Commission
May 25, 2017 Minutes
Page 1 of 2
CITY OF PRATTVILLE
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES
May 25, 2017
Call to order:
The regular meeting of the Prattville Historic Preservation Commission was called to order on Thursday,
May 25, 2017 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, Mrs. Jean Davis, Mrs. Kate Musgrove, Ms. Lenore Kirkpatrick, and Mr. Larry Smith.
There were no members absent:
Quorum present
Also present were Mr. Joel Duke, City Planner and Ms. Alisa Morgan, Secretary.
Minutes:
Mrs. Davis moved to approve the minutes of the April 27, 2017 meeting. Mr. Barrett seconded the
motion. The motion passed unanimously.
Old Business:
There was no old business for discussion.
New Business:
Certificate of Appropriateness
New Structures-Single Family Residence & Accessory structure
115 Maple Street
Tom Miller, Petitioner
Tom Miller, petitioner, presented the request for Certificate of Appropriateness for a new residence and
two accessory structures on property at 115 Maple Street. He stated that the initial request was presented
about seven months ago when he was seeking demolition of an existing structure on the site. He stated
that the Commission approved the request for demolition and held approval for the new structure until
detail plans could be provided. He stated that Architect Larry Smith designed the drawings presented.
He stated that the chimney bricks from the previous structure will be incorporated into the new structure
where bricks are located at the base of the house, or they may be placed in the porch staircase.
Alternately the bricks will be featured in the garden if all fails for use on the residence.
Mr. Miller presented a sample of the baluster from the located residence. He stated that he found a
company that could reproduce the style and shape of the baluster in iron or pvc. He stated that the house
is “senior friendly” so the drive into the garage was created to eliminate steps. He stated that the concept
for the proposed accessory structure (A) is similar to the one his builder’s property. He stated that it will
be a simple one room structure with a bathroom. He stated that he understood fully that it is not
residential, the concept, he believes, is designed to fit in the district.
Due to conflict of interest, Mr. Larry Smith recused himself from the discussion and voting of the agenda
item as a commission member.
Mrs. Davis stated that there is a lot of visible roof surface on the proposed house, in comparison to the
house adjacent to it, and it seems compatible. She asked how the two roofs pitch compare.
Approved 6/27/17
Prattville Historic Preservation Commission
May 25, 2017 Minutes
Page 2 of 2
Larry Smith, the architect for the design of the house, stated that the adjacent roof is steeper and the
proposed structure has less overhang. They are similar in character. He stated that the proposed structure
was not designed to mimic the adjacent residence. He stated that the exterior elevation is the product of
the floor plan. He stated that it was designed in accordance with HPC guidelines.
Ms. Musgrove stated that the submitted drawings are not similar to examples presented by Mr. Miller in
2016.
Mr. Miller stated that the drawings submitted in 2016 were a sample of possible structures that might be
built. He stated that he didn’t think he would be bound to those drawings for the final design.
Chair Langley stated that the drawings proposed in 2016 would fit more aesthetically than the presented
submission. She stated that the current submission looks more like the modern ranch style which shows
no compatibility with a historic house.
Mr. Barrett stated that he voted for the demo of the previous structure. He stated that he understood that
the previous submissions were concept designs. He stated that on the presented submission the windows
on the left side elevation and the inconsistent garage door designs are minor issues and easily fixed.
Mr. Price agreed with Mr. Barrett that the rebuild was not fully discussed before it was tabled in 2016.
Chair Langley proposed a work session to further review the board’s concerns and the petitioner’s design
concept. Mr. Miller was in favor of working with a committee.
Chair Langley opened the floor for public comments.
Joel McCord, 225 First Street, offered his services to the petitioner stating that he had to reconfigure his
plans multiple times to make sure they fit within the district guidelines.
Mr. Smith welcomed Mr. McCord’s ideas about the façade.
After no further comments the public hearing was closed. The Chair entertained the board’s discussion.
Mrs. Davis moved to hold the request and to appoint a committee to further review. Ms. Musgrove
seconded the motion.
Mrs. Davis amended the motion to hold until the next meeting. Mr. Price seconded the motion. The
motion to amend passed unanimously.
The amended motion to hold passed unanimously.
Miscellaneous:
Mr. Duke informed the Commission of staff approval for a sign at 121 W. Main Street for Adrienne’s
Bar.
Adjourn:
With no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 5:31 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Alisa Morgan, Secretary
Historic Preservation Commission
CITY OF PRATTVILLE
Historic Preservation Commission
Planning Department Staff Report
CERTIFICATE OF
APPROPRIATENESS
115 Maple Street – CA1705-01
DATE
May 22, 2017
PROPOSED DEVLOPMENT
Petitioner: Tom and Linda Miller
Property Owner: Tom and Linda Miller
Agent: N/A
Location: 115 Maple Street
Review Status and History
Submission Status: Second request for a Certificate of Appropriateness for this
address.
Previous Approvals: COA granted for demolition of existing Wainwright-Smith-
Cook House on June 9, 2016.
COA granted on December 15, 2016 for relocation of front
portion of the Wainwright-Smith-Cook House to new
location on Third Street
Conditions of Previous
Approvals:
None
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.
Page 2 of 5
Proposed Alteration, Renovation or Addition
The following has been requested by the applicant. See the application included as
Attachment A for the owner’s description.
1. Construction of a new single-family residential structure – Single-story 4,283 sq.
ft., 29 ft. tall structure on a 1.17 acre lot. Slab on grade construction. Hip roof with
48’ x 8’ front porch and 34’ x 10’ rear porch. Hardie siding and trim with brick
accent on the lower front façade. Composite asphalt shingles. (Plans attached)
2. Construction of a new accessory structure to rear of proposed new structure –
Single story 1,000 sq. ft. (including covered porches), 20 ft. tall structure. Oriented
toward Autauga Creek and located 5 ft. to 10 ft. from edge of flood wall. Board
and batten siding (material not detailed), composite shingle roofing. Covered
porches front and rear (metal roof).
3. Construction of a new accessory structure to side of proposed new structure –
Single story 240 sq. ft. Hardie siding and trim with brick accent on the lower front
façade. Composite asphalt shingles. Matching main building.
PLANNING STAFF EVALUATION
Reviewed by: Joel T. Duke, AICP
Site Visits Conducted: May 21 and 22, 2017
Recommendation: Item 1: Approval on condition that additional openings
(windows or doors) are considered on west façade.
Item 2: Approval on condition that additional openings
(windows or doors) are considered on the west
façade.
Item 3: Approval on condition that location is moved
to meet required location per city zoning.
Evaluation:
The requested alterations were reviewed against the standards contained in the Prattville
Residential Design Review Guidelines Manual. Staff comments/evaluations are
summarized at the end of each section.
Item 1. Construction of a new single-family residential structure – Single-story 4,283
sq. ft., 29 ft. tall structure on a 1.17 acre lot. Slab on grade construction. Hip roof with
48’ x 8’ front porch and 34’ x 10’ rear porch. Hardie siding and trim with brick accent
on the lower front façade. Composite asphalt shingles. (Plans attached)
Page 3 of 5
Infill Buildings (pages 41- 43)
New construction is welcome on vacant lots in the historic district. They enable land
uses to follow historical patterns and provide for visual continuity of the district
landscape. New dwellings should be designed to be contemporary but compatible
with the district.
1. New buildings should be compatible with adjacent buildings in terms of height.
2. New buildings should be compatible with adjacent buildings in terms of materials.
3. New buildings should be compatible with adjacent buildings in terms of setback.
4. New buildings should be compatible with adjacent buildings in terms of width, scale
and proportion.
5. New buildings should be compatible with adjacent buildings in terms of roof form.
6. New buildings should be oriented toward the major street.
Analysis
The Commission’s guidelines look forward to having new development in the district.
Infill development is necessary for the long term health of the district. Infill developments
provide an opportunity to complement the historic structures and build modern
structures that emulate styles unique to the district. The proposed structure uses
modern materials which complement nearby structures in the historic district.
The adopted standard for infill development looks at whether the structure is consistent
with the district and primarily the surrounding area. Included with this report are photos
of the historic structures fronting Maple and Pletcher Streets The structures date from
the mid and late 1800’s to early 1900’s, but share similar features such as single story,
gable roofs, wood (or aluminum to cover original wood) siding, partial-width porches,
elevation above grade. The area also includes brick structures such as 133 Pletcher
Street, the Masonic Lodge and the Continental Gin Company. The plans presented for
the proposed structure appear to meet five of the six infill guidelines. The proposed hip
roof structure differs from most of the nearby historic structures, which have versions of
a gable roof. Due to interior layout, the structure has relatively few windows or doors on
the west façade.
Windows and other openings in the historic structures are usually symmetrically spaced
on the front and side facades. Modern house plans usually focus on the front façade
and neglect the appearance of the side. The Commission should examine the blank
spaces the west facade of the proposed structure. Additional openings are needed to
break-up the blank appearance on this wall which will be visible to the public from
Bridge Street and possibly the opposite bank of Autauga Creek.
Page 4 of 5
Item 2. Construction of a new accessory structure to rear of proposed new structure.
– Single story 1,000 sq. ft. (including covered porches), 20 ft. tall structure. Oriented
toward Autauga Creek and located 5 ft. to 10 ft. from edge of flood wall. Board and
batten siding (material not detailed), composite shingle roofing. Covered porches
front and rear (metal roof).
Item 3. Construction of a new accessory structure to side of proposed new structure
– Single story 240 sq. ft. Hardie siding and trim with brick accent on the lower front
façade. Composite asphalt shingles. Matching main building.
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.
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.
Analysis
The proposed outbuildings meet the adopted guidelines. They are smaller than the main
structure, simple in appearance, and share the basic form and materials found in the
proposed new building.
All of these are important for the larger of the two structures since it will occupy a
prominent location in the historic district. Placed near the flood wall at the rear of the
property, the outbuilding will be visible from the opposite bank of Autauga Creek and
Bridge Street. Given its greater than normal visibility, the Commission should carefully
consider the appearance of the proposed outbuilding. Similar to the west facing wall of
the main building, the west facing (creek side) wall of the larger outbuilding has only one
opening. Additional openings should be considered in the west wall. Due to the visibility
of this lot, the Commission should also consider what, if any, landscaping or
hardscaping is planned for the rear line of the property and the impact on the site’s
overall appearance from the opposite bank.
Page 5 of 5
ATTACHMENTS
A. Application and attachments
B. Location Map
C. Staff Photos of Historic Structures on Maple and Pletcher Streets
1
Duke, Joel
From: Tom Miller <thos.miller@aol.com>
Sent: Sunday, May 22, 2016 2:48 PM
To: Duke, Joel
Cc: boevans@boevansrealty.com
Attachments: 115 Maple House 1.pdf; 115 Maple House 2.pdf
Joel,
Attached are two pictures of the type house we would like to build on 115 Maple.
This was also requested by HPC.
Thanks.
Tom