1706-June 27 (Special Meeting)Planning & 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
SPECIAL MEETING
June 27, 2017
5:00 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:
May 25, 2017
Old Business:
1. CA1705-01 Certificate of Appropriateness
New Structures-Single Family Residence & Accessory structure
115 Maple Street
Tom Miller, Petitioner
Held 5/25
New Business:
2. CA1706-01 Certificate of Appropriateness
Alteration-Replacing concrete siding with wood siding
163 East Main Street
George Walthall, III, Petitioner
Public Hearing
3. CA1706-02 Certificate of Appropriateness
Alterations-Painting, Replace windows and a door
117, 119 & 129 South Court Street
Old Gin Properties, LLC/C.W. Smith Decorating Co., LLC , Petitioner
Public Hearing
4. CA1706-03 Certificate of Appropriateness
New Structure-Pool
205 South Washington Street
Chad Roten, Petitioner
Public Hearing
5. CA1706-04 Certificate of Appropriateness
Demolition-Storage Shed
213 South Court Street
Andrew Jones, Petitioner
Public Hearing
Miscellaneous:
Adjourn:
Approved 8/24/17
Prattville Historic Preservation Commission
June 27, 2017 Minutes (Special Meeting)
Page 1 of 4
CITY OF PRATTVILLE
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES
SPECIAL MEETING
June 27, 2017
Call to order:
The special meeting of the Prattville Historic Preservation Commission was called to order on Tuesday,
June 27, 2017 at 5:01 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, and Mr. Larry Smith. Ms. Lenore Kirkpatrick arrived at 5:40.
Members absent: Mrs. Kate Musgrove.
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 May 25, 2017 meeting. Mr. Barrett seconded the
motion. The motion passed unanimously.
Chairman Langley changed the order that the agenda items were heard. Hearing of new business
before old business.
New Business:
Certificate of Appropriateness
Alteration-Replacing wood siding with concrete siding
163 East Main Street
George Walthall, III, Petitioner
George Walthall, III, petitioner’s representative, presented the request for a Certificate of Appropriateness
to replace existing wood siding with concrete siding on property at 163 East Main Street. He stated that
the replacement material will be of high quality and painted olive green. He requested approval to replace
the entire building if replacement is required during the repair.
Mr. Duke provided the staff report for the Certificate of Appropriateness at 163 East Main Street. He
stated that the structure is a non-contributing structure erected in 1972. He recommended approval.
The vote was called. Mr. Barrett moved to approve the request as submitted contingent that the entire
façade be replace as needed. Mrs. Davis seconded the motion.
The motion to approve passed unanimously.
Certificate of Appropriateness
Alterations-Painting, Replace windows and a door
117, 119 & 129 South Court Street
Old Gin Properties, LLC/C.W. Smith Decorating Co., LLC, Petitioner
Ben Lambert of C. W. Smith Decorating Co., LLC, petitioner’s representative, presented the request for a
Certificate of Appropriateness for renovations at 117, 119, and 129 South Court Street. He stated that the
building is formally known as the old Wood Shed. He stated that the windows and doors on the north
Approved 8/24/17
Prattville Historic Preservation Commission
June 27, 2017 Minutes (Special Meeting)
Page 2 of 4
unit had been replaced previously and they wanted to make similar changes to create a more uniform
look.
Mr. Smith asked about replacement of the sign and canopy. Mr. Lambert replied that they would be
painting the canopy and replacing windows and doors, the signage would be up to the tenants.
Mr. Duke provided the staff report for a Certificate of Appropriateness for 117, 119 and 129 South Court
Street. He stated that the guidelines encourages maintaining historic character when possible. He stated
that the more modern aluminum storefront should be replaced to look more historic, the single pane
windows should be retained and the existing divided windows returned to single panes.
Mr. Lambert stated that there is no issue to keep the single pane window. He stated that they would like
to replace the wood door to look like the existing full glass door.
Mrs. Davis stated that she didn’t like the idea of changing from the wood door to the glass door. She
would like to see the historic character maintained.
The vote was called. Mr. Barrett moved to approve a Certificate of Appropriateness that retained and
repaired the existing wood frame single pane windows and replaced the aluminum glass door with wood
or metal to replicate the originals or historic character. Mr. Price seconded the motion.
The motion to approve passed by vote of 4 in favor, none opposed and 1 abstained as recorded. Favor:
Chairman Langley, Mr. Price, Mr. Barrett and Ms. Davis. Oppose: None. Abstained: Mr. Smith.
Certificate of Appropriateness
New Structure-Pool
205 South Washington Street
Chad Roten, Petitioner
Chad Roten, petitioner, presented the request for Certificate of Appropriateness to install a pool on
property at 205 South Washington Street. He stated that the pool will be a 16x36 Grecian style pool with
the existing black fence continuing around to the proposed deck which will be overlooking the pool. He
stated that shrubs will be planted along the side of the road (Third Street) as a privacy screen.
Mr. Duke provided the staff report for the property at 205 South Washington Street. He stated that pools
are allowable in the district and the request for the pool and fence meets the Commission’s guidelines.
He stated that insufficient details on the deck were provided, but the proposed location is within the
guidelines.
Mr. Roten stated that the deck will be constructed of treated wood.
The vote was called. Mr. Price moved to approve the request as submitted. Mrs. Davis seconded the
motion.
The motion to approve passed unanimously.
Certificate of Appropriateness
Demolition-Storage Shed
213 South Court Street
Andrew Jones, Petitioner
Andrew Jones, petitioner, presented the request for a Certificate of Appropriateness to demolish a
maintenance shed on the rear of the building at 213 South Court Street. He stated that the shed is caved in
and is unsalvageable.
Approved 8/24/17
Prattville Historic Preservation Commission
June 27, 2017 Minutes (Special Meeting)
Page 3 of 4
Mr. Duke provided the staff report for the property at 213 South Court Street. He stated that although the
building is a contributing structure to the historic district, its removal would not negatively affect the main
structure.
Chairman Langley asked Mr. Jones if an awning will replace the shed. Mr. Jones stated that at this point
he just needed to remove the structure.
The vote was called. Mr. Smith moved to approve the request as submitted. Ms. Kirkpatrick seconded
the motion.
The motion to approve passed unanimously.
Old Business:
Certificate of Appropriateness
New Structures-Single Family Residence & Accessory structure
115 Maple Street
Tom Miller, Petitioner
Due to potential conflict of interest, Mr. Larry Smith recused himself from the discussion and voting of
the agenda item as a commission member.
At the May 25, 2017, the request was held and a committee was appointed to further review the design
details of the submitted residential building plans to be constructed at 115 Maple Street. The committee
members appointed were Mr. Barrett, Mrs. Davis, and Ms. Musgrove.
Mr. Duke provided a summary of the meetings held by the committee as detailed in the attached email
letter.
Although the public hearing was previously heard, Chairman Langley allowed public comments. Jon Lee
Finnegan, 211 Deer Trace and Gerald Cimis, 141 North Chestnut, both expressed their support of the
revised residential plans.
After no further public comments, Chairman Langley entertained comments from the board.
Mr. Price thanked the Committee, Mr. Miller and the architect, Larry Smith for working to come to a
favorable resolution.
After no further discussion, the vote was called. Mrs. Davis moved to approve the request as revised.
Mr. Barrett seconded the motion.
The motion to approve passed unanimously.
Mr. Miller addressed the Commission thanking them for working diligently during the process of his
request for approval and expressed his gratitude for all that they do to ensure the historic district remains a
viable community.
Miscellaneous:
Adjourn:
With no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 5:58 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Approved 8/24/17
Prattville Historic Preservation Commission
June 27, 2017 Minutes (Special Meeting)
Page 4 of 4
Alisa Morgan, Secretary
Historic Preservation Commission
CITY OF PRATTVILLE
Historic Preservation Commission
Planning Department Staff Report
CERTIFICATE OF
APPROPRIATENESS
163 East Main Street – CA1706-01
DATE
June 26, 2017
PROPOSED DEVLOPMENT
Petitioner: Walthall Enterprises
Property Owner: Walthall Enterprises
Agent: N/A
Location: 163 East Main Street
Review Status and History
Submission Status: Second submission for this address.
Previous Approvals: August 2013 (staff approved) - 4’ tall metal within a
wooden frame installed on wood posts.
Conditions of Previous
Approvals:
None
1984/2007 Historic
Properties Inventory
Details
163 East Main Street – non-contributing structure
erected in 1972 (Autauga County Revenue
Commissioner’s records). Wood frame office building
with exterior of wood siding and trim and EIFS
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. Remove existing wood siding and trim. Replace with fiber cement siding and trim
with similar in appearance to the wood siding.
Page 2 of 2
PLANNING STAFF EVALUATION
Reviewed by: Joel T. Duke, AICP
Site Visits Conducted: June 26, 2017
Recommendation: Approve proposed replacement of wood siding with fiber
cement siding. Determine to what extent portions of the EIFS
will also be replaced. Encourage removal of all exterior
material and replacement with approved fiber cement siding.
Evaluation:
The requested alterations were reviewed against the standards contained in the Prattville
Commercial Design Review Guidelines Manual. The relevant sections of manual are
included. Staff comments/evaluation follow the relevant sections.
Item 1. Remove existing wood siding and trim. Replace with fiber cement siding and
trim with similar in appearance to the wood siding.
Evaluation:
The subject property/structure was built earlier than the fifty year old threshold for historic
properties. It is also located in a block of Main Street containing infill structure younger than
the fifty year threshold. As a result, the Commission’s primary focus is the impact of the
proposed alteration on the overall fabric or character of the historic district. Given the non-
contributing nature and age of the structure, the Commission should consider:
1. Whether the appearance of the structure is being significantly altered by the
proposed change.
2. Whether the proposed changes are detrimental to the appearance or overall health
of the history district.
3. How much of the mixture of siding and EIFS will be removed with the proposed
project? Will the project cover the entire structure?
ATTACHMENTS
A. Application and attachments
B. Location Map
CITY OF PRATTVILLE
Historic Preservation Commission
Planning Department Staff Report
CERTIFICATE OF
APPROPRIATENESS
117, 119, and 129 South Court Street –
CA1706-02
DATE
June 26, 2017
PROPOSED DEVLOPMENT
Petitioner: C. W. Smith Decorating Co., LLC
Property Owner: Old Gin Properties, LLC
Agent: C. W. Smith Decorating Co., LLC
Location: 117, 119, and 129 South Court Street
Review Status and History
Submission Status: First submission for this address.
Previous Approvals: N/A
Conditions of Previous
Approvals:
None
1984/2007 Historic
Properties Inventory
Details
145, 139, and 137 South Court Street (circa 1950,
contributing) The businesses at these addresses
share a one-story commercial building with a brick and
display window façade and concrete block secondary
walls. Source: Thomason and Associates, 2007
Inventory of Daniel Pratt Historic District.
Originally listed as non-contributing in the 1984
National Register of Historic Places nomination – now
older than 50 year threshold.
Addresses changed since 1984 survey.
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.
Page 2 of 4
1. Replace four of the six existing storefront windows with new glass and aluminum
storefronts to match windows in northern unit. Windows to be replaced are single
pane in a wood frame and trim. New frames will be prefinished aluminum –
possibly painted white after installation.
2. Replace solid wood door on southern unit with glass storefront door to match
other two units.
3. Paint front elevation of the building.
PLANNING STAFF EVALUATION
Reviewed by: Joel T. Duke, AICP
Site Visits Conducted: June 25 and 26, 2016
Recommendation: Retain and repair existing wood frame, single pane windows.
Replace aluminum frame windows with wood frame, single
pane windows. If aluminum window frames are permitted,
retain single pane appearance.
Replace aluminum and glass doors with wood or metal doors
that replicate historic units.
Evaluation:
The requested alterations were reviewed against the standards contained in the Prattville
Commercial Design Review Guidelines Manual. The relevant sections of manual are
included. Staff comments/evaluation follow the relevant sections.
Item 1. Replace four of the six existing storefront windows with new glass and
aluminum storefront to match windows in northern unit. Windows to be replaced
are single pane in a wood frame and trim. New frames will be prefinished aluminum
– possibly painted white after installation.
Storefronts (pages 32 and 33)
Storefronts are defining elements of the commercial and historic character of the downtown
business district. Historic storefronts should be retained, visible, maintained, and, if needed,
repaired.
1. Historic storefronts and their component elements, such as display windows,
bulkheads, transoms, doors, cornices, pillars, and pilasters, should be retained and
maintained.
Page 3 of 4
2. Historic storefronts and their component elements should remain visible.
3. Deteriorated or damaged storefronts or elements should be repaired so that the
storefront retains its historic appearance.
4. Missing storefronts or elements should be replaced so that they replicate the historic
storefront or other historic examples.
Windows (pages 34 – 36)
Windows are prominent building components. They help to establish the rhythm of a
building or streetscape. Sometimes, particularly in industrial buildings, they are the dominant
visual element of a building exterior. Historic windows should be retained, visible,
maintained, and, if needed, repaired.
1. Historic windows should be retained and maintained.
2. Historic windows should remain visible and their openings transparent.
3. Deteriorated or damaged windows should be repaired so that the windows retain
their historic appearances. Epoxy is helpful in strengthening and replacing
deteriorated wood.
4. Missing windows or elements should be replaced so that they replicate the historic
windows or other historic examples.
5. Replacement windows should be of wood to match the original. The use of vinyl or
aluminum clad windows may also be appropriate if they match the original window.
Analysis: The subject commercial building is divided into three equally size leasable spaces.
The storefront of each space is configured with a center doorway with matching windows on
either side of the doorway. Two of the spaces retain four of what appear to be the original
single pane windows set in wood frames and trim. The windows in the northern unit have
been replaced with modern aluminum frame storefronts. Each of the aluminum frames is
divided by a center muntin bar. The applicant proposes replacing the four remaining historic
windows with aluminum storefront units to match the northern space.
The Commission’s guidelines encourage preservation of existing storefronts and discourage
the proposed modifications. Rather than replacing the four original windows that remain, the
applicant should be encouraged to replace the more modern aluminum storefront. At a
minimum, the single pane windows should be retained and the existing divided windows
returned to single panes.
Page 4 of 4
Item 2. Replace solid wood door on southern unit with glass storefront door to match
other two units.
Doors and Entrances (page 18)
Doors are often buildings’ central visual elements, so are particularly important features.
Historic entrances and doors should be retained, visible, maintained, and, if needed,
repaired. Missing or severely deteriorated doors should be replaced with historically
appropriate doors. Screen, storm, and security doors should not detract from the historic
appearance of their building.
1. Historic doors should be retained and maintained.
2. Primary entrances to commercial buildings should be universally accessible. If this
is not possible, alternative entrances should be available, clearly marked, and
maintained to the same standards as the primary entrance.
3. If historic doors do not allow for universal access, they should be retrofitted to provide
it.
5. Owners are encouraged to replace missing or severely damaged historic doors with
new doors that replicate the originals or other historic examples.
6. Clear-glass single-light painted wood doors with or without paneling are most
appropriate for replacing primary doors in the district’s commercial buildings. The
opening in secondary entrances may be smaller or doors may be solid wood. Dark
or bronze anodized metal, though less appropriate, may be substituted for wood.
Analysis: The applicant proposes to retain the aluminum and glass doors on two of spaces
and replace an inoperable solid wood door on the third space. The new door will match the
existing aluminum and glass doors.
Again the Commission’s guidelines encourage the use of glass and wood doors and
discourage the use of the modern aluminum and glass doors proposed. The historic
structure is relatively simple structure. Much of the structure’s unique architectural character
is found in its doorways and storefronts. The Commission should encourage the use of wood
or metal doors that replicate original or historic examples.
ATTACHMENTS
A. Application and attachments
B. Location Map
CITY OF PRATTVILLE
Historic Preservation Commission
Planning Department Staff Report
CERTIFICATE OF
APPROPRIATENESS
205 S. Washington Street – CA1706-03
DATE
June 26, 2017
PROPOSED DEVLOPMENT
Petitioner: Chadwick and Tressa Roten
Property Owner: Same as Petitioner
Agent: N/A
Location: 205 S. Washington Street
Review Status and History
Submission Status: Second request for a Certificate of Appropriateness for this
address.
Previous Approvals: COA issued on October 1, 2015 for
A new 20’-6” x 16’ (328 square foot) accessory
structure
New 16’ x 25’ covered deck with shed roof at southeast
corner of existing carport.
Conditions of Previous
Approvals:
None
1984/2007 Historic
Properties Inventory
Details
205 South Washington Street (circa 1930,
contributing) This gable-roofed one-story frame
building with aluminum siding has a gable-roofed brick-
pier porch.
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. Install new 16 x 36 salt water pool in rear yard.
2. Install black metal fence with appropriate landscaping on Third Street frontage.
3. Install new deck at rear of existing carport.
Page 2 of 3
PLANNING STAFF EVALUATION
Reviewed by: Joel T. Duke, AICP
Site Visits Conducted: June 26, 2017
Recommendation: Item 1: Approval
Item 2: Approval. Additional information required from
applicant on landscaping and gate location.
Item 3: Additional information required from applicant
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. Install new 16 x 36 salt water pool in rear yard.
Pools and Fountains (page 51)
Pools and fountains are modern elements that can be most welcome on a summer
day! New pools and fountains should use placement that minimizes their effect on
the district’s historic character.
1. Swimming pools and fountains should be located in the back yards and have
limited visibility from public vantage points.
2. Plants and/or fencing should be used to screen views of pools or fountains.
Analysis:
The proposed pool essentially meets the Commission’s guidelines by being located in the
rear yard directly behind the main structure and behind the proposed fencing.
Item 2 – Install black metal fence with appropriate landscaping on Third Street
frontage.
Fences and Walls (pages 46 & 47)
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
Page 3 of 3
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.
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 Commission’s guidelines allow significant discretion when it comes to fencing in the
rear yard. A simple black metal or coated chain link fence would have minimal visual
impact on the surrounding area or the subject lot. The fence proposed for the Third Street
frontage and the rear yard is appropriate for the district. Additional information is needed
regarding landscape screening and gate locations.
Item 3. Install new deck at rear of existing carport.
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.
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 applicant’s proposed deck is not adequately defined in the application. Additional
information is needed to determine compatibility with the guidelines.
ATTACHMENTS
A. Application and attachments
B. Location Map
CITY OF PRATTVILLE
Historic Preservation Commission
Planning Department Staff Report
CERTIFICATE OF
APPROPRIATENESS
213 S. Court Street – CA1706-04
DATE
June 26, 2017
PROPOSED DEVLOPMENT
Petitioner: Andrew Jones
Property Owner: Andrew F. Jones
Agent: N/A
Location: 213 S. Court 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
207 – 213 South Court Street, B. W. Moncrief
General Merchandise (1910 – 1920, contributing):
This commercial edifice consists of a trio of brick units.
In 1910, a Prattville builder recorded as “Mr. Smith”
constructed the largest and oldest, southernmost
section. Its first floor originally consisted of a recessed
central entrance flanked by display windows with cast-
iron structural members. Currently the entrance is flush
with the street and located in the northern bay, while
the two southern bays each possess one single-pane
display window. The upper floor consisted of regularly
spaced arched window openings and possessed brick
corbelling topped with dentils at the roofline. The
window openings have since been bricked in. Striped
awnings historically sheltered the upper windows and
lower storefront. In 1913, workers added a one story
adjacent unit; its second floor has a circa 1915-
construction date and possesses five arched windows,
Page 2 of 3
now bricked in. Construction of the one-story third
component occurred circa 1920. At that time, workers
also added a street-level porch with cast-iron supports
across all three facades and a one story warehouse to
the rear 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. Demolition and removal of existing shed attached to the north wall of the one
story warehouse on the rear elevation. See application for statement of hardship.
PLANNING STAFF EVALUATION
Reviewed by: Joel T. Duke, AICP
Site Visits Conducted: July 24, 2011
Recommendation: Item 1: Consider three questions presented in the
staff analysis.
Item 1: If demolition allowed, then ask if awning or
shed roof will be built over rear door.
Evaluation:
The requested alterations were reviewed against the standards contained in the Prattville
Commercial Design Review Guidelines Manual. The relevant sections of manual are
included. Staff comments/evaluations are summarized at the end of each section.
Item 1. Demolition and removal of existing two-story accessory structure west of the
main structure.
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.
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.
3. Demolition may be appropriate if the denial of the demolition will result in a
demonstrable economic hardship on the owner.
Analysis:
The Commission should address three main questions with this request.
1. To what extent does the individual structure, or portion of the structure, contribute
to the overall property and the historic district? According to the 1984 National
Register nomination forms and survey, the structure was not considered as part
of the historic district nomination.
2. Can the existing structure be rehabilitated?
3. Has the applicant demonstrated sufficient hardship to meet the Commission’s
guidelines and justify removal?
ATTACHMENTS
A. Application and attachments
B. Location Map