01 - January 24CITY OF PRATTVILLE
Historic Preservation Commission
Planning Department Staff Report
CERTIFICATE OF
APPROPRIATENESS
161 West Main Street – CA1211-02
DATE
November 28, 2012
PROPOSED DEVLOPMENT
Petitioner: Jules Moffett
Property Owner: Same as petitioner
Agent: N/A
Location: 161 West Main Street
Review Status and History
Submission Status: Initial request for Certificate of Appropriateness for this
property.
Previous Approvals: N/A
Conditions of Previous
Approvals:
N/A
1984/2007 Historic
Properties Inventory
Details
161 West Main Street (1903, contributing) This one-
story brick building with a parapet has a circa 1960
aluminum canopy and storefront.
Proposed Alteration, Renovation or Addition
1. Convert incomplete renovation of enclosed room on the rear of the building
started in 2008 to a covered porch. Propose removal of exposed wall studs,
encasing metal support posts in wood, adding wood top and bottom railings and
balusters between the posts.
Page 2 of 3
PLANNING STAFF EVALUATION
Reviewed by: Joel T. Duke, AICP
Site Visits Conducted: November 28, 2012
Recommendation: Approval with conditions. Additional design details are
needed concerning any proposed access stairs, screening of
the front and sides below the floor, and the flooring of the
porch.
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 this section.
Item 1 – Convert incomplete renovation of enclosed room on the rear of the building
started in 2008 to a covered porch. Propose removal of exposed wall
studs, encasing metal support posts in wood, adding top and bottom
railings and balusters between the posts.
Rear Additions. (Page 39)
Rear and lateral additions provide owners with flexibility in their building use.
Additions should use design, materials, and placement that minimize their affect on
the district’s historic character.
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 little or no visibility from the primary street façade.
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 but compatible with adjacent buildings.
In early 2008, the applicant applied for and received a building permit for the demolition
and rebuilding of the compromised rear wall for the structure at 161 West Main Street.
This was prior to creation of the Prattville Historic District and adoption of design
guidelines by the Historic Preservation Commission The permitted work called for the
demolition of the existing rear block wall and its replacement while leaving and
supporting the existing roof. During construction, the scope of work was changed by
Page 3 of 3
the owner. The applicant was informed that the newly adopted design guidelines and
the International Building Code would now apply to the renovation. The applicant
elected to stop work on the project at that time leaving exposed metal studs and
flooring.
The applicant is proposing conversion of the unfinished renovation to a covered porch.
The existing metal stud wall will be removed leaving the metal support posts. The posts
will be encased in wood and railing and balusters added. The applicant’s propo sed
design for the railing is similar to the railing on the structure at 427 East Main Street
(O’Dell Mining). No details are provided by the applicant concerning whether the
proposed casing and railing will be natural or painted, the rear stairs (location or
design), screening the crawl space below the finished floor, or final appearance or
construction of the porch floor. These need to be provided to the Commission prior to
any approval.
The historic rear wall was removed prior to designation of the district due to structural
failure. As a result, the proposed alteration should be considered an addition and
reviewed under the Rear Addition guidelines. With the alteration being under the original
roof, it remains compatible with the scale and rhythm of the existing structure. The
addition will also be distinguishable from the historic building.
ATTACHMENTS
A. Application, application attachments and supplements
B. Location map
C. Staff pictures