Prattville commission approves new house at 105 Maple Street over design objections, 3-2

The City of Prattville Historic Preservation Commission approved a certificate of appropriateness for a new single‑story residence at 105 Maple Street following extended discussion about scale, proportions and garage placement. The motion passed 3–2.

The commission’s action followed a presentation by the petitioner, identified in the meeting as Dr. Miller, who said the corner lot is “very unique and challenging” and described choices made to orient the house and locate the garage to match site constraints. Dr. Miller said the family intends the house to face Maple Street for addressing and parking, though one facade will visually front the adjacent mill property.

The decision matters because the parcel sits in Prattville’s historic downtown where commissioners weigh new construction against surrounding historic buildings, including a nearby Masonic Lodge and an old mill. Several commissioners said the proposed design reads as “squat” and “modern” relative to neighboring historic residences and urged adjustments to foundation height, porch treatment and window proportions to better match surrounding homes.

During public comment, John Lee Finnegan, a neighborhood resident, said he opposed the design. “I’m against it completely. I think it no more fits than the man in the moon in the historic district,” Finnegan said, adding that the house appeared too modern for downtown Prattville and questioning the garage placement.

Commission discussion focused on proportions (floor‑to‑floor and foundation height), the visibility of the garage from Maple Street, and potential small changes that could soften the façade — for example, adding a modest front porch or a raised foundation. One commissioner suggested referencing the smaller, nearby historic houses rather than the larger brick mill and Masonic Lodge when judging proportions.

City Planning and Development Director Jonathan Smith told the commission the Historic Preservation Commission may form a subcommittee to advise the applicant if the commission wanted more detailed, pre‑meeting design review. “The HPC can establish the subcommittee to . . . give recommendations,” Smith said, describing such a group as advisory.

Petitioner Dr. Miller and family members told commissioners the proposal might include optional features later — a small fountain, a concrete pad for a private pickleball net, and a fenced front porch area for a small dog — but said those items would be determined after final site grading. Dr. Miller also noted the family previously donated a 10‑foot strip of land that allowed the city to complete a pedestrian sidewalk loop along the creek.

After discussion, a motion to approve the certificate of appropriateness as submitted carried on a 3–2 vote. The commission did not attach specific mandatory design conditions in the motion; several commissioners urged the applicant to consider voluntary revisions discussed at the meeting, including a small front porch, modest elevation of the finished floor, and window and foundation adjustments.

The commission and the applicant agreed there could be follow‑up, informal design conversations to address the aesthetic concerns raised by commissioners. The applicant indicated willingness to meet further with commissioners or the suggested subcommittee to discuss the small changes.

The meeting also included two expedited reviews (an awning and a rear deck) listed as handled; no substantive public discussion on those items was recorded.