Good evening, everyone.

I'm Kathy Pagani.

I am the chair of the Tuscaloosa Historic Preservation Commission.

Um I'd like to welcome you to this month's hearing.

Today's date is October 8th, 2025, and our time is 5 o'clock p.m.

Let me allow my fellow commission members to introduce themselves to you.

Beginning on my right, please.

Well Robra.

Carl Ellabash.

Jordan Morris.

Cooper Shatdock.

Trisha Stone.

David Nelson.

Thank you very much.

And joining us from city staff this evening, we have Mr.

Hudson Cheshire, who is the Associate City Attorney, Mr.

Zach Pons, the Director of Planning, Mr.

Liam O'Leary Planner, and we'd like to welcome Ms.

Cynthia DeSantiago, who is a planner.

Before we proceed with hearing our cases this evening, I'd like to go over the purpose and the procedures for tonight's hearing.

The general purpose of the Historic Preservation Commission is that we serve to preserve and protect the buildings, sites, and historic structures in Tuscaloosa's historic neighborhoods.

We are governed by Chapter 20, Article 2 of the Code of Tuscaloosa, which includes design guidelines that are posted on the city's website.

Our decisions are based on these design guidelines and do not consider use or occupancy.

We do consider such factors as architectural style, appropriateness of materials, and how the structure relates to other structures in the immediate neighborhood in determining the appropriateness of the application.

Any approval of an application requires five affirmative votes.

If the certificate is approved, please be aware that there will be a final inspection by city staff to ensure compliance with what was approved this evening by the commission.

This is a public hearing.

It is televised live on local cable, streamed online through Facebook, and is being recorded to be posted on the city's website.

We ask proper decorum, civility, and respect for others at all times.

Prior to this meeting, notice was sent to adjacent property owners, and the public has been notified of the applications to be presented tonight.

This hearing is a chance for the applicant to present present their case, for the public to make their views known about the project, and for commission members to gather relevant facts about the application before making its decision.

We will begin city staff will introduce the application.

The applicant will then have a chance to make any comments.

The commissioners will then have an opportunity to ask the applicant's questions about the case.

A notarized designation of agent form should have been provided to city staff for any representatives of an application that are not the property owner or immediate family member of the owner prior to tonight's hearing.

Immediate family members, and we define that as a parent, a spouse, or a child, do not have to provide such written authorization when speaking on behalf of another immediate family member.

And we ask that you please leave signs in your yard.

City staff will be around in the next few days to pick them up.

So moving on to business.

As the Historic Preservation Commission has received synopses of the August and September 2025 meetings, I move that we dispense with the reading of the minutes of the same unless there are any deletions, additions, or corrections.

Do I have a second on that?

Thank you.

And we shall vote beginning on my right, Dr.

Yarbrough.

Yes.

Yes.

Mr.

Deeson?

Yes.

Mr.

Morris.

Yes.

Ms.

Shatdock.

Yes.

Ms.

Stone.

Yes.

And Dr.

Nelson.

All right.

Do I have a motion to approve set synopses?

Do you have a motion?

So move.

And do I have a second?

Thank you very much.

And we will vote on this beginning on my left, please.

Dr.

Nelson.

Yes.

Ms.

Stone.

Yes.

Mr.

Shatdock?

Yes.

Mr.

Morris.

Yes.

Mr.

Deyson?

Yes.

Mr.

Ellabash?

Yes.

And Dr.

Yarbrough?

Yes.

And I vote yes.

Thank you.

The Commission members have had a chance to review tonight's agenda items.

Do any of the members have a conflict of interest as defined by section six of the commission bylaws with any of these items?

I do on HPC 50-25.

Thank you.

And anyone else?

I do on HP 5225.

Thank you very much.

Any others?

All right.

I would like to ask city staff if proper notification has been provided for each of the agenda items.

Yes, it has.

Great.

Thank you.

And then before we move on to our first application, let the record show that Mr.

McCool has joined the hearing.

Good afternoon, Commission.

We do have one case requesting to withdraw tonight, HPC 5325.

The applicant did reach out to city staff and inform us that they needed a little more time on their application.

So they are requesting to withdraw.

We do need a vote on that.

And a motion and a second.

That's right.

Yes.

So may I have a motion?

So moved.

And a second.

Second.

Thank you.

And we shall vote beginning on my right, please, Dr.

Yarbrough.

Yes.

Mr.

Albash.

Yes.

Mr.

McCool.

Yes.

Mr.

Deeson.

Yes.

Mr.

Morris?

Yes.

Mr.

Shatdock.

Yes.

Ms.

Stone.

Yes.

Dr.

Nelson.

Yes.

And I vote yes.

Thank you.

All right.

Moving on to tonight's agenda.

First case tonight is HPC 4625, Chaz Gunter petitions for a certificate of appropriateness for the replacement of windows and for exterior alterations on the primary structure located at 1506 13th Street in the 13th Street Historic District, Council District 4.

Here we have an aerial view of the property.

Here is that property in question from the street.

The adjacent property to the west to the south and to the east.

The applicant proposes to remove four existing windows on the primary structure.

Three of those windows are located along the rear facade of the home, and one being located along the western facade.

The windows will be removed and covered with hardy board.

Just for some context for this, we did uh approve an expedited review for repair and replacement of all the windows like for like.

But we did receive a complaint from a citizen that four of those windows were boarded up over the course of that work.

So this is coming to you tonight as a violation.

So here's a before and after picture.

As you can see, they did remove this window, this window, and this one here.

And you can see on the right what it looks like today.

And this is along the rear facade.

And then along the west, you can see where they remove this smaller window here, and then we have what it looks like today on the right.

The materials will include hardy board siding and wood windows with light pattern to match what is currently existing.

Here's our applicable design guidelines for windows and their materials.

Standards for rehabilitation and alteration and repairing original features, uh replacing old features.

We did not receive any public comment about this proposal.

Do you have any questions for staff?

So just to be clear, they received an expedited review to change out the windows like for like.

Correct.

Um, but not to remove windows and cover them over.

That's correct.

All right.

And and everything was very clear on what was being uh approved.

Yes, ma'am.

Thank you.

Okay.

Are there any questions for city staff?

Thank you.

Thanks.

May I invite the applicant or the applicant's representative to please step forward and we'll need your name and address for the record, please.

Chaz Gunnar, um, with legacy construction addresses 1200, diamond point circle, just closing.

Thank you.

So Mr.

Gunnar, I just want to ask really quickly, you know, how did we get here tonight with the removal of the windows?

It's a funny story because um, and I wanted to apologize to you guys because we this is not our first historic home that we've done restoration work on, and we always follow the process.

I've been to these meetings before and followed the steps of getting approval.

Um, but we had no intentions of uh removing any windows uh originally.

It was all they were all going to be replaced.

In fact, we ordered all the windows to be replaced.

And so what had happened was is the they had a prior renovation back in I want to say 2005 before the owner that owns it now bought the house.

And so they did a lot of stuff that wasn't up to code that we ended up having to fix, but also in turn kind of prevented us from installing um two of these windows individually out of the four.

Um so what we have what happened was is there was one window we we redid the shower, so it's a big bathroom, and I sent them more photos in there.

I don't know if they're attached, but uh also one thing I did want to correct is it wasn't none of the windows were covered up with heart with Hardy, they were covered covered up with real wood, which is what's on there, and so we wanted to make sure everything matched and all the material was light kind of quality, and so that's just a correct that I want to make.

But one window on the far left.

If you look in the second or the picture on the right, the far left window that's no longer there, that was actually looking straight into her toilet and her glass shower.

So, and then she had neighbors in the back, and this the woman who owns this, her daughter just was moving into college, and so we were on a time crunch.

We'd already gotten approval to replace the windows, and so we were on a time crunch to try to get all of it done before her daughter was living there, and it didn't end up happening.

She ended up moving in, and so we were still replacing windows for a week, if not a week and a half while she was living there, and so communication got kind of jumbled, and uh, and I lost track of things trying to communicate that to you guys, and so that's what I apologize for.

Um what the windows that were there, there was one, two, four, five, six, six windows that were covered up with they were the plywood in the back of the plywood that faced outside of the window was spray painted with white spray paint, and then behind the plywood, they covered it up with drywall.

And so it was spray painted with what with black spray paint.

So if you look through the window, you just see black you see black plywood, and so and you can see like it wasn't nice, it was just like a quick rundown.

Um, and so we it was a real eyesore, all the windows are rotten, and so uh the one in the one on the left in that right photo that we deleted was looking into.

She I mean, you could sit down on the toilet, and the the window was touching like you were looking out, and so and everybody else was looking in, and then the two on the right were a real big safety concern for us because it was in her closet, the the daughter's closet, and so you know, somebody could easily have broken in there, gotten in there at night, she would have never known, and uh her mom just made that a big concern to us as well, and so um she also had shelving on the walls that was would have been difficult to remove, she wouldn't have really any room for her clothes, um, and then the window on the right side of the house, or I'm sorry, the left side of the house.

Um we didn't even know that it was covered up with plywood and drywall until we after we had already ordered all the windows.

We had every intention to replace all the windows, and we go inside or we start removing the window, and it was covered up, and we go inside and it's in a bathroom that is now covered up with you have a brand new vanity there that they had done, and then you have two electrical uh lights, and then you have a big uh mirror that covers the entire wall.

So the window itself came below the top side of the vanity, and then was covered up completely the rest of the way by the mirror, and so that's what happened.

Um other than that, it's it was just it was a nightmare.

Um yeah, as far as communication goes, that's that's on the out on that.

But it's quite a story, yeah.

It was I appreciate it.

Commission members, do you have any questions for Mr.

Gunter?

All right, we don't have any more questions for you at this time.

Thank you.

Let me open the floor to public comment.

Is there anyone here to speak in support of or opposition to this application?

All right, hearing none, let me close the floor to public comment and open the floor to discussion by commission members.

Wasn't there another situation on eighth street where somebody covered up a window?

So they just went back and basically put a window that similar but not the same to what he said about it's a window that looks into nothing, but it still keeps the look.

I just feel like the look.

Was that a did you have a question?

Did you want to talk to the audience?

I just know that it was there's been precedence for that.

Yes.

We have we have seen that.

You're right.

Mr.

Gutter, since the question was raised, would you mind coming back up for just a quick second?

So I know you're in a time crunch and doing this work and the communication issues and everything else.

Um but Ms.

Stone brings up a very interesting sort of point about solutions where the window can stay in place even though there's something else going on behind it.

Did you consider any of that before you moved ahead and removed the windows completely?

Uh the windows were rotten on the outside exterior, and it was causing leaking onto the inside.

And so that was our our main concern of getting it removed.

Right.

Was it like the wind the sashes or the framing of the window?

The whole frame of the window.

Okay.

And you were replacing some of the glass, some of them, one of them had been uh was broke.

The glass was broken.

So Ms.

Stone, did you want to talk about that?

I just I think if you brought up a good question, is other solutions?

I mean, I understand this is a college girl's safety, and I'm familiar with this house a little bit, but you know, I know a lot of people who have windows in their closets and alarm systems, or they frost windows to kind of add some privacy or put shears on them and stuff like that.

I mean, I just think there's there's solutions besides just boarding it up that I wonder if they were thought through as far as the vanity that's on the other side blocking, you know, that to me is a case like 8th Street where the window was there, but it was covered up by the mirror, so they couldn't see in, but it still didn't detract from the outside of the house and the original design.

But I just the security and then the way to decorate for lack of better word, around um giving privacy, was that it seems like there are other options that were there besides just boarding it up.

Um issue Yeah, come on, come on up and just state your name and address for the record so we have it, please.

William Manderson, my address 1439 Greystone Drive.

And part of the issues were we did the work.

My company did.

Into the mic.

I'm sorry.

My company did the work.

And when like the one window, mainly on the left side, you know, with all the penetrations in the house, the house is rotten.

I mean, that there's more issues than just aesthetics of the house.

And so we were trying to stop the leaks and like you can see the top gable in the rear.

We had to completely tear all that off, resupport the roof, and and put new siding there.

I mean, the whole house is leaking, you know, from top to bottom.

There was no backing.

There was no vacuum, no wood backing.

Okay.

There was no sheathing on that.

Make sure you guys speak into the mic if you don't mind because you're recording this.

And so we put new plywood, new house wrap, and then put the siding back.

But the whole thing is like a leak nightmare.

I mean, the floor joists were you know rotten.

So I think the homeowner mainly was trying to stop all the rot and just trying to make it, you know, safer for their daughter.

She's just an 18-year-old girl from Indiana that living there by herself.

I think the mother just was very concerned.

Did you bring those obstacles to staff?

Because I know that's what they're there for to help you when you run into things that are unexpected, they come up.

Or did you run past the repairs you just mentioned?

Did they just a subcontractor too?

Yeah.

Well, they all ran through staff.

So we I that's the part of miscommunication that I I didn't bring to you guys, and that I apologize for.

Um, it was just in such a hurry because she was there living there, and she's 18, and I've got all these guys there, and I just didn't feel comfortable with that.

And so I wanted to try to get it done as soon as possible and make it safe as possible.

And uh, and through that process, I got distracted with trying to get it finished and not communicating to you guys that we had to cover up the windows.

I just see a precedent that could be set here about the you know my 18-year-old daughter is living there by herself, old houses.

There's a lot of us that have dealt with old houses, and they leak, they have bad joys, they have all of this stuff, and lots of money is put in to repair that without just deciding, hey, I'm gonna go board up the windows because my daughter's here living by herself, and just does that just open it up for anybody else to come along later and say, hey, this house is old, it's leaking, and I got a student living here, so I'm gonna just board up these windows for the sake of time.

That was that's my concern.

Yeah, I don't really have a question.

My issue is we've got a process.

You know the process, you followed the process.

We approved something to be done.

That's not what was done because you're in a hurry.

And if the standard is, well, if we're in a hurry, we don't have to follow a process anymore.

We don't even need to be here.

So, you know, safety and security and all that is great, but we can't leave it to the public to make that decision.

That's we're not doing our jobs that they've asked us to do.

So I feel for you, I understand, but I have some real concerns with that.

May I city staff?

Can you put up the image of that side of the house as it was?

Maybe all the original like materials, you know, there was wood siding, and we used wood windows when we matched, you know, we didn't put anything.

It's not there's not a bin or something.

Can we see that's a better do we have a better view of that side of the house?

This is the other side, right?

Is on the rear elevation.

The elevation we just saw.

We were just talking about with this one.

Do we have a better view?

This is the only one we have in front of us, right?

Okay.

All right, I'm sorry, I didn't mean to interrupt, I was just trying to get their attention.

Right.

So they were trying to use all the you know previous like materials, they weren't trying to put vinyl siding or vinyl windows, you know.

Yeah, I think that's I think that's great.

And I think the band is in the back had grids, you know, right.

They were matched.

Right, and as Mr.

Gunter said, you know, we wanted to correct the record to make it known that they are using woods, you are using wood siding, and that's really important and much appreciated, and the wood windows as well.

So there are a couple of things here, and you know, feel free to ask us questions and let the commission members ask you questions.

Um, you know, we we don't consider use or occupancy here on who is living in the house and what use of that house, how that impacts what's going on.

And there have been times when there have been changes done because of other issues, right?

So an 18-year-old, for example, in this case, living in this house isn't something we consider in terms of the design guidelines, right?

We look at what's appropriate for that particular structure.

And so we've got the two slides there, the before and the after.

Quite a different look, all right.

Um, but we've also been hearing about some structural issues that you ran into.

Uh in the future moving ahead, be sure, however, this shakes out, be sure to talk to city staff, like as you're working on things.

I know Mr.

Gunter, you said you've come before the commission before.

Talk to city staff, help them help let them help you walk through any kind of issues like that on what potential pitfalls might be, because you know we can make in cases we'll make justifications.

We don't like to set precedents.

Um in a case like this, the rear or that that elevation of the house looks very different than it did originally.

Um I still want to hear more from the other commission members on what they think about this, but this is where my thinking is going right now.

Um I think some valid points were brought up by our fellow commission members.

But feel free to tell us a little bit more about the the justification, right?

You had a lot of rotted wood and things, the the framing was not good.

Um being in a hurry isn't really something that we see as a rationale for doing something.

Well, and there's also the rear, and you know, the you know, the sides of the houses are tight to other houses, you know, the front of the house is exactly the same as before.

And so, and I used to live five houses down, so I understand how important it is, but you know, from the front of the house, you know, I think everything, you know.

Yes, the front facade is really crucially important.

Yes, thank you for for recognizing that.

Do the other commission members have any questions?

Well, gentlemen, have a seat again.

Thank you so much for coming back up.

And let's open the floor to discussion by the commission members.

So to summarize what we've talked about so far, we had an expedited review to replace the windows, wood for wood, which is great.

Um the siding is wood for wood.

Um, but unfortunately, an issue came up, and the applicant's representative, the contractor removed windows that were not part of the expedited review.

So we're looking at this removal of the windows.

We've had cases before, but as you know, every case is unique as we consider them.

So we consider things like you know, view from the street, the impact it has on the overall design of the house.

Uh any other sort of reasoning, rationale for removing the windows.

We've had some removed when we've had some structural changes inside.

So this is a rather complicated application tonight.

And I'd like to know what others think.

Does the petition have to be either approved or not approved as it is?

Can there be a compromise?

I mean, does it have to be either all or none?

What are you thinking about?

I mean, I think we're talking about four windows.

I mean, can it be compromised where maybe you put back the side window in one of the backs to break up the expanse?

Or does it have to be all or none?

Well, we let's ask city staff and city attorney.

I think it does get more complicated.

Um the thing that I'm concerned about is clarity um for the record so that so that what gets agreed on is is actually enforceable.

Um for that reason the the commission might feel more comfortable just letting letting the applicant come back with a revised petition.

Um that would that would prevent the I I know there's concern sometimes about designing from the dais.

That was going to be my concern is that we shouldn't be here designing this and deciding which windows look right, right?

Well, just to pursue that for a moment, so we have information to work with.

Mr.

Gunther, Mr.

Anderson, would you mind coming back up for another just moment?

So I don't know if you did you understand what Dr.

Nelson was talking about and what was happening here.

There are some options, you know, we still have to discuss this.

Um option with the commission is that we approve this.

An option with the commission is that we deny this.

But then there's the third option that Dr.

Nelson sort of raised, and that is because there's a big expanse of just siding here on the house, that there may be a way of putting one of those windows back in if that's something you might consider, and coming back, leaving it as it is for now, coming back to see us next month, and with a proposal or something like that.

But we can't we are not here to design it for you.

And in some ways, you know, I wonder if we are getting too much into that aspect of things.

We really can't.

I don't think we can vote on something that's not before us.

No, we can't.

We can't.

But I do wonder if um typically when we've had modifications, it has been at the direction of the applicant during the course of discussion.

Right.

Right.

And the other thing too is should the application be denied, let me just check with city staff, they could conceivably come back next month with a revised plan because it is different than what they're presenting tonight, correct?

So yet another scenario for you.

All right, so we approve it.

If we deny it, you could come back next month with uh an alternative plan for this.

I think it would be beneficial though to kind of provide more comments for them to understand what specifically might be something that they could bring back if this were to be denied.

Just being very clear before y'all vote.

Yep.

So okay.

Um whenever we considered cases related to removal of windows, reconfigurations, um, anything that really changes the general configuration of the of the solid void of structure.

One of the main cases that I think of is or points that I think of is is it really has to do with the rhythm of that elevation of the structure and are we maintaining or disrupting what that what that is saying?

And I think that the solid void on the rear is significant enough of a change to where we are not maintaining the those elements in accordance with the guidelines in this case.

We often have accepted removing one here or there for whatever reason, and it's not as drastic a change as this appears to be.

Are there any other do the commission members need any more input from the applicants?

Gentlemen, thank you again.

So are there any further points of discussion?

Any points of clarification needed?

Is everybody all right with this?

All right.

So here's how this goes, right?

We've had some good discussion here.

We have the standing motion to approve.

If we vote yes, it stays as is.

If we vote no, we give a reason, and um that's to deny the application.

All right.

So we have a standing motion to approve HPC 4625, Chaz Gunter petitions for certificate of appropriateness, the replacement of windows, and for exterior alterations on the primary structure located at 1506 13th Street in the 13th Street Historic District, Council District 4.

We shall vote, Dr.

Yarborough.

No.

Mr.

Ellabash?

No.

Mr.

McCool?

No.

Ms.

Deeson?

No.

I vote no.

Mr.

Morris.

No.

Mr.

Shattuck?

No.

Ms.

Stone?

No.

Dr.

Nelson?

No.

So gentlemen, unfortunately, the application did not pass this evening, but you do have options.

And what I would encourage you to do, talk to city staff because they can really help you navigate next steps for you.

Um, yeah, they're very, very helpful with that.

And we wish you luck with this project.

Ms.

Pagani, before we move on from this item, can we get everybody to state since everybody voted no, just state your reason?

Yes, state our reasons.

Dr.

Yarbrough, please.

Um I think it changes the whole uh complexion of the back of the house.

Yeah, I think it's just too drastic of a change.

It changes the the intent of the house or the intent of the architecture.

Yep.

My reasons are the same, just the drastic nature of the change to the back of the house.

My I agree with that.

I think it disrupts the flow of the whole looks of the back of the house.

Can we put that view back up again?

That side.

I the same reasons is already stated that I made in my previous comments as well as those of the other um commission members.

Ms.

Shatdock?

Yeah, I I agree with what everybody has said and um underscore my uh emphasis on the work was already done before it got here.

Ms.

Down.

I agree with what Jordan said about the aesthetics and Cooper about the um process not being followed.

And Dr.

Nelson.

Ditto, I think just stylistically.

Thank you.

Thank you very much, everyone.

We're moving on to our next case.

Next case tonight is HPC 4725.

Kim Roberts petitions for certificate of appropriateness for the construction of an accessory structure on the property located at 46 Sherwood Drive in the Sherwood Drive Historic District, Council District 4.

Here we have an aerial view of the property, along with where it's situated in its historic district.

The adjacent property to the west and to the north.

The applicant is proposing to install a metal gazebo on a previously installed patio.

The gazebo is approximately nine feet in diameter and 12 feet in height.

Gazebo will be anchored to the concrete to prevent it from shifting.

Here we have a picture of that gazebo and a site plan.

This should look familiar to most of you, Commission.

That gazebo will be placed here.

So here we have some pictures provided by the applicant of the gazebo.

The applicant did make it clear that it has not been secured to the concrete permanently yet.

This was placed for photos, and uh she is waiting for approval before she anchors it to the concrete.

We have another perspective and a view of the design.

The materials, it will be a metal gazebo.

And here we have our applicable design guidelines for accessory structures.

We did not receive any public comment for this application.

Do you have any questions for city staff?

Any questions what was the part on the application about it was approved, but with greenery?

Yes, excuse me.

Um I should say that uh it was it did go before the zoning board of adjustment um to be approved for an accessory structure in the front yard.

It was approved with a condition that it be um that greenery be placed along it as part of its condition.

Any other questions for city staff?

Thank you, Mr.

O'Leary.

Thank you.

Let me invite the applicant uh to step forward, please, and if you could state your name and address for the record.

Kim Roberts, 46 Sherwood Drive, 35401.

Uh we are asking this is a 1920s um historic gazebo that uh is a wrought iron um very transparent type of gazebo.

Uh the ZBA had approved it with adding greenery.

Uh, what we are looking at doing instead of ivy, we were I thought ivy would look good on it, but uh my landscaper said that we would end up with a nightmare of vines growing into all the other uh bushes and everything.

So we have planted two.

If you look on the front side, we've planted two crepe myrtle trees that will end up growing and covering over the roof like a canopy.

We've actually planted several because we wanted to have kind of an arch going across the bridge and down to the um gazebo.

Thanks for clarifying that.

Okay.

Any other questions from Ms.

Roberts?

Thank you so much.

You're welcome.

Is there anyone here to speak in support of or opposition to this application?

Then let me close the floor to public comment and open the floor to discussion by commission members.

In light of everything else that has been done on this property related to uh the landscaping and um hardscaping.

Uh I find this to be in keeping with with all of the other improvements.

Other comments?

Any points of discussion.

All right.

We have a standing motion to approve HPC 4725.

Kim Roberts petitions for certificate of appropriateness for the construction of an accessory structure on the property located at 46 Sherwood Drive in the Sherwood Drive Historic District, Council District 4.

We shall vote, Dr.

Delson.

Yes.

Oh, Ms.

Stone.

Yes.

Mr.

Shatdock?

Yes.

Mr.

Morris.

Yes.

I vote yes, Mr.

Deeson.

Yes.

Mr.

McCool.

Yes.

Mr.

Elabash?

Yes.

And Dr.

Yarrow?

Yes.

Ms.

Roberts, your application has been approved.

Should anything change, please see city staff before you move forward.

And we wish you good luck with the project.

Do know there will be a final inspection.

All right.

Thank you.

Moving along.

HPC 4825, McCrary Otts petitions for certificate of appropriateness for the construction of an addition on the primary structure on the property located at 403 19th Avenue Unit E in the Druid City Historic District, Council District 1.

This may look familiar to some of you.

It was approved by the Commission in November of 2024.

Work did not begin within the six-month approval period, so this is coming before you again.

So here we have an aerial view of that property.

As well as a view of where that property is located in its historic district.

And the adjacent property to the west.

To the north.

The materials will include stucco to match existing stucco, aluminum clad windows with a light pattern to match existing windows, fiberglass or hardy trim columns, and a metal parapet flashing to match the adjacent.

Here we have another view of that property.

And a view of a site plan where that property, as you can see, it's located pretty much right there in the middle of that building.

So here we have a view of the structure itself that will be enclosed.

We did receive a complaint that work had begun without approval from the HBC after that six-month period had expired, so this is coming to you again as a violation.

Here we have a site plan or excuse me, a uh elevation showing what that will look like.

And then the beginnings of that work.

The material will include stucco to match existing stucco, an aluminum clad window with a light pattern to match the existing windows, fiberglass or hardy trim columns, and a metal parapet flashing to match the adjacent one.

Moving on to replicable design guidelines.

This is for additions.

Additions continued.

Standards for rehab and alteration.

Repairing original features, replacing old features.

Windows and their materials.

Do you have any questions for staff?

Can I ask you quickly about the timeline?

So when their application runs out after six months and no work has begun, are they notified of that or do they approach the city?

They would approach the city.

And so they approach the city to reapply for this and then started work on it?

That's correct.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thanks.

Are there any other questions for staff?

Right.

Thank you, Mr.

O'Leary.

Let me invite the applicant or the applicant's representative to step forward.

And we'll need your name and address for the record, please.

Sure.

McCray Otts.

Um 403 19th Avenue.

Unit E.

Thank you.

So we've seen this before.

Um I'm just kind of curious that you were coming to us, but then work started before you got here.

Is that right?

And it did a stop work order on it.

That's correct.

We got approval back in November in with the six-month time period.

Um the holidays took place.

I had a difficult time getting in touch with all the unit owners to get approval for this work amongst the association.

I finally got approval for that.

Then I talked to a contractor about starting work.

He had to delay work in starting.

We had interior work that we did first with the understanding that before he started the exterior work, what we're looking at today, um, that he would talk to me because I told him we did have a time frame that we had to uh abide by.

He's been great to work with.

However, he did clearly start, and that was um what he was not supposed to do.

So thank you.

That explanation.

Are there any questions for Mr.

Otts?

I do remember this application before, so um I don't have any questions about it.

And we have new commission members.

Anybody have any questions about it?

Thank you very much.

Okay, thank you.

We've received no submitted public comment.

Is there anyone here to speak in support of or opposition to this application?

Then let me close the floor to public comment and open the floor to any discussion by commission members.

So for the new members, we did see this in November, and we had had approved this.

Um there have been no changes on that.

Hearing no discussion.

We have a standing motion to approve HPC 4825, McCrary Otts petitions for certificate of appropriateness for the construction of an addition on the primary structure on the property located at 403 19th Avenue Unit E in the Druid City Historic District, Council District 1.

We shall vote beginning on my left, Dr.

Nelson.

Yes.

Ms.

Stone, yes, Mr.

Shaddock.

Yes.

Mr.

Morris.

Yes.

I vote yes.

Mr.

Deeson.

Yes.

Mr.

McCool.

Yes.

Mr.

Elabash.

Yes.

And Dr.

Yarborough?

Yes.

Mr.

Otz, your application has been approved this evening.

Should anything change as you're moving through the process of building this C City staff before you make any of those changes.

There will be a final inspection, and we wish you luck with your project.

Moving on to our next case tonight, Carrie Wallace petitions for certific.

Excuse me, HPC 4925.

Carrie Wallace petitions for certificate of appropriateness for a design change to the roof on the primary structure on the property located at 8 Sherwood Drive in the Sherwood Drive Historic District, Council District 4.

Here we have an aerial view of the property.

And its situation in the historic district.

The adjacent property to the west.

To the north, and to the east.

And here's an example of the material that they'll be using.

And they'll be going with that weathered wood color.

Right there.

The material of certain teed landmark weathered wood architectural asphalt shingles.

Here's our applicable design guidelines for roofs and their materials.

Do you have any questions for staff?

No questions.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Let me invite the applicant or the applicant's representative to come on up and state your name and address for the record, please.

I'm Kerry Wallace.

Do I give you my address or this address?

My address is 696 when Lake Cove.

Thank you.

Okay.

Um so anything you want to tell us about the application other than what's been presented already.

No, we're just wanting to replace the roof with anyone.

Do we have any questions for Ms.

Wallace?

Well, thank you.

Thank you.

You may have a seat.

There's been no submitted comment.

So is there anyone here to speak in support of or opposition to the application?

Let me close the floor to public comment, open the floor to discussion by the commission members.

We have an existing asphalt three tab three tab asphalt shingle.

We're going to a more architectural asphalt shingle.

We've done this before.

Hearing no discussion.

We have a standing motion to approve HPC 4924.

Carrie Wallace petitions for a certificate of appropriateness for design change to the roof on the primary structure on the property located at 8 Sherwood Drive in the Sherwood Drive Historic District.

Council District 4.

We shall vote, Dr.

Nelson.

Yes.

Ms.

Stone?

Yes.

Mr.

Shatdock?

Yes.

Mr.

Morris?

Yes.

I vote yes, Mr.

Deeson.

Yes.

Mr.

McCool.

Yes.

Mr.

Ellabash?

Yes.

And Dr.

Yarbrough?

Yes.

And Ms.

Wallace, your application has been approved this evening.

Good luck with the project.

There is a final inspection.

Should anything change, talk to city staff before you proceed.

Thank you.

And let the record show that Mr.

Dr.

Yarbrough is recusing himself from this portion of the hearing.

All right, moving on.

HPC 5025, Wayne Yarbrough petitions for a certificate of appropriateness for a design change to the roof on the primary structure on the property located at 5 Buena Vista in the Buena Vista Historic District, Council District 5.

Here we have an aerial view of the property, along with where it's situated in its historic district.

We have a view of that property from the road.

The adjacent property to the southwest.

To the south, and to the north.

The applicant is proposing to remove and replace the existing three-tab shingle roof with the GAF Timberline HDZ Pewter-gray asphalt shingle.

Here we have another view of that property from the road.

We'll show a few elevations here showing the roof toward the rear of the property.

Here are our uh statistics stat sheet for this.

And an example of what those shingles will look like.

The material, those will be the GAF timber line, HDZ, pewter gray asphalt shingles.

Moving on to our applicable design guidelines.

This is for roofs.

And their materials.

We do not receive any public comment.

Any questions for staff?

No questions.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Let me invite the applicant to step forward, please.

And if you don't mind, state your name and address for the record.

My name is Cindy Yarbrough.

Live at Five Buena Vista.

And we petitioned the committee for a new route because ours is leaking, and we're going to upgrade to architectural, which is in other neighbors have the same.

So thank you.

Are there any questions for Ms.

Yarbrough?

That will be all.

Thank you very much.

Is there anyone here to speak in support of or opposition to this application?

Then let me close the floor to public comment.

Open the floor to discussion by Commission members.

Hearing no discussion.

We have a standing motion to approve HPC 5025.

Wayne Yarborough petitions for a certificate of appropriateness for design change to the roof on the primary structure located on the property at five buena vista in the Buena Vista Historic District.

Council District 5.

We shall vote, beginning with Mr.

Elbash.

Yes.

Mr.

McCool.

Yes.

Mr.

Deeson.

Yes.

I vote yes, Mr.

Morris.

Yes.

Mr.

Sheddock.

Yes.

Yep.

Ms.

Stone?

Yes.

And Dr.

Nelson.

So Ms.

Yarrow, your application has been approved.

Should anything change, please see city staff before you proceed.

There will be a final inspection and good luck with the project.

Thank you.

And we'll just wait for Dr.

Yarbrough to return to the hearing.

And Dr.

Yarbrough returns.

Here we have an aerial view of the property.

As well as where it's situated in its historic district.

And the adjacent property to the east and to the south.

Here we have a view of that gazebo.

And moving back to the front elevation of that property, you can see those two chimneys.

And that those will be copper chimney caps.

Moving on to replicable design guidelines, standards for rehabilitation and alteration, repairing original features, and replacing old features and accessory structures.

We did not receive any public comment.

Do you have any questions for staff?

We have none.

Thank you.

Thank you.

May I invite the applicant or the applicant's representative to step forward, please?

And if you could state your name and address for the record.

Thanks.

Ballard 1003 Queen City.

Is there anything else you want the commission to know about your application, Mr.

Ballard?

Well, I'm first open myself up any questions that you guys might have.

I'm sure you all have seen the project.

Um we're rocking along, so fire away if you've got any any questions you'd like to ask me.

Otherwise, I can just kind of update you if you care, or we can just address this specifically.

We have any questions.

It appears we have none.

Thank you very much.

So, yeah, as far as this particular structure, we've looked under it all around that it's not original by any means.

Um, I don't know when it was stuck out there, but it doesn't match the house and is all new lumber and is pretty rotted.

So we're requesting that we take it down.

Um then the chimney caps the uh the chimney had caps on it at some point, they've just blown away.

You can tell where they were attached.

I don't know whether they were copper or not, but I just think copper would look good.

So seems very straightforward.

I'm sorry, it seems very straightforward.

Yeah, yeah.

Well, thank you so much.

You may have a seat.

We've had no submitted comment.

Is there anyone here to speak in support of or opposition to the application?

Then let me close the floor to public comment and open the floor to discussion by commission members.

Very straightforward application.

I just wonder if he could have sold the gazebo to Mr.

Roberts.

Yeah.

Thank you.

All right, hearing no discussion, we have a standing motion to approve HPC 5125, Starship Parton.

Petitions for a certificate of appropriateness for the demolition of an accessory structure and interior, exterior alterations the primary structure on the property located at 1003 Queen City Avenue in the Druid City Historic District, Council District 4.

And we shall vote.

Oh, let's begin with Dr.

Yarbrough.

Yes.

Mr.

Elbash?

Yes.

Mr.

McCool?

Yes.

Mr.

Deeson.

Yes.

I vote yes.

Mr.

Morris.

Yes.

Mr.

Shattuck?

Yes.

Ms.

Stone?

Yes.

And Dr.

Nelson.

Yes.

Your Mr.

Ball, the application has been approved this evening.

And as you know, should anything change, see city staff before you move forward with that.

There is a final inspection, of course, and we wish you luck with your project.

Thank you very much.

That's great.

Just for those, since Mr.

Ballard wasn't at the mic, he mentioned an expedite review about having two trees removed.

Thank you.

And thank you to city staff for working with him.

Thank you very much.

And let the record show that Ms.

Stone is recusing herself from this portion of the hearing.

All right, moving on to our final case tonight, HPC 5225, James Waltman petitions for a certificate of appropriateness for the removal of two trees on the property located at 2007, Maxi Thomas Way, and the Druid City Historic District, Council District 4.

Here we have an aerial view of the property.

As well as where it's situated in its historic district.

And adjacent properties to the north.

And to the west.

The petitioner states that the trees are causing structural damage to the home on that property.

Here we have images of the two trees, one on the right side, one on the left side of the structure.

And a closer view of the proximity of those trees to the structure itself.

Going back to a street view.

Excuse me.

Um those two trees in question here and here.

So here we have a uh home inspector's report uh showing that he believes the trees are causing the damage that you can see in these images.

We have a continuation of that showing the proximity of the trees and the damage.

Moving on to our applicable design guidelines for landscaping and large trees.

We did receive one public comment in opposition to this request.

Do you have any questions for staff?

We do not.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Let me invite the applicant or the applicant's representative to step forward, please.

And if you don't mind uh stating your name and address for the record.

Yes, my name is Jim Waltman, and I live at Three College Park, Tuscaloosa, 35401.

Is there anything else you want the commission to know about this application?

No, I think it's pretty complete, just that the uh the trees um are causing damage to the structure, and um we were just looking for some relief from that.

And you you had a structural engineer review this and that structural report.

We had a home inspection done, and those were his comments, excuse me, and photographs, and we added a couple other photographs that show the hairline cracks and the the stair step cracks in the brick as a result of the trees.

Are there any other questions from Mr.

Waltman?

Well, thank you very much.

Thank you.

We've received one submitted public comment.

Is there anyone here to speak in support of or opposition to this application?

Then let me close the floor to public comment and open the floor to discussion by commission members.

So we have a structural report here with some photographs explaining what's happening to the houses as a result of those trees.

They're very close to the structure.

It's unfortunate they're big, they're big trees, and we do take, as those of us, you know, we know we take the removal of trees very seriously.

Are there any other thoughts about this?

I it as stated in the guidelines, there's uh point that says not to locate trees too close to structures, so they damage sidewalks, driveways, and and and building structures.

So this is directly in conflict with that.

Um these trees uh should not have ever been allowed to grow this large this close.

So in my opinion, it's there they are causing this damage to this structure, and we'll continue to do so.

Any other any other comments?

All right, hearing none, we have a standing motion to approve HPC 5225.

James Waltman petitions petitions for a certificate of appropriateness for the removal of two trees on the property located at 2007 Maxie Thomas Way in the Druid City Historic District, Council District 4.

And let us vote.

Dr.

Nelson?

Yes.

Mr.

Shatdock?

Yes.

Mr.

Morris?

Yes.

I vote yes, Mr.

Deeson.

Yes.

Mr.

McCool?

Yes.

Mr.

Alabash?

Yes.

And Dr.

Yarrow?

Yes.

So Mr.

Waltman, your application has been approved this evening.

Should anything else change?

Please see city staff before you move forward.

There will be a final inspection to ensure compliance with what we've approved this evening.

We wish you luck with your project and thank you.

Moving on tonight, we've had eight expedited review approvals since the previous HPC meeting.

And thank you, city staff, for that.