Meeting colors

OPENPUBLICA · PUBLIC MEETING RECORD

Record of Proceedings

Tuscaloosa Historic Preservation Commission Meeting - December 10, 2025

City Council Meetings — Wednesday, December 10, 2025

BodyTuscaloosa, Alabama

SessionCity Council Meetings

DateWednesday, December 10, 2025

StatusFILED

Video Record

0:00 / 1:20:26

Transcript — VerbatimClick a timed line to jump · ⧉ to share it

0:34

Good evening, everyone.

0:38

We are getting ready to start.

0:40

Sorry about that, we're all excited.

0:42

Right.

0:43

Um here we are today.

0:45

Welcome to tonight's um meeting of the Tuscusa Historic Preservation Commission.

0:52

Today's date is December 10th, 2025, and the time is 5 o'clock p.m.

0:58

I'm Kathy Pagani.

0:59

I am the chair of the commission.

1:01

I would like to invite my fellow commission members to introduce themselves to you, beginning on my right, please.

1:07

Wayne Yarbrough.

1:08

Jordan Morris.

1:10

Matt McCool, David Nelson.

1:13

Thank you.

1:13

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

1:17

Hudson Chesho, the Associate City Attorney, Miss Leota Coyne, Principal Planner, and Ms.

1:23

Cynthia DeSantiago Planner.

1:26

Um, I'd like to go over the purpose of the Historic Preservation Commission and a little bit about our procedure tonight before we move on to our first application.

1:34

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

1:46

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.

1:56

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

2:02

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.

2:15

Any approval of an application requires five affirmative votes.

2:20

If the certificate is approved, this is important.

2:23

Please be aware that there will be a final inspection by city staff of approved applications to ensure compliance with what was approved by the commission tonight.

2:33

This is a public hearing.

2:47

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

2:55

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

3:09

City staff will begin by introducing the application.

3:16

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

4:15

Hearing none, we will move on.

4:22

Yes, it has.

4:23

Thank you very much.

4:24

And let's move on to our first application this evening.

4:33

So our first case is HPC 5625, where Lise Perniette is petitioning for a certificate of appropriateness for the construction of a fence on the property located at 1702 University Boulevard in the Pinehurst Historic District, Council District 4.

4:50

And this is continued from the November 2025 meeting.

5:00

And where it's situated in its historic district.

5:08

The adjacent property to the west.

5:12

To the east, and to the south.

5:18

So the petitioner was approved at the November 2012 HPC meeting for the installation of a fence to be no longer or taller than six feet.

5:27

The approved fence or the approved gates for the approved fence were continued to this December 2025 meeting.

5:33

And the petitioner is proposing to install four wrought iron gates along the front property lines of University Boulevard and along 17th Avenue for each driveway and the step entrances.

5:45

So the proposed gate for the driveway along university will be about three and a half feet tall and seven feet wide.

5:51

And this gate will be set back to the edge of the stone wall and open towards the primary structure.

5:57

And the gate for the walkway steps on the front of the primary structure along University will be four feet tall, five and a half feet wide, and the gate will be placed at the top of the steps and again open towards the structure, the primary structure.

6:11

The proposed gate for the walkway steps leading to the front porch off of 17th Avenue will be about five feet tall and ten and a half feet wide.

6:19

And this gate will be located at the top of the first set of steps and open towards the primary structure.

6:25

And then the gate for the driveway in the rear of the primary structure along 17th Avenue will be about six feet tall and 16 feet wide.

6:33

And this gate will open towards 17th Avenue, and the applicant confirmed that it would not block the sidewalk area.

6:40

So this is a a drawing of what that proposed fence would look like along university.

6:47

And these are the drawings of the gate that's along the driveway that's on the driveway along university, no more than four feet tall and about seven feet wide.

6:56

And these are the front steps leading up to the entrance of the primary structure along university, no more than four feet tall and about five feet wide.

7:06

And this is the side along 17th Avenue.

7:12

And this would be the gate for the steps along 17th Avenue, about five feet wide and about 10 feet or five feet tall, 10 feet wide.

7:25

And this is the existing wooden rear gate for the rear driveway.

7:30

And the gate would be placed along these two metal poles, and it would be six feet tall and about 16 and a half feet wide.

7:43

The materials are raw iron.

7:46

Here are the design guidelines for fences and walls and their appropriate materials.

7:52

We received one public comment in regards to this case.

7:55

Are there any questions for staff?

Discussion Breakdown — Share of Meeting

Historic Preservation█████████████████████████████████████████████64%

Zoning Regulations████████████████████29%

Procedural█████7%

Summary of Proceedings

Tuscaloosa Historic Preservation Commission Meeting - December 10, 2025

The Tuscaloosa Historic Preservation Commission held a public hearing on December 10, 2025, to review applications for Certificates of Appropriateness within various historic districts. Commissioners reviewed six cases involving fences, accessory structures, window installations, and pool enclosures. While all applications received unanimous support from the board regarding historic preservation guidelines, staff noted specific zoning compliance issues regarding a pool fence in the final case that require Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) review.

Consent Calendar

Approvals were processed for all six applications (HPC 5625, HPC 6425, HPC 6525, HPC 6625, HPC 6725, and HPC 6825) via standing motion following public comment periods and commission discussion.

Public Comments & Testimony

HPC 5625 (1702 University Boulevard): One public comment was received regarding items unrelated to historic preservation; no specific opposition or support was voiced. The chair closed the floor to public comment after acknowledging the submission.
HPC 6425 (20 Audubon Place): No public comments were submitted.
HPC 6525 (1506 13th Street): No public comments were submitted.
HPC 6625 (625 Queen City Avenue): No public comments were submitted.
HPC 6725 (1104 Myrtlewood Drive): No public comments were submitted.
HPC 6825 (19 Pinehurst): No public comments were submitted.

Discussion Items

HPC 5625 (Fence and Gates): Commission members clarified that the wrought iron gates would be connected directly to the existing/retained wooden fence and open toward the structure. The applicant confirmed the gates would not block the sidewalk.
HPC 6425 (Accessory Structure): The applicant affirmed the project would strictly adhere to design guidelines, utilizing natural materials to match the existing home and neighborhood character.
HPC 6525 (Windows): The applicant presented slides to address previous concerns regarding the removal of false windows. The applicant expressed that the windows replaced were non-functional and that the removal was due to safety/egress issues caused by previous owners blocking them. The applicant requested the approval of adding back two non-functional windows to restore the historic look, noting the rear of the home is not visible from the street. Commissioners clarified that the new windows would be returned to the original locations (five feet from the existing left window) and were discussed as non-functional to satisfy safety concerns.
HPC 6625 (Modifications to Previously Approved Work): Discussing a violation where changes were made without prior approval, the commission addressed discrepancies in window placement on the west elevation. Commissioners expressed concern that the installed window did not match the height of the bay windows but matched the window above it. City staff clarified that the commission would approve based on the submitted elevation drawing, which depicted the correct dimensions, and staff would ensure the physical installation matches the drawing.
HPC 6725 (Exterior Alterations): The applicant requested to table the portion of the application regarding window replacement due to budget constraints, requesting approval for structural alterations first. The applicant also requested that if the application were denied, they be allowed to return to the next available meeting rather than waiting the standard six-month cooling-off period. Staff clarified that if substantial changes were made to resolve a denial, the applicant could return at the next available meeting, and the commission agreed to approve the non-window work while keeping the window replacement as a future item.
HPC 6825 (Pool and Fence): City staff raised a concern that the proposed pool fence might be scalable by a child, potentially requiring a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA). The applicant clarified that images showing uneven spacing were Photoshop errors; the actual construction will have uniform picket spacing and a consistent six-foot non-scalable height from the ground up. The applicant proposed omitting a two-foot decorative fence on top of a brick fountain wall if ZBA determines the steep grade of the property makes the perimeter fence sufficient. The commission accepted these clarifications.
Electoral Business: The commission held a vote to elect officers for 2026. Kathy Pagani was elected Chair and Jordan Morris was elected Vice-Chair.

Key Outcomes

HPC 5625: Approved unanimously (5-0). Application for a fence and four wrought iron gates at 1702 University Boulevard. Conditions include final staff inspection for compliance.
HPC 6425: Approved unanimously (5-0). Application for a pavilion, pergolas, and terraces at 20 Audubon Place. Conditions include final staff inspection.
HPC 6525: Approved unanimously (5-0). Application to install two wood windows at 1506 13th Street. Conditions include final staff inspection.
HPC 6625: Approved unanimously (5-0) with the explicit understanding that the physical installation must match the submitted elevation drawings (matching the bay window height). Conditions include final staff inspection.
HPC 6725: Approved unanimously (5-0) for exterior alterations, excluding window replacement which was tabled for future consideration. Conditions include final staff inspection.
HPC 6825: Approved unanimously (5-0) with specific conditions: the fence must be six feet tall and non-scalable with uniform picket spacing, and the requirement for a two-foot fence on the fountain wall is contingent on ZBA approval (ZBA approval is required for the pool enclosure). Conditions include final staff inspection.
2026 Election Results: Kathy Pagani (Chair) and Jordan Morris (Vice-Chair) elected by unanimous vote of the commission members present.

Meeting Transcript

Good evening, everyone. We are getting ready to start. Sorry about that, we're all excited. Right. Um here we are today. Welcome to tonight's um meeting of the Tuscusa Historic Preservation Commission. Today's date is December 10th, 2025, and the time is 5 o'clock p.m. I'm Kathy Pagani. I am the chair of the commission. I would like to invite my fellow commission members to introduce themselves to you, beginning on my right, please. Wayne Yarbrough. Jordan Morris. Matt McCool, David Nelson. Thank you. And joining us from city staff this evening, we have Mr. Hudson Chesho, the Associate City Attorney, Miss Leota Coyne, Principal Planner, and Ms. Cynthia DeSantiago Planner. Um, I'd like to go over the purpose of the Historic Preservation Commission and a little bit about our procedure tonight before we move on to our first application. The general purpose of the Historic Preservation Commission is that we serve to preserve and protect the buildings, sites, and structures of historic significance 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, this is important. Please be aware that there will be a final inspection by city staff of approved applications to ensure compliance with what was approved by the commission tonight. This is a public hearing. 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 their case, for the public to make their views known about the project, and for the commission members to gather relevant facts about the application before making its decision. City staff will begin by introducing the application. The commissioners will then have an opportunity to ask the applicant questions about the case. Hearing none, we will move on. Yes, it has. Thank you very much. And let's move on to our first application this evening. So our first case is HPC 5625, where Lise Perniette is petitioning for a certificate of appropriateness for the construction of a fence on the property located at 1702 University Boulevard in the Pinehurst Historic District, Council District 4. And this is continued from the November 2025 meeting. And where it's situated in its historic district. The adjacent property to the west. To the east, and to the south. So the petitioner was approved at the November 2012 HPC meeting for the installation of a fence to be no longer or taller than six feet. The approved fence or the approved gates for the approved fence were continued to this December 2025 meeting. And the petitioner is proposing to install four wrought iron gates along the front property lines of University Boulevard and along 17th Avenue for each driveway and the step entrances. So the proposed gate for the driveway along university will be about three and a half feet tall and seven feet wide. And this gate will be set back to the edge of the stone wall and open towards the primary structure. And the gate for the walkway steps on the front of the primary structure along University will be four feet tall, five and a half feet wide, and the gate will be placed at the top of the steps and again open towards the structure, the primary structure. The proposed gate for the walkway steps leading to the front porch off of 17th Avenue will be about five feet tall and ten and a half feet wide. And this gate will be located at the top of the first set of steps and open towards the primary structure. And then the gate for the driveway in the rear of the primary structure along 17th Avenue will be about six feet tall and 16 feet wide. And this gate will open towards 17th Avenue, and the applicant confirmed that it would not block the sidewalk area. So this is a a drawing of what that proposed fence would look like along university.

SUMMARIZED BY OPENPUBLICA AI

TRANSCRIPT VIA PUBLIC VIDEO
openpublica.com