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.

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.

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.

And this is the side along 17th Avenue.

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.

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

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.

The materials are raw iron.

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

We received one public comment in regards to this case.

Are there any questions for staff?

I have a couple of quick questions.

So for the driveway gate, the wooden sides remain.

We're just taking out the wooden uh part where the gate will go.

Is that correct?

I believe the wooden existing wooden fence would be replaced with the approved fence from last month, but the applicant confirmed from that.

And then do we know how and we'll invite you up, Ms.

Purna?

Um, thank you so much.

Good.

Because this might be a question for you as well, just about how then the gates are um connected to the fence themselves.

We don't have that in the application, right?

Not in a drawing, but the applicant confirmed that they would be connected to the thank you.

Any other questions for city staff?

Thank you very much.

Let me invite the applicant to step up to the podium, please.

And if you wouldn't mind, could you state your name and address for the record?

Sure.

Janelle Purnia, 1702 University Boulevard.

Great.

So let's go ahead.

Tell us about uh what happens.

Let's put the image up of the driveway side.

And just so we're clear on what we have.

Okay.

There.

Um, we have dogs in our backyard that are completely contained within that wooden fence.

So that wooden gate will remain in place.

And the that gate opens outward.

The duh the wrought iron gate that will be built where those metal poles are gonna also open toward the street.

So all that will open when we need to get in and out of the driveway, and then it will all be closed and will remain closed when not in use.

Okay.

So how is the metal gate then?

It's just connected to those poles there where the no, the wrought iron is gonna go all the way up to the edge where they where the gate actually begins.

And then yeah, that was my question.

Yes, so running along your driveway and then connecting.

Thank you so much.

Okay.

The only other question I had was the person who is building this for us is here.

So if you have any questions or need any clarification, Matt's here.

Sure.

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

Matthew Simmons, 31 Windsor Drive.

Well, thank you for joining us.

Um, these are just a few little technical questions, so we have a full view of what this is going to look like.

And then with the gates for the stairs on university side and on the 17th Avenue side, how are you?

Are you they're gonna open towards the house?

So they're not gonna sidewalk at all.

Right, and they connect directly to the fence.

Okay.

No bump in or anything like that.

Just straight line.

Say again.

Is it gonna be just like a straight line or is there a little bump in or um so the fence is along the retainer wall, and all the gates go back four or five feet if you see there?

The retainer wall is along the sidewalk, and that goes back maybe four or five feet, and then the gate will be right at the top of there.

So you'll have a little bit of you'll have some uh fencing going right that direction.

Yeah.

Oops, I'm sorry, so it's a continuous line of all the way around the property.

Thank you.

Do we have any other questions for the applicant and the applicant's representative?

Well, thank you so much.

You may have a seat.

Thank you.

We've received one public comment.

Um just asking for further information on some items that don't really pertain to historic preservation commission or the city.

Um, 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.

Hearing very little in the way of discussion.

We have a standing motion to approve HPC 5625.

Lewis Pernilla petitions for 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.

We shall vote.

Let's begin on my right, Dr.

Yarbrough.

Yes.

I vote yes, Mr.

Morris.

Yes, Mr.

McCool.

Yes.

And Dr.

Nelson?

Yes.

Ms.

Pernilla, your application has been approved this evening.

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

Um there will be a final inspection.

Um good luck with your project.

So our next case is HPC 6425, where William Griffith petitions for a certificate of appropriateness for the construction of an accessory structure on the property located at 20 Audubon Place in the Audubon Place Historic District, Council District 4.

So this is an aerial view of the property.

And where it's situated in its historic district.

Here's a view of the property from the street.

The adjacent property to the north and to the east.

So the applicant is proposing the construction of a new pavilion, two pergolas, terraces, and steps in the rear yard of the primary structure.

The proposed pavilion will be 743 square feet tall.

I mean square feet total and 20 feet 21 feet tall.

The pavilion will contain a storage room, kitchenette, seating area, fireplace, bathroom, and sauna.

A separate dining wooden pergola will be constructed adjacent to the proposed pavilion on the side facing the primary structure, and on the opposite side of the pavilion, there will be a wooden separate grilling pergola.

A six-foot wooden fence in the interior of the yard will be removed to construct new flagstone steps that lead to the pavilion, and the proposed steps and terraces will match the existing flaxstone landscaping material and extend to cover most of the pavilion and birth and both pergolas.

In addition to this, a storage room and a pool equipment enclosure will be constructed with concrete floors, and the proposed pool equipment enclosure will be made of three-foot metal post with four metal panel grids that will be painted black.

Three raised planter beds will be added to the southern end of the rear yard, and the planter beds will be two feet tall and be made of wood and painted black and painted with a dark bronze opaque state.

So here is the existing site plan of the primary structure in the rear yard.

And the proposed site plan showing the pavilion, the two pergolas, the planter beds, and the pool equipment enclosure.

And here is the two site plans side by side.

I'll stay on this for a little bit.

Okay.

Here's the elevations of the pool and equipment enclosure.

The existing and proposed elevations from the street of the primary structure and accessory structure.

Here are the project materials for the exterior alterations.

The materials would be wood board and batten, white and dark bronze opaque stain, masonry chimney, textured stucco, aluminum clad wood windows, fiber glass shingles, wood posts, beams and rafters, flag stone flooring and pavers, metal post and panel grids, black paint, and wood planters.

Here are the design guidelines for accessory buildings for a landscape and plant materials for sidewalks and paving for roofs in their appropriate materials.

We received no public comment on this case.

Are there any questions for staff?

We have none.

Thank you.

Thank you.

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

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

Bill Griffith 20 Audubon place.

Evans Fitz, I'll live next door at 20 Audubon Plays.

All right.

Thank you.

Um 19, I'm sorry.

Yeah, you're 20.

Are we sure on the addresses now?

For the record.

What else would you like the uh commission to know about your project?

Well, I think staff did a great job explaining the project to the committee.

Overall, just we want to we want to make sure that what we build is very consistent with our current home and and the neighborhood.

Obviously, we're not asking for any deviations from guidelines that's that's out there today.

We're gonna stick as close as we can to you know natural materials where possible and just maintain the current look of the home that we're in and of the neighborhood.

Thank you.

Do we have questions for the applicant?

Well, that was easy.

Um you may have a seat.

If something comes up, we may bring you back again, but thank you so much.

Sure, thank you.

We've received no public comments submitted on this application.

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.

A large project, but everything aligns with the design guidelines in a very nice way.

Hearing no discussion.

We have a standing motion to approve HPC 6425.

William Griffith petitions for certificate of appropriateness for the construction of an accessory structure on the property located at 20 Audubon Place in the Audubon Place Historic District.

Council District 4.

We shall vote beginning on my left, Dr.

Nelson.

Yes.

Mr.

McCool.

Yes.

Mr.

Morris?

Yes.

I vote yes.

And Dr.

Yarbaugh?

Yes.

Mr.

Griffith, your uh application has been approved this evening.

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

There will be a final inspection.

And good luck with your project.

So our next case is HPC 6525, where Chaz Gunter petitions for a certificate of appropriateness for the installation of windows on the primary structure on the property located at 1506 street and the 13th Street Historic District.

Council District 4.

So here's our aerial view of the property.

And where it's located in its historic district.

The adjacent property to the west.

To the south, and to the east.

And now the petitioner proposes to add two wood windows to the rear facade of the primary structure.

Both windows will be made of wood, and they will be non-functional.

The applicant states that the proposed windows will restore the existing design rid of them to the rear of the primary structure.

And this was first submitted in October 25 when it came in as a violation that the work had already been done, but this was the existing rear facade of the house.

And then this is what it looks like now with those windows removed.

This is the proposed image, adding those two windows back with the same light pattern and same material as the added windows.

The windows will be five feet apart, and then the two proposed windows will be about 12 inches apart.

Here is a spec sheet for the new windows reflecting the same light pattern.

The materials are wood windows.

Here are the design guidelines for rehabilitation and alteration for windows and their appropriate materials.

But the pet or the applicant did submit slides for the commission.

Are there any questions for staff before that?

No questions right now.

So will the applicant be showing the slides?

Yes.

Great.

All right, thank you.

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

And the mic's a little high for you, so you may need to bend it down.

Yes.

And just state your name and address for the record, please.

Hi, I'm Rebecca Lynch.

I'm the owner at 1506 13th Street.

Jazz Gunnar, 1506 13th Street.

Thank you very much.

Oh Ms.

Litz, so you brought some slides in to show us?

I I did.

I wasn't, I I normally live out of state.

This is a second residence for me, and I wasn't present last time, but I understood there was feedback and concern, and so I wanted to present some additional slides to share some background and hopefully explain some of those concerns and alleviate some of those concerns if that's all right with you.

That's great.

Thank you.

Okay.

Yep.

Do I do it?

Okay.

Okay.

So I think so there are two revision, there are two things we're requesting.

One is that there is on the west side of the home facing the driveway, there was one small window that was removed.

And so we are requesting that that stays as is.

And I have pictures of the before and after.

And then the second is related to the pictures that were just shown, which is the modifications in the rear of the home, including remove.

So it would be adding back two windows essentially.

There were three that were removed and it would be adding back two.

Okay, I think we've gone through all of this.

Um yeah, we pretty much talked through a lot of this.

Um as I understand, in the October meeting, there were concerns that this was a drastic change to the home.

So I just wanted to show some picture.

I purchased this home in May of this year, so I just did some side-by-sides of the listing photo and after, um, just to show that there really is no change uh to the front of the home.

The west side of the home, uh, so on the left, you see the before uh there are there were six large windows, and and it's important to note that when I purchased the home, um, there was neglect in in all of the windows.

So every window in the home was sealed shut.

It was a safety and egress issue.

So that was part of the reason for initiating the projects and expediting the project.

Um, so there you can see there's one small window there on on the left-hand side.

Um, that was removed.

Uh I've gone back through historical records of the home and historical photos online, and somewhere around at least three owners ago, there was uh renovations done to the in inside of the home.

And so all of the false windows that I show here, um, there's like bathrooms or closets behind, so a previous owner had blocked them off.

So that small window was a false non-functional window, and you can see from the the inset pictures on the bottom left of the slide.

Um, they had like painted plywood black and and put it behind the windows.

And if I miss uh speak on any of the materials or anything, I hope Chaz will correct me.

Um, but that false window was behind this mirror uh in the bathroom.

So uh and in the vanity.

Thank you.

Um so I am requesting that we can leave this wall as is with the um the window removed as it is on the right side of this particular slide.

I I think the um it's my perception that the visual impact on this is is minimal.

And then um, this is the rear of the home.

So there are um there were one, two, three, four, seven.

Um, some and windows behind.

I count that right.

Um, so there are all of them again were sealed shut.

Five of these were false windows.

So there are um there is a master bathroom and a master closet from a again, a previous owner that was remodeled.

So all five that you see on the right have that black painted plywood behind one of them was broken.

Again, they were all sealed shut.

So we replaced the one functional window that's to the far left.

We left the small one alone, and then as you can see on the right hand side, uh, we replaced two of the windows.

Now those two windows were false windows, but this uh former renovation project again from a former owner blocked off all egress from um the back of the home.

So what we did was um these are pictures from the inside.

Uh and so you can see on the top left the um where the red arrow is, the all those false windows were behind that wall.

So what what we did was we knocked out um part of the wall there in that center photo, and on the right is what it looks like today.

So those two windows that were put back um restored safe egress to the home.

And then um the other windows were behind the wall and on the bottom left hand of the slide, they were behind that closet wall.

Uh so where we were, you can see on the top left uh where we are now is on the bottom left.

Um I understand from the October meeting that it was unacceptable to the commission to leave as is in its current state because it was too much of a drastic change.

So what we are proposing then is to put two um false or non-functional windows back to the home as pictured on the bottom right.

And um, the actual position of those windows may vary just given that there's a bathroom and a closet behind there, and they won't be we won't be able to make them functioning windows.

Um so that that position may vary, but that is our um because leaving it as is was unacceptable to the commission.

This is our our current proposal.

Um these are just um some pictures that I put in um just for reference.

I think we've talked about this already.

One thing to note is that the back of the house is not visible from the street or the adjacent streets, and there is a um high wall behind the home.

So really the only way you can actually see there's one like one sliver you could see from uh a corner, um, but you have to really go in the backyard to even see this part of the home.

Transpassing.

Yeah, yeah, you have to trespass on the property essentially to um to see this this part of the home.

So with that, um, I wanted to just see if if you guys had any changes and and I I flew in just for this meeting.

So I I hope that if these are not acceptable, that you can make a recommendation um that we can you know we can walk away with something that's acceptable.

The commission.

Thank you for putting all that work into your presentation.

We really appreciate it.

Can you uh one thing I I black clarification on I understand that when you do construction, there can be some changes in exact placement by inches or whatever.

I'm unclear on where you're putting those windows exactly.

Can we go back to so there's this we've got five feet between the existing windows and the proposed with 12 inches in between the two windows you're putting back in the illustration you presented later?

It doesn't look like five feet between the two existing and the two you're putting back.

That so I just want to know what were what are we maintaining here?

What are we going to do?

This doesn't look like five feet between those two between the the two groups, but are we keeping is the 12 inches between the two new ones?

I'm gonna leave that.

Okay, so what we have to put the windows back where they were before because the hole because that's where the hole was.

So it's gonna go back to the phone.

Well, there were three there.

You're putting back two of the three.

Yeah, we so we'll still have to find the two holes that were there originally.

Okay.

Okay.

I just was confused on the numbers here.

Yeah, that's about accurate.

Yeah, this doesn't really show us too much since it looks like they were kind of spray painted on.

Yeah.

Um, yeah, so that's Chaz is the contractor with the me.

Um, the other picture was me with a copy and paste.

Yeah, next time that was my best to represent with the caveat that it, you know, it we did a good job.

It gives it a better visual sense.

I just want to make sure we were clear.

Yes.

Go ahead, Mr.

McCool.

Yeah, can we go back to your construction picture?

Where you sure?

Yeah.

Absolutely.

Just so I'm clear.

Thank you.

I may need some help getting back if that's okay.

So I like the one on the outside where you had a more that showed all three window frames, right?

And I just want to make sure I'm clear.

Yeah, I think you want to see the this one.

Is this the one you're towards the end, I think.

Oh, that I think it's the one after this.

Yeah, the construction photo.

Yeah, this one right here.

So these are the three window frames.

So you're you're gonna try to put back into these two on the right.

Two on the right.

Two on the left.

Yeah, the two on the right.

Yeah.

I think that was maybe about five feet.

I was gonna say, so it's it's a little different than your your proposed drawing.

The five feet is to the left of the four.

From the not between the two that are going back.

It was showing.

Yeah, I was going by what the corner of the house.

Right.

So we've got one, two, three, four, and a space in between.

Yeah.

I think the most salient point to me is that they are going back in the same location they were.

Exactly.

That's correct.

So how you see it now.

Yeah.

Are there any other questions for the applicant or the applicant's representative?

Thank you very much.

You may have a seat.

Thank you.

We've had no submitted public 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.

I just want to say how much I appreciate you being here and putting this presentation together.

Um having clear information and being able to have this dialogue is very important to our ability to consider all the various potential variables for the case.

Thank you.

Any further comments or discussion points.

We have a standing motion to approve HPC 6525.

Chaz Gunter petitions for certificate of appropriateness for the installation of windows on the primary structure on the property located at 1506 13th Street in the 13th Street Historic District.

Council District 4, we shall vote.

Beginning on my right, please, Dr.

Yarrow.

Yes.

I vote yes, Mr.

Morris.

Yes.

Mr.

McCool.

Yes.

And Dr.

Nelson.

Yes.

Thank you.

So Ms.

Lynch, Mr.

Gunter, your application has been approved this evening.

Um, please see city staff before you move forward with this.

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

Thank you.

Thank you very much, Abraham.

And we appreciate you coming tonight.

Thanks again.

So our next case is HPC 6625 or Kelly Fitz petitions for a certificate of appropriateness for modifications to a previously approved certificate of appropriateness on the property located at 625 at Queen City Avenue and the Druid City Historic District, Council District 4.

So here's an aerial view of the property.

And where it's situated in its historic district.

The adjacent property to the south.

And to the north.

So this proposal is coming in as a violation.

And these alterations were previously approved last November.

So November 2024.

And the changes will be done on all four elevations.

So on the west elevation, the petitioner is proposing to change the previously approved door to a one over one single pane window.

On the north, they're petitioning to change the previously approved light pattern and size of two windows.

On the west, they're changing the windows from four-pane windows to six-pane windows.

On the south, they're changing from a previously approved light pattern to one window.

On the east elevation, they're proposing to change the light pattern of several windows.

Um similar to what was previously previously approved.

So this was submitted in the original submission last year of how the house looked historic.

It's um from the 1950s.

And this is the existing west elevation without any modifications done to it.

On the left, you'll see the previously approved west elevation.

So approved November of last year with a door that they're proposing to change into a window with a one over one light pattern.

And that's the elevation now.

This is the existing north elevation without any modifications.

On the left is the previously approved north elevation with these two windows changing in size to these six-pane windows.

And that's the elevation now.

This is the existing south elevation without any modifications.

On the left is the previously approved south, and they're changing this one window from a two over one light pattern to one over one.

That's how it looks like now.

On the east elevation, this is the existing without any modifications.

On the left is the previously approved east, they're changing the location of the windows at the top with and maintaining the light pattern.

And on the bottom, they're changing the size and the light pattern of these two adjoining windows.

And that's how it looks like now.

This is the spec sheet for the windows they'll be using.

The materials are aluminum cloud wood windows.

Here are the design guidelines for rehabilitation and alteration for windows and their appropriate materials.

Reusived no public comment on this case.

Are there any questions for staff?

So the window in the front that we're considering today is a single pane, correct?

Right.

The window on the west elevation?

So that it was previously approved as a door and they're changing it to a window.

But single pane.

Yes.

Okay.

And then, oh gosh, no, I've forgotten my other question for you.

Oh, can we can we just go back to the slide of a the photo of the front facade as it is now?

Perfect, thank you.

Are there any other questions for city staff?

Thank you so much.

Let me invite the applicant or the afflicts representative to come up, please.

And state your name and address for the record.

Kelly Fitz, I am at 19 Audubon Place.

Thank you.

So how did we get here where we have changes done that haven't been approved yet?

Um I am not really the construction manager on this.

Um, and so the owner has been dealing directly with the contractor.

Um so I have been asked to come step back in and see if we can resolve this.

Well, it's good, it's good to deal with you.

Do let them know though, going forward if anything changes, they need to talk to city staff before they uh proceed because otherwise we'll be asking you to come back again.

Um I do have a it's a question I'm having trouble.

I went by the house just to look at the change from that door to that window.

And I don't have a real problem with that so much because doing a little digging around and asking people who know the history of this house well.

Um I found out that that door was put in it probably in the 70s, 60s, 70s, when the building was made into apartments, and so it would have been a window there prior to that.

Um I'm just wondering the trim around the window, it seems it goes up a little taller than the windows in the bay section there.

I don't know if that's an issue or not.

I've just making a comment.

Um I I did notice that as well, and I do agree that um a door was never original to this house on that facade.

It was only added when they divided it up in into apartments.

Um my preference would be uh, and I don't know that it's a really big deal is to lower that window to line up with the other windows on that projecting bay, and I think the facade would look balanced and and and better there.

Are there other questions for Ms.

Fitz?

Is there anything else you'd like to tell us about this?

Um I mean that that window does it's a little bit off.

I think it's the same height as the other ones, but for some reason it got pushed up a little bit.

Also, the trim's a little wider.

I don't know, I can't quite tell.

But I did notice it when I went by the house the other day.

But we'll make it look right by lowering it if that's agreeable.

Any other questions?

Kelly, do you think the trouble is the height or the width?

Is the width the same?

Um I think they matched up the width on the one they you know, the ones above.

It looks similar to the one over the front door.

I mean, it I haven't gone over there and measured the exact width, but that's kind of what I'm perceiving is that instead of matching the bay windows on the bottom, they matched it to the top.

Can we go back now to the existing?

So Dr.

Nelson, you're right, it is a narrower width than the the window above it, which in the drawing, the elevation shows that they're both the same width.

But as you just pointed out, it does match the window.

It appears to match with the window above the front door.

Right.

There is a tie that way.

Right.

I I don't know if it's the head of the window that's too high.

I think the sill is too high.

The window itself is not as tall as the bay windows.

Can we go back to the proposed um elevation?

In that in that elevation, I I didn't have the width of it quite right, but I lowered the sill of it.

And it may end up somewhere in between, depending on how tall if that window actually is the same height as the as the ones in the bay.

It may be more similar to the one on the right, far right.

I have a feeling that's what they matched is the one on the far right.

I couldn't quite hear that.

Ms.

Fitz, could you just say that again into the into the mic a little bit?

I think they may have matched the if if the new window is not the same height as the windows that are in the bay.

Um I think it may be due to they probably matched it to the window on the far um south side there that you can see it's still is a little bit higher than the window in the bay.

And that was existing.

All right.

So yeah, because of the drawing makes that proposed window the same width, looks like the same dimensions as the window right above it.

And that's what we're looking at here as the proposal for what we will approve.

Let's go back to the existing one more time.

I just need this for clarification.

It doesn't look like the existing that we have here.

It's a different width than the window above it.

So we are looking at, if may I if I may ask city staff, we are the proposal is the drawing, and that's what we're being asked to approve.

And the photograph is just showing the existing state of affairs, right?

So if we were to approve the drawing, and this window is not quite the right width, this would need to be changed, correct?

That's correct.

So we went out as staff and took these photos to supplement the presentation.

What you would be approving is the elevation drawings submitted.

Okay.

That's thank you so much for that.

Yeah.

So let's go back to the elevation drawings then.

I I mean I I think that we need to make sure that we know exactly what what the expectation is.

And thus far I've heard that it would be this with moving the window up to match the head height of the bay.

Right.

Is that correct?

So it would be visually the same height as the bay, right?

Right, and the width of the window above it.

That's what we're seeing here in this drawing.

Is everybody good on that?

Okay.

Yeah.

And I and the owner of this property, um, you know, he's putting a lot of effort into this.

And I know he wants this to look right.

So I know I know, I know.

Well, the the house is coming along really nicely.

So much has been done.

You know, it's it's really great, and we really appreciate it.

So we're just we're just doing our job here.

Thank you so much for the all the the clarification and the work you're doing on this.

Are there any other questions for Ms.

Fitz?

Well, thank you so much.

We've had no public comments submitted.

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.

We didn't even talk about the other sides of the house, but I really have no problems with the proposed changes.

You know, if they had come to us initially like that, I think we would have approved it.

Um they seem reasonable and appropriate.

So I have I have no problem with the other this other sides.

I just want to make sure we're clear on the front.

Um, everybody's good.

Well, we have a standing motion to approve HPC 6625.

Kelly Fitz petitions for certificate of appropriateness for modifications to a previously approved certificate of appropriateness on the property located at 625 Queen City Avenue in the Druid City Historic District, Council District 4.

I would like to add here that we did talk about the windows as being the correct height and um uh line up with the bay windows as well, and the width is the window as depicted here.

Uh same as the window above it.

We shall vote, beginning on my right, please, Dr.

Yarbrough.

Uh yes.

I vote yes, Mr.

Morris.

Yes.

Mr.

McCool.

Yes.

And Dr.

Nelson.

So Ms.

Fitz, your application has been approved.

Good luck with your project.

And should anything change, please come to us and um, we wish you well with everything.

Thank you.

So our next case is HPC 6725 for Chandler Overcash, petitions for a certificate of appropriateness for exterior alterations to the primary structure and accessory structure on the proper on the property located at 1104 Myrtlewood Drive in the Myrtle Wood Historic District, Council District 4.

So here's an aerial view of that property and where it's situated in its historic district.

Here's a view of that property from the street.

The adjacent property to the west and to the east.

So the petitioner is proposing to enclose the existing side screened porch and also to repair the deteriorated brick banding and add a non-slit paver service to the front porch, as well as extend the driveway to meet the primary structure.

And in the rear yard, the petitioner is proposing to construct an addition to the primary structure consisting of conditioned spaces and a screened in porch.

Additionally, the petitioner is proposing adding a new concrete patio and kitchen in the rear yard.

The petitioner is proposing to construct posts and attach them to the existing garage with the same materials as the existing accessory structure.

And the existing two doors of the garage are proposed to be replaced with a single metal garage door.

The petitioner proposes to straighten the existing fence with no change in design or materials.

So here is a survey of the property showing the setbacks.

And here is the site plan with majority of the work being in three places.

Here in the front.

That's the screen and porch.

And the front with the front porch in the back with the additions and to the side of the existing garage.

Here's an image showing that the addition is in line with the adjacent property and residence steps.

And here is a view of the front of the property.

And the driveway leading up to the garage, as you can see, the two doors, and the piece of mulch that's in between the house and the driveway.

And here's a diagram showing all of the changes that would be made to the front, screening in the porch, the repairs to the front porch with the banding and the pavers, and then adding in that one garage door instead of the two on the accessory structure, and expanding that concrete to meet the house.

Here's a view of the rear yard in the rear of the house.

And the proposed additions would be the two rooms that are enclosed, and then the screen and the screen and um rear porch with the steps with the landscaping that connects to the driveway in the back.

Here's another view of the rear yard that shows the garage, and the additions to the garage with the post lighting and an outdoor kitchen.

Here is a spec sheet for the garage door for the doors, and for the windows.

The materials would be a steel garage door, fiber glass doors, aluminum cloud wood windows, hardy board siding, brick banding and base, porcelain/slash natural stone pavers, peak gravel concrete, composite shutters, asphalt shingles, fiberglass mesh, wood framing, pre-finished metal and glass lighting, composite slash prefinished metal outdoor kitchen, a metal grill, and a natural stone countertop.

Here are the design guidelines for additions.

For ducks, porches, and railings.

For landscape materials, and for sidewalks and paving for windows and their appropriate materials.

And for roofs and their appropriate materials.

We have received no public comment on this case.

Are there any questions for stock?

We have none.

Look at the very first photograph you had, the watercolor drawing of the house.

Were there some optional optional?

Yes, the option to replace the windows, yeah.

Um they're not sure if they want to replace the windows in the front since they're not adding anything to the front, but there is an option to replace in the petitioner has provided spec sheets for the windows if they were to replace the windows in the front and commission.

This would be a separate application if they were to do that at this time.

You're just looking at the items discussed in the presentation.

All right, so we're we're not discussing this tonight.

That's correct.

Thank you.

Any other questions for staff?

Thank you.

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

And if you wouldn't mind stating your name and address for the record, please.

Hey, Chanley Rovercash.

Um, my address is 13538 Vineyard Way, Northport, Alabama.

And thank you, members of the commission, for having me tonight.

Well, thank you.

Is there anything else you'd like us to know about the project?

Um yeah, there'd probably be a couple things.

This is a a little bit of a mixed bag project where there's a little bit happening all over, some of it is maintenance, which is the soldier.

Um sorry, the brick row lock at the porch is falling off, and it's a kind of a high slip tile.

Um we mentioned the concrete to the right, matching it with P gravel concrete that matches.

One thing that I don't think was addressed it that may be shown on the site plan is there's a there's a low brick wall down the right side of the driveway.

It's it's not original to the property.

Um, and right now there's it's a really narrow driveway.

They've requested to remove it.

They've spoken to the neighbor who's not in opposition to it, hence they're not here tonight.

Um, we'd like that to be removed and then just manage that with sod and you know, repairing to repairing the grass there.

Um overall, though, we've tried to take a light approach, keeping everything to the rear that we can, and then um the outdoor kitchen kind of keeping it low and not trying to increase the scale of it.

Um, kind of all over the place, but if y'all have any questions, I'd love to answer them.

And please excuse the tag for the drawing being right in the middle of the screen porch.

I don't know why that's there.

It's okay.

Are there any questions for Mr.

Overcash?

There's a lot going on, but I appreciate the fact that it's very clear so staff can verify what the scope is.

Yeah.

Now, one thing I I think I was a little caught off guard was the owner actually would like to replace the windows, but it's a it's a budget situation.

So they didn't want to get this all priced before they had approval.

If the budget comes in good, the windows that are there are in okay shape for for old wood windows, but they would love to kind of go ahead and roll with it and replace them.

The one thing I would say if if we could consider it would be that we're not changing the size or location of any windows, that they are an aluminum clad wood window equal to, I believe we said link in, or did we say a different window?

I believe you said one serial windows.

Okay, Windsor.

Is could it be considered that they had the option to but not commit to it, or do we need to postpone that portion?

We go sit a staff.

It was our understanding that the the windows weren't moving forward at this time.

Um I guess are what are the materials of the existing windows on the home?

Is it a material change that they're proposing?

It is, they're all wood, and they would go to aluminum clad wood.

I typically we do these things as separate, you know.

We have the all the materials, we see the existing, we see the spec sheets, all that kind of stuff.

We're sort of doing it on the fly without really seeing pictures of those front windows.

I don't know how do the other we can table that.

I don't I don't mind coming back.

I'm not trying to catch anybody off guard.

Let's do that just so that we keep it really clean because one of the issues too is to make sure city staff has enough material evidence that they know what is happening, so when they do the final inspection, they know what's what's been going on.

Well, thank you for working with us.

Yeah, no, that's great.

I I do have one question that just so everything on the rear of the home is is new construction.

Is that right?

Yeah, there's a little bit of a bold line right there, and it's new from their back, which is uh you know, bathroom a foyer and the screen port.

Yep, everything to the left of that is new.

It's currently just a flat brick wall.

And uh can I see uh the sketch of what it that's gonna look like?

So we're going from brick to siding.

We're gonna try to keep a brick-based and try to match the existing the best we can.

Okay.

Okay.

I heard existing port.

Closing in.

So there's a side screen porch if you go to the front, off to the side, they want to enclose that.

Are there any other questions for Mr.

Overcash?

Are there any photos of the existing rear?

There we go.

I'd like to make one request.

It's a little bit of a nuance, which is since there's only five members here tonight, and um if I know the the code says if it's denied, we have to wait six months.

Um I wonder if we could say, hey, if this was denied, could we have the opportunity?

If there was a single no vote, then we're denied.

Could we have the opportunity to try and resolve it and come back at the first available month and not wait the full six month duration?

It would definitely if you want to get the windows included and get kind of one full approval, um, continuing tonight would be an option, and we can get kind of get that all cleaned up and we can get you on the January.

I'd rather wait on the windows.

I'm have no problem tabling the windows.

Okay.

So if we just table all the windows and focus on, but if if for some reason there was a no out of the five of you, I'd rather not wait six months.

Um my client's not here, he's out of town, but out of respect for his timeline it it would be hard to wait six months if there was a no vote tonight.

Does the code allow us to come back in the next month or if you were denied tonight um for what's been presented and you made substantial changes that we deemed as staff were substantial enough to bring back before the commission, you could get on the next available adjustments.

Sorry, I just wanted to clarify that.

Yes, and I think we're getting a little ahead of ourselves on this because we haven't we haven't asked you questions, we haven't discussed it.

Um everything you've presented is very clear and appears, in my opinion, to fit with the design guidelines.

So if we were heading down a road where it looks like there might be a denial, we can certainly talk about some things about continuing.

Thank if that helps you.

Yes.

Okay.

Thank you.

Are there any other questions for Mr.

Overcash?

We have no more questions for you.

Have a seat.

And if if something comes up, we'll bring you back to the podium.

There has been no submitted public comment.

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

I will close the floor to public comment and open the floor to discussion by commission members.

A lot of little things going on here, but they all seem to be kind of sensitively addressed.

Hearing no discussion by commission members.

We have a standing motion to approve HPC 6725, Chandler Overcash petitions for certificate of appropriateness for exterior alterations to the primary structure and accessory structure on the property located at 1104 Myrtlewood Drive in the Myrtle Wood Historic District.

Council District 4.

Uh, let's vote.

Let's begin on my left, Dr.

Nelson.

Yes.

Mr.

McCool.

Yes.

Mr.

Morris, yes.

I vote yes, and Dr.

Yarbrough?

Yes.

Mr.

Overcash, your application has been approved this evening.

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

We wish you luck with your project, and we'll see you back when you decide what you want to do with the windows.

Thank you.

Thank you.

So our last case tonight is HPC 6825, where Cali Fitz is petitioning for a certificate of appropriateness for the construction of a pool and a fence in the rear yard of the property located at 19 Pinehurst in the Pinehurst Historic District, Council District 4.

Here's an aerial view of that property.

And where it's situated in its historic district.

The adjacent property to the east.

To the north.

And to the south.

So the petitioner proposes to rework the rear yard to construct a pool with a surrounding six-foot fence and new brick stairs.

And the area surrounding the pool will be fenced in.

To the north of the proposed pool, the petitioner will preserve the existing brick fountain and add a two-foot tall decorative iron fence on top of the existing wall.

To the west, the petitioner proposes adding a six-foot-tall iron fence in front of the existing wall.

And to the east and south, a decorative fence is proposed to be placed on top of the existing wall to total six feet.

The petitioner proposes adding new brick steps to the pool entrance to the south along a six-foot decorative iron gate with a lock.

The petitioner also proposes to repair the existing brick retaining walls and to remove the existing brick brick paths and patio.

They're also adding a two-foot tall lower brick retaining wall to serve as planting beds.

And they're also going proposing to add additional four feet tall planting beds to the western end of the rear yard that will stretch along the walls and the fencing.

So here's that existing site plan.

And they're removing the brick patio and walkways.

That's the retaining wall.

And the existing brick fountain.

And how it looks like facing the primary structure from that rear fountain.

Here is the proposed site plan, as you can see the pool with the fence surrounding the gates, the new steps to be added.

And here's the site plan side by side.

This is an image of the proposed two-foot tall fence on top of the existing wall and fountain to total six feet.

The wall facing North Pinehurst.

The wall and fence on the top of the wall, which will also be six feet tall.

The fence on front in the front of the existing wall.

And here is some inspiration picture sent in by the petitioner for the steps in the pool.

Spec sheets for the coping of the pool.

The materials are limestone pool coping, concrete pool, iron fence, brick retaining wall, and stairs.

Here are the design guidelines for rehabilitation and alteration.

For landscape and plant materials.

For pools and saunas.

For fences and walls, and their appropriate materials.

Can we go back to the image that shows the um wrought iron fence with the gate?

This is more of a question, I think, for the applicant.

The gate image.

The maybe you want to call it the pickets in that wrought iron look a lot closer together.

I'm just wondering if that's a photo shop issue rather than a um.

So I'll I will ask the applicant or the applicant's representative about that.

Thank you.

Commission, just while you're reviewing this one tonight, uh, staff, we do have some concerns about the proposed fence meeting the requirements for a pool.

Um, particularly this area.

We do require that a fence is non-scalable by a child.

Um, so if this was approved tonight, it would possibly need ZBA approval for a variance.

Um, so I just wanted to make you aware of that.

Um you know what if the applicant wanted to work with us, of course.

Um, they could continue and come back to you with something that would meet the zoning as well.

So just want to make sure that was on the record.

Yeah, so it will absolutely need to go to ZBA.

Right.

You said it might need ZBA approval, but it will go to ZBA for approval.

So the applicant that came up right before the meeting.

So I I think there's some more discussion to have with the applicant and staff to confirm that ZBA is required.

They're talking about some of the topography on the site, might make it non-scalable by a child, but we do have some concerns about the proposed fence, meaning the zoning ordinance, but of course you all don't have to consider the the zoning ordinance in your decision.

I just want that to be on the record.

Right.

Okay, and let me just ask city staff since you know about the zoning ordinances.

So the fence in front of us right now, just the plain wrought iron, is okay according to zoning ordinances, right?

Is this where we have this where it's potentially scalable is an issue.

So I'm I'm making the question a lot more complicated.

I think it needs to be.

But as we look at this application, we're approving the pool, the fence.

Are we approving?

Oh, I don't know what I'm asking you.

If the non-scalable part of the fence is okay, it just moves through, but they may have to come back to us because of the possible scalable portions of the fence.

Is that what you're saying?

It sounds like what's being presented is what has the concerns regarding the scalability of the fence.

And if that's not resolved through ZBA, then we'll have to look at a revised thing again application.

All right.

Got it.

Thank you.

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

And thank you, City staff for working and bringing this information to us.

Appreciate it.

If you could state your name and address for the record, please.

Uh Carrie Fitz, 211 14th Street.

Thank you.

Kelly Fitz.

This is the first time we've been here together.

And we need the address too.

Um I'm at 19 Audubon Place.

Thank you very much.

So let's talk about that gate.

Since I brought that up, that looks like a Photoshop issue.

Let me talk about it.

Can we have that image back up?

Yes, it it's a Photoshop issue.

Whatever we do, um, you know, the the wrought arm picket spacings um will meet life safety, you know, to prevent children from getting their heads stuck, you know, scaling the fence um and the and the and the gate will match it.

Um but it is a photoshop issue.

Okay, so um what I I'm gonna call them pickets.

The pickets for the fence will be the same distance apart as the pickets for the gate portion.

Correct.

That's the most important part, and but it'll have that same shape and that same height.

Yes.

All right.

And I might also add that um I believe the photo that they're saying saying might be scalable is also a photoshop issue that we will have a non-scalable six-foot tall fence all the way across the top of that um existing brick wall.

So if you're looking at the left side over here, that will be non-scalable.

I think I can't tell if we have stepped that last section up so that it is raised up to the required six feet height.

Um, but that is the intention is to make all of this um at least six feet according to code.

So right now, as it's represented, that back part of the fence is the same height as the rest of the fence.

The back part that you see along the retaining wall.

Yes.

Should be seen as a it's a six-foot fence on top of the retaining wall.

So it will be above.

We're gonna have two different heights here.

All right, so it is definitely a looks like a photoshop issue here with what we're looking at.

So the the wrought iron fence, just to be clear, is gonna be six feet.

Yes.

They're all gonna be six feet, and if we have a grade change kind of at that corner where the two fences meet, we will make sure that the six-foot height is maintained in order to make it non-scalable.

So let me just ask city staff.

Is for can she mark on the um the thing in the drawer just kind of a little bit to sketch that so we had that on the record.

I just want to make sure you guys have enough information that if this should be approved, that when there's a final inspection, you know what you're looking at.

Right.

And so this is kind of what we're working with.

Is it does the application did state it would be a two-foot decorative iron fence on the top of some, and that's kind of where our can our concern is.

Um that's the two foot s at the fountain side.

And this wall, this was uh a concern for us too.

Um but Ms.

Fitz did come up and express that it's a pretty steep drop off off the back end of the property, and a kid's probably not gonna make it up that wall.

So these are kind of zoning discussions to have outside of the meeting.

Um I think for the commission you should review the the application as presented in front of you, and right you know, staff we can review the zoning requirements.

Yeah, because I would I think with this, you know, whether it's a steep drop-off or not, some it's it's a zoning thing, you guys deal with that.

We're looking at the design guidelines and what's appropriate with that.

If it doesn't meet ZBA, you guys are coming back, right?

But I do want to make sure that we're clear on what we're looking at.

I feel like between the view looking southeast back toward the house, and then the view that looks kind of toward north that one that shows a six-foot high fence on top of that wall, and then you go to the one that looks down north Pinehurst.

You show no, the other one.

Um the one from inside the yard looking, yes.

That shows that fence being short.

So that would be hard to resolve as presented because it's presented in two different manners on top of that one.

Are you talking about the the one that's on top of the retaining wall?

Yeah, the left side of it.

Can we go to the plan, please?

So the plan is keyed.

Uh I believe it is number is it eleven?

Nine.

Let's see, 14, 11, 10.

If we can use the little marker to indicate the points we're talking about.

Yeah, can I show you?

Can I draw on this?

Please do.

Alrighty.

If I can, how do I draw with it?

Finger, finger.

All right.

So I thought the key said that that was nine.

Yeah, so it's number nine.

You can see it up there.

It's number nine, this this little dot right there.

Okay, just somebody mark it.

Yeah.

So that says Well, mark the fence part.

We can see the number, but it's so there's a there's a six-foot fence on top of the retaining wall there, there's a six-foot fence on top of the retaining wall there.

There's a six-foot gate there, and then from this point all the way down here, it will be six feet, non-scalable, and the same thing from here to here, six feet non-scalable.

And and when we say six feet, when we say six feet non-scalable, we mean from the outside of the fence.

So if the outside of the property fence line is um taller than the grassy area on the inside of the property, we will have a six-foot-tall fence so that anybody coming onto the property and wanting to get into the pool area would have to scale at least a six-foot tall fence.

So then across the back, though, because that's also a way of entering the property.

Is that right where the the fountain is?

Well, or is the fence going all the way down?

And we need to find out.

We were proposing to actually put a fence around that little triangular-shaped area.

Where's that on the plot?

And you mark on the yeah, we were right here.

Yes.

And so ultimately, I'm thinking we may not even need that little two-foot tall fence on the brick wall.

But um, design-wise, I think it would look better if we didn't have that two-foot tall fence on or that fence on top of the fountain wall.

I'm and I'm just thinking about procedure-wise with all of this stuff going on there.

But there is about um from the base of that fountain wall, if you climb over it, it drops down about six, eight feet, it kind of goes at a slope, but it's it's a very steep drop.

But my thought is if we could if we can, if the city would let us fence in the little triangular area, we that would be the perimeter of the pool enclosure.

So that red line, let me just uh I was making a note here.

The red line is in this proposal or it's not or yes, it's part of this proposal.

And that's we're talking about six feet wrought iron, regardless of what's going on underneath, whether there's brick wall, we got six feet all the way around the form.

All right.

So then what you're saying is that that um where the the brick fountain is, you may choose not to, or are you asking not to do it?

You're just saying you're changing.

We may choose not to do it if the city agrees that it's not necessary if we have a six-foot perimeter all the way up into that triangular area.

I mean, I think we can work with that as HPC and just say that you know if it's not is not needed, then we approve not having it.

We made numerous clarifications related to ZBA with setbacks and things like that.

Yep.

All right.

Are there other questions for the applicants?

Is there anything else you would like to tell us?

I would think of.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Have a seat.

There's been no public comments submitted.

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

All right, let me close the floor to public comment and let's open it up to discussion by the commission.

I was confused a little bit with the with the images, but to me this plan is very clear.

And um, and so in light of the comment and discussion related to the um the two-foot uh fence uh on top of the wall, and that being somewhat tied to the to the ZBA requirement.

Uh the applicant's request to omit that if acceptable to CBA um is is okay with me and and a motion being set forth in that manner.

Um additionally, I I agree with your uh comment related to the spacing of the pickets and all of that being uniform across the entire fence and the gates.

Well put any other comments or questions, folks.

There's much clearer seeing this on the plan, so thank you for that.

All right.

So we have a standing motion to approve.

Let me get this right.

HPC 6825, Kelly Fitz petitions for certificate of appropriateness for the construction of a pool and fence in the rear yard on the property located at 19 Pinehurst in the Pinehurst Historic District, Council District 4, with the note that the pickets of the gate will match the spacing of the fence, that all of the perimeter fence will be six feet in height, and that um it it depends on ZBA.

We approve having that um two-foot fence or not having the two-foot fence across the brook fountain, depending on what ZBA determines.

We got it.

Voting, beginning on my right, please.

Yes.

I vote yes, Mr.

Morris.

Yes, Mr.

McCool.

Yes, and Dr.

Nelson.

Yes.

Your application has been approved tonight.

Should anything change, please see city staff.

Um there will be a final inspection, and good luck with your project.

Thank you so much.

Thank you.

What are other business?

We're voting to elect the 2026 chair and vice chair.

Well, that came as a I nominate Kathy Bagani's chair.

A second.

Thank you.

I guess we vote, right?

Wait a minute.

Do I have to vote?

Because we need five affirmative votes.

We can wait.

Do we need five affirmative votes?

Yes.

Give us a minute to look.

I guess I can, but I wouldn't find it.

That's true.

We're not gonna vote.

Well, then, all right.

Well then just I don't know.

Are you saying you're unwilling to vote?

No, I was gonna abstain.

I mean, not unwilling, but normally we normally abstain from our um votes related to officers.

You know what, Mr.

Cheshire?

I will vote.

And we'll see how this we'll see how this shakes out.

Either that or right, so the mo the motion is to have me serve as chair for 2026.

We've had a uh and we've had a second on that one.

We will vote Dr.

Nelson.

Yes, Mr.

McCool.

Yes, Mr.

Morris.

Yes.

Dr.

Yarbrough?

Yes.

And I will vote yes as needed.

So that motion has passed.

Now we talk about the vice chair.

I would like to nominate Mr.

Morris as vice chair.

Do I have a second?

I'll second.

We have a motion and a second.

We shall vote.

Beginning on my right, please, Dr.

Yarbrough.

Yes.

I vote yes.

Mr.

Morris.

Another reluctant yes.

All right, Mr.

McCool.

Yes.

And Dr.

Nelson.

Yes.

All right.

So we have that set for 2026.

We have the team in place.

We want everybody else there too.

Since our last meeting, we've had five historic expedited review approvals.

Thank you.

And thank you, everyone, um, for all the work you've done tonight.