Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Historic Preservation Roundup topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Tuscaloosa preservation commission approves multiple exterior projects, denies one paint request
Summary
On April 9 the Tuscaloosa Historic Preservation Commission acted on seven certificates of appropriateness and a withdrawal request: it approved exterior alterations, signs, windows replacements, a front‑yard koi pond and a major renovation, denied a partial foundation‑painting request, and allowed one case to be withdrawn.
The Tuscaloosa Historic Preservation Commission on April 9 considered a slate of historic‑district applications and took action on multiple certificate of appropriateness requests, a withdrawal and procedural items.
The commission approved exterior alterations ranging from window replacements and signage to a front‑yard koi pond and a larger rehabilitation project, denied a request to paint most of a house foundation, and voted to allow one case to be withdrawn. The meeting also approved meeting synopses for February and March 2025 and the commission reported four expedited historic approvals since the previous meeting.
Why this matters: these routine COA actions determine what property owners in multiple local historic districts may do to building exteriors, porches and signage; approvals set conditions for later permitting and inspections while the denied application preserves existing unpainted masonry on a landmarked house.
Key decisions and details (Votes at a glance): • Withdrawal — HPC‑17‑25: The commission voted to allow the applicant to withdraw the case after notice was received following mailings. Outcome: withdrawal approved (vote recorded as unanimous yes).
• Ken and Vicki Grodner — HPC‑21‑25 (27 The Downs, Downs Historic District; exterior alteration): The commission approved a request to remove the bottom half of a bathroom window (from 37 by 30.5 inches to 18.5 by 30.5 inches), add cedar shake where the lower sash is removed, and install wood shutters. Outcome: approved (unanimous yes).
• Robert D. Walker — HPC‑22‑25 (801 Queen City Avenue, Druid City Historic District; paint previously unpainted brick): The commission denied a request to paint three facades of mixed/patch brick to match existing painted brick columns; staff said the applicant implied the paint would be white but no color was formally specified in the application. Commissioners cited concerns about harmony and the permanence of painting brick when leaving the north (Eighth Street) side unpainted. Outcome: denied (vote recorded as majority no).
• Kim Roberts — HPC‑23‑25 (46 Sherwood Drive, Sherwood Drive Historic District; front‑yard path, stairs and koi pond): The commission approved installation of stamped red brick‑pattern concrete paths (3–8 feet wide), a wooden bridge to span tree roots, replacement of railroad‑tie gravel stairs with stamped concrete, a koi pond with a 15–18 foot irregular border, stone lining and flagstone surround, and accent lighting (string and uplighting). Outcome: approved (unanimous yes).
• E. C. Lambert Brown — HPC‑24‑25 (651 Twentieth Avenue, Druid City Historic District; sign, awning and door): The commission approved replacing existing steel double doors with fiberglass doors with windows, installing a 48 by 80‑inch canvas awning (20‑inch attachment tapering to 6 inches away from the facade) and a 72 by 28‑inch polymetal sign. Outcome: approved (unanimous yes).
• Ed and Lisa Delinski — HPC‑25‑25 (1100 Myrtlewood Drive, Myrtlewood Historic District; material change to windows): The commission approved replacement of 10 deteriorated wood window sashes with aluminum‑clad wood sashes (no change in light pattern or size; trims and frames to remain wood); one attic window will receive a new screen. Outcome: approved (unanimous yes).
• J. Boatwright Specialty Group — HPC‑26‑25 (1316 Riverside Drive, Capelwood Historic District; windows, exterior alterations and porch replacement): The commission approved a multi‑part rehabilitation including stucco repair, replacement of siding with Hardie board, painting, removal of window units and installation of consistent composite windows (many changing to a 4‑over‑4 light pattern based on original windows), replacement and lowering of a front porch (4‑inch adjustment to correct drainage), replacement of doors, and assorted site and electrical cleanup. Outcome: approved (unanimous yes).
Procedural actions: The commission dispensed with reading the synopses for February and March 2025 and approved the synopses; the chair asked commissioners about conflicts of interest (none reported) and staff confirmed proper public notice had been provided.
Other business: staff reported four historic expedited approvals since the previous meeting; no additional detail was provided on those cases during the hearing.
Recorded motions and tallies are listed below. Applicants were reminded that final inspections by city staff are required to confirm compliance with approved certificates and that any changes must be coordinated with planning staff before construction.
