Historic Zoning Commission - Regular Meeting

Okay, I'll go ahead and call us to order. If you want to do our roll call, please, Shelby. Cliff McCormick, Piper Stromat, Brandon Panganibben, present. Todd Morgan, John Cavitt, Cassie Courtourtney, Nathan Bird, Matt McDonald, present. Skip Pond, present. Okay, if you could do our swearing in for us, please. If you plan to speak, if you'll please just stand and raise your right hand.

Do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony you're giving today will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? So, help you God. Thank you.

All right, let the record reflect that Cliff McCormack has now entered the meeting and uh I'll go over our rules of procedure this morning. Uh the order of business and first of all we we are live streaming this morning. I want to remind everyone for commissioners, please use your microphone so everyone can hear and if you come up to the podium I think the mic is live and everything's being recorded online. So, the order of business for hearing COA cases will be as follows. This morning, each case will have a staff presentation, an applicant presentation of no more than 10 minutes, followed by comments by others for or against the project for five minutes total, after which the applicant will have a time for rebuttal of no more than five minutes, and then the commission members will discuss the case and make a motion. A certificate of appropriateness will be issued within a week of this hearing. If you defer your case or if you have conditional items to bring back before the commission, you must contact staff and ask to be added to the agenda for the next meeting. You will not automatically be added to the agenda. If you plan to speak, you must be sworn in and sign in when you come up to the podium, please. There's a laser pointer on the podium. If you need to point out anything on screen, it's there for your convenience. If you would like to defer your case to be heard at a later date, a deferral must be requested prior to the statement of the case's motion. If you leave the meeting room, we ask that you please exit the wooden doors before speaking or talking on your cell phone. All construction work must meet the certificate of appropriateness and design guidelines as approved by this commission or staff. If plans change, a new application will be required. If work is not started within six months of issue date, a new COA will need to be issued. A COA is not a building permit or a land disturbing permit. Please contact the land disturbing office or the building permit office prior to starting your project. The COA must be

posted in a visible location or on file on the property until the project is complete. Applicants are respectfully requested to ensure that they have submitted the required application and supporting documents prior to this meeting and to adhere to the time limits as previously explained. Board members are requested to limit questions and comments on the case to only those within the purview of this board. Code setback variance and zoning issues are not within the purview of the commission and will and will have to be addressed by the applicant with the appropriate personnel within the city. Reminder again, this meeting is being recorded. Next, we need to approve our minutes from last month's meeting. If commission has had a chance to review those, I'll take a motion to approve them.

So moved. Moved by Cliff. Do we have a second? Second. Seconded by Matt. All in favor? I. All right, the minutes are approved. We'll move into old business, please, Cassie.

All right, we will get started this morning. Um, under old business. And here is a quick overview of the staff reviews that were conducted since we last met. We'll move into our first old business case. So this is case HZ 2554 at 203 Evening Side Drive in the Fer Place neighborhood. It is a historic structure circa 1900. The proposed project is new openings uh deck railing and material change. Uh this case came before you all back in 2022. So here is an aerial of the property and then the property within the FGR place overlay the property photos neighboring property photos and then the application information provided by the applicant. So here is the some additional context of the neighborhood and then the front elevation changes. You want to change a single window on the left side to a triple window that mimics the original one to the right of the front door. Single window that is removed will relocate to the left elevation. New window will be woodclad simulated divided light. Item two, change the dormer materials from asbestous sighting to real cedar shake. Uh item three, remove vinyl shutters from all windows and replace shutter on dormer only with wooden operable style with dogs. And item four, replace the existing metal chimney cap with a clay cap. Here is the sandborn showing the original front porch of the property. Uh, and then the east elevation changes. So again, replace that metal chimney cap, change the dormer materials. Add two panel glass patio door to the breakfast room, the wall to the left of the front door, and add two small windows in the master bedroom on the right rear. So you can see the existing and proposed rear elevation changes. Again, change that dormer material from asbestous siding to real cedar shake. Remove the 1960s railing and replace with wood ballusters and 6x6 wood columns. And

then the left elevation changes. The dormer materials. A single window will be relocated from the front. Moves to the side. Remove the 1960s railing. Replace with wood ballusters and 6x6 wood columns. And exchange the center window position with right window position. And then some applicants of craftsman bungalows that were provided by uh the applicant. And the relevant ferplace guidelines. So, we're looking at 5B, entrances, porches, and steps. 5C, windows, and doors, and 5E, materials. So, item B, entrances, porches, and steps. Number three, original porch materials should be preserved or replaced when beyond repair. Such materials include wood, terracotta, tile, slate, brick, marble, stone, and stucco. Other materials may be substituted for these when it is not economically feasible. The applicant is proposing to remove the later metal porch ballastrade and columns and replace them with wooden columns and a ballastrade. Item C, windows and doors. Number two, existing window and door openings and hardware including window sash, glass, lentils, sills, archetraes, shutters, doors, pediments, hood, steps, transom, sidelights, and all hardware should be retained and repaired if possible. The applicant is proposing to remove vinyl shutters and reinstall wood and operable shutters on the dorm only. And item six, new window and door opening should not be introduced. The applicant is proposing to install multiple new door and window openings. The applicant is proposing a new front window on the front elevation that was previously an open porch and French doors on the existing porch on the front elevation. Applicant is proposing two new windows on the east elevation at the rear and one new window on the south elevation at the rear. And then item E for materials number one original building materials should be retained. The applicant's proposing to install cedar shake siding on the existing dormer. Applicant provided examples from a period appropriate home catalog showing the cedar shake sighting as a relevant material. The home catalog also shows a clay chimney cap. The applicant is proposing to replace the metal chimney cap with with a clay cap.

Item four, replacement. Wood sighting should be consistent with the original size, direction, and lap dimension. Diagonal sighting should not be used. Vertical sighting should not be used. Original wall shingles should be maintained where possible or replaced with a compatible material. The applicant is proposing to install cedar shake sighting on the existing dormer. Again, the applicant provided examples from a period appropriate home catalog showing the Cedar Shake sighting as a relevant material. We'll just have the applicants presentation. If you could just state your name and address for the record, please. I'm trying to do think that presentation the same presentation that was approved in 22. The only thing that's changed is there's one less person moving into it. So that's kind of what stalled the original construction and ready to get it going. you guys have any questions here.

Thank you so much. Um, also let the record reflect that Todd Morgan has entered the meeting. Um, we'll move into community con comments and comments by other persons. I do want to note that we did receive a letter of opposition. Um, but if you would like to speak, please uh come forward and state your name and address for the record. Eric Smith 209 just down the street. You've got my letter of opposition. I won't read through it. Um I just feel over here today because 90 plus% of this proposal is against our guidelines here to encourage you to strictly enforce our guidelines. Um the guidelines has done a great job just reiterating page 13 new doors and window openings um the original size shape and materials of windows and doors should be preserved or replaced. Um page 14 showing new windows and door openings should not be introduced and then also page 14 details additional architectural details should not be introduced exists um page 15 materials original building materials brick stone terracotta should be retained so I'm not against shakes yes it's historically appropriate it just exists nowhere else in this So, as we like an element with French doors and we like an element of shake cer siding, we're kind of confusing historical elements on this home. We're making a large change with this window in the front. Supposed to be increasing the sizes of the windows. We're not supposed to be moving windows around and we're not supposed to be putting in new windows. Just please enforce our guidelines which many of this project

Thank you. 1512 South Street and the reason I'll come back around to that. But this is a question that was asked and answered. We had discussion about this and agreed it was acceptable and not everyone voted in this never change in favor of this. Think about this house. Let me speak to my relationship to this property. Um the owner who sold to the applicant was my client. I represented her in the sale. So I know this house intimately and very question of the three windows on the left side of the front elevation that's closed in porch was absolutely done sometime in the shop catalog and Joe were the owners prior to my client and they purchased them in 1974 did not look like There's so much obvious invite you to come into fireplace and show me another craftsman home that has a triple window set because there isn't. So, so that piece alone I don't think we changed anything about this when I wrote motion for approval. I think we let it go just like it was. And then life happened and the couldn't get started

and I was just looking for you to say I stand behind what I said before and allow him to move forward. But there's so little or accurate about this house that these alterations reveal in the direction historical and that's crazy. This is a dumpy little house and what's proposed is going to improve it. So you got your first delivery window and I think you got at least one more.

Okay. Thank you. Do we have any other community comments or comments by other persons? Okay. Fabulous. the applicant. You have an opportunity to respond if you'd like.

Yeah, I think uh just kind of speak on what John said, pull up a couple of slides. So, um right there. So, I'm just trying to make it symmetrical. Now, when it was that porch to the left hand side was existing that was originally filled in was not very well for that space. It's really poorly. So, I think it's going to be more historically appropriate if I had the exact same window and I think it'll make it more use. I think it makes sense. These are going to be the two items that are most that window and then the next slide. with the French door. I think basically like there are so many examples of these French doors right next to Mr. Smith's house. There's also Can you pull the neighborhood. I think what you guys sent out neighborhood. So, yes, that house just to the right. Mr. Smith's house right above

the neighborhood so many kindify the property beyond that I have a party house for the whole neighborhood and I had somebody playing acoustic in the front yard that I have one opposition who didn't oppose it in 22 when it was approved but now What I'm trying to do is just go forward.

Great. Thank you. Okay, we can move to commission discussion. So this is the COA that was approved and I believe the application was exactly the same.

I have a question. Yeah, my question was just precedent on this, which is, you know, if something's been already approved, what's the protocol for it to come back to the board after not starting with some questions we have now? What's the protocol when something has been previously approved? I mean, it's almost like it's a restart in general, correct? Or do we keep this record as as a Yeah. And you know, if we weren't three years out, you know, it may have been just kind of a staff reissuance, but it's been so delayed that it needed to come back before the board. It's not it's not part of it's not part of our record. I mean it's been presented as a point point of information. I mean you can move to make it part of the record if you think it's on the case but I mean applicants are allowed to bring

do we want do we want to make a motion I mean everyone's seen it do we want to make a motion to enter it into the We have it moved. Do we have a second? Todd second it. All in favor? Okay. So, we'll make that part of the record. All right. So, just to be clear, this is the ex the exact same proposal that was already pro approved under the exact same guidelines. No change to the guidelines too. Um, it appears. So, I have I have no issue with this approving this then in the same way that we approved it in 2022.

Would you like to make a motion? I make a motion to approve case HD 2554 at 203 Evening Side Drive as submitted pursuant to the Chattanooga City Code Chapter 10 article 2 section 1015E and pursuant to the further place design guidelines. We have a second. All in favor? Any opposed? Okay, motion carries. Thank you.

Thank you. All right, great. So, we'll move to our next old business case. This is HZ 2496 at 4425 Synica Avenue in the St. Elmo neighborhood. It is a historic structure circa 1930. The proposed project is um it was a stop work order for windows that were replaced without a COA. Uh and we'll have the applicant clarify their current request. the historic zoning history for the property. In 2023, there were inkind repairs of the existing sighting that were approved. Here's an aerial of the property and the property within the St. Elmo historic district overlay. Here's some property photos, more property photos and neighboring property photos. and the application information provided by the applicant. So, a letter provided back in 2024 from the applicant explaining the situation. Picturing of neighboring properties with similar windows and then a map showing the work that window world has done in St. Elmo. Picture of the front of the house with some of those windows replaced and then the window specifications, the vinyl windows and some interior pictures of the windows that were removed. So the relevant St. Elmo uh design guidelines is section 641 for windows. Item A should be preserved in their original location, size, and design with their original materials and number of panes. The applicant was denied window replacement but granted temporary approval for the vinyl windows to remain. We'll have the applicant confirm their current request. Item C should be repaired rather than replaced, but if replacement is necessary due to severe

deterioration, the replacement should be inind to match the originals in material and design. The windows on site are not deteriorated beyond repair. Staff visited the site to confirm the condition of the windows. The existing windows are in good condition and should be retained. The applicant has stated that the original windows that were removed are still on site, but has not provided pictures. So, we'll have the applicant's presentation. And if you could just state your name and address for the record, please.

I'm live at 442. Um, when this all originally came about, I did not know that a meeting society was necessary before replacing windows, but that has been some time. Um, I began replacing windows before getting approval. I was told to stop work and come before you all and ask for permission to continue. Um, and the initial request was denied. And so, I guess I'm here to give an update on where I'm at with the windows. The original plan was to replace the windows or put them back the original ones back in the slots while garage work was being done, but the cost of it was um I wasn't able to do it at that time. We have quotes to be able to put the old windows back in and are just waiting to get on.

Great. Thank you. Do we have any community comments or comments by other persons? Okay, we can move to commission discussion. So, what mo what action do we need to take, Cassie? Sure. So, this COA is one um it's been a year since it was issued. It's up on the screen. You can see that the window replacement was denied and the condition was temporary approval for vinyl windows to remain and the original windows to be repaired and reinstalled. I think the last time I spoke with the applicant, I was unsure of whether or not she was going to proceed with reinstalling the windows. So, we're kind of bringing it back before you so that you can if you'd like to reiss reissue it under these circumstances, that's great. Um, but we just need

just reapproval, a new motion basically. Yeah. A new COA.

Okay. I say as long as the project is moving, I know this is a long and arduous process to get these windows restored. I've been through it myself. Um, as long as the thing is moving forward, I would say we need to reissue temporary approval. Any other comments, Commission? and we haven't approved any of them that I to my knowledge.

I can give a staff update on that. I've been working on investigation into that process. Um, so I can keep you all posted as that moves forward. Okay. Thanks, Cassie. Any other comments or would someone like to make a motion? So, this is just to reinstall the wood windows and then continue the repair process of wood windows to and it continues a temporary approval of to she can keep the vinyl windows there until the rest of the project is done. I would probably conditions exactly like they are on the screen.

Um, I'll make a motion. Uh, make a motion to approve case number HD 2496 4425 Synic Avenue as submitted pursuant to Chattanooga City Code Chapter 10 article 2 section 1015E in pursuant to the St. Elmo design guidelines. Approval subject to the following conditions. Temporary approval for vinyl windows to remain original windows to be repaired and reinstalled. We have a second. Second. Seconded by Cassie. All in favor? I. Any opposed? Okay. Motion carries. Thank you.

Thank you. Okay. We'll move to our next old business case. This is HZ 23171 at 4423 Synica Avenue in the St. Elmo neighborhood. It's not a historic structure. It was con built just finished recently circa 2025. It is here before you today for asbuilt changes. So, it was not built per the drawings that were approved at the historic zoning commission back in 2023. So, here is an aerial of the property and the property within the St. Elmo historic district overlay. And here are the property photos of the existing conditions, the neighboring property photos, and then the application information back from 2023 showing the site plan and the front and east elevation. So, you can see the windows were not installed in the correct location. They don't have the correct configuration. We're missing the headers above the windows. Um, and the front porch columns and the arches were not installed per those drawings. Here's the rear west elevation and the right side north elevation and the left side south elevation and the material list provided by the applicant. So, uh, should be vinyl clad wood windows. Um, I asked the applicant to confirm what was actually installed. Um, but they did not provide that applica or that information. So hopefully they'll have it today. And then again, just some pictures from the final zoning inspection. So the relevant St. Elmo design guidelines, it's section 622 for new construction. Just going to skip over to item five for location and proportion of porches, entrances, windows, and divisional bays. Again, the drawing showed an arched porch panels and tapered brick columns. The asbuilt has

no arched porch panels at the roof or tapered brick columns. New windows should be rectangular sash whose proportions on the main facade should not exceed 3:1 in height to width ratio or be any less than 2:1 in height. No horizontal sash casement or awning type windows should be placed on the fronts of buildings and the use of plastic or snap-in muttons is discouraged. The windows on the house seem to have plastic muttons and do not match the original design. The drawings show double hung vinyl clad windows with six one six over one on all sides. The windows on the front facade including the dormer do not have any mountains and they are one over one windows and they have been installed in the wrong place per the approved drawing and the remaining windows are six over sixes. Uh again for windows wood construction is preferred and it's that same response as before. Um however the use of vinyl clad or aluminum windows is also acceptable. Item 10 for details and texture. Uh again, the proposed headers were not installed around the windows and doors, and the trim does not have any distinct dimension from the siding. So, we'll have the applicant's presentation. If you could just state your name and address for the record, please.

Richard Mhane. It's 4423. I'm a representative of So, we would just I think this time we're going to try to discontinued and get really we need to see what really don't know what happened here. We had a material list what Thank you. Do we have any community comments or comments by other persons? Okay, we can move to commission discussion. I'll say these look like basic vinyl windows to me, which is not what was approved. Um, I mean, it really needs to go back to what the plan showed and what we approved. Um,

So, you would ask for a deferral and a design to come back of what changes they're requesting. I I guess Cliff,

sure. I'd be happy to throw out But don't we already have I mean a drawing just that gives us a thing that was approved to begin with. So I mean to be off the nose there's like a clear change of windows and a change of tapering of brick. Obviously we have some struggles with those arches because the roof line's already in place. But I do wonder if we could just collectively give some of this redirection that felt appropriate without wasting too much time. Go ahead. I think they're a to me they're asking us to approve what's been built as is. Uh just a reminder if everyone could use your microphones, but also maybe it's worth having the applicants clarify. So I went out for final historic zoning inspection. As you can see, it was not built per the drawings. So it's back before you. Would the applicant like to clarify whether or not you are asking for it to remain as it is or are you willing to make some changes to meet the current drawing? So, I think that maybe would help.

Yes, if you could just state your name and address, please.

Also, we can do the where the windows very

Okay, thank you. I

mean, to me, we we wear people out with month after month and hear about windows and I I don't know that we've ever approved these or would we ever. Um, that's an important element to this house. Uh, the trim elements around the around the windows are are important and something that we pay attention to in here again case after case. Maybe we could live with the square columns. I don't think that's out of character. Not sure about the arches. Some other folks in here may want to speak into that, but to me, we we wear people out about windows and I and I want to be consistent and fair to everybody else that comes through here. Well, I'm in agreement on the windows. Uh the square columns don't bother me, but I think there could be some proposals for how to add a decorative trim piece or something to kind of offset the higher level of design that's in the illustration. And so it would be helpful to just have a proposal, you know, of what can be done specifically to help address some of those issues.

So in other words, we're saying we're not accepting it as is, but we do want to request that the applicant comes back with um the acceptable windows and an additional support for mirroring what was approved in the drawings. That sound reasonable?

Yeah. I'm going to say that when you come back with actual proposal for for what we're going to do for to try to get this closer to the original drawings, I have no issue with with the porch. There's plenty of porches in Sano, new and old, that don't have arches. Um, and it I I agree it is very costly. So, um I would support that in in a future proposal. Um, but I also agree that the windows are just completely divide the approval that was previously issued. Um, and I think everyone would take issue with that. I think I mentioned also and maybe obviously these windows on the dormer are proportions just real large compared to the dormer which is not proportionally I proportion is an important part of the review process and you know this having the window where there's no trim between the window trim turns into the dormer trim almost is you know to me that's visually not a good proportion and I know that's hard to quantify but that's the type of thing where if something's approved and everyone says yes that looks good it's real hard to then give direction What is a good proportion? What we what was approved originally obviously was this I don't think any of us think it is. Can you flip back to the front elevation of the plan? Okay. Okay. Any other comments for the applicant before we I assume we'll move for a deferral here? I think we mentioned all there's a comment in the snap-in grids, but you know just in these guidelines there's specifically it says snap-in grids are not appropriate. So we would have be very hard to approve snap-in grids if we have the guideline right here saying snap-in grids not to be approved.

Okay, any other comments? Do we have someone that wants to make a deferral motion? I'll make a motion to defer case number HZ-23-171423 Synica Avenue as submitted pursuant to the Chattanooga City Code Chapter 10 article 11 section 10-15E and pursuant to the St. Elmo design guidelines. Do we have a second? Second. Second by Cassie. All in favor?

I. Any opposed? Okay. Motion carries. Thank you. Thank you.

Okay. We'll move to our next old business case. This is case HC 23134 at 5101 Tennessee Avenue in the St. Elmo neighborhood. It is a historic structure circa 1960. The proposed project is a rear porch addition. So you are seeing this today because we have a change to um the design that was originally approved. So here's the aerial of the property and the property within the St. Elmo historic district overlay and here are the property photos, the neighboring property photos and then the application information provided by the applicant. So you can see the site plan the footprint of this screened in porch is not changing just the you'll see on the elevation the the change. So here's the approval from October 2023 and the October 2025 proposal. Again the footprint is not changing. You can see the new design here. Okay. Uh the relevant St. Elmo design guidelines is section 6.1 for additions. Item B should be secondary, smaller and simpler than the original building. The rear screened in porch is smaller in design and placement. Item C should be of a compatible design in keeping with the original building's design roof shape, materials, color, and location of window, door, and cornice heights. The applicant originally proposed a hip style roof, but has amended the design to have a gable roof on the rear enclosed porch. And then item I, additions should be made to the rear, not sides of the house. The proposed rear screened dimin porch is at the rear of the property, but the property does front three streets, Tennessee Avenue, Lynwood Avenue, and West 51st. So, we will have the applicant's presentation. If you could just state your name and address for the record, please.

Is there anyone else who wasn't sworn in at the beginning that's going to be speaking? If you don't care to just stand, raise your right hand. You as well. Do you solely, sir, or affirm the testimony you're giving today will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth to help you, God? Thank you so much.

Yeah. So, we applied for this approval approval a while back of the home moved in just als Okay, thank you. Do we have any uh community comments or comments by other persons? Okay, we can move to commission discussion.

Anyone have any comments or questions of the applicant? So the only thing that's changing to clarify for me is the the roof the roof. It was screened in before. All that all those elements are the same. to Cassie, but is it smaller? Is it say again? She said that it was some is smaller than the original approval, but is it uh she was referring to the additional to the addition in general is smaller than the house.

Yes. Reminder, this is in the back of the house. Correct. Looks like a good solution to me. Okay, commission. Do we have any other comments or questions? Anyone like to make a motion?

I'll make a motion. I'd like to make a motion to approve case number HZ-23-134 at 5101 Tennessee Avenue as submitted pursuant to the Chattanooga City Code Chapter 10 article 2 section 10-15E in pursuant to the St. Elmo design guidelines with no conditions. Do we have any uh second? Second. Seconded by Cliff. All in favor?

I. Any opposed? Motion carries. Thank you. Thank you.

Okay. Uh our next um old business case is HC 2456 at 1402 West 55th Street in the St. Elmo neighborhood. This is not a historic structure. It's a vacant lot currently under construction. We have some facade changes, window changes, and material changes. So here is the aerial of the property and then the property within the St. the Elmo historic district overlay, the property photos, and the neighboring property photos, and then the application information. So, this is the previously approved design from June 2024. This is the previously approved amended design from May 2025. Here's the COA from May 2025. Noting that the foundation is to be brick and no more than four feet in height, porch depth less than six foot, not to intended to set a precedent. And then this is the updated application information uh from the applicant. So they want to do a uh brick front porch floor. There is a um covered porch on that back elevation. Um, and then I there's a window removed on the left side or the right side elevation top right on the drawing there. And then just a note that this drawing does show the chimney as brick, but it will remain as um board and batten sighting is my understanding. And then the applicant is proposing this um outdoor chimney as well. Here is a list of those changes that we can come back to. And then the staff report is section 622 new construction for the St. Elmo design guidelines. So item five, location and proportion of porches, entrances, windows, and divisional bays. Uh the applicant is proposing adding a second stair to the front porch. Proposing a brick herring bone floor for the front porch. And the applicant is proposing adding a brick base to the front porch

columns. Uh applicant is proposing a rear porch with a gable roof on the back elevation. Frame dwellings. If new construction is a frame, the preferred exterior material is horizontal wood sighting, which is a minimum of 4 in and a maximum of six. Um, the applicant is proposing to change proportions change portions of the sighting on the front to a vertical board in Batten. Windows wood construction is preferred. However, the use of vinyl clad is also acceptable. Uh, the window configuration has changed on the rear of the dwelling. One window is to be removed on the right side elevation and a transom window and door is proposed at the rear deck. And then 11, placement on the lot. Uh front and yard set front and side yard setbacks should be respect should respect the setbacks found along the block on which the building is cited. Um just a note here again that the applicant is proposing a brick standalone outdoor fireplace at the rear, but it will be within a six-foot privacy fence. So we'll have the applicant's presentation. If you could just state your name and address for the record, please. So all I applic.

This window changing. Stairs back window. doesn't have on there. It's not right here. columns. We had

She does have the back. She has it. area.

Okay, thank you. I just want to clarify staff can approve the fencing. So that's not part of your scope today. We're just looking at uh the site changes I guess and the changes to the materials and the elevations. Do we have any community comments or comments by other persons? Okay, we can move to commission discussion.

Okay, commission. Any comments, questions, issues with the changes? Can you can you call it the um the original front um front view? What's what's the board and batten change on here? You can see more clearly on your

It's a little more clear on your desktop than it is on the screen, commissioners. Okay. Do we have any other questions or comments or would someone like to make a motion?

Probably we should reiterate that these are This is the third and I'm not complaining actually. Thank you for asking us to change something before doing it. But I think we've said before this is sort of an interesting lot and a unique lot and uh it's been kind of as I understand sort of an eyesore that nothing's been there and we're generally happy that there's a house like this there and we're sort of letting it be a little bit more unique and whimsical partially because it is in this kind of interesting triangular location. But I don't see anything that we wouldn't approve here. You want to make the You want to make the motion, Cliff? Sure. Um

I agree. A unique solution to a unique lot. Thank you. I make a motion to approve case number HC 2456402 West 55th Street as submitted pursuant to Chattanooga City Code Chapter 10, Article 10, Article 2, Section 1015E. In pursuant to St. Elmo design guidelines, approval is subject to the following conditions. Uh, rear porch handrails to be staff approved. Okay. Any Do we have a second? Second. Seconded by Matt. All in favor? I.

Any opposed? Motion carries. Thank you. Okay. All right. We will move into our last old business case. This is case HZ 22143503 Battery Place in the Battery Place neighborhood. Um it is not a historic structure. It's um they're finishing up construction now. So again, this is a situation where you are reviewing asbuilt changes that were made um and found during my final historic zoning inspection. So, here's the aerial of the property and then the property within the Battery Place um historic district overlay and the property photos, neighboring property photos, and then the view from Veterans Bridge and looking at Veterans Bridge. This is the application information. So, the previously approved plans from 2023. Previously approved plans from 2023. So, I've circled everything that has been a change in red, whether it's like a material or an opening. Um, and we can I can go through those. So you can see again the previously approved plans here. Okay. And we'll go through um some more images of uh the existing conditions on site that are different than those plans. You can see there was a material change here at the front porch. This window does not match. I think we're missing an opening on this side. None of the

seconds story glass and steel porch features were installed and I believe they have no intention to install them. We're missing windows on this uh rear facade of the garage. Here is that uh pool equipment which I think was shown um with some screening and then the view from the veterans bridge side with a some change to the openings. And there's a closeup of that front door area and then the view from Veterans Bridge. So we are missing some of the um proposed uh stairs that were included in that those original drawings as well. So the relevant battery place uh guidelines is the new construction section and the guidelines for site design. So for the roof um just to note that original drawings showed the glass and steel rooftop decks on the river and veterans bridge side. These were not installed and the applicant does not want to install them. openings, uh, doors and windows. Traditionally designed houses and battery plays have distinctive window types and patterns and doorway designs that often relate to the architectural style of the historic dwelling. Um, various window open windows and openings have been altered or removed that were previously shown on the approved drawings. Porches and porticos. Uh because porches and porticos are so common in the district, strong consideration should be given to including a porch or similar form in the design of any new construction in the neighborhood. Street side inset porch has different colors, materials, and opening openings than what was previously approved on the drawings. And again, the rooftop glass and steel porches are not being installed on the river side. And for the fences, walls, and walks, item three, the design of new fences and walls should blend in with materials and designs found in the district. Commonly used materials are stone, brick, and raw

iron. Shrubbery hedges can also be borders. Often the materials relate to the materials used elsewhere on the property. So again, the proposed stairs and aluminum fencing along the riverside have not been installed. So if we could have the applicant's presentation, if you could just state your name and address for the record, please. Please let the record.

It's out of commission. Home slightly different. along. Okay, thank you. Do we have any community comments or comments by other persons? Okay, we can move to commission discussion.

I'm just a comment first. Great project. This thing lights up that spot of long a very visible um place in our community and I appreciate you guys work. Great work. I'm I'm less concerned about the glass and steel porches protruding from the main structure as as that is, you know, pretty far from the historic pattern. But I understand the contemporary nature of this project and and what they're trying to accomplish. Can we look at the window openings at the front of the home? It's hard to tell exactly what Sorry, this opening is the one that has changed and then just the materials here on this inset are different.

Otherwise, they're good. Materially changes. I can't either. So, the project I just wanted to make sure about the windows. Um, otherwise I I don't have a problem with the changes. Commission, does anyone have a problem or want to speak to the changes?

I I I agree with you on almost everything. And maybe this last thing is minor, but there are some, and maybe it's just because we didn't have original drawings of this or the drawings had some, you know, obviously you don't show everything. There's a photo that shows some pool equipment. Um, can you see that pool equipment from the bridge and did the original and have some sort of a lattice or some kind I wouldn't say wood lattice because everything here is a little more than wood lattice but there's some skirting and some fencing and some other things and I don't in this original drawing as seen from Veterans Bridge and I can't tell if that was meant to have pool equipment hiding behind it or if this is that would be the only thing that I would be concerned is is is there some pool equipment screening that we sort of inadvertently approved. I'm sure we never talked about the pool equipment, but now is it there where everyone can see it going across the bridge?

And I want to pose this as a question to the applicant. We don't want to be involved in designing for you. Do you have a solution for screening that pool area that we could consider? landscape. design. It's very easy to see from the bridge. I'd say better than Anything else that we would ask of the applicant?

Okay. So, I think we need a screen fence there for that and pro possibly the mechanical equipment on the side. Other than that, I think we're good. Go ahead. But you can't see it from the street.

Gotcha. Due to the location, I'm not as concerned about that. It is kind of tucked away. You'd have to be trying to find it. Would it be reasonable with regard to the pool equipment fence? Would it be reasonable to condition it that the fence be the same height as the brick foundation there? And what I mean is in your opinion, knowing the project more intimately than all of us that even drive by it and see it, do you feel like that fence height would be enough to cover it from the line of sight of Veterans Bridge? All right. Anything else, Commission? probably need to get a sta staff approval from Cassie.

Yeah, you'll get an updated COA next week signed by the chairman and then once you build it, you can call me and I'll go out or you can send me a picture. I make a motion to approve case number HZ-22-143 at 503 Battery Place as submitted pursuant to the Chattanooga City Code Chapter 10 article 2 section 10-15E and pursuant to the battery place design guidelines approval is subject to the following conditions. Install fence screening around pool equipment. Fence to be uh same height and as the uh brick foundational wall fence to be um to to match the material and color of the um Hardy board.

Second. Seconded by Cliff. All in favor? I.

Any opposed? Motion carries. Thank you. All right, we're going to move into our new business cases now. So, our first case is HD 25100 at 5500 Bula Avenue in the St. Elmo neighborhood. This is a historic structure circa 1930. The proposed project is a garage and parking. Historic zoning history on the property is back from 2013 for a re-roof and foundation repair, window doors, and rear porch repairs. Here's the aerial of the property and the property within the St. Elmo historic district overlay. And here are the property photos and the neighboring property photos and then the application information provided by the applicant. So here's a survey showing the existing conditions and then the proposed site plan. Um, so in red you see the proposed concrete drive and parking pad. In the blue is the proposed garage and here is some more information provided by the applicant showing the view of the house. And here is that proposed garage. And then just some examples of some other garages um in similar locations in the neighborhood. And then the material list provided by the applicant. So wood siding, 2x4 frame, plywood roof with asphalt shingles, glass windows, wood doors, and a concrete floor for the garage. And then the parking pad will be poured concrete. So the relevant St. Elmo design guidelines is section 6.9 for driveways and paving. Uh item B, which are new, should be located at the rear with access from the alley. The applicant is proposing to install a concrete driveway and parking pad off of

West 55th. There is an existing curb cut. Item D should have their parking areas located in the rear yard nearer the alley than the building and screened with hedges, shrubs, or fences where noticeable from the street. The applicant is proposing to install a concrete driveway in the parking pad off of West 55th. Again, there's an existing curb cut. And then um item F um traditional paving materials for driveways include gravel and concrete and the applicant is proposing concrete. Um for um secondary buildings section 622C item one smaller in scale than the primary building. Yes. Item two simple in design but reflecting the general character of the primary building. The proposed out building has a gable roof that mimics the gable roof on the primary dwelling. Item three, located as traditional for the street near an alley or at the side of the dwelling, not close to or attached. Yes, the outbuilding is to the rear. Item four, compatible in design, shape, materials, and roof shape. Yes. Um item five, preferably of wood sighting. The shed will have wood sighting. And then item six, if readily visible from the street, secondary building should have an emphasis on historic designs and detailing. Uh just a note that the out building will be visible from Bula Avenue and West 55th Street. and we'll have the applicant's presentation. If you could just state your name and address for the record, please self-explanatory. We have hedges that enclose our entire property a block Our home we have the wood shop which hosts probably five nights a week of music and different venues. So a garage and a parking pad would be handy for us

considering we have continual parking coming and going every night on our street all the way down our street. So having as well extra items um for safety.

Great. Thank you so much. Do we have any community comments or comments by other persons? Okay, we can move to commission discussion. Quick question. Is is this a pre-fabricated or building an onsite? We haven't decided that yet. Okay. Gotcha. Okay. Thank you. Other questions or comments, commission?

We have a material list. So, the photo appears to have T111 siding, which I don't think is appropriate. We probably need to condition that. Any other comments? Would someone like to make a motion? Nathan, the windows just say glass. Doesn't say anything about the framing. And I'm trying to remember what we've done for secondary buildings like this in the past.

They probably need to be vinyl clad or wood like we would approve on the house. I would also make that a condition. What do we want to recommend for the wood siding? Say we don't want to do that.

It could be hardy siding or or wood siding to match the house. I would think lap siding. It's not what's on the drawing. And I would say that the windows need to match the style of the the ones on the primary structure. You want to put in your aluminum clad, wood window, aluminum or vinyl clad.

If it's a prefab one, sometimes you you have a limited choice. And I know we approve a lot of the pre-fabricated garages. I frankly don't know what their windows are, but I think frequently we don't ask. I think that Yeah, true. I think generally when we're approving the prefab, it's on a temporary foundation, cinder blocks or something like that. This is a little more permanent in nature, just poured concrete. And Oh, yeah. I think if they want to come back with a prefab structure, I' I'd be willing to that. But yeah, I think based on what we have, we need to condition it. Okay. You got this, Brandon.

I make a motion to approve KHC 25100 at 5500 Bay as submitted pursuant to the Chattanooga City Code Chapter 10 article 2 section 1015E. And pursuant to the St. Elmo design guidelines, approval is subject to the following conditions. wood or hardy siding and aluminum or vinyl clad wood window. Do we have a second? Second. Seconded by Cliff. All in favor? I. Any opposed? Motion carries. Thank you.

All right, we'll move to our next new business case. This is case HZ2103 at 4705 Michigan Avenue in the St. Elmo neighborhood. It is a historic structure circa 1900 to 1917. This is a exterior rehabilitation and a uh screened in porch addition. So you can see here the sandborn map showing that property in 1917, 1930 and 1955. This came be um the historic zoning history from 2018 to repair and remodel non-original rear edition, repair front porch floorboards, repair the foundation and exterior exterior rehabilitation including replacing windows, sighting to be wood or wood composite batten on rear. So here's an aerial of the property and then the property within the St. Elmo historic district overlay. And here are the pro u these are some historic property photos we have from the surveys uh I believe in the 1990s. And then the existing conditions uh property photos and the neighboring property photos and then the application information provided by the applicant. So here's that rendering showing the proposed uh final product. You can see the changes to the front porch and that addition. Um, as well as the vertical board and batten sighting that's proposed. Here is the site plan showing that new porch addition off the front side. And then uh the floor plan. And then there's a window and door schedule, the demolition plan and the proposed main level plan showing that um screened in porch and then the elevations provided by the applicant. I have a zoom in of each of those that you can kind of see um the proposal and materials listed.

Then the material list provided by the applicant. So, fiber cement board and batten sighting, fiber cement shake sighting in the gable. The railing and post on the front porch are proposed to be cedar post and a like gritted wire railing. Uh, horizontal screening over the foundation. A question for the applicant if any of the stone foundation is to be covered. New windows on the north elevation. The window schedule notes existing windows are to be reused. Are all the other windows to remain? and then a wood screened in porch with the metal roof to match the existing with the same wire railing proposed at the front porch. So, we're looking at the relevant St. Elmo design guidelines. We're looking at 6.1 for additions, 613 for foundations, 625 for porches, 633 for siding, and 641 for windows. So, for additions, item A should be located at the rear of the building, not on the front or readily visible. The screened porch addition is proposed at the side and the front of the dwelling. It will be visible from Michigan Avenue. Item B should be secondary, smaller and simpler than the original building. The proposed screen porch addition is smaller and simpler than the original building. Item C should be of a compatible design in keeping with the original building's design, roof shape, materials, colors, location of window, door, and corner heights, etc. The applicant is proposing the same style and material of roof, but the materials and design of the screen porch do not match the historic design. The applicant is proposing a gritted wire half wall for that screened in porch. Um, item F should be built in a manner that avoids extensive removal or loss of historic materials, which does not damage or destroy the main architectural features. We'll have the applicant confirm if any of the historic materials would be removed or damaged with the installation of the addition. Um, item I, addition to the rear, not sides. Again, this screened porch addition is proposed at the side and front of the dwelling. Section 613 for foundations. Item A should be preserved and maintained in their original design and with original materials. Uh the applicant is proposing

a horizontal screening over the concrete block foundation. There are portions of a stone foundation. We'll have the applicant confirm if this will be retained and/or covered. Item B between existing peers should be filled in as traditional for the type and style of the house generally with wood lattice um or decorative vertical wood boards. The applicant notes screening between the peers of the screened in porch and the drawing. The drawing shows solid panels. Item C should not be concealed with concrete block, plywood panels, corrugated metal, or wood shingles. Again, the applicants noting the screening between the peers on the screen and porch and the drawing show solid panels. Section 25 for porches, porch columns, and railings. Item B should not be removed if original. The existing front porch columns may be a later addition or covered in a modern material. The applicant is proposing to remove the post and the ballastrade and replace with wire railing and cedar posts. This is not compatible with the period of the dwelling. Item C, their details should be should be retained intact with repair work and replacement of missing parts. The existing front porch columns again may be a later addition or covered in a modern material and the applicant is proposing to remove them and replace with wire railing and cedar post. Uh porches continued. Um just that same note as before. So again, historic porch columns and railings should be retained and repaired. If the original porch columns and railings are missing, replacement porch columns and railings should be appropriate for the architectural style and period. Item C of aluminum, raw iron or other materials are not appropriate for front porches. Um again, the applicant is proposing that wire railing and the cedar post. Um, and then item D just goes into the detail for the architectural style. I'm happy to revisit that. Section 633 for sighting. Um, item A, wood sighting original to the building should be repaired rather than replaced only where necessary due to deterioration. The

applicant is proposing to remove the existing vinyl sighting and replace it with fiber cement shingle and board and batten sighting. We'll have the applicant confirm if any of the original wood sighting is present underneath the existing vinyl. Item C, the application of Masonite over original wood sighting is also not appropriate and discouraged. Um, however, masonite may be used if the dimensions, texture, and color matches the original wood sighting. Again, we'll have the applicant confirm um what is existing beneath that vinyl sighting and um what it looks like. And then, sorry about that. Item G, sighting of particle board or press board is also not appropriate for the fronts of dwellings or sides which are readily visible from the street. Almost all frame dwellings in St. Elmo have horizontal sighting forms. So again, the applicant is proposing that vertical um board and batten sighting on all sides. And then 641 for the windows. Item A should be preserved in their original location size and design and with their original materials and number of panes. The applicant notes that two windows will be reused in new locations. We'll have the applicant confirm if any other windows are to be removed. Staff has not conducted a site visit to confirm the condition of the windows. Item B should not be added to primary facades or secondary facads were readily visible. The windows to be moved and reused are on the side. Item C should be repaired rather than replaced. Again, we'll have the applicant confirm if any of the other windows are to be removed and replaced. And then just um a note here that wasn't clear in the application materials if any of the existing exterior doors are historic. If so, will they be retained? And if not, we'll have the applicant provide proposed uh door replacements. Okay. And we'll have the applicant's presentation. If you could just state your name and address for the record, please.

I'm Holly Richie and I live So just a quick background. A couple of things that I wanted to address that were questions. Well, first of all, I want to say in the in her notes, this house was not even though it's not structure. map show a house in 197 side of the house. And so north side found

the stone found

is That's the other side. So this whole this whole side of the house right here about six feet about six feet in the crawl space right there. Um This part of the house right here was replaced. It was tell house. We do not have the option to have. So, we're to add a screen.

project to give us more living space. Second bathroom. So the other issue as all these windows Whatever was this window in windows on the drawings. Look at the front door.

That right here. This is essentially. So this is concrete block right here. The post on the front post. Another thing is we are going to ask Uh I think so. Yes.

Okay. Any other comments at this time for you? Okay. Do we have any community comments or comments by other persons? Okay. We can move to commission discussion. All right. Who wants to start us off? So, do we know what's underneath the vinyl? iding. What's underneath the vinyl siding?

Okay. Okay.

Okay. You're saying there's no original exterior siding. Okay. Removed at some point down to cheating. All right. Any other comments or questions or someone want to make a motion on this? If not like there's a little more to discuss here about the porch. We at least should mention this. I mean we have a guideline and we've we've looked at this in the past where we have these properties set into a hill or you can't build behind. But on the other hand, we do have a guideline that's pretty clear about no porches in the front part of the house. No, you know, and we've certainly been fairly strict. Um and I don't maybe it's fine here. will all commission say, "Well, we can't put a porch on the on the rear, so we'll just let one on the side." But I feel like, you know, we should at least say if everyone is okay with a porch being on the side, that this is not intended to set a precedent for other porches because I know there been a number that we've not approved on the sides of houses and ask for them to be removed.

Yeah, agreed. I think that I think the land I think the landscape I think the lay of or the topography of this one I think is what you're headed to the topography exactly I think we would approve that lends to this based on the topography but not based on the um not based on the uh just always approving porches on the side to say that

anyone is gotcha I think That's where we're heading with it. Anybody have any issue with the siding? That seems to that board and batten changes the character of this house. Does anybody have issue with that? We say specifically no vertical sighting, but we've worked through several times that we I think the new guidelines are coming out are not going to have that. And we've allowed vertical board and bat and we don't allow T111, right?

And this is fiber cement board and bat. And there is board and bat next door. I understand there's a condition requested to not use the vertical board and batten on the porch foundation and the porch foundation already has siding on it. So we're we're not not discussing the appropriateness of putting siding on a foundation. That is something else in the guidelines. It's very clear. Don't put wood siding on a foundation, but that's already there. We're just taking it off and putting other siding. I saw a photo with horizontal siding on that lower part. Is that what's proposed? Yeah. Horizontal. What? It's going back.

Is that staying or is that changing?

So, under the front porch there, what? And what are we going back with? horizontal.

Okay. But this this drawing shows vertical siding under the that's not the intent. Okay. Okay.

And what's the intent with the handrails on the front porch? That's my next question. And also the columns. You said you're adding another one that's not reflected here. Well, [Music]

Could I just make a note? Um, we've made this point already in this meeting today. Is it worth having them come back with drawings that are accurate? There's a lot of kind of on the-fly changes. I mean, that's up to you all, but it is something that we discussed earlier.

Okay. Gotcha. Well, there may be some other issues here that we sort out. So, let's get through the discussion, then we can decide what we want to do. What about the railing? Do you have any issues with the condition of just typical 2 by two wood ballisters? Is that any issue for y'all? I think that's what we would do normally.

That's not what's drawn necessarily or it's hard to tell. No, it's it's a wire railing. Yeah, I would condition that not not using the wire railing and just using typical wood 2 by two ballisters instead. Yeah,

that's what you want. Not what's drawn here, right? You want two by two. If you want that wire insert, And how how old is this house? I mean, I think it's historic by its age.

Yeah. 1917. Okay. We're not we're not we're not going to debate that here. Again, we're not Again, we're not going to debate that here. Okay.

All right. Commission, does anybody want to make a motion based on what we have or are there other questions that we want answered? Are we okay with what's on the paper? the condition of like the porch coming back with some detail or some of the other materials or I mean we don't want to defer them necessarily, but we're just clarifying that the we could condition it a certain way. We could do a staff approval. We could ask for them to come back for the drawing. Those are kind of the options.

Also, there's there's a lot here and I just want to make sure we don't miss anything. Um I'm I'm a little stuck on the I see the existing stone foundation we're going to and that's not going to be covered. Um typically if we have an existing block foundation someone may may parch coat it. Um you know may stuckco it. Um, I'm I'm sort of stuck on the the code or the the zoning guidelines say, you know, don't add siding to a foundation wall. And we're still appears we're we're approving sighting where one where siding never was over that CMU foundation wall. I think I think that's, you know, that I understand the look. I think I understand the look that this these guidelines were written to avoid where you get wood that just goes all the way down and touches the ground or siding that goes all the way down and touches the ground. And I don't know that we should approve expanding that. It's already on this house on the front of the porch and it's fine with me if it just goes back that way, but I don't know that I would approve adding it on the side, you know, on the side where there's no siding going down to the ground. Is anyone going to make a motion?

Oh, shoot. Let's just do it. But let's make sure that So, we're doing this with conditions, right? We're going to approve subject to four things that I've understood. Yeah. Mentioned. Okay. And those four things are uh 2 by two valrates instead of the wire on the porch. Uh moving the center column, getting rid of the center column and having double columns on each end. um horizontal siding at the porch that's existing with siding, but we don't want horizontal siding added where there's stone or other materials. Does that sound correct? Yeah. Okay.

Not on the side. And are you fine with the wire ballastrade around the screened in porch? That's how it's shown currently. That was his first condition. Yeah, I think that would be all, you know, for Okay. Just want to make sure it's for everything and not just the front porch. Thank you. We are okay with we are okay with this house going from a horizontal house to vertical siding house. Is everybody on board with that?

Yeah. Given how much has been through. There's really no way to tell what was there originally. Uh certainly not vinyl. Um and there is some remnant on that bus. Well, okay. That's the I think the asbestous. Yeah. Um and they're also just sorry a quick note proposing the cedar or the like shake sighting in the gable as well. Yeah, I just don't see enough to hold anyone one way or the other, honestly. Okay.

On the porch columns, was the intent to have a pair and a pair or to have four equally spaced? The windows are not symmetrical. Maybe maybe we say the front porch will have four columns instead of three to be spaced so as to not block windows or door or something like that. I understand the desire. Yeah, I get

four columns instead of three. Okay. So, four columns instead of like double on the end, just four equally spaced. Does that sound correct? Somewhat equally spaced. Roughly equal. Roughly equally spaced. Yeah. I live my life like that. Just want to keep in mind that these conditions need to be, you know, enforcable when I get go out for final zoning inspection. So otherwise we'll do what we did at the beginning of the meeting and see these folks in a few months. Not necessarily, but you can't measure somewhat.

I've got a ruler you can borrow that works.

I would also make a note about the side porch being approved due to the topography and is not intended to set a precedent. Here we go. Uh, I make a motion to approve case number HZ-25-1034705 Michigan Avenue as submitted pursuant to the Chattanooga City Code, Chapter 10, Article 2, Section 10-15E, and pursuant to the St. Elmo design guidelines. Approval is subject to the following conditions. All ballastrades 2 by two wood, not wire. Uh, four columns on the front porch spaced proportionately. Horizontal siding at the base of the front porch but not on the sides and side porch approval is not intended to set a precedent.

Okay. Do we have a second? Seconded by Nathan. All in favor? I. Any opposed? Motion carries. Thank you. [Music]

Okay, we'll move to our next new business case. This is HC2113 at 4401 St. Elmo Avenue in the St. Elmo neighborhood is a historic structure. Circa 1900 for the primary dwelling. We are looking at the out building today. This was a correction notice um for a bu an out building that was converted into um a dwelling space that is now being converted into a nondwellable studio space. Um but obviously you all are looking just at the exterior changes that were made. Um in 2018 we had a historic zoning case for the exterior rehabilitation of the carriage house which is a separate outbuilding. So here's the aerial of the property and then the property within the St. Elmo historic district overlay. Here are the property photos. Some more property photos of the existing conditions. This is the building that you are reviewing today. And then the neighboring property photos. There's the application information. So the site plan showing that out building. There's a floor plan of it of the out building. And then um some images of the existing conditions on the left and what it was converted from on the right. This is from street view. And then the material list for again the existing conditions at 41 or I'm sorry 4401 St. Elmo Avenue. So it has metal roofing, fiber cement siding, metal frame, single pane windows, metal lock exterior French door, and a pressuret treated front porch. So relevant St. Elmo design guidelines are section 622 for new construction, item C um for secondary buildings. Um item one, smaller in scale than the primary building. Yes, simple in design but reflecting the general character of the primary building. The existing outuilding has lean two roof forms. Um

item three located as traditional for the street near an alley or at the side of the dwelling not close to or attached. Yes, the outuilding is to the rear of the primary dwelling compatible in design shape materials and roof shape to the main building. The out building has lean two roof forms and multiple windows on the front facade. Item five, prefer item five, preferably of wood siding. Um, however, if located along rear alleys or towards the rear of the lot, secondary buildings may have exterior sightings such as masonite, aluminum, or vinyl. The out building has fiber cement sighting. And then item six, if readily visible from the street, secondary building should have an emphasis on historic designs and detailing. Um, the out building is visible from Alabama Avenue and West 44th Street. Um, and we can just have the applicant's presentation. If you could state your name and address for the record, please. Did you have any additional comments for us at this point?

Okay. Okay. We'll move to um community comments or comments by other persons if we have any. I do want to note that I did receive an email in support this morning which was past our deadline. So, it wasn't included in your packet, but I just wanted to acknowledge that. But if uh if you can just state your name and address for the record, please.

My name is Charity Martin. I'm at 442 Avenue and I've been Maria's neighbor since 2002. Maria is consider dinners, art discussions, bonfires, events with friends, and neighbors over the last 23 years that actually I'm just here as her neighbor to support her um just that her property is beautiful property in our neighborhood. This structure is relatively well hidden I guess from large trees and it's just another neighbor tell me I've driven by that house not

all right thank you the applicant you have the opportunity to respond respond if you'd like. Otherwise, we'll move to commission discussion. Okay, great. We'll move to commission discussion. So, can you put the is there a side by side of what's kind of gone on here before and after? And then I can pull up street view if that's helpful as well. Gotcha. And this is an art this is a for our purposes. This is not a dwelling art studio. Got it. Okay.

Yeah. I would want to review this the same way as we would review a shed. Um what is what's the foundation on this? Do you know the foundation material here? Doesn't look like there is one. It doesn't look like there is one. just sitting on your peers on blocks okay. Yeah, I would review this the same way we review temporary sheds. I I don't see any if anything it's significantly improved from what was there before. Yeah.

And it it matches the the character of the home and the surrounding homes much better having the horizontal lap side in and the windows match better. So, I don't see any issues with this. Go ahead.

This this is not just changing. This is this is an added structure though, right? There's a structure. The old picture, the red picture showed something smaller. So, there's there's a new there's an addition to the out building. Is that correct? Uh it's it's wider than it was. Yeah. So, there's another piece. So it's more more shed as far as we're concerned. More shed, I would think. Yeah. And just to clarify, we do review ADUs, sheds, any kind of out building are all under the same section in the design guidelines. So

yeah, just for just for context though, I mean, we're not it's not another house in the backyard or an ADU. It could be seen as a temporary structure based on the foundation design that I see. Does anyone have any issue with it or would we like to make a motion? Okay.

I make a motion to approve case number HZ-25-113 at 4401 St. Elmo Avenue as submitted pursuant to the Chattanooga City Code Chapter 10 article 2 section 10-15E in pursuant to the St. Elmo design guidelines with no conditions Nathan second it. All in favor? I. Any opposed? Okay. Motion carries. Thank you.

Thank you. All right. We'll move to our next new business case. This is case HC2115 at 4910 St. Elmo Avenue in the St. Elmo neighborhood. It is a historic structure circuit 1920. This was a stop work order for the front uh porch changes um like repair and replacement that was being conducted without a certificate of appropriateness. So you can see on the sandborn map there um 1930 and 1955 and then the section from the National Register nomination. Uh there is no historic zoning history on this property. So, it looks like the front porch was altered between April 2021 and November 2021 per the street view, which I can show you all. We don't have a record of a COA or code enforcement from that time. So, we're kind of capturing all these changes now. Um, so I'll go through the presentation. Here is an aerial of the property and then the property within the St. Elmo historic district overlay. Here are the property photos. So the pro uh the image on the left is before the work and then on the right is after. And so that image on the right you'll see is from 2021. So the screening was removed in that short wall neighboring property photos and then the application information provided by the applicants. You can see the site plan here. Um, and then the application noting that new posts highlighted in red were both replaced with 6x6 x10. They plan to wrap the post to fit the same exact style as before with the trim piece at the top. Um, replace the exterior boards below the deck by the flower bed and step. Added a waterproofing membrane. Uh, new porch was completely replaced highlighted in blue with 1x6 by8 pressuret treated deck boards. Um, one step was built the length of the deck. uh the fencing is

not part of this applic or part of your review. So again, we're just looking at the porch here. So those are the columns that were removed and then the existing conditions and then this is a image of the property from that 1990s survey and then the material list provided by the applicant. So the relevant St. In Elmo design guidelines, we're looking at section 625 for porches, porch columns, and railings. Item B should not be removed if original. The applicant removed existing porches uh the existing porch and reinstalled new columns and flooring. There were changes made to the front porch in 2021 as well, including removing a knee wall and the screening. Item C, their details should be retained intact with repair work and replacement of missing parts such as columns, post railing, ballasters, decorative moldings, and trim work. Uh the applicant again same removed the existing porches and reinstalled new columns and flooring changes made back in 2021 and the applicant is proposing to wrap the columns in the same trim that was removed. And then item J should have wood tongue and groove flooring running perpendicular to the facade. So the applicant replaced the flooring. The flooring is running perpendicular to the facade but it is not tongue and groove. Uh porch is continued. Item A should be preserved and maintained if repair is required. use materials to match the original in dimension and detailing. Uh just the same note of the materials that were removed recently and in 2021. And then item D talks about the specific um dimensions for the architectural style. So we can have uh the applicant's presentation. If you could just state your name and address for the record, please. reason why we end up

being so the pretty. So there was no 6x6 by 12. Um what we would like to do because that is pretty I guess before they had the Yes. So, we just want to do whatever aesthetics of the neighborhood almost privacy. So, just figuring Maybe we just recommend Thank you so much. Do we have any um community comments or comments by other persons? Okay, we can move to commission discussion. Go back to the side by side of the what it was and what it is.

And you're proposing to wrap rewrap the 6x sixes that are there existing? Gotcha. And and again, what do you want to do with the knee wall on the right? Are you wanting to make it higher or put it back as is? Okay.

Gotcha. And the only other issue I think we see is the the floor material, which I'm not feel like we've approved standard planks before. Maybe I'm misremembering. We have There is at least one company that makes an exterior tongue and groove, but it for years you couldn't really get anything that would last in the outside to match the old old 1920s 30s tong groove floor. So, we have approved the tong groove like this.

So, other than the floor, it appears it's been replaced in kind. Um, if we're good with the floor, I think we can someone can move for an approval.

I think it's worth noting on these columns, it's actually the until sometime in the 80s, a porch column like this never had structure because the wood is good enough to hold it. So, having a hollow column is totally normal. What I see that's been removed does not in those pictures, I see one that split. That split looks like coming from demolition. Um, I want to be careful here putting this back in light kind. These have a slight taper to them unless the photograph, one of the other photographs is wrong. They taper a little bit, which I think is quite nice. Um, you know, they're wider at the bottom and the top. That's the kind of detail that I hate to lose, especially if something was in pretty good shape. And if what's was there is on site, a good carpenter can match that. But it's easy for it to get ignored. So, I'd want to put, you know, in light kind means any taper that's there and all that sort of thing, too, because that makes the house nice to having something that tapers down. This, you see that one behind the down spout is more narrow and then it gets a little wider. That sort of thing is hard to hard to get back once you lose it. So, I want that to be in motion.

This being on the front of the house, I would also want a specific range for that height of that wall. Um, I wouldn't want it going above 42, but I'm not positive what um code is, whether it's 36 or 42 in. It's going to be 36. It'll never be 42 for a house. It'll be up 36 is the requirement. If there's a 30 inch or greater step down going over the edge, if it's less than a 30-inch step down, there's no requirement at all.

I just don't want it to become a divider, you know? So, if we could raise it Exactly. if we could raise it to 30, you know, put a put a maximum of 36 in. Is that okay with you? All right. Who wants to make this motion or are there any other comments?

I want to know I would not have if this were proposed before the work was done, I would not have approved standard deck board. I would have pushed for the tenant groove, but I just want to put that because since we're recording this here, but um it's already done. I don't think there's significant enough in the character of the porch to try to enforce a removal of standard deck board.

Okay, thank you. I think we'll leave that to you as to how how to do it. I think we're just going to say not more than 36 in. Is that reasonable convention?

Not needing a staff approval for that, right? I don't think so. All right. Is someone gonna write this one up? I'm writing unless someone else is. Okay. CL's got this.

You said front porch columns and then the sidewall just to be rebuilt in light kind to a 36 inch height. Maximum 36. Okay. I make a motion to approve case number HZ25115 4910 St. Elmo Avenue as submitted to Chattanooga City Code Chapter 10 article 2 section 1015E in pursuant to the St. Elmo design guidelines. Approval is subject to the following conditions. Rebuild front porch columns to match historic columns including detailing width and any taper. porch knee wall to be rebuilt in like kind except not to exceed 36 inches in height.

Okay, do we have a second? Second by Matt. All in favor? Any opposed? Motion carries. Thank you.

Thank you. Okay, we'll move into our last new business case. This is case HZ 25117 at 5415 Bula Avenue in the St. Elmo neighborhood. It's not a historic structure. It's circa 1972. Uh the proposed project is a shed in the rear yard. So here's an aerial of the property and then the property within the St. Elmo historic district overlay. The property photos, you can see it from Virginia Avenue and then uh from Bula and some more property photos showing that rear yard and neighboring property photos. Here's the site plan provided by the applicant. So you can see uh proposed again in that rear yard. The applicant also was recently approved for a um six foot rear privacy fence. And here is the proposed tough shed and the details for that. And so the relevant St. Elmo design guidelines or section 622C for um new construction of out buildings. So secondary buildings item one smaller in scale. Yes. Simple in design but reflecting the general character of the primary building. Shed has a gable roof form like the primary dwelling. Item three, located as traditional for the street near an alley or at the side. Yes, the outbuilding is to the rear. Item four, compatible and design shaped materials and roof shaped to the main building. Yes. Item five, preferably of wood siding, but it can be masonite, aluminum or vinyl based on the location uh and pre-fabricated. The pre-fabricated shed again is proposed at the rear along Virginia Avenue. And then item six, if readily visible from the street, secondary building should have an emphasis on historic designs and detailing. The pre-fabricated shed is proposed at the rear along Virginia Avenue. And the applicant, like I stated previously, was also approved for a rear privacy fence, and the shed will not be visible from Virginia Avenue based on that installation. We just have the applicants uh

presentation. If you could just state your name and address for the record, please. Jamie. Um, so as you can see there, where the yellow is the back of the property is where the privacy is going to go and where the green is located. It's a 10 by 12 shed like an engineering wood.

Fabulous. Thank you. Do we have any community comments or comments by other persons? No. Okay. Move to commission discussion. Can you flip back through the site plan? The yellow where where's where all is the privacy fence going?

But it's coming all the way up the sides also. Yeah. So, I previously approved that fencing. It will come just like she stated about right here on the sides. Okay. All the way back.

Perfect. All right. Any questions, comments? Someone want to make a motion? Brandon I make a motion to approve case HC 25117 at 5415 Bay Lav is submitted pursuant to the Chattanooga city code chapter 10 article 2 section 1015E in pursuant to the Soma design guidelines. We have a second I seconded. All in favor I opposed. Motion carries. Thank you.