Chattanooga Historic Zoning Commission Meeting – St. Elmo District – September 18, 2025

Okay, thank you.

Okay, could you do the roll call now, please?

Sure.

Cliff McCormick.

Piper StroMatt.

Present.

Brandon Penganebin.

Present.

Todd Morgan.

John Cavot.

Cassie Courtney.

Nathan Byrd.

Present.

Matt McDonald.

Present.

Skip Pond.

Present.

All right.

I'll go over our order of business for today and I'll reiterate what Cassie's, I think, has told everyone we're live streaming for the first time this morning.

So please use your mic when you're speaking and come up to the podium.

Please speak into the mic so everyone in the world can hear you.

All right.

The order of business for hearing certificate of appropriateness cases will be as follows this morning.

Each case will have a staff presentation followed by an applicant presentation of no more than 10 minutes.

After which we'll have comments by others for or against the project for five minutes total.

After which the applicant will have a chance for rebuttal, 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.

If you will not be automatically added to the agenda, if you plan to speak, you must be sworn in and sign in at the podium when you come up.

If you need it, there's a laser pointer on the podium to point out anything on screen.

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 wait to exit the wooden doors before speaking or using your cell phone.

All construction work must meet the certificate of appropriateness and design guidelines as approved by the commission or staff.

If plans change, a new application will be required.

If work is not started within six months of the issue date, a new COA will need to be issued.

A COA is not a building permit or land disturbing permit.

Please contact the land disturbing office or the building permit office prior to the start of 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 the commission.

Code setback variants and zoning issues are not within the purview of the commission and will have to be addressed by the applicant with the appropriate personnel within the city.

Reminder this meeting is being recorded.

And next well, actually, first I'll let the record reflect that Mr.

Mr.

Cavot has entered the meeting.

All right, we need to approve the minutes from last month's meeting.

If everyone's had a chance to review those, I'll entertain a motion to approve them.

So moved.

We have a motion and a second.

All in favor?

Aye.

All right.

The minutes are approved.

We'll move into old business, Cassie.

Okay, great.

Thank you so much.

Um we did have one uh update to our agenda.

Case HC 25100 at 55 Beulah Avenue will not be heard today.

The applicant could not attend.

Um so here's a listing of the staff reviews since the last time we met in uh August.

And we'll move into our first old business case.

So this is case HC 24102 at 4718 Florida Avenue in the St.

Elmo neighborhood.

It is a historic structure, circa 1910.

Uh the proposed project is an addition.

You can see the sandborn maps there as well.

Historic zoning history back in 2017.

Uh they had an approval to enlarge a window opening.

So here's an aerial of the property, and then the property within the St.

Almo Historic District overlay.

And here are the property photos, and the neighboring property photos, and then the application information.

So these are all the um documents from the previous previous submission.

And this is the previous COA with the conditions, and then the new submission provided by the applicant.

And the material list and the scope of changes.

So for the north elevation, the new awning roof is extended to the jog of the house.

Additional window at the upper level, additional window at the lower level, a side light removed from the door.

On the south elevation, the upper level porch is now covered and screened.

Side light removed from the door.

On the Linwood elevation windows are reduced inside in size.

Window eliminated on the upper level, the awning roof eliminated at this elevation, and the depth of the awning roof on the north elevation is extended to cover the door.

And in general, the roof material will be asphalt shingle.

It was previously metal.

Um that's it for the commission's scope.

So the relevant St.

Almo design guidelines is section 6.1 for additions, 6.6 for decks, 627 for roofs, and 631 for shutters.

So section 6.1 for additions A should be located at the rear of buildings and not on the front or readily visible areas of the sides of the buildings.

The applicant is proposing a two-story addition to the rear.

Sec uh item B should be secondary, smaller and simpler than the original building and scale design and placement.

The addition is smaller than the existing dwelling.

Applicant to confirm overall square footage of the two-story addition, and if the size of the addition has increased.

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 is proposing an addition with the first story composed of bricks, second story to be wood frame with siding, and two wooden decks, one deck on the second story and one on the first.

The roof shape and locations of windows, doors, and cornice heights line up with the existing dwelling, and the applicant is proposing an asphalt shingle roof.

Item F should be built in a manner that avoids extensive removal or loss of historic materials.

A new exterior door is proposed on the north elevation.

The applicant to confirm if any existing doors or windows will be removed.

Item G should be should keep the exterior walls of the original building alone and use existing door and window openings.

The applicant to confirm if any uh existing doors or windows will be removed.

An item I addition should be made to the rear and not the sides of the house.

The addition is proposed at the rear of the dwelling.

The proposed first floor patio will be partially visible from Florida Avenue.

Section six for decks.

Item A should be located at the rear of buildings.

The proposed deck will be partially visible from Florida Avenue and Linwood Avenue.

And then item C should be simple rather than ornate and design.

If readily visible from the street, wood decks are recommended to have square wood balusters set no more than three inches apart.

We'll have the applicant confirm the dimensions.

Item 31 shutters.

I'm not sure if this is still relevant to the application, so we'll just have the uh applicant confirm.

Should not be added unless the building originally had them.

Uh we'll have the applicant confirm if the shutters are still being considered as part of the scope.

And we'll have the applicant's presentation.

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

My address is 4718 Florida Avenue.

Um so I got easy approval back in November, and I just hadn't started the construction and over the past few months.

I've massaged the design and just kind of made some developments that I think improve the design of the addition.

Um I don't know.

Do you want me to just say what Cassie already just said?

I don't know.

Um the previous design had on the north elevation, that awning roof that you see that's new along the side of the house to the rear.

Umly extended to the siding, but I thought it made more sense for the design to make it go all the way to the where the house jogs out, and then there's a door, uh, currently a window that I y'all had approved last time to let me turn that into a door to access the backyard from that part of the house, and that new roof will extend out and cover the door so that serves a function.

Um sorry.

Okay, is that everything?

Yeah, um, I mean, the other big change was kind of adding a roof over the oh on the south elevation.

There's a roof added over that new porch.

Um just to add some shade and screen that porch that would be off a bedroom.

All of these additions are to the back of the house.

Um, any existing doors and windows.

Um there are a few in the back of the house that would be covered, but we talked last time about keeping those openings in place within the brick and then just kind of covering over them in case someone in the future wanted to take it all down and back to the original so we can accommodate that requirement.

Do you all have any questions for me?

Uh we'll move into community comments.

Do we have any community comments or comments by other persons?

Okay, great.

We can move to the commission discussion.

Okay, does anyone want to take notes on this?

This looks pretty cut and dry, I think.

And I have the original COA on the screen here if that's helpful.

Oh, and in regard to the shutters, I'm not really pursuing that at this time, so are there any questions or comments for the applicant?

I had a question for the applicant.

Uh, what is the roof material now?

It will be an an architectural asphalt shingle.

I mean, what is what's on the building right now?

Oh, um, asphalt shingle.

Okay, so we're not you're not removing caragovers.

No, sorry.

Sorry, I didn't talk into the mic.

I had asked what the existing shingles were.

All right, any other questions, or do we want to make a motion?

Um the deck kind of stands out to me.

Like literally stands out.

Uh I'm not 100% against it, but typically we don't have decks sticking out the side of a house like that.

Uh curious what everybody else's thoughts are.

Uh you mean the the upper deck?

No, the lower uh the patio on the oh oh oh that is I'm sorry, that is ignore that.

It's not that's not the intention anymore.

I've actually working with somebody to help me develop the side of the yard, so that's sort of in the design process still.

But it won't be anything like it won't be a structure, prominent or structure, right?

Right, right.

Great.

If it if it is, I will be sure to run it by you guys.

Do I need to note that in a condition?

I would just for clarity.

Which uh that what's the best way to describe that deck?

Go back to the elevation there on the Florida Avenue elevation.

Yeah, that's the north side, right?

Yes, it's the north side of the house.

Say that's excluded from this approval.

Okay, Commission, is it okay if I were to say the deck on the north side of the plan is uh excluded from this approval?

It's a patio, correct?

Yeah, it was more of a patio.

Yeah for clarification for the applicant, is would that patio be a landscape feature or part of the house?

Would she even need to have that approved?

I think it would depend on the materials.

I know the guidelines talk about like railroad ties, um, but it probably could be a staff approval if it's not like a true structure.

Okay, and it's not gonna be really seen, I wouldn't think.

Um I mean, if it's like a large retaining wall, then that might be a different discussion, but I think it probably could fall under a staff review.

Okay.

Okay, yeah, there.

So if you want to do that, just skip with Cassie and Okay, thank you.

Work it out.

Okay, we're ready to make a motion.

But feel good, okay.

I make a motion to approve case number HZ-24-102 at 4718 Florida Avenue as submitted pursuant to the Chattanooga City Code Chapter 10, Article 2, Section 10-15E, and pursuant to the Saint Elmo Design Guidelines.

Approval is subject to the following conditions.

The patio on the north side of the home is excluded from this approval.

We have a second.

Second, second about Nathan.

Before we close this, was the shutters on this proposal?

Um, I I decided to abandon that for now.

Also, um, do you all want the previous conditions to carry over about like the keeping the um openings in place and that kind of thing?

Yes.

Just for the record.

Okay.

Yes.

If you give me just a second, I'll add that.

Okay.

Thank you.

Can I ask a question?

Sure.

There was a comment in the last time where I'm continuing the brick on the addition, and y'all had noted to make it kind of recess a little bit or something to differentiate it from the existing structure.

Could it just be like a stack of bricks kind of running in a different orientation?

I don't know.

I'm just trying to think of different ways that I can address that.

Yeah, sometimes I mean sometimes with when it's siding, it'll just be a vertical trim board, just something to delineate the new from old.

Okay.

Okay, I got that makes sense.

Makes sense.

Okay.

Okay.

Um I've made the motion.

I've adjusted the conditions.

I'm gonna reread the conditions.

Uh the patio on the north side of the home is to be excluded from this approval, and all conditions from the previous approval carry forward to this approval.

Okay, we have a second from Nathan still, all in favor.

Okay, motion carries.

Thank you.

Thank you, everyone.

Okay, great.

We'll move into our next old business case.

This is case HC 2582 at 4914 Florida Avenue in the St.

Elmo neighborhood.

It is a historic structure circa 1917.

The proposed project is an addition, exterior rehabilitation and parking.

Um historic zoning history back in 2022.

They did an exterior rehabilitation and applied for an ADU.

So here's an aerial of the property and the property within the St.

Almo historic district overlay, the property photos, and the neighboring property photos.

This is the um documentation from the previous submission.

The material list from the previous submission.

And the new um application materials provided by the applicant.

So last time we had the discussion about the size of the addition.

So you can see here that has been clarified.

Um the entire the existing square footage is uh 1,290 square feet, and the total new conditioned area is 2,309 square feet.

So here's that new site plan showing the new um plan of the addition.

And you can see the parking to the south.

And here is the um interior plan, and then the updated elevations, and the updated renderings.

So the relevant San Almo design guidelines, we're looking at 6.1 for additions, 6.8 for doors, 6.9 for driveways, 625 for porches, and 641 for windows.

Item 61 uh should be located at the rear of the building, not on the front.

Yes, the addition is located at the rear.

Item B should be secondary, smaller and simpler than the original building in scale design and placement.

The proposed addition is 1,019 square feet of condition space.

The existing dwelling is 1,290.

Um item C should be compatible design in keeping with the original building's design, roof shape, etc.

The addition will have hip-and-gable roofs like the existing dwelling, and the material will be distinct.

Um item E should appear distinguishable from the historic building.

The applicant seems to match the trim of the existing dwelling, and there's a distinction in the materials.

Item F should be built in a manner that avoids extensive removal or loss of historic mere materials.

Uh the existing laundry room is to be demolished, but the applicant's plans notes that the windows will be salvaged for potential reinstallation at the addition.

Item G should keep the exterior walls of the original building alone and use existing door and window openings.

Existing laundry room to be demolished again.

The applicant notes that the windows will be salvaged for reinstallation.

And then item I additions should be made to the rear, not the sides.

The addition is proposed at the rear.

Um for doors, uh doors and door surrounds are important features.

Original doors should be preserved and maintained, and original features should be repaired.

We don't have an original front door on this house, but the applicant is proposing to relocate it and replace the front door, but we did not get the details on the trim or door design.

Item A and order surround side lights should not be removed or altered.

Again, it's not a original door, but they are proposing to relocate and replace that door.

Um for I section nine driveways, driveways and paving item B, which are new should be located at the rear with access from the alley.

The applicant is proposing to install and expand a gravel driveway to the side of the dwelling.

There's an existing curb cut off Florida Avenue.

Item C in the front or side yard should be of gravel.

Uh the existing driveway will increase in size, but they are proposing gravel for the parking area.

And then item D should have their parking areas located in the rear yard.

Um the parking area will be in the side yard.

Section 25 for porches, porch columns, and railings.

Item B should not be removed if original.

The existing front porch columns are likely a later addition, and the applicant is proposing new 12 by 12 posts and new wrap at the porch to match the existing score skirting.

Item C and their details should be retained intact with repair work and replacement of missing parts.

Uh the existing front porch are likely a later edition.

Again, proposing the new 12 by 12 posts and new wrap.

And then item F should have wood steps, not brick or concrete for buildings with wood porch floors.

Um the applicant is proposing to demo the existing concrete steps, the architectural drawing, state wooden steps, but material is states concrete.

Should be retained and repaired again.

What's there is a a later addition, and the applicant is proposing the new 12 by 12 post and the new wrap at the porch to match the existing skirting.

Um and then item D talks about uh the dimensions for the appropriate size.

And then section 641 for windows, item A should be preserved in their original size location and design.

The applicant is proposing to remove the windows on the rear laundry room and add a new window opening on the south elevation.

Site plan shows the reinstallation.

Item B should not be added to primary facades or secondary facades where readily visible.

Again, proposing to remove those windows on the rear and reuse them and then add a new window opening on the south elevation of the house.

And item C should be repaired rather than replaced.

Um the applicant is proposing to install new metal cloud windows on the front facade, replacing the existing vinyl windows.

Um, and we'll ask for some more details on those.

And we'll have the applicant's presentation.

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

Matthew Lewis, 4122 St.

Elmo Avenue.

So I believe last time we were concerned about the size of the addition, and it was a little confusion if it was bigger than the original house, and it it it wasn't.

Um but that being said, we went ahead and removed the sunroom to make it clear at this point that it's not big.

So and then I I like to ask the question just for the future as well.

So when I buy these properties and I want to build this, you know, the additions, and they're not supposed to be or should not be bigger than the original.

Is there a perimeter?

Is there a 50 square feet, 100 square feet, or is it just up to interpretation when I come here on what size that should probably be?

Because even this being set right now, I would I would still prefer that wall to be out further.

But I'll build it like this if you if if you guys want it to be at this size.

I mean, the guideline is shouldn't be bigger than the original home.

I agree.

Because the original we were like 30 square feet smaller than the original house.

It just needs to be under that square footage than the original.

But your plans currently do state that the new total new condition area is 2309.

Yeah, with with this one.

With the existing, so I just want to make sure we're showing on the record the plans do state.

The new plans.

Right.

That could be confusing.

So just wanted to put on record that it is smaller, but that is a total combined of the new total footprint.

So the old plans, if you go back, they're the it is smaller than the original house.

I mean Denise designed this specifically for that.

After the meeting, we went back and looked at everything.

We can kind of see where there was a little bit of confusion because when we took off the sunroom, which was 200 and something square feet, that was added to the new addition as a square footage, and that's where the misconception was.

When that was actually part of the original house.

And then it was added into the addition, which made the addition appear to be bigger.

The numbers here are the 1252.

Yeah, I think is existing house.

But then you have 16, I believe, 29.

Minus the 256.

So it's so it's close.

Yeah, I guess is what you're saying.

So 256-ish, which is it's a little bigger than that's the existing part that we've taken down.

So for this plan, everything past that yellow area would be new.

Okay.

So that area should be not be bigger than everything.

It is not okay.

It's well, the footprint of new addition labeled here on this line is the 1500.

And the existing is 12 under 13.

Yes, so that's bigger.

At least per the drawing.

But where the misconception is, and my architects here is we added the yellow into the new addition by mistake.

Okay.

I mean, if that's yeah, if we can clarify that, and that yeah, everything past the yellow is new, and everything this side of the yellow to the left of the yellow is old, as long as that new area is not bigger than it's not.

Well, I think I mean we don't have numbers stating that on this drawing, and then you have now proposed a new design.

So what are you asking for today?

Well, two things.

I I would uh I would like to keep this original design, and if I could then you know move forward with it and then present you the correct numbers on that, uh tech do that for me, and then we can go from there and you can see that.

Um if not, and uh I I gave you a new design because I did not want to not give you anything to come here.

So and I obviously wanted to show you the I'm willing to work with you and shrink the size, but I didn't know what perimeter the size would be.

Yeah, and I I don't particularly like that.

I don't think I don't think for the you know for our neighborhood that that's you know it's just a little awkward for me.

Should we move to community comments and then move to y'all's discussion?

Would that be helpful?

I don't and I my architect is also here she can clarify as well.

Would your architect like to speak?

You know, or Denise.

Is this a community comment or is this start still part of the thing?

Um providing another clarification to this my footage.

Is that correct?

Because we're still in at we're still in applicant presentation right now to answer your question.

Uh Denise Shaw, I'm 1402 West 54th Street.

If you can go to the original submission demo plan, please.

And um, so what Matt is saying is that the original square footage of the house was calculated based off of this footprint, and then the new area that was shown that number is based off of this outline here.

And so this number is a little muddy because the orange area is shown in both categories.

And so what I'm trying to clarify right now is that when you calculate the original square footage to include the orange, the original square footage was 12,062 square feet, but the entire, of course, a portion of that was removed.

So the two hundred two hundred and fifty-six was removed, or is that what it says, or two sixty-five?

Okay.

Um, but then that square footage is really now in the new footprint of the edition.

And so what I'm trying to illustrate with this diagram is that the area that's outside of the orange is smaller in area than the original house with the original laundry room footprint.

So in round numbers, what is the square footage of the existing home that is being kept?

And what is the exit what is the proposed square footage?

And in round numbers, it's uh 1200 is the original house that will be maintained, and then in round numbers, the uh new edition is um I'm doubting 1200 again.

I can't read these numbers, they're so blurry.

I say 1252 are existing on the bottom of that.

Okay, 1250 or 1262 is what it looks like.

Right.

This is based off of interior framing dimensions, and then his measurements came off of the um Hamilton County uh tax appraise assessor's office.

So but even if we take the 1629 and we subtract the 266, which is what you're saying, we're still at 1363.

So we are still larger than the dwelling.

You're not far off.

I think what we need to do is clarify that the actual the actual house is bigger than the 1262 that we that we roughly measured near.

So on the Hamilton County records, and from what we draw, it's bigger.

Yeah, I mean, I think we need actual numbers, right?

Because the assessor isn't always correct, and you guys are out there in the field, so measure what's existing, include the sunroom, and then measure what your proposed addition is, and then provide us with a design that you would like to move forward with.

I don't know that it's helpful to hear it today because I I'm not sure what the commission can approve today if we don't know what exactly what you're proposing.

Okay, so can we do this?

Because I don't want to stop the project again.

We've already stopped for four weeks.

You you would know as well as I do that that's kind of devastating.

So if is it possible that we can move forward with the new plant, the new plans that clearly shrink down uh the size of the addition, and then I can come back to propose closing in the porch with the clarifications of all the numbers at that point.

So you can either say no, we can't close the porch in, we'll leave it as it is now, or or yes, we we can close in.

That's what's going back into the side.

That's what's before us today.

So yeah, yeah, I think go back to your first question.

I mean, legal can correct me if I'm wrong here, but we're not rules enforcers, we're guideline interpreters.

So the spirit of the guidelines of my interpretation is that once we get in the range of double the size or greater, then we're completely losing the character of a historic home.

And so it was pretty clear from the other commissioners' comments in the last meeting that we were getting to the point of losing the original character of the home where the spirit of the guidelines is once we double the size or greater, we're it's it's just not the same home anymore.

Um I I wouldn't recommend delaying this project for in hopes that the original larger footprint would be approved because it didn't have a lot of support from the interpretations in the last meeting.

And to be honest from a massive jump in real quick.

Um just this sounds kind of like commission discussion.

Do you think we could make sure there's no community comments?

Do we have any community comments or comments by other persons?

Okay, we can move to commission discussion.

No, thank you, Cliff.

Thanks.

Nathan I mean, there's there's a little bit of gray area here in the in the guidelines in terms of how exactly to interpret what's new, what's existing, what's counted as square footage.

Um I'm open to counter-arguments here, but uh to me when it comes to that specific guideline about size, I don't think it really matters if the porch is enclosed or not.

Um the massing of the building is the same.

You've still got the same area of roof under under roof.

So it reads very similarly either way.

Um again, I mean, you know, are we interpreting square footage like an assessor would interpret square footage, or are we interpreting square footage as under roof square footage?

Like I'm open to counter-arguments here, but I I'm I'm uncomfortable with how honestly, yeah, how large, how large the home is is getting.

I mean, this is very close to double the size, and depending on how you interpret it, more than double the size.

Um it's a really big addition.

It's a 1200 square foot addition.

I'm trying to I've spent some time trying to remember from this picture, uh Nathan.

I I mean the roof is obviously going over the original house.

So that you know, if if if you see where that little jaw down is and cut back, I mean that's the original house.

I mean, I I think it's fair to say that you know, obviously, you guys know the work I do in the neighborhood.

I'm not gonna build something that looks ridiculous.

So I think w the discussion we had last moment that I've been trying to remember it was that definitely there are times when it's a big deal to the neighborhood that a house has an addition that's too big because we've had every seat in the house full here.

Yeah, so that's not appear to be the case now.

We don't have any community comments, no one's written anything.

I actually work from the last meeting before all we said was just bring us a number that says you're somewhat smaller than what's there.

Just bring us a number that says it works because we don't want to approve something that's on paper bigger than what was there, and I think we just measure the thing and bring it and show us that it's smaller.

Uh but uh I almost kind of feel like you came back and designed something smaller and said, Well, but I don't want to do this, I want to do what I did before.

But do we have a good measurement?

I I would still buy stay by the same thing.

The one this is kind of pushing that envelope.

Um if the addition can be said to be smaller than the existing house, it's and and there's no one here saying this house is a travesty, it's gonna you know ruin our views or it's gonna throw the scale of the neighborhood.

I'd be fine to just say, okay, look, you you did the math.

Uh we're not setting a precedent for something that could be really uh detrimental to the neighborhood.

Um and we're okay.

So I I feel like that's kind of where we are, is figuring out if that math makes sense.

I think for me, just so we don't set presidents in the neighborhood, and we are interpreting the guidelines as the guidelines state, we need a black and white number to be able to differentiate what those are.

I say, Ms.

Gibb, I think your neighbors did a great job explaining that the scale matches the scale next door from last meeting.

For me personally, I need the black and white numbers to be able to say deal.

Now, is that something that we could uh I could move forward with with my project because it's not gonna change and then present them the correct numbers to you?

The number that's on the screen right there works.

Yeah, that number, yeah.

Yep.

Is that the real number?

This is for the new design.

Yes.

But it sounds like the applicant is asking for so I'll clarify.

So I'm I'm I'll build this.

Okay.

I have no problem building this, but I just wanted to have an option of throughout the project.

If I came back and said, hey, do you mind if I pull this wall back another 10 feet?

It's gonna add 200, you know, 150 more square feet.

I'm still below this if that's something I could do.

And you're talking about the same footprint you're just wanting to build in the porch.

Yes, okay.

Just take that the hallway and just push it back.

Well, it appears to me if those numbers are correct, those numbers work.

Those are correct numbers.

Right, and I think that's where we were getting confused at is which indication are we trying to do what version we're doing.

So I'll let's do this version, and then if something changes later on down the line, I'll come back to the commission and say, hey, I'd like to move this wall or something at that point.

But it's not gonna change the footprint of what we're building, and you know, my thing.

And those numbers give him a couple hundred square feet leeway.

And that's I think they think that's what he's trying to ask.

Is it it?

Can you still be underneath these numbers?

Yes, is that right?

Okay, it appears to me, yes.

That's okay.

I I think that I want to go back and make sure we don't set a different precedent.

I I want to make sure that we don't uniformly say that if you demolish part of your building, you can still count that as existing building if you build it back.

That's not always the case.

Like what if you what if you left the front living room and nothing else?

And then you made another, but then you said, Well, I built back in the same place.

You see, I that's ridiculous, but I don't want to open the door to some the foundation footprint of the original house, no matter how much of the walls I take down due to all kinds of different things.

I think with this plot.

I think with this plan though, from a massing perspective, I mean that yellow area on the plan is part of the original mass.

Yeah, and it is existing and it stays as part of the original mass, and then that white area behind it is what's being added to the mass.

But you're you're just reconstructing it.

Yes.

That's fine.

I mean, I just I would want to say that this is this has got to be reviewed every time it's not meant to set a precedent because I can see someone trying to do a demolition and ending up demolishing a house, but keeping one room and saying, well, see, I'm building it back the same shape, so we can do this.

You see where I'm going.

Oh, I wouldn't do that, but I'm trying to oh I'd be in the show not demolishing the house in historic.

Believe me.

And I do just want to call attention to this roof plan versus the floor plan, right?

Because we have that kind of to Nathan's point, conditioned versus unconditioned space.

So do keep that in mind.

And we're kind of thinking about the massing.

Okay.

Any other questions or comments?

What else we don't discuss as much?

Uh front door would be we didn't discuss the front door.

That was we just had some discussion.

Yeah, we had some discussion on the location change, but we did discuss that it may not have been a historic location in the first place.

It may have been an elsewhere.

So I want to relocate it and put just like the normal solid wood half-light doors that you see throughout the day would almost all of the projects.

Are we good with that?

I'm fine with the new location.

And then the stairs, the wood or concrete guys.

They're currently concrete, right?

Currently concrete.

You tell me what you would prefer and I'll put back.

What do we think?

I was a homeowner, I'd want concrete.

But yeah.

The porch floors reference here.

The porch floors concrete.

It's wood.

I think I would approve either.

Okay.

I would.

I mean, the the guidelines say wood, but in fact, wood stairs, new wood stairs just tend to you have to rebuild them every three years if they're exposed to the rain.

So that I'm good with staff approval on which way it goes.

Yeah, item F under 25 porches does say that it should have wood steps if it has wood porch floors, but it does note that pre-cast concrete may be added.

So not as appropriate, but can be added.

Oh, what's your opinion?

What do you mean?

You know, we want to go.

You want to say either.

I'd go either way.

I'm good stating either for construction purposes.

I would say either.

Perfect.

Okay.

What else do we have for the applicant?

Anything?

Or would someone like to make a motion?

Piper, you want to take this one?

Thank you.

Thank you.

And can we run over what the bullet points are one more time for the conditions?

Stairs could be either wood or concrete.

Location as is on the plans.

Do we want to mention the condition square footage or anything with that?

But stating for the record you are going with this plan.

Yeah.

Here.

Yeah, I just as long as it's the underneath the existing house.

The condition.

Do we want to condition that?

Or state it within the conditions.

I think we're approving the plan as is right now.

If he wants to do something different with a sunroom or the porch, then we'll hear it again.

All right.

Everybody ready?

Okay.

Go ahead.

I make a motion to approve case number HZ-25-82 at 4914 Florida Avenue as submitted pursuant to the Chattanooga Chattanooga City Code Chapter 10, Article 2, Section 1015E.

And pursuant to the St.

Elmo Design Guidelines.

Approval is subject to the following conditions.

The stairs to be wood or concrete.

Wood half-light door location as is on the plans.

Do we have a second?

Second and by cliff.

All in favor.

Aye.

Any opposed.

Okay.

Motion carries.

Thank you.

Awesome.

Thank you guys for you there.

Okay.

We'll move to our next old business case.

This is HC 2526.

At 5419 St.

Elmo Avenue in the St.

Elmo neighborhood.

It is a historic structure circa 1917.

The proposed project is COA revisions.

We have a reduced scope.

The applicant is now just proposing an ADU.

When you saw this previous application, there was an addition as well.

The historic zoning history in 2023, there were some alterations to previous COAs for new porch railings, sidewalk pavers, concrete parking pad, and in 2022 windows, fencing, and siding.

So here's an aerial of the site, and then the site within the St.

Elmo Historic District Overlay.

Here are the property photos.

And the neighboring property photos.

And this is the application information.

This is from the previous submission.

So you can see the yellow is that ADU and the blue is the addition.

The blue addition has been eliminated from the scope.

Again, the previous submission.

And this is the new submission.

So you can see that it's just the ADU ADU at the rear of the property.

There's a zoom in of that ADU plan.

And here's the renderings provided by the applicant.

And the elevations.

Should be one smaller in scale than the primary building.

The height and the footprint of the ADU is less than the primary dwelling.

The applicant has reduced the scope of the proposal and remove the previously approved addition.

Item two, simple in design but reflecting the general character of the primary building.

Yes, the ADU has gable and shed roof forms.

Item three, located as traditional for the street near an alley or at the side of the dwelling, not close to or attached.

The ADU is proposed at the rear of the property along shoff place.

Item four, compatible in design shape materials, and roof shape.

Yes, the proposed edition has gable roof forms.

The applicant is proposing a more modern shed roof on the ADU structure.

Item five, preferably of wood siding.

However, if located along rear alleys or towards the rear of the lot, secondary buildings may have exterior sidings such as masonite, aluminum or vinyl.

The applicant is proposing horizontal hardy board siding to match the existing dwelling.

And then item six, if readily visible from the street, secondary buildings should have an emphasis on historic designs and detailing.

And we'll have the applicant's presentation.

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

Yes.

My name is Denise Shaw.

Address is 1402 West 54th Street.

As you recall from our presentation in I think May, this house has three frontages, and we're treating 55th Street as if it's more of the alley side, giving more predominance to the shoff place.

And of course, uh we're not addressing St.

Elmo in this application.

The piece in the middle pricing is come in.

It is just out of the budget in order to build this.

And so the scale of this addition has been reduced to only a freestanding ADU.

And as stated previously, we feel like it's most important to address that street and treat it as if it's a separate little cottage with the shop place frontage and another modification to the original design is adding a shed roof on this side without having the addition over here.

I don't believe there are any questions that I need to clarify.

So that's all I have.

All right, thank you.

Do we have any community comments or comments by other persons?

Okay, great.

We can move to commission discussion.

Can you do we have the old plan just for clarity?

So this is the previous plan on the screen.

The building plan that we approved.

Yes, this is the previous submission.

So these are the renderings.

So we're missing this hyphen piece, is no longer part of the scope.

Gotcha.

And then you can see here on the site plan, the blue highlighted area has been removed.

And then the I think the outline of the ADU has changed a bit.

And where's the new ADU rent the rendering?

There we go.

Yep.

So it's in very similar to what we've heard before.

Any questions or comments for the applicant?

Commission.

I think it's probably either just a wrong image or confusion, but there's a site plan that still seems to show a roof.

That's I just want to that's an error on my roof plan.

I left my uh two-dimensional objects on my roof plan and did not delete those.

Okay.

So not intended to be a roof through.

It is, it is not.

It is you can see there straight through it and see that it's actually ground underneath there.

So that was me.

Festival 2D notes.

Okay.

If there are no questions, does someone want to make a motion?

Yeah, I'll make a motion to approve case number H Z 2526.

Oh, wait.

Start again.

I make a motion to approve case number HZ2526, 5419, St.

Elmo Avenue is submitted pursuant to the Chetnague City Code, Chapter 10, Article 2, Section 1015E, and pursuant to the St.

Elmo Design Guidelines.

Do we have a second?

Second.

Seconded by Matt.

All in favor?

Aye.

Oppose.

All right.

Motion carries.

Thank you.

Great.

Thank you.

Um so our next two cases are related.

One is under old business.

It's the HZD 256 for the demolition of 5401 Alabama Avenue.

And then we have the follow-up case, which is HZ25107, which is the proposal for uh reconstruction and an addition.

Um I just want to ask the commission how you'd like me to proceed.

Do you want me to run through both applications and then break out back into the individual cases or let's look at the demo first this time?

I think we got confused when we did that last time.

Okay, sure.

Okay.

All right.

So this is case HZD 25-6, uh, 5401 Alabama Avenue in the St.

Elmo neighborhood.

It is a historic structure, circa 1889 uh to 1904 per the national register nomination.

The proposed project is uh partial demolition at this point, uh historic zoning history in 2019 and earlier this year.

Um there was a request for demolition.

Here is the aerial of the property and the property within the St.

Elmo Historic District Overlay, and the property photos, the neighboring property photos, and then the application information.

So some more detailed photos and interior, and the uh exterior images here, and more neighboring property photos, uh application information.

This is the ad provided by the applicant to meet the uh requirements for demolition requests in our ordinance.

And then uh an engineering report provided by the applicant.

And the um emergency order to comply from our code enforcement staff.

And the relevant St.

Elmo design guidelines is section 67 for demolition.

So item or I'll start demolition is forever.

Once a building is gone, it takes away another piece of the neighborhood's character.

Demolition of a historic building which has most of its original design and features should only be an action of last resort.

Item B of a building which contributes to the historic or architectural significance of St.

Elmo should not occur unless one public safety and welfare requires the removal of the building or structure.

Again, City of Chattanooga code enforcement side of the property for exterior violations and cited an emergency order to comply after condemnation.

A building inspector visited the property, reviewed the structural engineers letter, and determined that the building could be demolished.

But I do want to note that the building inspector is not considering the historic zoning ordinance as part of that recommendation.

Item two, if a building has lost its architectural and historical value and its removal will improve the appearance the appearance of the neighborhood, the building still retains its architectural and historical value.

The applicant is proposing partial demolition and reconstruction of the dwelling under HC 25107, which is the next case.

And then item three if a building does not contribute to the historical or architectural character and importance of the district, its removal will improve the appearance of the neighborhood.

The property is listed as contributing in the national register nomination and still retains some of its defining architectural features, including the gable vent, shingle trim, and elaborate freeze treatment on the porch.

So we'll move to the applicant's presentation.

Just state your name and address for the record, please.

Yes.

Um that the house had sustained over time.

Um both from the um lack of of uh maintenance from the previous owner, and then attempts at maintenance that were uh sidelin a bit from the COVID um accessibility to um good tradesmen to fix and repair um elements of the house.

Um when I was attending that meeting, what I heard the commission state was that this house had gotten to the point of not being able to be repaired, but the front portion of the house was requested to be duplicated to be replicated and rebuilt, and so if we're a clarification on the um case that follows as new construction, we are actually trying to pull off elements of this house to salvage and um uh use as recru recreations for the new front portion of the house, but we really are showing that the house is to be demolished because of the state of of the the current condition of it.

Um please correct me if I did not hear that uh correctly at that June meeting, but I I was an attendee and not a hired consultant at that point.

Um I think that is the only clarification that I have to give.

So thank you.

Thank you.

Um, do we have any community comments or comments by other persons?

Okay, we did receive a letter of support for both of these, but it did not come in in time, so I just want to note that for the record.

Okay, okay, we can move to commission discussion, or if um you'd like me to read the next case, just let me know how you want to proceed.

Uh I guess as we get into discussion, maybe we'll look at the new plan, but I guess.

Yeah, I I remember this case, but I don't remember the specifics of it.

Is there any new information engineering reports, anything like that that that we have today that we didn't have in June, I guess is my first question.

Uh we don't have anything new.

It was really just uh, I think Cassie wanted to close this portion of the this specific case, and then we hired Denise to come up with plans.

I think we were just trying to clarify the plans that Denise has made.

We recreated the front so it's identical, and then made changes to the back for the addition, but due to the state of the front of the house and the fact that like the the foundation all needs to be replaced and the framing all needs to replace.

We're asking if when when we do recreate the house, if you are asking us to hold up every bit of it, or if we're allowed to take it down and take the pieces off that um add character to the neighborhood and to the house, and then place those back on a more structurally sound building.

Could you please state your name and address Bianca Viticante 4505 St.

Almo Avenue.

But the proposal is to take it we're taking this thing down foundations footings all yes un underneath the house the the original pillars are gone and there's there's just metal poles and the front foundation has been removed and replaced with concrete block that has cracks all in it.

And the engineer's report states that more than 80% of the framework needs to be replaced.

There's also no original doors or windows anywhere inside or outside of the house so really what we're trying to save and duplicate we'd like to take off those decorative features again but there's there's nothing that we know of that we need to save from the the actual structure because it's not okay in good enough shape to salvage at the front of the house go ahead and show the new plan yes Denise to answer your question that the the full demolition was denied multiple times and then during one of the later ones when it was resubmitted Todd had um just reposed an idea to try to work with you to possibly demolish the back of the house but it was still denied for for demolition of the of the front of the home.

So no act well no action was taken on this specific case number you guys deferred it but that was the feedback received I just want to clarify the feedback.

Sure like Brandon mentioned I think last time the feedback that the applicant got was there an opportunity to save kind of the front more historic portion of the structure while doing a partial demolition of the rear and retaining any of those significant architectural features and materials and kind of bringing that request back.

And it sounds like the applicant has proposed to take the entire structure all the way down but retain the architectural features reinstall them if possible but reconstruct them if necessary is my understanding and I think that includes again kind of all those decorative architectural features on the front and then I there was a note about salvaging some of the siding as well I believe okay can we go ahead and see the new plan that we're just for sake of discussion at this point.

We're not hearing the next case we're just looking at the what we're there any other questions for the applicant about the structure I know we've heard this at least one other time okay I guess we're still in commission discussion for HZD 256 but on the screen you can see um the proposed plans go to the elevations so on the left you can see the zoom in there of um the proposed items that will be salvaged or reconstructed this is existing conditions and then these are the proposed uh proposed site plan and the proposed conditions so the front part of this thing is gonna look like a replica of the old one that's my understanding yep it's that's what I see okay um yeah I mean this thing is in bad shape not sure how how you bring it back and they're going to present something that is going to maintain the character that this home has so we need to weigh if that's acceptable or not I'd like to chime in and say that you know demolition is forever but uh I really do appreciate their intention to build back what is being lost and and I'm I'm in support of demolition in this instance other comments I think I agree but I'm very I personally would not vote to approve this motion I would simply approve the next motion which has demolition inherit in it my fear would be we approve this we can never control what happens then there's an approval for demolition um if someone could simply withdraw the second motion and then we would just have a piece of property with the demolished house which is what we don't want.

Um someone could simply withdraw the second motion, and then we would just have a piece of property with the demolished house, which is what we don't want.

I would almost want to I'd want to just if it were me, I would look at approving the next motion, which it shows demolition in the drawing, but it shows selective demolition with salvage and reconstruction.

But I don't know that I want a motion for demolition floating out there if we don't want to consider that may mean not say anything about trustworthiness for the applicant.

Um but that may mean this you know something happens, the property sells, the project doesn't go ahead, and then the next owner says, Well, I've got a demolition uh approval here.

I can go ahead and demolish the house and build something entirely different.

Could we can do could we condition this motion with tie it tie it to you could condition this motion on this case?

Yeah, approve on the approval and just like demolition is only allowed if I think rather than what if could we hear it all as one could it all be one?

I I think the cleanest way to do this would be to ask for this to be withdrawn and simply approve the new build.

Then there's no question, there's no stray approval to demolish.

There's it's just a clean single case.

Yes.

How's that sound?

City wise, is that do they do we have to hear this case and approve the demolition as a single case for them to move forward with it?

So we need to do something with HZD 256, whether that is you denying it, you approving it with conditions, you deferring it again, or the applicant withdrawing.

I don't want the case just sitting out there.

Um I would like to close it, but that's kind of why I wanted to hear them both so that we could figure out what the best way to motion that is.

I think my only concern.

Okay, that's just the same.

I see.

Could we potentially pause this case, hear the next one, and then make a decision on the the original there's there's at least partial demolitions in other cases.

I mean, I'm with Cliff, I'm gonna vote to deny 25-6.

We've this is the third time it's been out there, we've hashed over it multiple times.

Um if there's a something in new business that involves demolition and then a plan for rebuild, that's fine.

But we've already been through this twice.

This is the third time.

I don't know why we would change change the plan here.

Why don't we hear a motion then on this case?

We'll dispose of it that way, and then we'll move on to the next one.

My only concern is like we have you know separate application requirements for a demolition request versus new construction or rehabilitation.

But if we are defining the next case as a reconstruction/slash rehabilitation, because not all is to be demolished.

I guess that's the tricky part of the retention piece.

I think what I see on that paper is a reconstruction.

It's a technically a new build.

You would be taking down the full existing structure.

So I think that's where it's confusing out as what do we need to do.

But they're putting back the front part of the building in kind, is what I see, and then they're doing an addition to it.

So it's not a it's not a typical new build in my mind.

Yeah, and I believe some materials will be salvaged if um possible.

Yeah, and we're not disposing of the structure and putting up a brand new totally redesigned structure.

Are we allowed to deny a request to withdraw?

We vote on it every time.

There's a motion to withdraw.

We have a second, we have a vote.

Are we allowed to vote no?

Yeah.

So I think that handles the confusion on what do we do if we approve this?

And then the next case we hear it.

And if they request to withdraw it, not saying they would, I don't think you will.

Um, but it remains on our agenda, and we can approve it, and that rides with the land, doesn't it?

I mean, once uh application is approved, any future owner, if that were to be the case, would have to abide by it as well.

Well, I mean, it's yes, the denial piece.

Um, if it was approved, though, a COA would in there's no work done, it would expire.

Um if the scope was the same, then maybe staff could approve it, but it also may need to come back to the commission.

But no, we see cases that are withdrawn by the applicant all the time.

That's not unusual to have one withdrawn without us voting.

We've got a question for the meeting.

Yeah.

Our input.

Am I supposed to be withdrawing it?

Is it something that we can just tie the demo to the actual plans, like the approved plan?

So the this fear that the demolition will be just a teardown with with nothing in the future, and new homeowners possibly could build some house.

Yeah, I think that's where we're trying to go.

Yeah.

And I yeah, I think there was the just the comment of you know, if they approve this demolition, it's you know, do you want to set that precedent, or do you want to deny it and then approve the reconstruction?

But it could be a demo that is applied with the the with the idea that they're tied to those plans.

So even if the fear is that we did sell the property, the future homeowner possibly would have to use the plans that we provided, or is that not?

Yeah, I guess my concern is if um so say we do that, and then you come in and you pull your demolition permit.

Do I have to hold that demolition permit until she's submitted for her new building plans or new building permit?

And then at that point, you can have the building permit, it doesn't mean you're gonna construct it, right?

So I guess that's the risk of approving the demolition.

Um is kind of the enforcement piece of it, is what I'm concerned about.

I think maybe we should table this.

I think see what happens with the other motion because I feel like the other the next one could be approved.

Look like something we might get approved.

At least we could have a good talk about it.

And then once we know if it's approved, maybe we can we'll have a better feeling what we can do with this one.

You want to make a motion to table it?

Uh sure.

Um need for a paper, just make a motion to table it.

Uh yeah, I'm like a motion to table case A C D 256, 5401 Alabama Avenue.

Do we have a second?

Second, second of a mat.

All in favor.

Aye.

All right, we're gonna table that for now and move on.

We want to move on to the next case related to this, right?

Or okay, just making sure we weren't going all the way to the end.

No, no, no.

Okay.

All right, so K uh Case H Z 25107 at 5401 Alabama Avenue, St.

Elmo neighborhood, historic structure, yes, circa 1889.

So this proposal is the reconstruction and the addition.

Again, the aerial and the property within the St.

Elmo Historic District Overlay, property photos, neighboring property photos, and then the application information.

So uh this is the plan showing the existing conditions.

Uh again, the elevation showing the exist existing conditions with notes of salvaging the existing spindles for duplication, salvaging existing bracket for duplication, um, salvage existing posts to match dimension and salvage existing vertical siding to match with detailing, and the other elevations of the existing conditions, and the proposed conditions here.

These are the proposed elevations, so the new east elevation, the new south elevation, the new north elevation uh from the street side, and the new west elevation, the rear.

And then here are the renderings provided by the applicant.

Uh the material list uh for windows, aluminum clad or composite, front door, um three-quarter light, other exterior doors the same as above.

The roof would be architectural shingles, foundation simulated brick finish, siding for the addition, um horizontal cementitious siding or LP siding, rebuilt historic portion would be wood shingles.

There's a note here to ask if they should reuse the old siding if that would be required.

Porches, front porch TNG wood decking to match the original railings, nominal two by two vertical balusters, gutters, uh metal downspouts, rectangular metal.

Here is um another zoom in of that material list.

Um again, noting uh potentially salvaging some of that existing siding.

Um some images of the proposed material list, and I think the applicant provided um some images of a similar property in the neighborhood with the two over two windows, I think was the intent.

Um, and then the relevant St.

Elmo design guidelines.

I looked at 6.1 for additions, 6.8 for doors, 6.9 for driveways and paving, 625 for porches, and 641 for windows.

I didn't apply the new construction guidelines here.

Do you want me to run through these or do you want to move to commission discussion?

How would you like to proceed?

I don't know that we want to I don't know that we want to go through every line on here.

Okay.

Yeah, roll through it quickly.

Okay, sure.

So 6.1 for additions should be located to the rear.

Yes, the addition is located to the rear.

The addition would be built after partial demolition, sounds like full demolition of the rear of the dwelling.

Um should be secondary and smaller.

The proposed addition exceeds the area that is proposed for partial demolition.

We'll have the applicant confirm the square footage of the original building to remain versus the new addition.

Sounds like the entire front of that building is coming down to be reconstructed.

The rest talks about just kind of designs, and the applicant will be matching kind of existing trim details.

Driveways and paving, there is a new proposed driveway and parking area to the rear of the property, a concrete apron and a gravel driveway off of West 54th Street.

Foundation is proposed to be rebuilt using a simulated brick finish.

And then the porches again, the applicant is proposing to reconstruct the front porch to match the existing conditions.

Note that they will reuse original architectural features where possible and will reconstruct other items as needed.

And then again, section 633 for siding.

We have the clarification of whether or not any of that can be reused or if they can use new wood siding.

And then windows.

Yes.

So we can have the applicant's presentation.

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

If you would go to the architectural site plan, please.

The new, yes.

So the original footprint of the house, all in this grade area, is 1619 square feet.

The new proposed first floor is 2,247 square feet.

So that is a total new addition on the first floor of 628 square feet.

The intent is to try and keep as much of the living areas down on the lower level with the bedrooms upstairs.

The form of the house, we were really trying to keep everything under the roof line so that the house scale still has matched to what was there before, that it still reads as a one-story house with the uh second floor in built into the roof.

The new upper level is 953 square feet.

Um as we've been discussing this front portion, which unfortunately is obscured with my uh print, but this is the portion that we are uh we measured it, we're pulling pieces off of, we're trying to truly replicate what was there and rebuild it in a quality way.

Um, and then the rear of the house we held the the line of the roof back.

Um originally the house actually had this funny little um triangle off to the side, which you you don't always notice it when you're looking at it because the line of sight from the sidewalk up is somewhat obscured, which I think also works as a benefit to pulling the gable line back of the new addition so that your um line of sight from the front of the house is further you know working with perspective to to hold that line back.

Um if you would go to exterior elevations, please.

Um, as you can see that this is the original form of the house.

We've actually come back with brick foundations underneath the porch to replace the CMU that has the stucco coat over it now.

So I feel like the rebuild is actually a better quality rebuild than what is currently standing now.

Um trying to duplicate what was there, um, reintroducing the elements that are either pulled off of the house and reinstalled, or if those are in poor condition, then we can use those as our guide to rebuild those on the front.

This little dashed line is indicating where the original roof line came across, and you can see from this measurement to the original roof line of the house that the new portion of the house is only 15 inches taller than it was previously.

So again, adding to the square footage without adding a lot of size visually to the home.

This side of the house is a wall of windows and doors between the kitchen and the living space.

While again, still trying to maintain sensitivity to the scale of the existing home.

If you could flip to the other side, please.

This is actually right on access with Alabama Avenue.

So it creates a really interesting roof line there and a shed off to the side for again having as much under roof livable area underneath that roof form.

And trying to remember the questions off the top of my head as I talk through all of this.

Again, there is wood surface on the hand framing for the porch now.

We are trying again to replicate what is there.

So we think that you're asking for us to put the same kind of tongue and groove decking that would have been on the house, and same question about the exterior materials on the front portion of the house, whether we're trying to find the same profile of wood siding that is on the house now and replace in kind where possible and salvage where possible.

So again, the intent being replacing in kind in the front.

The current windows are already replacement windows, so there is not a salvageable element there, and we would want to put in a higher grade than what is there now, too.

But the question then goes to are we are you asking us to because we're rebuilding this?

Um are you asking us to now put in all wood windows, or can we should we use clad windows in the front?

Should we use all composites and the back?

Like we're not, I think we have placed some of that discretion on preferences because this is such a unique situation.

Um back back to you all.

Um and then one other element that's a little bit different on this form is uh capped the roof line with this um flatter roof uh here, and that is actually a precedent in the neighborhood.

Um there's a pyramidal roof at uh 47 20.

No, sorry, there's a pyramidal roof at 1505 West 46th Street, where instead of the pyramid continuing up and creating a really tall roof, they just capped it and put a flat roof on that portion.

Um, 5307 Beulah is another example of that.

And then the two over two windows that that what Cassie had stated was correct that the photos that you saw in the submission were showing another home built in the same time period that has two over two windows as an example of an appropriate um window patterning.

Um I think that was everything.

Great.

Thank you.

Do we have any uh community comments or comments by other persons?

Okay, we'll move to commission discussion.

Okay, who wants to lead off anyone?

Questions, comments.

I've got one.

I've got one, I was just looking at photos on Google of the home of the existing home, and we're talking about reusing siding.

Is there is there masonite on the sides of this thing?

So just the front is the only original siding.

The only, yep, only the very front wall has uh wood.

The rest of the side has masonry.

Gotcha.

All right.

Well, I'll just comment again as I did a minute ago.

I think this is a uh interesting case, but I I think they've done a good job here to try to rebuild a home that is in very, very bad repair, and I'm not sure this thing would be very difficult to bring back.

I'm not gonna say impossible, but what they propose to do is an interesting solution to a home that's in very bad shape.

Um the front of it has elements that add character to the neighborhood, the back of it.

I'm not so sure it does.

Um I mean, the thing is wrapped in masonite siding, it's got replacement windows throughout it.

They've gone above and beyond, in my opinion, to um to keep the character that this thing has for the neighborhood in a um reconstruction project.

I'm not gonna call this new construction because I don't think it is.

I had a mechanic once tell me that I needed to jack the radiator cak up and roll another car under it.

And that's kind of what this feels like.

I do feel like um they deserve a little a little grace with with respect to trying to approach this as a renovation with an addition as opposed to a new construction, because a new construction uh does not have as as many uh um what's the right way to put this arduous elements uh to be arduous regulation to be met.

Um so it's my opinion that uh we should give a little grace with with respect to their plan to try to preserve the facade for the neighborhood.

And I s I still prefer the uh keeping the front of the home, uh the roof damage is on the back of the home, which um good agreed try to compromise to try to move this project forward to demolish the back of the home and then build something back like this.

The new plans are great.

Um if sag on a pier and rotting of trim were conditions for demolishing um completely a home.

Then we should demolish every home in Saint Oma.

Um a sag and a pier is not just doesn't constitute the need to demolish okay other comments.

Cassie, can you just confirm there's no original windows?

Have you been out?

Uh I have not been out to see them, but that is my understanding from the applicant and the architect.

Okay.

If that's the case, I'm fine with um composite throughout.

I don't think we've ever asked somebody to put in wood windows where none currently exist.

Um so if there's no historic windows, then I'm fine moving forward with the composite.

This is totally a sidebar.

Um I'm just interested by the sunroom that's not a sunroom, and I I'm thinking about heating or cooling costs in the summer, and that's all I'm gonna say about that.

Um this is yeah, this is such a weird case.

Um but whatever happens, thank you all for putting this together and offering uh a really thoughtful proposal.

The applicant or the architect, do you have I mean it sounds like to me we want to pull the entire structure down and reconstruct it?

I was wondering if there's any way for us to have like a quantifiable number of what can truly be salvaged.

And I know you have to kind of get in there and investigate and move things and tear things off to know that, but that might be helpful.

I don't it might not, I don't know.

I'll s I'll say having measured the home, I did it all from the outside because I did not want to go indoors.

Um I I seeing the report, I I thought that all of the floors, it's not rotting trim, it's rotting floors.

The floors are collapsing, the wall framing is collapsing.

If it were simply trim, I would be totally on board with what you're saying.

Um, but that's that's not the case here.

The reports are showing otherwise, and they're getting um dinged by uh the um code enforcement about the condition of the house.

So it's just in this like tailspin of a loop right now, and we're trying to address it as best we can.

Um and again, thinking back to the June meeting as an attendee.

What I did hear was if you reconstruct it, then you would be on board.

I did not hear that we had to salvage the whole front of the house.

I heard salvage the appearance of it as opposed to the actual structure.

Yeah, I don't think that's something we ever came to a consensus on.

We had people on both sides of that.

What would be the difference if someone were to one stud one picket, one door, one window at a time, replace which would be allowable, a one like replacement of the whole house versus what we're doing here.

I'm just I'm just thinking I understand that it's dangerous to say demolition because some sometimes property values go up in this you set a precedent, but on the other hand, you know, if if the sides of this edition are wood studs and the studs are compromised and have to be replaced, and the siding is masonite on wood studs, and the masonite is not historic in the interior is drywall, which is not historic.

What are we gonna keep?

I mean, you gotta replace all that regardless.

So didn't you have a new wall?

The the only difference is how you do it.

Do you you take it down with a bulldozer or a D9 and rebuild it back, or do you do it one piece at a time and end up with the same end result?

And it does come down to if we were just devil's advocate, if we were to keep that shell, which I believe that's what Todd may have stated.

I wasn't here for that meeting, so I'm just putting together the pieces.

You'd then have to reinforce the walls to be able to do the foundation and then vice versa.

And that just sounds construction wise almost impossible without losing a wall or losing the roof line during that time, trying to reinforce everything to replace what that is.

So with what you're saying, I have to agree with Cliff is I think that's a more practical way of putting it.

Is yes, it's coming down, however, it's being replaced in like kind to be exactly what was there.

It's almost physically impossible without losing attributes to the actual exterior itself, pulling each piece down.

Sure.

And you know, maybe there's a condition in there that any materials that can be salvaged that are historic should be, right?

And then I just I did pull up the standards for reconstruction from the Secretary of Interior Standards on the screen.

That might just be helpful as a discussion point.

I'm gonna read that out loud.

Reconstruction will be used to depict vanished or non-surviving portions of a property when documentary and physical evidence is available to permit accurate reconstruction with minimal conjecture, and such reconstruction is essential to the public understanding of the property to number five.

I mean, and that you know, when you're thinking of like colonial Williamsburg, we'd we want someone to understand when they walk down the street that this is a new building, but it is you know representing what was there kind of achieving this, in my opinion.

I agree.

Okay.

Do we want to go any further?

Go ahead, Cliff.

I was gonna mention there was a question of reuse of existing siding.

I think I think if someone's removing siding, that it of course it has lead paint.

I don't know that we would say put it back on with the lead paint.

I don't think that's I don't say enough on the exterior of this house.

I would say match the profile on the front of the the existing front of the house.

The rec what I would call I'm saying we're reconstructing it.

I'm not calling it demolition.

On the reconstructed front of the house, we would match all the trim and siding profiles and window sizes to the extent that the rough openings are there.

I'd like to say this just for the commission's benefit.

Um we often talk about being worried about setting a precedent.

This may become an instance where we could potentially set a precedent for how to move forward with a demolition case.

So you know, if we if we treat this one uh as a somewhat of a blueprint for what should be done in this instance, uh I think that it would be beneficial going forward, not not just for our interpretations, but for the for the community for the good of the community.

So I really like that thanks for saying that.

I agree.

I can see other cases where we can say we're look reasonably if the house is at a point that nothing can be done.

Here's an example.

It's right there on uh Alabama Avenue.

Okay.

So does someone want to move us forward?

Well, we're that was a table with this one.

So we'll go back and deal with the other one.

I would say I still well.

I actually want to ask because what we do with the other one may impact conditions we put here.

If we approve this and you have this, will that allow someone to go in?

Is there a difference in a demolition permit?

Let's say the one that that Mr.

Lewis brought in earlier where he's demolishing a sunroom.

Is that a different kind of demolition permit than this house would be?

Was the process differently because he still has to get a permit to demolish that sunroom?

Go ahead.

Can you you could get a building permit that includes demolition in it, right?

A demolition permit is to go demolish it and you whether you're going to do something with it or not.

I think yes and no.

There's been, I guess within the past year or two where I think the building department or division within the land development office requires a demolition permit in addition to a building permit.

I think in this situation, they probably would want both.

Um that doesn't mean that we can't state on the demolition permit that you know it's specific to the situation to be immediately, you know, reconstructed or or whatever.

Um, or not release it until both have been reviewed and pulled, basically.

Okay.

We don't want to, we don't we won't.

I think the caution here is we don't want to we don't want to have that house come down and it not be rebuilt back exactly like this plan is that's the don't you okay?

Um so somebody said you know, what if a received permission demolition is sold or something?

So what don't don't if somebody's gonna rebuild there, they have to come back and satisfy what ordinance is the remission right.

So the if I'm not mistaken, the ordinances that discuss demolition or not condition on anyway uh rebuild.

Uh I also think that theory demolition request should be all as standing on its own.

It's got its own bills.

Um if it's if the commission feels like it should be demolished, then it's not gonna that's permanent decision, but it's not a decision that's mystery about it.

If it's if it can't be replaced or it meets the guidelines of demolition, it's not gonna get better over time.

Seems to me it would be dangerous to put those two together to say that we're gonna approve a demolition subject to this rebuild.

I think you open up first that imposes uh a scheme that's not far from secondly, I don't see the danger of treating that separately because you maintain all the power in the world to make sure that whoever starts to rebuild it doesn't compliance with the name and speech.

Got it.

Good point, Mr.

Cabin.

Thank you.

Well, how does it work though if someone is doing something like that one with the sunroom?

Is that still a demolition permit?

Will there still be a demolition permit for that sunroom that you would have to approve?

I think that one just has a building permit for the addition.

I don't know that it has its own separate demolition permit.

Where in this situation I think it it probably would.

We can I can see if I can get someone from the building department to come answer that question if that would be helpful.

What if we were to approve the demolition case and state that there, you know, do this is allowed because there's an engineering report showing eighty percent um structural loss.

That's that's enough for a commission to stand on in and of itself.

I'm perfectly on board.

I was with on board on board with that last time this came up.

So perfectly happy to move forward with that.

Yeah.

Do we want to so do we guess we could table this one now and go back to the other?

That's what I was getting ready to ask if we need to table this and go back, but I I mean we could go ahead and deal with this case.

I think we've got some sort of direction on it, and then we can pick that back up in a minute.

I don't know that they have to be in any particular order.

Procedurally, okay.

Does someone want to make a motion on this case at this point?

Did we need to clarify anything?

I don't think in the application.

They didn't specify what windows were going where.

Um I'm fine with composite throughout, but open discussion on that.

So they've asked for aluminum clad or composite.

Are we good with either?

Yeah, I'm here.

I'm hearing yes.

I'm going to write all windows may be composite or aluminum clad.

Yeah, and that's in there that's in the proposal.

So I don't know that we need a condition for it.

And that would put siding and trim on front portion.

I can't write and talk about siding and trim on front portion of the building is to match uh size and shape of existing um reuse of siding is not required.

Correct.

But I'll leave it to the drawings because the drawings seem to say reuse where where possible, all the various uh decorative trim elements.

Okay, I make a motion to approve case number H Z D.

Wait, this is not the right one.

I make a motion to approve case number HZ25107, 5401 Alabama Avenue is submitted pursuant to the Chat Nuggets City Code Chapter 10, Article 2, Section 1015E.

And pursuant to the St.

Elmo Design Guidelines, approval is subject to the following conditions.

All windows may be composite or aluminum clad.

Siding and trim on front portion of the building is to match existing size and profile.

Make that existing historic size and profile reinstallation of existing trim is not required.

Defer to drawings for reconstruction of other elements.

Do we have a second?

Second.

Taken it by Matt, all in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed?

No.

Okay, we have one opposed.

The motion carries.

Does someone want to take from the table HZD 25-6?

So moved.

Nathan moved.

We have a second.

Second.

Matt second it all in favor of taking from the table HZD twenty-five-six.

Aye.

Okay, we will now hear that case.

Would you like me to run through the presentation again or do we want to just move to commission discussion?

We'll move right into discussion.

Okay.

I do want to note we did uh follow up with uh building folks and this would require a demolition permit and a separate building permit for a new construction.

So if the demolition is approved, they could come in and pull a demo permit and and not build back, right?

So just keep that in mind.

Okay, commission who wants to pick it back up.

Is there a way to append the application that we just approved to this demolition?

Not really as a condition, because I understand that's really unenforceable, but as just a note so that the next time you know if something happens that future commissions have this information and understand what the intent was.

I think whether it's enforceable or not, we can put the condition in here and tie this to it for precedent's sake, if nothing else.

Could we say that demolition uh may not be granted until building permit under case 25107 is in hand?

All right, does someone want to make that motion or do we have any other discussion on this item?

I also want to say that we're never going to be able to protect every instance in absolution if their intent is to have this demolished and either sell the land or build something else, it's a heck of a ruse, you know, because there's money spent, you know, and a lot of time and effort and thought into this.

So I I feel comfortable moving forward with with the demolition and just noting the case number for the reconstruction.

You want to make the motion, Matt?

I'm happy to do that.

Would it be fair to say that this approval is made in reference to the previous case number?

Do I need to elaborate any further were you gonna say were you gonna put that condition that not not until that permit is in hand or or or not?

Are you asking me if I'm gonna make a condition that they can't start reconstruction until they have a can't demo until they pull the permit for reconstruction, which normally you would do anyway.

Okay, okay.

Can you help me with that last condition about the sequence?

So yeah, demolition may not uh be granted until building permit for case HD 25107 is at hand.

I maybe is obtained issued, and that's HZ.

25-107 and that this approval references case number and say case number.

I make a motion to approve case number HZD-25-6 at 5401 Alabama Avenue as submitted percent to the Chattanooga City Code Chapter 10, Article 2, Section 10-15E and pursued to the Saint Omo Design Guidelines.

Approval is subject to the following conditions.

This approval references case case number HZ-25-107, and also um the applicant uh may not be granted a building permit.

I can't read my own writing here.

I'm sorry, a demolition permit.

Prior to the building permit for case number HC-25-107.

Seconded by Nathan, all in favor.

Aye.

Any opposed?

No.

We have one opposed motion carries.

Thank you.

Okay, so before we move on in the next case, um it seems like there's some.

How do I say this?

Between the debil the building department and this department division, whatever it is.

Um, I feel like there could be some better coordination on what needs to be considered when going in for these inspections, uh, how they handle enforcement of demolition orders when it comes to historic areas.

Yeah.

So is that something that y'all have been working on improving?

It just feels like when somebody gets hit with a demolition order, now all of a sudden there's I mean, there's like legal liability with those orders.

You're talking about code enforcement.

Yes.

Okay, yeah, that's separate from our building department.

Um they are within the land development office.

Um, but our yes, the code enforcement folks, um, we are working on kind of improving those conversations and how we can work better together.

Yeah, I think the most urgent piece of that is is how enforcement of those violations, you know, granting some leniency in those violations and how they're followed up on and things like that, just because there is additional process at play.

Um, so I think that's the most urgent thing, but it best case scenario in my mind is that codes enforcement gets better training on how to assess historic buildings and and incorporate that into their demolition orders.

Sure, yeah, and we do have one code enforcement officer that we that specifically works in the historic district, so I think that is something that's ongoing.

Um, and he understands that there is this separate process, and Bianca can correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think she's ever had any fines that she's had to pay.

They may have been levied against you, but uh I haven't had fines, but we've had to go to the courthouse several times, and then we but each time it gets deferred.

We talked about our plans are in the judge just gives us a new date to see what we have.

Yeah, and uh even even stuff like that.

I mean, that's time off work, that's finding babysitter.

That's like that's an issue.

I understand, but that's also what part of the process if you're neglecting your property, right?

And you're not abiding by the codes of the city, so it's kind of a give and take, but understood, and yes, I'll continue working with our code enforcement officer that handles the historic districts.

And I I think just thinking out loud, maybe the way to handle that is if you have an open case here, then it's an automatic deferral there.

Uh so you know, if it's pure neglect, you have a demolition order, you haven't put in an application to rectify it.

Yes, okay, you need to go to the courthouse, you need to get it deferred.

But if once you've put in your application, you don't have to go back month after month to say, hey, I'm waiting on the historic zoning committee.

Because doing that every month gets I would be upset.

We're working on larger um processes related to the administrative hearing officer and all that stuff is happening in the background right now.

So as those processes change and improve, I will keep you guys informed on that process.

That's great.

You're welcome.

Thanks.

Okay, we're ready for the next case.

Yes, all right, great.

HC 2594 at 4601 Alabama Avenue in the St.

Elmo neighborhood.

This is not a historic structure, it was constructed circa 2020.

They are proposing um an addition, which is really just enclosing an existing porch patio on the side of the structure.

So you can see that historic zoning history there from 2019 to 2021.

Here's an aerial of the property, and then the property within the historic district overlay and the property photos.

And this is that porch that they're proposing to enclose.

The neighboring property photos, and then the application information provided by the applicant.

So that site plan there on the right, the footprint is not changing.

They're just proposing to again enclose this existing kind of porch patio structure with um glass doors and windows.

There's that rendering from the rear.

And then the material list of the proposed windows and doors.

Um, so relevant St.

Elmo Design Guidelines, section 6.1 for additions.

Obviously, this is talking about our historic structures, but we'll just kind of run through these.

A should be located at the rear of the dwelling, not on the front, or readily visible.

The addition is proposed at the side and will be made by enclosing an existing covered patio and porch, partially visible from Alabama.

B should be secondary, then smaller and simpler than the original building.

The proposed edition is smaller than the existing dwelling, and C should be of a compatible design in keeping with the original building's design, etc.

The addition will be made up of various windows and doors to enclose an existing porch, and then item H addition should be made to the rear, not sides.

Again, the addition is proposed at the side.

So we'll have the applicant's presentation.

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

Hello, my name is Nate Hefner.

I live at 4614 San Almo Avenue.

So basically, what we want to do is it's already an existing structure.

So we want to take um try try to maintain as open of a feel as possible, almost kind of create like a sunroom.

So the idea was to do slider doors essentially on the front and rear.

Um being that there's a patio or uh sorry, a stoop on the left, it would just be like a uh inoperable uh piece of transom glass there, or um sorry, a piece of glass there, and then a single slider on the front, and then a dual slider on the rear.

Um so the only difference is on the um the rear would also have partitions like the front wood, and they would match the trim of the existing windows, which is like a uh bronze color.

Okay, great.

Thank you.

Do we have any community comments or comments by other persons?

Okay, we can move to commission discussion.

Okay, any questions or comments?

This looks pretty simple to me.

Yeah, I don't think this affects the historic quality of the neighborhood.

Yeah, I live one block from there, and I agree the mosquitoes are terrible.

That's kind of their main you want to make this motion for us, Brandon.

I make a motion to approve case HC 2594 has submitted pursuant to the Chattanooga City Code, Chapter 10, Article 2, Section 1015E, and pursuant to the St.

Almo Design Guidelines, not subject to any conditions.

Second about Nathan, all in favor.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Motion carries.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thanks for your patience.

Um, so case HD25100 at the top of the meeting.

I noted that the applicant is not present and they have requested to have their application deferred to October.

So we're gonna move past this one.

Okay, next case here is HC25104 at five uh 5112 Tennessee Avenue in the St.

Elmo neighborhood.

It is a historic structure.

Circa 1946.

Uh the proposed project is uh removing and replacing some uh windows on the front and side uh porch area.

Uh back in 2022, there was a um COA for a roof replacement.

Again, the aerial of the property, the property within the St.

Elmo Historic District Overlay.

Here are the property photos, and then the neighboring property photos, and then the information provided by the applicant.

So again, today we're looking at this sunroom.

Uh, when the house was originally constructed per the Sanborne map, this was an open porch, but then I think pretty quickly became a partially enclosed edition with these windows.

Um, they are proposing to remove those and replace them with new windows.

So they want to resize to fit those original openings.

Uh here's an example provided by the applicant at 4910 Beulah Avenue, and then the materials, uh, the proposed windows provided by the applicant.

Uh 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 is proposing to replace the existing uh Jalowsi windows on the front facade.

The space was originally a porch according to that 1955 Stanborn.

The Miami brand uh Jalasi windows were popular from the 1940s to the 1960s.

They are not original to the dwelling but were likely installed shortly after construction.

Item B should not be added to the primary facades or secondary facades.

Item C should be repaired and rather than replaced, but if replacement is necessary due to severe deterioration, the replacement should be in kind to match the originals in material and design.

So again, originally this was an open air porch.

Um we'll have the applicant's presentation.

State your name and address for the record, please.

My name is Nate Polk, and I live at 1606 West 51st Street.

Um just a little bit of context about this house.

Uh the homeowners uh who live in Florida, just bought the house, they're gonna renovate it for their son who lives in Chattanooga and their two-year-old granddaughter Olive to live here.

Um the neighbors are ecstatic about this renovation because this was a very very rough house.

And I had a neighbor the other day who was like, You mean the one with the trash in the front yard?

And I was like, Yep, that's the one.

Uh so the homeowners have uh after buying it, uh, cleaned out the entire house by themselves, which is phenomenal.

And uh they are uh leaving, I would say the majority of the historical elements, they're not touching the siding, they're repairing all of the windows in the house.

They're not, you know, they're not trying to build an addition.

They're like, all we want to do is make the square footage of the house usable.

And uh one of the main areas that could use improvement are these um what was a porch.

Uh they just want to put new windows so it can be conditioned space.

Um that's the that's the application.

Great, thank you.

Do we have any community comments or comments by other persons?

Looks like we do.

Hello again, Denise Shaw, uh, 1402 West 54th Street.

I take my daughter to Viola lessons at the house next door to this.

I see it up close and personal on a regular basis, and would say I am also very highly excited about having this be renovated.

My only reason for coming up and standing before you is more about these jealousy windows and feeling like that is an era outside of what I feel that the National Historic Registry was written around, um, the pre-World War II period.

And I I still feel really strongly that the registry dates is the era that we are meant to preserve and protect in this um commission.

Um, and so I point out also that uh Jalousy windows are great for sunrooms that are not conditioned, they are horrible for air sealing and just letting the air conditioned space um the air conditioned air right out the windows, so to speak.

So I I am in favor of them being replaced as um requested by the applicant.

Thank you very much.

Great, thank you.

Do we have any other community comments?

Okay, uh, we did receive one via email.

Uh and so you should have that at your desk and I have it in the presentation as well.

Almost forgot.

And we can move to commission discussion.

Okay, cool.

Um this great.

I'm I'm excited about this.

Um I agree these don't fit the neighborhood, uh, these style windows.

Are the um other windows, the existing on the front are they one over one?

Yes.

Is that what's going back?

Uh so we've got actually a diagram of what we're proposing there.

Um, and we've actually got, I guess that's one, two.

Is that 15 light?

12 light.

Sorry, yeah.

Um so really they really their main the question, one of the things that they also wanted to preserve were the metal awnings, which was against my design aesthetic, but whatever.

Um, and so trying to find a window size and configuration that would actually work for them to be able to open them.

Um, they didn't want double hungs in there, and so that's how we came up with this design.

So I think uh actually my window guy who lives in St.

Elmo sent me the picture of the house on Beulah, and that just seemed like a yeah, that would fit kind of it would it would be different than putting in double hung windows.

We don't want them obviously mimic that these were original to the house in some way, um, but it seemed complimentary just like that picture.

So we landed on that.

Thought that would be a good starting point for design.

Thank you.

Cassie, can you go back to the picture of the front of the house?

Just uh there's a few.

Is that okay?

That's perfect.

Um, so two things.

One you said you're keeping the awnings, okay.

Um just not sure.

15 light works with the rest of the house.

I'm not an expert on this though, so I can't tell if there's a reflection part of those windows.

Are you sure they're one over ones?

It looks like there are some grids that are maybe behind some glass.

Because on the sides, yeah.

So if you zoom in, they're actually underneath some panes there, or maybe reflection, but it indeed matches might be like a six.

It is it's a six over one, which is what we looked at on that other previous house of what your window guy sent.

There's a six over one matched with those windows.

Okay, okay.

That changes my opinion, so I'm good.

It was very hard to see.

Yeah, sorry about that.

Yeah, the awnings make it hard to see.

Um I thought I had some pictures of the inside, but I don't.

Well, I think you can go back.

Yeah, you can see.

Yeah, if you just zoom in on sure.

I'm I would just have to verify that the front are the same as the back.

There's some.

Yeah, so you can see it in that corner and underneath that right there.

It's hard to see on any of this stuff, but it's even on your iPad.

Okay.

Yeah, I can see it on my phone as well.

Gonna six six over ones.

Okay.

I've been focusing on some of the the pain on the bottom sashes broken on multiple windows, and that's what I've been quoting, replacing those.

Are you gonna try to save the windows and put them on leave them in site somewhere?

Or are they not even?

They are historic, but uh yeah, and they're real, they're operational, they're cool.

I know they're not everyone's design preference, but maybe you asking the impossible.

I think these things when they come out, they it's like yeah, taking a watch apart basically everywhere.

I would say if you if they stay in one piece, just keep them on site.

But if they obviously break apart and you can't put them back together, you can dispose of them.

Someone ready to make a motion.

Do we want to say anything about the materials of hand rail or anything on the handrails for the front porch?

I think I can approve that as a staff review.

Yeah, that wouldn't be visible from the front.

It would be hidden behind those posts, and that's just for Olive.

I make a motion to approve case H E 25104 5112 Tennessee Av is submitted pursuant to the Chattanooga City Code, Chapter 10, Article 2, Section 1015E, and pursuant to the St.

MO design guidelines, no conditions.

All in five, or excuse me.

Second, I'm seconded by Nathan.

All in favor.

Aye.

Aye.

Any oppose?

Thank you.

Motion to all thank you.

Okay, we're gonna move into our last new business case and our last case of the day is case HC 2511 at 5419 St.

Elmo Avenue in the St.

Almo neighborhood.

It is a historic structure, circa 1917.

The proposed project is um a new front porch.

Uh we did see this address earlier with the reduced scope where they removed the addition and are only proposing that ADU at the rear.

But this is uh completely separate application, so we have it under its own um application number.

Again, the aerial and then the property within the historic district overlay, property photos, the existing conditions, and the neighboring property photos.

And then this is the plan provided by the applicant of the uh front porch demolition plan on the left, and then the pro new proposed uh porch on the right here.

That site plan showing the new proposed porch, and then the renderings showing that new proposed front wraparound porch, the material list, asphalt shingles to match the original house, pre-finished metal flashing at the flat roof, uh flat roof to be either metal or matching shingles, porch to be pressure treated wood and deck boards, uh metal railings to replace and match the existing railings.

So the staff report section 625 for porches, porch columns, and railings.

Uh if the original porch is missing, construct a new porch based on photographic or physical evidence, or base the design upon historic porches of the district uh built at the same period and in a similar architectural style.

The applicant is proposing constructing a new porch to match similar uh footprint of the porch shown on the sandborne maps.

The porch will be between um seven feet in depth and ten foot uh floor to ceiling height.

Item B should not be removed if original.

The existing front porch is not original based on the sandboard maps.

The original full-length porch is shown from 1917 to 1955.

Item F should have wood steps, not brick or concrete.

Four buildings with wood porch floors.

This is a section 25 continued.

Historic porch columns and railings should be retained and repaired with materials to match the original.

If those materials are missing, replacement porch columns and railings should be appropriate for the architectural style and period.

The applicant is proposing a metal railing to match what is existing on site.

Vertical skirting and the applicant will have the applicant confirm the post column size.

Item D on front porches should be rebuilt and historic designs if the original columns and railings are missing.

For Queen Anne Folk Victorian milled porch columns are appropriate, uh generally eight feet in height and have widths and depths of four inches.

We'll have the applicant confirm that size.

Yes.

The more predominant style of porches in St.

Elmo.

Driving through the neighborhood, you'll see most of the porches have a flat plane across the front facade.

The Sanborne map did have like a jig jog pattern to it.

And I feel like the framing of the porch columns versus the windows is more sensitive with this version than the footprint that is shown on the Sanborne map.

The porch columns are shown as six by six, and interestingly enough, on the 5401 Alabama Avenue project, that existing porch columns are four and three-quarter wide by three and three quarter deep.

So this eight-inch requirement is not historically across the board, a existing condition.

Along St.

Elmo Avenue as context that could be utilized for how this form of roof and the posts are appropriate.

5109 St.

Almo Avenue also has a similar shape to it.

And it has even smaller columns.

It looks like those are four by fours.

5107 is another roof form, porch roof form that is very similar here.

And then to resolve the roof so that it doesn't keep crawling up the hip roof indefinitely, chasing kind of the slope of the porch compared to the slope of the house.

This also has a bit of a flat cap on it, and that was inspired by the porch that you see at 1505 West 54th Street.

It does the same thing so that the roof line of the porch can maintain a constant height and plate on the front of the house without it again, without the porch continuing up the house uh roofing.

Um I am proposing vertical uh skirting.

Um there's a picture that shows an illustration of kind of what is inspired there.

Um my own take on a lot of these porches that have the diagonal lattice is that there was likely some kind of wooden um skirt board that had been there, and they had in the 50s started replacing them with those diagonals, and we've lost the true historic um precedent in this neighborhood for having the vertical skirt board boards.

I know we don't see them very often, but I think that's because that we lost them prior to them starting to be preserved.

So great, thank you.

Do we have any community comments or comments by other persons?

Okay, we can move to commission discussion.

Does anyone have any questions or comments for the applicant?

Brennan.

Was there a reason wanting to keep um metal railings as opposed to wood railings that would be in kind with the rest of the neighborhood?

That's that's another place where I feel like the historic guidelines requiring the wood started causing this, like repeating two by two pickets that aren't truly the way they were built historically.

Um I do think we've had metal railings in in the in the 20s in the um so it was it was more just the appearance of them was nice.

I didn't think that they were in bad shape.

Um so I I thought that they were good looking.

Um my rendering is uh showing verticals, but truly it's trying to be what is already there.

It's trying to match that kind of more ornamental style.

Yeah, just I mean, I don't I don't agree that wood railings are not period correct.

I mean, I think wood railings are if you walk around the neighborhood are um I just didn't know if you were doing that just because they I because I agree that this existing porch is not original, right?

And so this is exciting that it's gonna go, it's gonna look more like it's supposed to.

Yeah.

So that's great, yeah.

Very I mean, I'm very excited about it.

Um I just think walking around the neighborhood, the wood railings would be more and more in kind with the rest of Sandoma.

Sure.

Yes, um, again, I I there are some parts of the historic guidelines that started to uh not necessarily for kind of force it in, force in the the railing sizes, the porch column sizes.

So as people are repairing and putting new things in, I think that we lost um more of the the turned pickets.

There's there's just a in order to meet the guidelines, and the guidelines had kind of turned its back on some of the variety of railings that you really see.

So now everybody has that exact same two by two vertical picket railing without having a lot of opportunity for creativity.

And I I hear what you're saying, and I don't object to changing to wood.

I actually this is one of the first cases I'd heard sitting on this commission was when they asked to put that new porch railing in.

I think this is a previous owner.

Um so that railing is fairly new.

Uh and I actually remember there was a little bit of consternation about the modern design on it.

Um it was it was wrought iron before, if I remember correctly, uh, but it was a more traditional pattern.

It was maybe not original to the house, but it was um certainly older.

Yeah, there it is.

Perfect.

Too low.

Oh, that's right.

Yeah, it was short.

Yeah, eight and it was like 28 inches or something.

Yeah.

That's kind of what is happened to this all these railings, is that the Victorian uh Victorians I don't know so much, but a lot of the bungalows, they had a two by two, but it was really like two and a half by two and a half, and they were 30 inches high, and then new codes and new lumber came in and it turned to like inch and a half by inch and a half.

And builders want to build them 42 inches high or 36, but some of the 42, and they just like the portion got really weird.

So what we're enforcing is creating something not very historic.

Then I'm happy to I'm happy to see I'm gonna see a porch railing is something that gets changed more frequently than the columns or the porch, and just say this there's a little bit of character around it.

I don't mind going back to metal.

Yeah, I'm not opposed to the porch railing as submitted.

Um the one thing that's interesting to me was the the stairs coming off the side.

I feel like that's not really something I've seen elsewhere in the neighborhood, and I think it I don't know, it changes the proportions of the the facade.

I would rather see that removed.

Um it's kind of a gray area in the in the guidelines, I think, and I'm curious what the other commissioners think about that.

Yeah, that's labeled as a deck on the drawing.

And then there's a question does this need to be tongue and groove wood, or can it be pressure treated?

But once it's pressure treated, is it just a deck?

And that's something we see too, because tongue and groove wood.

Oh re recently we've someone came in here with a product.

There was a tongue and groove porch floor material that was composite that seemed to be pretty good, but for a long time, tongue and groove wasn't something you really wanted on the porch.

The old oily pine was gone.

But if you but on the other hand, if you just have deck boards and it rains through there, that's a water problem.

That was you know, you're you're creating a foundation space that can't breathe and has water raining in.

I I share your concern, I guess, with having what probably would turn into a deck, and would need to be porous and would need to have gaps, and would you all have a pressure treated on the front of a house?

I don't think we're putting any undue hardship by requesting what's in the guidelines for wood, tongue and groove.

Um that was likely what it was originally on the sandboard map.

Well, I think the comment is that wood tongue groove probably would be not acceptable completely exposed to the weather.

Where we're south under the porch.

Right.

So this portion right here that sticks out past the same.

Yeah, I'm less concerned about the material than the right facade.

To Nathan's point, that piece I feel like if we had just a side stair coming down and chopped and made the footprint of the porch align exactly with the roof line.

I feel like that is an appropriate alternate to what is shown here to just make it so that the footprint of the porch ends at the same line as the roof line.

And then that wouldn't be a condition anymore.

Consideration.

It could be tongue and groove with it being protected by the roof line.

Right, and if we're calling it a deck and considering it that we're looking at a different section of guidelines that's not gonna recommend that this is on the front or the side.

Right.

So you're suggesting you stop it there.

I I am actually, yes.

Um I would still like a side stair.

I get the house at 5107, I believe, is another example of a house that has a side a stair on the side of it.

Um I think oops, it was up.

Next one up.

It's slightly you can right there.

Um stairs.

I just think it's a little odd.

Like I can't think of many examples of a front porch having two sets of stairs in the neighborhood.

I'm sure you could find one or two, but it's certainly not common.

Um I'm sorry to interrupt, I gotta step off.

So just wanted to let you know.

I don't object to removing the second set of stairs if that feels like a condition you would like to place on the approval.

I mean, we can take it into you know, if that if that's something you really want to keep, we can take it in discussion, but I'm pretty sure that if it would if if it was just a covered porch with the one set of steps, um go on the front, keep the railings and uh wood tongue and groove for the porch surface.

Um everybody would be very in favor.

Yeah, I agree.

I would approve that right now, and we can move on.

Somebody want to make that motion.

Is that is that acceptable to you then?

We'll we'll put the conditions in there, we'll just take the side part off, do the one step set of steps.

Yes, I I agree with that concern seeing it on a big screen.

A column size do you did not object to make a motion to approve case HC 2511.

I submit it pursuant to the Chattanooga City Code, Chapter 10, Article 2, Section 1015E, and pursuant to the St.

Omel Design Guidelines approval is subject to the following conditions.

Remove uncovered portion of the porch, one set of steps, and wood tongue and groove.

Second and by Nathan, all in favor.

Before vote, you didn't say remove wood tongue and groove.

You mean that's thank you.

Material construction.

Okay.

Um, so a couple quick staff updates, and then we'll let you guys go.

Um, just guideline status again.

We have our meeting scheduled with mayor's office on Monday, and then hopefully from there I'll have a better uh timeline of how we're moving forward.

Um