Okay, I'll go ahead and call us to order.

If you want to do our roll call, please shel me.

Cliff McCormick.

Piper Stro Matt.

Brandon Penganebin.

Present.

Todd Morgan.

John Cavot.

Present.

Cassie Courtney.

Nathan Byrd.

Matt McDonald.

Present.

Skip Pond.

Present.

Okay, if you could do our swearing in for us, please.

If you plan to speak, if you'll please just stand and raise your right hand.

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

So help you guide.

Thank you.

All right, let the record reflect that Cliff McCormick has now entered the meeting.

And uh I'll go over our rules of procedure this morning.

Uh the order of business, and first of all, we're we are live streaming this morning.

I want to remind everyone for commissioners, please use your microphone so everyone can hear, and if you come up to the podium, I think the mic is live and everything's being recorded online.

So the order of business for hearing COA cases will be as follows this morning.

Each case will have a staff presentation and applicant presentation of no more than 10 minutes, followed by comments by others for or against the project for five minutes total, after which the applicant will have a time for rebuttal of no more than five minutes, and then the commission members will discuss the case and make a motion.

A certificate of appropriateness will be issued within a week of this hearing.

If you defer your case or if you have conditional items to bring back before the commission, you must contact staff and and ask to be added to the agenda for the next meeting.

If you plan to speak, you must be sworn in and sign in when you come up to the podium, please.

Board members are requested to limit questions and comments on the case to only those within the purview of this board.

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

Reminder again this meeting is being recorded.

Next, we need to approve our minutes from last month's meeting.

If commission has had a chance to review those, I'll take a motion to approve them.

So moved.

Move by Cliff.

Do we have a second?

Second.

Seconded by Matt.

All in favor?

All right.

The minutes are approved.

We'll move into old business, please, Cassie.

All right.

We will get started this morning.

Um here's a quick overview of the staff reviews that were conducted since we last met.

We'll move into our first old business case.

So this is case HZ2554 at 203 Evening Side Drive in the Fergor Place neighborhood.

It is a historic structure, circuit 1900.

The proposed project is new openings, uh, deck railing and material change.

This case came before you all back in 2022.

So here is an aerial of the property and then the property within the Fergor Place overlay.

The property photos.

Neighboring property photos.

And then the application information provided by the applicant.

So here is the some additional context of the neighborhood.

And then the front elevation changes.

New window will be wood clad, simulated divided light.

Item two, change the dormer materials from asbestos siding to real cedar shake.

Item three, remove vinyl shutters from all windows and replace shutter on dormer only with wooden operable style with dogs, and item four, replace the existing metal chimney cap with a clay cap.

Here is the sandborne showing the original front porch of the property.

And then the east elevation changes.

So again, replace that metal chimney cap, change the dormer materials.

Add two panel glass patio door to the breakfast room, the wall to the left of the front door, and add two small windows in the master bedroom on the right rear.

So you can see the existing and proposed.

Rear elevation changes again, change that dormer material from asbestos siding to real seed or shake.

Remove the 1960s railing and replace with wood balusters and six by six wood columns.

And then the left elevation changes.

The dormer materials, a single window will be relocated from the front, moves to the side.

Remove the 1960s railing and replace with wood balusters and six by six wood columns and exchange the center window position with right window position.

And then some applicants of craftsman bungalows that were provided by uh the applicant.

And the relevant Fergor place guidelines.

We're looking at 5B entrances, porches, and steps, 5C windows and doors, and 5E materials.

So item B entrance entrances, porches, and steps.

Number three.

Original porch materials should be preserved or replaced when beyond repair.

Such materials include wood, terracotta, tiles, slate brick, marble, stone, and stucco.

Other materials may be substituted for these when it is not economically feasible.

The applicant is proposing to remove the later metal porch balustrade and columns and replace with them with wooden columns and a balustrade.

Item C windows and doors.

Number two, existing window and door openings and hardware, including window, sash, glass, lentils, sills, architraves, shutters, doors, pediments, hood steps, transom side lights, and all hardware should be retained and repaired if possible.

The applicant is proposing to remove vinyl shutters and reinstall wooden operable shutters on the dormer only.

And item six new window and door openings should not be introduced.

The applicant is proposing to install multiple new door and window openings.

The applicant is proposing a new front window on the front elevation that was previously an open porch and French doors on the existing porch on the front elevation.

Applicant is proposing two new windows on the east elevation at the rear and one new window on the south elevation at the rear.

And then item E for materials number one, original building materials should be retained.

The applicant's proposing to install cedar shake siding on the existing dormer.

Applicant provided examples from a period appropriate home catalog showing the cedar shake siding as a relevant material.

The home catalog also shows a clay chimney cap.

The applicant is proposing to replace the metal chimney cap with with a clay cap.

Item four, replacement wood siding should be consistent with the original size direction and lap dimension.

Diagonal siding should not be used, vertical siding should not be used.

Original wall shingles should be maintained where possible or replaced with a compatible material.

The applicant is proposing to install cedar shake siding on the existing dormer.

Again, the applicant provided examples from a period appropriate home catalog showing the cedar shake siding as a relevant material.

Cassie, I think you did an excellent job with that.

That's pretty much exactly what I'm trying to do.

Yeah, I think uh that presentation, the same presentation that was approved in 22.

Um the only thing that's changed is there's one last person moving into it.

So that's kind of what stalled the original construction and ready to get it going now.

You guys have any questions and be your answer.

Thank you so much.

Um also let the record reflect that Todd Morgan has entered the meeting.

Um we'll move into community comments and comments by other persons.

I do want to note that we did receive a letter of opposition.

Um but if you would like to speak, please uh come forward and state your name and address for the record.

Eric Smith, 209, evening side drive just down the street.

You've got my letter of opposition.

I won't read through it.

Um I just feel that we're here today because 90 plus percent of this proposal is against our guidelines.

I'm just here to encourage you to strictly enforce our guidelines.

Um were the guidelines.

Um Kat's done a great job, just reiterating, you know, um, page 13, no new doors and window openings.

Uh oh, so I'm sorry.

Um the original size, shape, and materials of windows and doors should be preserved or replaced if beyond repair.

So page 14 showing um new windows and door openings should not be introduced.

And then also page 14 details, additional architectural details should not be introduced where none originally exist, i.e.

the French doors.

Um page 15 materials, original building materials, wood brick, mortar stone, terracottage should be um retained.

So I'm not against shake siding.

Yes, it's historically appropriate, it just exists nowhere else on this home.

So as we like an element with French doors, and we like an element of shake seat or siding, we're kind of confusing historical elements on this home.

Um, we're making a large change with this window in the front.

We're not supposed to be increasing the sizes of the windows, we're not supposed to be moving windows around, and we're not supposed to be putting in new windows.

So just please strictly enforce our guidelines, which many of the proposed aspects of this project are contrary to.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I was actually gonna get first since I'm here in support.

My name is John Brown.

I reside at 1512 South Hawthorne Street, not in Furger Place.

Um, and the reason for that's manure, and I'll come back around to that.

But this is a question that was asked and answered.

We had length discussion about this and agreed it was acceptable.

And for not for everyone, John is told me to think to you, but Dana Moody voted in favor of this.

Okay, never change an opening.

Voted in favor of this.

Think about this house, and let me speak to my relationship to this property.

Um the owner who sold to the applicant was uh my client.

I represented her in the sale.

So I know this house intimately, and there's nothing very original about this house.

Um that the the question of the three windows on the left side of the front elevation, that's a closed in porch.

It was absolutely done sometime in the 70s, and they shopped in the Sears catalog.

Um John and Joe Boyer were the owners prior to my client, and they purchased them in 1974 to look just like this.

It did not look like this in the 1920s.

There's so much obvious change to the stucco on the exterior of this home.

And I would invite you to come into Fairplace and show me another craftsman home that has a triple window set and a single window on the front elevation because there isn't one.

So that piece alone is absolutely a good idea.

I don't think we changed anything about this when I wrote the motion for approval.

I think we let it go just like it was, and then lights happened, and the applicant couldn't get started.

And now he's just looking for you to say I stand behind what I said before and allow him to move forward.

But there's so little that is original or accurate about this house that these alterations move it the needle in the direction of historical accuracy and beauty.

That's the crazy thing.

This is a dumpy little house, and what's proposed is going to improve it.

Um so you got your first delivery manure, and I think you got at least one more coming.

But that's why I reside 1512 South Hallport Street.

Okay, thank you.

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

Okay, fabulous.

The applicant, you have an opportunity to respond if you'd like.

Um, yeah.

Yeah, I think uh just kind of speak on what John said.

If we could pull up a couple of the slides.

Um first one.

So um, yeah, right there.

So I'm just trying to make it symmetrical now.

And when it was that porch to the left hand side, what's existing?

When that was originally filled in, it was not very well thought out for that space.

Um really poorly done.

So I think it's gonna be more historically appropriate if I add the exact same window on the left hand side, and I think it'll make it more usable for today's use.

Um I think it'll make sense.

Those are gonna be the two items that are uh have the most opposition, what I've heard.

Um that window, and then the next slide is um this one with the French store.

I think uh basically that'll be like a breakfast room.

There are so many examples of these French stores within the neighborhood, like that are right next to or around a front door to include Mr.

Smith's house.

He has a almost an exact example of this.

Um there's also I don't can you pull up the the diagram of the neighborhood because I can point out about six other homes that have the same opening.

Um I think what you guys had sent out where it's like a map of the neighborhood, maybe street view.

Okay, so yes, that house just to the right of your yeah, right.

Keep going a little bit.

And if you turn to the right right there, that'll be Mr.

Smith's house.

And he's gonna have a French door right above that hand that you have, it's pretty similar.

Um, and if you keep going down the neighborhood, there are so many examples of that opening.

So I kind of thought it would be like even more historically accurate if I were to add that.

And I think it would beautify the property.

Um beyond that, I had a party at the house last Friday for the whole neighborhood, and I had somebody playing acoustic in the front yard and had it catered, and uh had some food and drink out there, and there's some neighbors that all signed that in favor of it, favor of the project, but I have one opposition vote who didn't oppose it in 22 when it was approved, but now is and so what I'm trying to do is just go forth with the same plan that has previously been approved.

All right, great.

Thank you.

Okay, we can move to commission discussion.

So this is the COA that was approved, and I believe the application was exactly the same.

Okay, all right, commission.

Have a question.

This is just a rehashing of what we already done.

Yeah, my question was just precedent on this, which is you know, if something's been already approved, what's the protocol for it to come back to the board after not starting with some questions we have now?

What's the protocol when something has been previously approved?

I mean it it's almost like it's a restart in general, correct?

Or do we keep this record as a as a so if it's not started within six months?

I haven't got anything from COA, and that's what's gonna happen here.

Yeah, and you know, if we weren't three years out, you know, it may have been just kind of a staff reissuance, but it's been so delayed that it needed to come back before the board.

It's not it's not part of our it's not part of our record.

I mean, it's been presented as a point point of information.

Um I mean you can move to make it as part of the record.

Um if you think it's a waiting waiting on the case.

Um but uh I mean applicants are allowed to bring new materials for the board to look at.

Do we want to mo?

Do we want to make a motion?

I mean, everyone's saying it.

Do we want to make a motion to enter it into the record?

No to do we have a second.

Todd second it all in favor.

Okay, so we'll make that part of the record.

All right, so just to be clear, this is the the exact same proposal that was already pro approved under the exact same guidelines.

Uh no change to the guidelines since two it appears.

So uh yeah, I have I have no issue with with this approving this then in the same way that we approved it in 2022.

Would you like to make a motion?

Sure.

I make a motion to approve case HC 2554 203 evening side drive.

I submit a pursuant to the Chattanooga City Code Chapter 10, Article 2, Section 1015E, and pursuant to the Fergor Place Design Guidelines.

Do we have a second?

Second.

All in favor.

Any opposed?

Okay, motion carries.

Thank you.

Thank you.

All right, cool.

Thank you.

All right, great.

So we'll move to our next old business case.

This is HC 2496 at 4425.

Seneca Avenue in the St.

Elmo neighborhood.

It is a historic structure circa 1930.

The proposed project is um it was a stop work order for windows that were replaced without a COA.

Uh and we'll have the applicant clarify their current request.

The historic zoning history for the property in 2023, there were in-kind repairs of the existing siding that were approved.

Here's an aerial of the property and the property within the St.

Elmo Historic District Overlay.

Here's some property photos.

More property photos.

And neighboring property photos.

And the application information provided by the applicant, so a letter provided back in 2024 from the applicant explaining the situation.

Picturing of neighboring properties with similar windows, and then a map showing the work that window world has done in St.

Elmo.

Picture of the front of the house with some of those windows replaced.

And then the window specifications, the vinyl windows.

And some interior pictures of the windows that were removed.

So the relevant St.

Elmo uh design guidelines is section 641 for windows.

Item A should be preserved in their original location size and design with their original materials and number of panes.

The applicant was denied window replacement but granted temporary approval for the vinyl windows to remain.

We'll have the applicant confirm their current request.

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

The windows on site are not deteriorated beyond repair.

Staff visited the site to confirm the condition of the windows.

The existing windows are in good condition and should be retained.

The applicant has stated that the original windows are that were removed are still on site, but has not provided pictures.

So we'll have the applicant's presentation.

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

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

Okay, we can move to commission discussion.

So what what action do we need to take, Nancy?

Sure.

So this COA is one um it's been a year since it was issued.

It's up on the screen.

You can see that the window replacement was denied, and the condition was temporary approval for vinyl windows to remain and the original windows to be repaired and reinstalled.

I think the last time I spoke with the applicant, I was unsure of whether or not she was going to proceed with reinstalling the windows.

So we're kind of bringing it back before you so that you can if you'd like to reissue it under these circumstances.

That's great.

Um but we just need a new motion, basically, yeah, a new COA.

Okay.

I say as long as the project is moving.

I know this is a long and arduous process to get these windows restored.

I've been through it myself.

Um as long as the thing is moving forward, I would say we need to reissue temporary approval.

Any other comments?

Commission.

At what point do they have to reveal a lot of cases?

Yeah, and we haven't approved any of them that I've into my knowledge.

I'll just bring it up.

I can give a staff update on that.

I've been working on an investigation into that process, um, so I can keep you all posted as that moves forward.

Okay, thanks, Cassie.

Any other comments or would someone like to make a motion?

So this is just to reinstall the wood windows and then continue the repair process of wood windows to contain and it continues a temporary approval of to she can keep the vinyl windows there until the rest of the project is done.

I would probably write the conditions exactly like they are on the screen.

Um I'll make a motion.

Uh make a motion to approve case number HD 2496, 4425 Civic Avenue is submitted pursuant to Chattanooga City Code, Chapter 10, Article 2, Section 1015E, in pursuant to the St.

Elmo Design Guidelines, approval subject to the following conditions.

Temporary approval for vinyl windows to remain, original windows to be repaired and reinstalled.

Do we have a second?

Second.

Second and by Cassie.

All in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Okay.

Motion carries.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay, we'll move to our next old business case.

This is HZ23171 at 4423 Seneca Avenue in the St.

Elmo neighborhood.

It's not a historic structure.

It was built just finished recently, circa 2025.

It is here before you today for as built changes, so it was not built per the drawings that were approved at the Historic Zoning Commission back in 2023.

So here is an aerial of the property and the property within the St.

Elmo Historic District Overlay.

And here are the property photos of the existing conditions.

The neighboring property photos.

And then the application information back from 2023 showing the site plan.

And the front and east elevation.

And the right side north elevation.

And the left side south elevation.

And the material list provided by the applicant.

So should be vinyl clad one windows.

I asked the applicant to confirm what was actually installed, but they did not provide that application or that information.

So hopefully they'll have it today.

And then again, just some pictures from the final zoning inspection.

So the relevant St.

Elmo design guidelines, it's section 622 for new construction.

I'm just going to skip over to item five for location and proportion of porches, entrances, windows, and divisional bays.

Again, the drawing showed an arch porch panels and tapered brick columns.

The as built has no arched porch panels at the roof or tapered brick columns.

New windows should be rectangular sash, whose proportions on the main facade should not exceed three to one in height to width ratio or be any less than two to one in height.

No horizontal sash casement or awning type windows should be placed on the fronts of buildings, and the use of plastic or snap and muntains is discouraged.

The windows on the house seem to have plastic muttons and do not match the original design.

The drawing show double hung vinyl clad windows with six one six over one on all sides.

The windows on the front facade, including the dormer, do not have any muntains, and they are one over one windows, and they have been installed in the wrong place per the approved drawing, and the remaining windows are six over sixes.

Again, for windows, wood construction is preferred, and it's that same response as before.

Um, the use of vinyl clad or aluminum windows is also acceptable.

Item 10 for details and texture.

Uh again, the proposed headers were not installed around the windows and doors, and the trim does not have any distinct dimension from the siding.

So we'll have the applicants presentation.

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

Um Richard McElhaney.

It's a 4423.

I'm a representative of the owner.

Um we would just I think this time we're gonna just try to get a uh just can have this continued um and get really we need to to see what uh really don't know what happened here.

We had a material list uh that had to be ordered a veil somehow some things got uh we didn't get it the right material get installed, so we're wanting to correct that.

We're just trying to figure out what what to correct at this point.

Okay, thank you.

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

Okay, we can move to commission discussion.

I'll say these look like basic vinyl windows to me, which is not what was approved.

Um I mean it really needs to go back to what the plan showed and what we approved.

Um you would ask for a deferral and a design to come back of what changes they're requesting.

I I guess Cliff.

I think so.

I just just having said you're long enough.

Sure.

Used to rebox and I'm doing these things in the I would be happy to throw out some maybe we to say this is exactly what you must do, but not be able to draw it just by that's just not there.

I don't even know what we would do.

But don't we already have I mean a drawing just that gives us the thing that was approved to begin with?

So I mean, to be off the nose, there's like a clear change of windows and a change of tapering of brick.

Obviously, we have some struggles with those arches because the roof line's already in place.

But I do wonder if we could just collectively give some of this redirection that felt appropriate without wasting too much time.

Go ahead.

What is then I think they're at to me, they're asking us to approve what's been built as is.

So may uh just a reminder if everyone could use your microphones, but also maybe it's worth having the applicants clarify.

So I went out for final historic zoning inspection.

As you can see, it was not built per the drawings, so it's back before you.

So I think that maybe would help.

Yeah, I'm not sure what's on the contract.

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

Also, we can do the trim above the dormus to match where the windows are.

That's that's a possibility.

Um as far as tapering the columns with the brick, that would be very, very costly.

And not sure if that's even doable at this point.

Okay, thank you.

I mean, to me, we we wear people out with month after month and hear about windows, and I I don't know that we've ever approved these, or would we ever?

Um that's an important element to this house.

Uh the trim elements around the uh around the windows are are important and something that we pay attention to in here again, case after case.

Uh maybe uh we could live with the square columns.

I don't think that's out of character.

Not sure about the arches.

Some other folks in here may want to speak into that, but to me, we we wear people out about windows, and uh and I want to be consistent and fair to everybody else that comes through here.

Well, I'm in agreement on the windows.

Uh the square columns don't bother me, but I think there could be some proposals for how to add a decorative trim piece or something to kind of offset the higher level of design that's in the illustration.

So it would be helpful to just have a proposal, you know, of what can be done specifically to help address some of those issues.

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

That sound reasonable.

Yeah, I'm gonna say that when you come back with actual proposal for what we're gonna do for to try to get this closer to the original drawings.

I have no issue with with the porch.

There's plenty of portraits in San Omo, new and old that don't have arches.

Um I agree it is very costly.

So I'm I would support that in a in a future proposal.

Um I also agree the the windows are just completely defied the approval that was previously issued.

Um I think everyone would take issue with that.

I think I mentioned also, and maybe obviously there's windows on the dormer portions just real large compared to the dormer, which is not proportionally proportion is an important part of a review process, and you know, this is having the window where there's no trim between the when the trim turns into the dormer trim almost is you know to me that's visually not a good proportion, and I know that's hard to quantify, but that's the type of thing where if something's approved and everyone says yes, that looks good, it's real hard to then give direction.

Well, what is a good proportion?

What we what was approved originally obviously was this.

I don't think any of us think it is.

Can you flip back to the front elevation of the plan?

Okay.

Okay, any other comments for the applicant before we I assume we'll move for a deferral here.

I think we'd mentioned there's a comment of the snap in grids, but you know, just in these guidelines, there's specifically it says snap in grids are not appropriate, so we would have be very hard to approve snapping grids if we have the guideline right here saying snap in grids not to be approved.

Okay, any other comments?

Do we have someone that wants to make a deferral motion?

I make a motion to defer case number HZ-23-171, 4423 Seneca Avenue as submitted pursuit to the Chattanooga City Code Chapter 10, Article 11, Section 1010-15E, and pursuant to the St.

Elmo Design Guidelines.

Taking in McCassy, all in favor?

All right.

Any opposed?

Okay, motion carries.

Thank you.

All right, thank you.

Okay, we'll move to our next old business case.

This is case HC 23134 at 5101 Tennessee Avenue in the St.

Elmo neighborhood.

It is a historic structure circa 1960.

The proposed project is a rear porch addition.

So you are seeing this today because we have a change to the design that was originally approved.

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

Elmo Historic District Overlay.

The neighboring property photos.

And then the application information provided by the applicant.

So you can see the site plan.

The footprint of this screened in porch is not changing, just the you'll see on the elevation the change.

So here's the approval from October 2023.

And the October 2025 proposal.

Again, the footprint is not changing.

You can see the new design here.

Okay.

Uh the relevant St.

Elmo design guidelines is section 6.1 for additions.

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

The rear screened in porch is smaller in design and placement.

Item C should be of a compatible design in keeping with the original building's design, roof shape materials, color, and location of window door and cornice heights.

The applicant originally proposed a hip style roof, but has amended the design to have a gable roof on the rear enclosed porch.

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

The proposed rear screened in porches at the rear of the property, but the property does front three streets, Tennessee Avenue, Linwood Avenue, and West 51st.

So we will have the applicant's presentation.

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

Okay.

Is there anyone else who wasn't sworn in at the beginning that's going to be speaking?

If you don't care to just stand, raise your right hand.

You as well.

Do you sound like the testimony you're giving today will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?

I do.

Thank you so much.

So I'm Josh Cooper.

I'm the owner of 5101 in Tennessee.

Yeah, so we applied for this uh approval, the original approval a while back.

Um did most of the renovation to the interior of the home, moved in and um really just decided we didn't want to cut all the extra light that comes in through the back of the house uh through windows that are beyond that screen.

Uh we also have views to the backside lookout, which got eclipsed by the lower roof line.

And so we tried to uh still blend with the house, it still has a hip form, obviously the hip that extends out over the stairs to the left, but the part that's over the screen porch proper is proposed to be a gable shape shaped roof.

Okay, thank you.

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

Okay, we can move to commission discussion.

Anyone have any comments or questions of the applicant?

So the only thing that's changing to clarify for me is the roof the roof.

It was screened in before all that all those elements are the same.

They're the same as switch from a hip roof to a direct will form over the screen porch area.

Gotcha.

You said it was smaller to Cassie, but is it smaller?

Is it say again?

She said that it was some is smaller than the original approval, but is it uh she was referring to the additional to the addition in general is smaller than the house.

It's the same size porch exactly uh as it was I think the hip part portion that we put on the new design actually the stairs in the same location just the addition that we actually reminder this is in the back of the house, correct?

Um looks like a good solution to me.

Okay, commission, do we have any other comments or questions?

Anyone like to make a motion?

I'll make a motion.

I'd like to make a motion to approve case number HC-23-134 at 5101 Tennessee Avenue as submitted pursuant to the Chattanooga City Code Chapter 10, Article 2, Section 10-15E, and pursuant to the St.

Elmo Design Guidelines with no conditions.

Do we have any uh second second?

Second, McCliff, all in favor.

Aye.

Aye.

Any opposed.

Motion carries.

Thank you.

Thank you all.

Thank you.

Shelby, I'm gonna share this with you.

Well, maybe not.

Okay.

Uh our next um old business case is HC 2456 at 1402 West 55th Street in the St.

Elmo neighborhood.

This is not a historic structure, it's a vacant lot currently under construction.

We have some facade changes, window changes, and material changes.

So here is the aerial of the property and then the property within the St.

Elmo Historic District Overlay.

The property photos and the neighboring property photos.

And then the application information.

So this is the previously approved design from June 2024.

This is the previously approved amended design from May 2025.

Here's the COA from May 2025.

Noting that the foundation is to be brick and no more than four feet in height, porch depth less than six foot, not to intended to set a precedent.

And then this is the updated application information uh from the applicant.

So they want to do a uh brick front porch floor.

There is a um covered porch on that back elevation.

Um and then I there's a window removed on the left side or the right side elevation top right on the drawing there.

And then just a note that this drawing does show the chimney as brick, but it will remain as um board and batten sighting, is my understanding.

And then the applicant is proposing this um outdoor chimney as well.

Here is a list of those changes that we can come back to.

And then the staff report is section 62 new construction for the St.

Elmo design guidelines.

So item five, location and proportion of porches, entrances, windows, and divisional bays.

Uh the applicant is proposing adding a second stair to the front porch, proposing a brick herringbone floor for the front porch, and the applicant is proposing adding a brick base to the front porch columns.

Uh applicant is proposing a rear porch with a gable roof on the back elevation.

Frame dwellings.

If new construction is a frame, the preferred exterior material is horizontal wood siding, which is a minimum of four inches and a maximum of six.

Um the applicant is proposing to change proportions, change portions of the siding on the front to a vertical board and batten windows, wood construction is preferred.

However, the use of vinyl clad is also acceptable.

Uh the window configuration has changed on the rear of the dwelling.

One window is to be removed on the right side elevation and a transom window and door is proposed at the rear deck.

And then 11 placement on the lot, uh front end yard set front and side yard setback should be respect should respect the setbacks found along the block on which the building is sighted.

Um just a note here again that the applicant is proposing a brick standalone outdoor fireplace at the rear, but it will be within a six-foot privacy fence.

So we'll have the applicant's presentation.

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

Uh Francesco Posito for you to nine CNM Live.

Uh can we go back to the COVID?

So um again, all the board and batten and assignments stay in the same side at the front.

And uh I'm working with somebody that's helping me design some stuff.

And uh they took the this photo, I guess, and put it in some kind of uh application, so the window placements look different, but they're actually that's just because of the angle.

But if we go back to the original um to the origin what we originally submitted.

Uh yeah, so there's those other windows.

Chimney, um, you know, the shape of this changed.

Um, but it is a board and batten.

Uh this window right here, we're taking this window out.

This is actually the master bathroom.

And uh the way that the new configuration just didn't work for that.

And uh can we slide see if you I think there's another photo there.

Yeah, and then this window here, which was this was in the water closet.

This one's getting removed, and the trans that we see here is getting installed right here.

So that's what's changing as far as windows.

Uh and then we were proposing a stair.

Uh brick stairs that come through here.

And the columns, um, oh yeah, and the back porch with a gable roof on it.

Uh and I guess this window right here is um is this is the master on the back.

And this is gonna be the door coming out to uh the covered porch uh trying to remember what else.

Yeah, so you can see that here.

It doesn't have the hand rows on there, but we'll just do you know standard, you know, 36 to 42 inch height with uh you know two by fours on front and back, you know, on this way we've done it before here, and two by two spindles.

Uh and then it's not drawn on here.

Uh I just realized, but right here.

I didn't think I have that in the application or yeah.

So right here I'm proposing a landing uh right here with the same handrails.

And this is coming off of the um off of the kitchen.

Uh the columns, uh the person I'm working with that's designing kind of you know, the the front elevation, thought it would be a good idea um to have these brick um you know, half columns, and then the the floor of um of the porch originally we had it approved with um concrete, and uh so we're proposing this herringbone pattern just on the on the floor, all the the rest of the brick, you know, stays the same.

Oh fencing.

Now she does have it here with uh uh you know open.

Uh this is not what we're gonna do.

We're just gonna do what we normally do in St.

Almo, which is uh, you know, the dog year, and this is the back and the front uh gets um you know two to three foot fence and the back is a six foot.

And I think if we look at the yeah, that's right here, you can see this right here.

So uh this right here is uh, you know, uh two, three feet, and this right here is six foot, six foot, uh two, three feet.

I know she has it four to five, but we're not doing that right here.

And a gate right here.

Uh I'm trying to remember if there's anything else.

Oh, the fireplace.

So we're gonna do an outdoor area.

Uh this area is gonna framed in some some sort of way, maybe with uh 57s or P gravel, and then have it a little chimney in this area.

Yeah, I think that's it.

Okay, thank you.

I just want to clarify staff can approve the fencing, so that's not part of your scope today.

We're just looking at uh the site changes, I guess, and the changes to the materials and the elevations.

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

Okay, we can move to commission discussion.

Okay, commission, any comments or questions?

Issues with the changes.

Can you can you call up the um the original front um front view?

What's what's the board and batten change on here?

Yeah, so this is uh so this is still bored and batten.

This is still a lot, but this right here, this this area right here is getting changed to board and batteries.

You can see it more clearly on your all of this was lapsing, and now this area right here is getting born back.

It's a little more clear on your desktop than it is on the screen commissioners.

Okay, do we have any other questions or comments, or would someone like to make a motion?

Probably we should reiterate that this are the third, and I'm not complaining.

Actually, thank you for asking us to change something before doing it, but I think we've said before this is sort of an interesting lot and a unique lot, and uh it's been kind of as I understand sort of an eyesore that nothing's been there, and we're generally happy that there's a house like this there, and we're sort of letting it be a little bit more unique and whimsical, partially because it is in this kind of interesting triangular location, but I don't see anything that we wouldn't approve here.

You want to make the you want to make the motion, Cliff?

Sure.

Um I agree, a unique solution to a unique lot.

Thank you.

Uh make a motion to approve case number HC 2456 1402 West 55th Street as submitted pursuant to Chutninger City Code Chapter 10 Article 10, Article 2, Section 1015E and pursuant to St.

Elmo Design Guidelines.

Approval is subject to the following conditions.

Uh rear porch handrails to be staff approved.

Okay.

Any do we have a second?

Second.

Seconded by Matt.

All in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Motion carries.

Thank you.

Thank you guys.

Okay.

All right.

We will move into our last old business case.

This is case HZ22143, 503 battery place in the battery place neighborhood.

Um it is not a historic structure.

It's um they're finishing up construction now.

So again, this is a situation where you are reviewing as built changes that were made and found during my final historic zoning inspection.

So here's the aerial of the property, and then the property within the battery place um historic district overlay, and the property photos, neighboring property photos, and then the view from Veterans Bridge and looking at Veterans Bridge.

So the previously approved plans from 2023, previously approved plans from 2023.

So circled everything that has been a change in red, whether it's like a material or an opening.

Um, and we can I can go through those.

So you can see again the previously approved plans here.

Okay, and we'll go through um some more images of uh the existing conditions on site that are different than those plans.

Can you see there was a material change here at the front porch?

This window does not match.

I think we're missing an opening on this side.

None of the second story glass and steel porch features were installed, and I believe they have no intention to install them.

We're missing windows on this uh rear facade of the garage.

Here is that uh pool equipment, which I think was shown um with some screening, and then the view from the veterans bridge side with a some change to the openings.

And there's a close-up of that front door area, and then the view from Veterans Bridge.

So we are missing some of the um proposed uh stairs that were included in that those original drawings as well.

So the relevant battery place uh guidelines, it's the new construction section and the guidelines for site design.

So for the roof, um, just to note that original drawings showed the glass and steel rooftop decks on the river and veterans bridge side.

These were not installed, and the applicant does not want to install them.

Openings, uh doors and windows, traditionally designed houses and battery plates have distinctive window types and patterns and doorway designs that often relate to the architectural style of the historic dwelling.

Um various window open windows and openings have been altered or removed that were previously shown on the approved drawings.

Porches and porticos.

Uh, because porches and porticos are so common in the district, strong consideration should be given to including a porch or similar form in the design of any new construction in the neighborhood.

Street side inset porch has different colors, materials, and opening openings than what was previously approved on the drawings.

And again, the rooftop glass and steel porches are not being installed on the river side.

And for the fences, walls, and walks.

Item three, the design of new fences and walls should blend in with materials and designs found in the district.

Commonly used materials are stone, brick, and raw iron.

Shrubbery hedges can also be borders.

Often the materials relate to the materials used elsewhere on the property.

So again, the proposed stairs and aluminum fencing along the riverside have not been installed.

So if we could have the applicant's presentation, if you could just state your name and address for the record, please.

Please let the record reflect a Nathan Byrd because they was a microphone here, I believe.

Yeah, we're here.

Okay.

It's out of commission.

Okay.

I'm Mitch Allen, uh, the contractor for 503 battery place.

And I was not the original applicant.

I am uh contractor, so homeowner and architect took you know, brought this to the uh commission and then received some you know slightly different plans and or you know some changes a little later on.

Um their job to if there were significant changes to carry them before the board.

Um certain things that they were decided along the way have placed feet.

So yeah, so that we're not trying to necessarily change much, but obviously we're in a different plot where we're meant to comply and um ultimately trying to get approval for what's here.

Okay, thank you.

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

Okay, we can move to commission discussion.

I'm gonna go ahead and just a comment first.

Great project.

This thing lights up that spot along a very visible um place in our community, and I appreciate you guys' work, great work.

Um I'm less concerned about the glass and steel porches protruding from the main structure.

Is that is you know pretty far from uh historic pattern, but I understand the contemporary nature of this project and and what they're trying to accomplish.

Can we look at the window openings at the front of the home?

It's hard to tell exactly what this opening is the one that has changed, and then just the materials here on this inset are different, otherwise they're good.

I can't either scope or the project though with that aspect anyway.

I just wanted to make sure about the windows.

Um I don't have a problem with the changes.

Commission, does anyone have a problem or want to speak to the changes?

Uh I I agree with you on almost everything, and maybe this last thing is minor, but there are some, and maybe it's just because we didn't have original drawings of this, or the drawings had some, you know, obviously you don't show everything.

There's a photo that shows some pool equipment.

Um you see that pool equipment from the bridge and did the original design have some sort of a lattice or some kind of I wouldn't say wood lattice because everything here is a little bit more in wood lattice, but there's some skirting and some fencing and some other things, and I don't in this original drawing as seen from Veterans Bridge.

And I can't tell if that was meant to have pool equipment hiding behind it, or if this is that would be the only thing that I would be concerned is is there some pool equipment screening that we sort of inadvertently approved.

I'm sure we never talked about the pool equipment, but now is it there where everyone can see it going across the bridge?

And I want to pose this as a question to the applicant.

We don't want to be involved in designing for you.

Do you have a solution for screening that pool area that we could consider?

See on right now, they have some large grasses there.

My understanding all along was pretty similar to yours.

It made sense that there would be a low wall you can see uh, you know, these really tall, tall windows, some siding, brick roll lock.

Uh my thought was that we there would be a fence, some landscape in front of it.

Um it's about the height of the roll lock, that would help block and you know the house is dark, you can paint that dark if match.

Um as we're working through some landscape design, the owner X that's kind of surprising to me too.

Made sense that might want a heavier block there.

Um certainly the angle from this right picture that we see, it's very easy to see, but that's you know, 15 feet away from the bridge.

I'm not sure exactly how you see it across the bridge.

Um, and I I'd say you you probably see it better than what this photo really shows.

Um your screens may show a little bit a little better.

Um installing a small fence doesn't seem like it you know, a project like this wildly cost prohibitive or even outline.

Yeah, is there anything else that anything else that we would ask of the applicant?

Okay, so I think we need a screen fence there for that, and probably possibly the mechanical equipment on the side.

Other than that, I think we're good.

If I may the uh go ahead the as you go up the side, um there's a there's a city fence and a lot of a large a lot of overgrowth.

So I don't think that the HVAC equipment is seen, and it did not have any kind of original screening plan.

So we see it, of course, as we're because we're right on it, but right behind where you would be on this photo.

It's just from the street.

Uh kind of buffer.

Gotcha.

Uh I've got those other bridges right there too.

Yeah.

Due to the location, I'm not as concerned about that.

It it is kind of tucked away.

You'd have to be trying to find it.

And there were similarly some some windows that were along on the same wall that uh the owner just practically asked if you could pull out just for garage storage and that type of thing to the right of there.

Then we have lots of lots of greenery and brushing.

We may propose perhaps some foam closed shutters and things that space we're not really seeing this up.

What's the reason?

Would it be reasonable with regard to the pool equipment fence?

Would it be reasonable to condition it that the fence be the same height as the brick foundation there?

And what I mean is in your opinion, knowing the project more intimately than all of us that even drive by it and see it.

Do you feel like that fence height would be enough to cover it from the line of sight of Veterans Bridge?

My kind of quick off the hip is I think so.

Certainly as your perspective on Veterans, you are lower, so you are looking up.

I don't think you'll see up and over.

Um so it feels like right about the height of that roll lock is going to make it seems like it'd be you know plain high enough.

Um I'm not sure how the process works.

Is that something that is built in report you building?

Probably need to get a sta staff approval from Cassie.

Yeah, you'll get an updated COA next week signed by the chairman, and then once you build it, you can call me and I'll go out, or you can send me a picture.

Okay.

Thank you guys.

Approval is subject to the following conditions.

And as the uh brick foundational wall fence to be um to match the material and color of the um party board.

Okay, seconded by Cliff.

All in favor.

Hi.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Motion carries.

Thank you.

All right, we're gonna move into our new business cases now.

So our first case is HD 25100 at 5500 Beulah Avenue in the St.

Elmo neighborhood.

This is a historic structure circa 1930.

The proposed project is a garage and parking.

Historic zoning history on the property is from back from 2013 for a re-roof and foundation repair, window doors and rear porch repairs.

Here's the aerial of the property and the property within the St.

Elmo Historic District Overlay.

And here are the property photos.

And the neighboring property photos.

And then the application information provided by the applicant.

So here's a survey showing the existing conditions.

And then the proposed site plan.

So in red you see the proposed concrete drive and parking pad, and the blue is the proposed garage.

And here is some more information provided by the applicant showing the view of the house.

And here is that proposed garage.

And then just some examples of some other garages in similar locations in the neighborhood.

And then the material list provided by the applicant.

So wood siding two by four frame, playwood roof with asphalt shingles, glass windows, wood doors, and a concrete floor for the garage, and then the parking pad will be poured concrete.

So the relevant St.

Almo design guidelines is section 6.9 for 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 a concrete driveway and parking pad off of West 55th.

There is an existing curb cut.

Item D should have their parking areas located in the rear yard nearer the alley than the building and screened with hedges, shrubs, or fences where noticeable from the street.

The applicant is proposing to install a concrete driveway in the parking pad off of West 55th.

Again, there's an existing curb cut.

And then item F traditional paving materials for driveways include gravel and concrete.

And the applicant is proposing concrete.

Item one is smaller in scale than the primary building.

Yes.

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

The proposed outbuilding has a gable roof that mimics the gable roof on the primary dwelling.

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

Yes, the outbuilding is to the rear.

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

Yes.

Item five, preferably of wood siding.

The shed will have wood siding.

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

Just a note that the outbuilding will be visible from Beulah Avenue and West 55th Street.

And we'll have the applicant's presentation.

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

A block from our home, we have the wood shop, which has probably five nights a week.

All music and different venues.

So a garage and a parking pad would be handy for us considering we have continual packing coming and going every night on our street.

Uh all the way down our street.

So having a garage and a parking pad at the exterior of that home, as well as having a place to store extra items.

Um safety is important to us.

Great.

Thank you so much.

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

Okay, we can move to commission discussion.

Quick question is is this a prefabricated or you're building an own site?

Um we haven't decided as yet.

Okay.

Depending upon what the board also suggests.

Gotcha.

As well.

Okay, thank you.

Other questions or comments, commission?

We have a material list.

So the photo appears to have T11 siding, which I don't think is appropriate.

We probably need to condition that any other comments.

Would someone like to make a motion?

Nathan.

The windows just say glass, doesn't say anything about the framing, and I'm trying to remember what we've done for secondary buildings like this in the past.

They probably need to be vinyl clad or wood, like we would approve on the house.

Yeah, I would also make that a condition.

What do we want to recommend for the wood siding?

It could be hardy siding or or wood siding to match the house, I would think.

If it's a prefab one, sometimes you all you have a limited choice.

And I know we approve a lot of the prefabricated garages.

I frankly don't know what their windows are, but I think frequently we don't ask.

I think that yeah, true.

I think generally when we're approving the prefab, it's on a temporary foundation cinder box or something like that.

I think this is a little more permanent in nature, just poured concrete and oh no, that's true.

I think if they want to come back with a prefab structure, I'd I'd be willing to hear that, but yeah, this is based on what we have, we need to condition it.

Okay.

You got this, Brandon.

I make a motion to approve case HC 25100 at 5500 Bay ULAF is submitted pursuing to the Chattanooga City Code, Chapter 10, Article 2, Section 1015E.

And pursuant to the St.

Elmo Design Guidelines approval is subject to the following conditions wood or hardy siding and aluminum urban cloud wood window.

Do we have a second?

Second.

Second by Cliff, all in favor.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Motion carries.

Thank you.

All right.

We'll move to our next new business case.

This is case HC 25103 at 4705 Michigan Avenue in the St.

Elmo neighborhood.

It is a historic structure, circa 1900 to 1917.

This is a exterior rehabilitation and a uh screened in porch slash addition.

So you can see here the sandboard map showing that property in 1917, 1930, and 1955.

This came before um the historic zoning history from 2018 to repair and remodel, non-original rear edition, repair front porch floorboards, repair the foundation, and exterior exterior rehabilitation, including replacing windows, siding to be wood or wood composite, batten on rear.

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

Elmo Historic District Overlay.

And here are the pro uh these are some historic property photos we have from the surveys, uh, I believe in the 1990s.

And then the existing conditions, uh, property photos, and the neighboring property photos, and then the application information provided by the applicant.

So here's that rendering showing the proposed uh final product.

You can see the changes to the front porch and that edition as well as the vertical board and batten siding that's proposed.

Here is the site plan showing that new porch edition off the front side, and then uh the floor plan, and then there's a window and door schedule, the demolition plan and the proposed main level plan showing that um screened in porch, and then the elevations provided by the applicant.

I have a zoom in of each of those that you can kind of see the proposal and materials listed.

And then the material list provided by the applicant.

So fiber cement board and batten siding, fiber cement shake siding in the gable.

The railing and posts on the front porch are proposed to be cedar post and a like gridded wire railing.

Horizontal screening over the foundation.

Question for the applicant if any of the stone foundation is to be covered.

New windows on the north elevation.

The window schedule notes, existing windows are to be reused, are all the other windows to remain.

And then a wood screened and porch with the metal roof to match the existing with the same wire railing proposed at the front porch.

So we're looking at the relevant St.

Elmo design guidelines.

We're looking at 6.1 for additions, 613 for foundations, 625 for porches, 633 for siding, and 641 for windows.

So for additions, item A should be located at the rear of the building, not on the front or readily visible.

The screened porch addition is proposed at the side and the front of the dwelling and will be visible from Michigan Avenue.

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

The proposed screen porch addition is smaller and simpler than the original building.

Item C should be of a compatible design in keeping with the original buildings design, roof shape materials, colors, location of window door, and corner sites, etc.

The applicant is proposing the same style and material of roof, but the materials and design of the screen porch do not match the historic design.

The applicant is proposing a gridded wire half wall for that screened in porch.

Item F should be built in a manner that avoids extensive removal or loss of historic materials, which does not damage or destroy the main architectural features.

We'll have the applicant confirm if any of the historic materials would be removed or damaged with the installation of the addition.

Item I addition should be made to the rear, not sides.

Again, this screened porch addition is proposed at the side and front of the dwelling.

Section 613 for foundations, item A should be preserved and maintained in their original design and with original materials.

The applicant is proposing a horizontal screening over the concrete block foundation.

There are portions of a stone foundation.

We'll have the applicant confirm if this will be retained andor covered.

Item B between existing peers should be filled in as traditional for the type and style of the house, generally with wood lattice.

Or decorative vertical wood boards.

The applicant notes screening between the piers of the screened and porch and the drawing, the drawing show solid panels.

Item C should not be concealed with concrete block, plywood panels, corrugated metal or wood shingles.

Again, the applicant's noting the screening between the piers on the screened and porch and the drawings show solid panels.

Section 25 for porches, porch columns, and railings.

Item B should not be removed if original.

The existing front porch columns may be a later addition or covered in a modern material.

The applicant is proposing to remove the post and the balustrade and replace with wire railing and cedar posts.

This is not compatible with the period of the dwelling.

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

The existing front porch columns again may be a later addition or covered in a modern material, and the applicant is proposing to remove them and replace with wire railing and cedar post.

Porches continued.

Just that same note as before.

So again, historic porch columns and railings should be retained and repaired.

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

Item C of aluminum, raw iron, or other materials are not appropriate for front porches.

Again, the applicant is proposing that wire railing and the cedar post.

And then item D just goes into the detail for the architectural style.

I'm happy to revisit that.

Section 633 for siding.

Item A, wood siding original to the building should be repaired rather than replaced only where necessary due to deterioration.

The applicant is proposing to remove the existing vinyl siding and replace it with fiber cement shingle and board and batten siding.

We'll have the applicant confirm if any of the original wood siding is present underneath the existing vinyl.

Item C the application of masonite over original wood siding is also not appropriate and discouraged.

However, masonite may be used if the dimensions, texture, and color matches the original wood siding.

Again, we'll have the applicant confirm what is existing beneath that vinyl siding and what it looks like.

And then sorry about that.

Item G, siding of particle board or press board is also not appropriate for the fronts of dwellings or sides which are readily visible from the street.

Almost all frame dwellings in St.

Elmo have horizontal siding forms.

So again, the applicant is proposing that vertical board and batten siding on all sides.

And then 641 for the windows item A should be preserved in their original location size and design and with their original materials and number of panes.

The applicant notes that two windows will be reused in new locations.

We'll have the applicant confirm if any other windows are to be removed.

Staff has not conducted a site visit to confirm the condition of the windows.

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

The windows to be moved and reused are on the side.

Item C should be repaired rather than replaced.

Again, we'll have the applicant confirm if any of the other windows are to be removed and replaced.

And then just um a note here that wasn't clear in the application materials if any of the existing exterior doors are historic.

If so, will they be retained?

And if not, we'll have the applicant provide proposed uh door replacements.

Okay, and we'll have the applicant's presentation.

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

Um I'm Holly Ritchie, and I live at 4705 Michigan Avenue.

I'm Colin Hutz, and uh I live at 4705 as well.

Um so just a quick background, I'll probably speak most since um I've got uh masters in historic preservation, 20 plus years in historic preservation, so I can kind of speak the language.

I was on this board at one time.

Um so there are a couple of things that I wanted to um address that were questions that Cassie had right at the beginning.

Um, first of all, I'm gonna say in the in her notes, this house was not a part of the original um national register nomination, and I believe that's most likely, even though it is old, it's not contributing structure to the district, and I would argue that that's the case now.

Um the sandboard map show a house in 1917 through 1955.

That's been significantly altered.

There was about six feet added to the north side of the house at one point, and so on the north side that foundation is concrete block, it's not stone.

The only stone that is still that remains is on the south side of the visible that's visible, right?

This stone foundation that one right there is uh underneath the house, visible from the crawl space, but for the old footprint that go back to that, but that's all concrete block right there.

That's not that's the other side.

This side where the compressor is a south side, and this is the north side.

That's all concrete block.

Oh, is it that will stick remain?

Um so this whole side of the house right here is about six feet, about six feet in the crawl space right there.

Is the original stone foundation on the other side?

We've got the hump and the floor to prove that uh that that concrete block uh settled at some point.

Um this part of the house right here was replaced, it was torn off as originally a porch that you can see on a sandboard map.

They the previous owners and closed it.

It was rotting when Holly bought the house in 2012, and so that was uh removed and replaced in 2020.

Um that was approved by the zoning commission.

Um I don't know if you can tell from here.

The house is essentially built on the side of Lookout Mountain.

So the right here there's a small deck, a retaining wall, and then the hill goes up like that.

House is about a thousand square feet, it's very small.

We do not have the option to add on to the back because the roof would essentially be at grade or lower, and extremely cost prohibitive to do that.

It'll probably put the roof line above the pitch of the original roof, which we know is not allowed in the storage zoning.

Um so we're looking to add a screen port just to give about three months of additional uh living space.

Um the main motivation of the project is to give us more living space inside, so we decided to by converting this room into a bathroom uh second bathroom, closet space, laundry, and then so we decided while we're doing that.

Might as well remove the vinyl siding and make the house uh appear nicer by taking the the siding off.

Um the other issue you asked is all of these windows um our vinyl windows that were added before how we purchased the house.

Um we did a wood, I think a vinyl, a vinyl on the whatever it was approved in the for these windows in the rear.

Um when we take this door this window out to put a door in, it's gonna be moved to here because this window right here is bogged up and it's not working anymore.

So there are no original um doors or windows.

No original doors, windows, there's really not no historic fabric left of this house.

I mean, there's no historic integrity uh for the most part.

If you go back to where you took yeah, so you can see even like there's a lead pipe for my railing.

There's the concrete block for that foundation.

That stone, there's a little bit of stone right there, of course, will remain and that will be hidden by the new screenboard for the most part.

On the drawings, we did not go back to the architect and have her redraw the actual, she just filled in for under the front porch.

But if you look at the front porch, there was a house down the street on Gill Trail you had in here that has the horizontal wood.

Um you said, well, not that, but while you're on this picture, um you mentioned that vertical siding is not appropriate in the neighborhood.

This is the next door neighbor's house and board batten right here.

So um believe that that is appropriate for the neighborhood.

Um that right here, so this is essentially gonna be where the screen is, except we're not gonna have the post, but the boards are gonna be on the outside screening the concrete block that the front porch is on.

Um did you have that rendering that was up here?

Yeah.

So this is concrete block right here, and we're not doing board of that, and we're gonna take that look that we're gonna do the horizontal there.

This will not be solid, it'll be the horizontal boards as well.

Um the post on the front are gonna be replaced with post.

They're gonna be solid wood, um, which is part of the requirements.

The fact that there's cedar, I don't think really is part of a curve of the uh historical zoning because they're gonna meet the they're gonna comply with being wood.

Um there are plenty of examples in the neighborhood that are unfinished in uh one natural wood.

Four instead of three.

Uh the other thing is we we are gonna ask if we can do, we don't know why it was designed this way, but we can put four here, two on the corner and spread those out.

I think that's mainly it we hit everything.

Uh I think so, yes.

The porch is probably you have in your notes that it was pre the part of the story time was something about pre-1945 porches.

That's debatable.

It has tongue and roof, I think it could be pressure treated tongue and roof uh decking, if not, um it's at a very steep pitch.

It's not very uh safe, and neither is that railing.

Yeah, it's a little railing with a steep pitch floor.

Okay, any other comments at this time?

For you, okay.

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

Okay, we can move to commission discussion.

All right, who wants to start us off?

So do we know what's underneath the vinyl siding?

Sorry.

What's underneath the vinyl siding?

Asbestos.

Okay.

The house is built with uh basically um almost eight quarterboards.

Okay.

The exterior and the interior, it's sandwiched two by twos.

And so that was the structural nature.

When we renovated the gaps are out, you know, I haven't actually removed that, so it's not a reasonable edge.

Okay.

You're saying there's no original exterior siding.

None.

Okay.

We removed at some point down to sheathing.

It was removed and the asbestos shingle we put on there.

All right.

Any other comments or questions or someone want to make a motion on this?

If not.

I feel like there's a little more to discuss here about the porch.

We at least should mention this.

I mean, we have a guideline.

And we've we've looked at this in the past where we have these properties set into a hill.

Uh but on the other hand, we do have a guideline that's pretty clear about no porches in the front part of the house.

Uh no, you know, and we've certainly been fairly strict.

Um, and I don't maybe it's fine here.

We'll all as a commission say, well, you can't put a porch on the side on the rear, so we'll just let one on the side.

But I feel like you know we should at least say if everyone is okay with a porch being on the side that this is not intended to set a precedent for other porches, because I don't uh there's been a number that we've not approved on the sides of houses and ask for them to be removed.

Yeah.

Agreed.

I think that I think the lamp 5509.

I think the landscape.

I think the lay of or the topography of this one, I think is what you're headed to.

The topography, exactly.

I think we would approve that uh lens to this basically.

Based on the topography, but not based on the um not based on the uh just always approving porches on the side.

I think we need to say that.

Is anyone have is it 5509 Alabama?

Gotcha.

Yeah, but you'll have the back as well.

So I think that's where we're heading with it.

Anybody have any issue with the siding that seems to that board and batten changes the character of this house?

Does anybody have issue with that?

We say specifically no vertical siding, but we've worked through several times that we I think the new guidelines are coming out, are not gonna have that, and we've allowed vertical board and bat, and we don't allow T11.

Right.

And this is fiber submit board and bat, and there is a board and bat next door.

We're I understand there's a condition requested to not use the vertical board and batten on the porch foundation, and the porch foundation already has siding on it, so we're we're not not discussing the appropriateness of putting siding on the foundation of that is something else in the guidelines, it's very clear don't put wood siding on a foundation, but that's already there.

We're just taking it off and putting other siding.

I saw a photo with horizontal siding on that lower part.

Is that what's proposed?

Yeah, okay.

Horizontal, what is going back?

It's the same as the house with that staying or is that changing?

Uh we're removing all the vinyl.

Um under the front porch there the front porch, um, behind the vinyl is center block.

Well, and what are we going back with?

Uh the vertical horizontal horizontal horizontal um wood that is like the house down the street.

Okay.

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

Okay.

And the architect did not put stone foundation on the south elevation, which will be stone.

We will not cover that up.

And it it would have been my preference for stone to be everywhere on the foundation, but that's not the case.

Okay.

Yeah, and that horizontal side.

And what's the intent with the handrails on the front porch?

That's my next question.

And also the columns.

You said you're adding another one that's not reflected here.

Right.

Well, that didn't come up until we looked just recently to look at it like that.

It's the columns right in front of the door.

So balancing four columns.

Um, so the other two would be between the windows and the door.

Um, and have four columns instead of three.

Could I just make a note?

Um we've made this point already in this meeting today.

Is it worth having them come back with drawings that are accurate?

There's a lot of kind of on the fly changes.

I mean, that's up to you all, but it is something that we discussed earlier.

Okay.

Yeah.

Well, then if you're gonna do that, then I'm I'd rather you just approve the way it is, we'll come back with just the porch if we decide to change the porch.

I don't want to hold up.

We've already got held up a month because the uploading these drawings didn't work with the city's software.

It's gonna be hard for us to do this work during the winter anyway.

So we might be able to get to six-point bit line as well.

Gotcha.

Well, there may be some other issues here that we sort out, so let's get through the discussion, then we can decide if what we want to do.

What about the railing?

Do you all have any issues with the condition of just typical two by two wood balusters?

Is that an issue for y'all?

I think that's what we would do normally.

That's not what's drawn necessarily, or it's hard to tell.

No, it's a it's a wire railing.

Yeah, I would condition that not using the wire railing and just using typical wood two by two ballusters instead.

Yeah, it's that's what you want, what not what's drawn here, right?

You want two by two, you won't.

It it doesn't matter.

It's if you prefer I I like I like the other look, but um, like that is down the street, uh, that has the wire inserts.

Um, but if you would prefer it to be um a different way, then I'll go with that.

The lack of historic integrity to this house kind of sends itself to making changes that are a little bit more modern as houses evolve, but I don't think that I mean understand that's you know that gets approved on the new houses in the neighborhood, but not existing houses.

I was on the fence either way, so I really agree with that.

And how how old is this house?

I mean, I think it's uh historic by its age.

Yeah, 1917.

Okay, well, we we're not gonna we're not we're not gonna debate that here.

Well, it's not it wasn't included as a contributing structure, so if it were I I've done historic resources surveys before I didn't want it to have a part, so I mean it it does again.

We're not again we're not gonna debate that here.

I think it's a handmade shack.

Okay.

That's the way it's built.

All right, commission.

Does anybody want to make a motion based on what we have or are there other questions that we want to answer?

Are we okay with what's on the paper?

With the condition of like the porch coming back with some detail or some of the other materials, or to I mean, we don't want to defer them necessarily, but we're just clarifying that the we could condition it a certain way, we can do a staff approval, we could ask for them to come back for the drawing.

Um those are kind of the options.

Also, there's a there's a lot here, and I just want to make sure we don't miss anything.

Um I'm a little stuck on the I see the existing stone foundation.

We're gonna and that's not gonna be covered.

Um typically if we have an existing block foundation, someone may parge code it, um, you know, maybe stucco it.

Um I'm sort of stuck on the the code or the the zoning guidelines say uh you know don't add siding to a foundation wall.

And we're still appears we're we're approving siding where one where siding never was over that CMU foundation wall.

I think I think that's you know that I understand the look.

I think I understand the look that this these guidelines were written to avoid where you get wood that just goes all the way down and touches the ground, or siding that goes all the way down and touches the ground.

And I don't know that we should approve expanding that.

It's already on this house on the front on the porch, and it's fine with me if it just goes back that way, but I don't know that I would approve adding it on the side, you know, on the side where there's no siding going down to the ground.

Okay.

Is anyone gonna make a motion?

Oh shoot, let's just do it.

But let's make sure that so we're doing this with conditions, right?

Like we're gonna prove subject to four things that I've understood.

Yeah, mentioned.

Okay, and those four things are uh two by two balustrades instead of the wire on the porch.

Uh moving the center column, getting rid of the center column and having double columns on each end.

Um horizontal siding at the porch that's existing with siding, but we don't want horizontal siding added where there's stone or other materials.

Does that sound correct?

Yep.

Okay.

We have a horizontal application run.

So let's say not on the side.

Not on the side.

And are you fine with the wire balustrade around the screened in porch?

That's how it's shown currently.

That was his first condition.

Yeah, I think that would be all, you know, for just want to make sure it's for everything and not just the front porch.

Thank you.

We are okay with we are okay with this house going from a horizontal house to vertical siding house.

Is everybody on board with that?

Yeah, given how much this house has been through, there's really no way to tell what was there originally.

Uh certainly not vinyl.

Um, and there is some remnant on that last.

Well, okay.

That's the I think the asbestos.

Yeah.

Um they're also just sorry, a quick note proposing the cedar or the like shake siding in the gable as well.

Yeah.

I just don't see enough to hold anyone one way or the other, honestly.

Okay.

On the porch columns, was the intent to have a pair and a pair, or would it have four equally spaced?

All equally spaced.

The windows are not symmetrical, and so I've done some measurements to make it so that they wouldn't block the view of the window.

It would need to be I gave the client.

Maybe maybe we say the front porch will have four columns instead of three to be spaced so as to not block windows or door or something like that.

I understand the desire.

Yeah, I guess.

Four columns instead of three.

Okay, so four columns instead of like double on the end.

That's correct.

Just four equally spaced.

Does that sound correct?

Somewhat equally spaced.

Roughly equal, roughly equally spaced.

Yeah, I live my life like that.

Just want to keep in mind that these conditions need to be, you know, enforceable when I get go out for final zoning inspection.

So otherwise we'll do what we did at the beginning of the meeting and see these folks in a few months.

Not necessarily, but you can't measure somewhat.

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

Yeah.

I would also make a note about the side porch being approved due to the topography and is not intended to set a precedent.

Here we go.

Uh I make a motion to approve case number HZ-25-103-4705 Michigan Avenue.

I submit a pursuant to the Chattanooga City Code, Chapter 10, Article 2, Section 10-15E, and pursue it to the St.

Elmo Design Guidelines.

Approval is subject to the following conditions.

All balustrades, 2x2 wood, not wire.

Spaced proportionally.

And side porch approval is not intended to set a precedent.

Okay.

Do we have a second?

Sorry.

Seconded by Nathan.

All in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed?

Motion carries.

Thank you.

Okay, we'll move to our next new business case.

This is HC 25113 at 4401.

St.

Elmo Avenue in the St.

Elmo neighborhood is a historic structure.

Circa 1900 for the primary dwelling.

We are looking at the outbuilding today.

This was a correction notice for a bit an outbuilding that was converted into a dwelling space that is now being converted into a non-dwellable studio space.

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

Elmo Historic District Overlay.

Here are the property photos.

This is the building that you are reviewing today.

And then the neighboring property photos.

And then the material list for again the existing conditions at 41 or I'm sorry, 4401 St.

Elmo Avenue.

So it has metal roofing, fiber cement siding, metal frame, single pane windows, metal lock, exterior, French door, and a pressure treated front porch.

So relevant St.

Alma design guidelines are section 622 for new construction.

Item C for secondary buildings.

Yes, the outbuilding is to the rear of the primary dwelling.

Compatible in design shape materials in roof shape to the main building.

Item five, prefer 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 outbuilding has fiber cement siding.

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

And we can just have the applicant's presentation.

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

Hi, I'm Maria Cordillo.

My address is 4401 San One Avenue.

I've been living in my home for 40 years.

Did you have any additional comments for us at this point?

I'd really like not to have to change it.

Okay.

Okay, we'll move to community comments or comments by other persons if we have any.

I do want to note that I did receive an email in support this morning, which was past our deadline, so it wasn't included in your packet, but I just wanted to acknowledge that.

But if uh if you can just state your name and address for the record, please.

Maria is what I consider like a legacy neighbor in our neighborhood, just because she's been here since the 80s, you know, for 40 plus years.

And I've been to countless dinners, art discussions, bonfires, you know, events with friends and with neighbors over the last you know 23 years that I've lived in the neighborhood.

Actually rented for Maria when we first got married, and um, and then I bought my house from Maria across the street on St.

Alma Avenue where I still live.

Um so I just I'm just here as her friend, as her neighbor, just to support her, um, and just state that this um her property is beautiful.

I think it's an important property in our neighborhood.

This structure um is relatively well hidden, I guess, from 44th.

Um she's got large trees, and um it's just difficult to see.

I had another neighbor tell me I've driven by that house a hundred times, and I've never noticed that building before.

Um, so it is discrete.

And that's all thank you, Commissioner.

All right, thank you.

The applicant, you have the opportunity to respond if you'd like.

Otherwise, we'll move to commission discussion.

Okay, great.

We'll move to commission discussion.

So can you put the is there a side by side of what's kind of going on here?

This is the fore and after, and then I can pull up street view if that's helpful as well.

Gotcha.

This is a I mean for our purposes.

This is not a dwelling.

R Studio.

Got it.

Okay.

Yeah, I would want to review this the same way as we would review a shed.

Um what is what's the foundation on this?

Do you know?

The foundation material here.

It doesn't look like there is one.

It doesn't look like there is one on the right.

On blocks.

Uh yeah.

Okay.

Yeah, yeah.

I would review this the same way I review the sheds.

Temporary sheds.

I I don't see any if anything, it's significantly improved from what was there before.

Yeah.

And it it matches the the character of the home and the surrounding homes much better.

Uh having the horizontal website in and the windows match much better.

So I I don't see any issues with those.

So go ahead, Clay.

This is not just changing.

This is this is an added structure though, right?

There's a structure, the old picture, the red picture showed something smaller.

So there's there's a new, there's an addition to the outbuilding.

Is that correct?

Uh it's it's wider than it was.

Yeah, so there's another piece.

So it's more shed as far as we're concerned.

More shed, I would think.

Yeah, and just to clarify, we do review ADU, sheds, any kind of outbuilding are all under the same section in the design guidelines.

Yeah, just for just for context, though.

I mean, we're not it's not another house in the backyard or an ADU.

It could be seen as a temporary structure based on the foundation design that I see.

I'll make a motion.

Okay.

I'll make a motion to approve case number HC-25-113 at 4401 St.

Elmo Avenue as submitted pursuant to the Chattanooga City Code Chapter 10, Article 2, Section 10-15E and pursuant to the St.

Elmo Design Guidelines with no conditions.

Nathan second it, all in favor.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Okay.

Motion carries.

Thank you.

All right.

Thank you.

All right, we'll move to our next new business case.

This is case HC 25115 at 4910 St.

Elmo Avenue.

In the St.

Elmo neighborhood, it is a historic structure, circa 1920.

This was a stop work order for the front uh porch changes, um, like repair and replacement that was being conducted without a certificate of appropriateness.

So you can see on the sandborn map there, um, 1930 and 1955, and then the section from the National Register nomination.

Uh, there is no historic zoning history on this property, so it looks like the front porch was altered between April 2021 and November 2021 per the street view, which I can show you all.

We don't have a record of a COA or code enforcement from that time.

So we're kind of capturing all these changes now.

Um, so I'll go through the presentation.

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

Elmo Historic District Overlay.

Here are the property photos.

So the pro uh the image on the left is before the work, and then on the right is after.

And so that image on the right you'll see is from 2021.

So the screening was removed in that short wall.

Neighboring property photos, and then the application information provided by the applicants.

You can see the site plan here.

Um, and then the application noting that new posts highlighted in red were both replaced with six by six by ten.

They plan to wrap the post to fit the same exact style as before with the trim piece at the top.

Um, replace the exterior boards below the deck by the flower bed and step, added a waterproofing membrane.

Uh new porch was completely replaced, highlighted in blue with one by six by eight pressure treated deck boards.

Um step was built the length of the deck.

Uh the fencing is not part of this application or for part of your review.

So we're again we're just looking at the porch here.

So those are the columns that were removed and then the existing conditions.

And then this is an image of the property from that 1990s survey.

And then the material that's provided by the applicant.

So the relevant St.

Elmo design guidelines, we're looking at section 625 for porches, porch columns, and railings.

Item B should not be removed if original.

The applicant removed existing porches, uh, the existing porch and reinstalled new columns and flooring.

There were changes made to the front porch in 2021 as well, including removing a knee wall and the screening.

Item C their details should be retained intact with repair work and replacement of missing parts, such as columns, post-railing, balusters, decorative moldings and trim work.

The applicant again, same removed the existing porches and reinstalled new columns and flooring.

Changes made back in 2021, and the applicant is proposing to wrap the columns in the same trim that was removed.

And then item J should have wood tongue and groove flooring running perpendicular to the facade.

So the applicant replaced the flooring.

The flooring is running perpendicular to the facade, but it is not tongue and groove.

Porches continued.

Item A should be preserved and maintained.

If repair is required, use materials to match the original in dimension and detailing.

Just the same note of the materials that were removed recently and in 2021.

And then item D talks about the specific dimensions for the architectural style.

So we can have uh the applicant's presentation.

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

Uh owner of 4910 St.

Homo A.

Um the reason why we ended up taking those uh the porch decking out.

It was really rough, old, not smooth.

And then we could have cut the edge, but it went actually before that big like beam, and then when they went to pull the wood, the beam was rotted, so they ended up suggesting to remove that.

Um we were actually just going to rewrap the post because they were pretty damaged, and when we went to take it off, there's actually no nothing holding.

So there was no um six by six on the inside.

It was just the one by twelves holding up that whole porch.

Um yeah, and what we would like to do because that is pretty short, and there's a big drop on the other side.

I guess before they had the um the what is it called?

Yes.

So we just want to do whatever goes with the aesthetics of the neighborhood, maybe like uh one by or two by fours going horizontal, almost like a semi-privacy look going up.

Um really whatever, because I was trying to look for something similar to that in the neighborhood, but I didn't really find anything the last couple days.

Um so just figuring out something, maybe we just kind of build it higher, or what would whatever you guys recommend for us to do to kind of keep that safer because I want to say it's like two feet tall.

But um I think that'll that's yeah.

Thank you so much.

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

Okay, we can move to commission discussion.

Go back to the side by side of the what it was and what it is.

And you're proposing to wrap rewrap the six by sixes that are they're existing.

Yeah, just to make it exactly how it was on the left.

And then we were gonna get that wrap like we didn't get the material that day, and it was the last day.

Gotcha.

And and again, what do you want to do with an A-wall on the right?

Um put it back as is.

Okay.

Whereas it's facing.

Gotcha.

One inch lacing.

And the only other issue I think we see is the the floor material, which I'm not.

I feel like we've approved standard planks before.

Maybe I'm misremembering.

We have there is at least one company that makes an exterior tongue and groove.

It for years you couldn't really get anything that would last in the outside to match the old, old 1920s, 30s tongue and groove floor.

So we have approved the tiny groove like this.

So other than the floor, it appears it's been replaced in kind.

Um if we're good with the floor, I think we can someone can move for an approval.

I think it's worth noting on these columns.

It's actually the until sometime in the 80s, a porch column like this never had structure because the wood is good enough to hold it.

So having a hollow column is totally normal.

What I see that's been removed does not in those pictures.

I see one that's split, but that's what looks like coming from demolition.

Um I want to be careful here.

Putting this back in light kind, these have a slight taper to them, unless the photograph, uh, one of the other photographs is wrong, they taper a little bit, which I think is quite nice.

Um, you know, there's wider at the bottom than the top.

I that's the kind of detail that I hate to lose, especially if something was in pretty good shape, and if what's was there is on site, a good carpenter can match that, but it's easy for it to get ignored.

So I'd want to put, you know, in light kind means any taper that's there and all that sort of thing, too, because that makes the house nice to having something that tapers down.

This but you see that one behind the downspout is more narrow, and then it gets a little wider.

That sort of thing is hard to hard to get back once you lose it.

So I'd want that to be in a motion.

Yeah, this being on the front of the house.

I would also want a specific range for that height of that wall.

I wouldn't want it going above 42, but I'm not positive what um code is, whether it's 36 or 42 inches.

It's gonna be 36.

It'll never be 42 for a house.

It'll be up 36 is the requirement if there's a 30-inch or greater step down over the edge.

If it's less than a 30-inch step down, there's no requirement at all.

I just don't want it to become a divider that you know.

Um, so if we could like a six foot raise it right exactly, if we could raise it to 30, you know, put them put a maximum of 36 inches.

Is that okay with you?

All right, who wants to make this motion?

Are there any other comments?

I don't know.

I would not have if this were uh proposed before the work was done.

I would not have approved standard deck board.

I would have pushed for the tongue and groove, but I don't just put that in because since we're recording this here, but um it's already done.

I don't think there's significant enough change in the character of the porch to try to enforce removal of standard deck board.

Okay, thank you.

It is what you say it's I think we'll leave that to you as a how.

How to do it.

I think we're just gonna say not more than 36 inches.

Oh is that reasonable convention?

Not needing a staff approval for that, right?

I don't think so.

All right, is someone gonna write this one up?

I'm writing unless someone else is.

Okay, Cliff's got this.

You said front porch columns and then um the sidewall just to be rebuilt in light kind to a 36-inch height.

Okay, I'll make a motion to approve case number HZ25115, 4910 St.

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

Elmo Design Guidelines.

Approval is subject to the following conditions.

Rebuild front porch columns to match historic columns, including detailing width, and any taper.

Porch knee wall to be rebuilt in like kind, except not to exceed 36 inches in height.

Okay, do we have a second?

Second in my mat.

All in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed?

Motion carries, thank you.

Thank you.

Okay, we'll move into our last new business case.

This is case HC 25117 at 5415 Beulah Avenue in the St.

Elmo neighborhood.

It's not a historic structure, it's circa 1972.

Uh the proposed project is a shed in the rear yard.

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

Elmo Historic District Overlay.

The property photos, you can see it from Virginia Avenue, and then uh from Beulah.

And some more property photos showing that rear yard.

And neighboring property photos.

Here's the site plan provided by the applicant.

So you can see it's uh proposed again in that rear yard.

The applicant also was recently approved for a um six-foot rear privacy fence.

And here is the proposed tuftshed, and the details for that.

And so the relevant St.

Elmo design guidelines are section 622 C for new construction of outbuildings.

So secondary buildings, item one, smaller in scale, yes, simple in design but reflecting the general character of the primary building.

Shed has a gable roof form like the primary dwelling.

Item three, located as traditional for the street near an alley or at the side.

Yes, the outbuilding is to the rear.

Item four, compatible in design shape materials and roof shape to the main building.

Yes.

Item five, preferably of wood siding, but it can be masonite aluminum or vinyl based on the location, uh, and prefabricated.

The prefabricated shed again is proposed at the rear along Virginia Avenue, and then item six, if readily visible from the street, secondary building should have an emphasis on historic designs and detailing.

The prefabricated shed is proposed at the rear along Virginia Avenue, and the applicant, like I stated previously, was also approved for a rear privacy fence, and the shed will not be visible from Virginia Avenue based on that installation.

We just have the applicant's uh presentation.

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

Hi, I'm Jamie Late Wilcoxlin.

Um I'm representing Bill Malloy at 5415 Beulah Avenue.

Um, so as you can see there, where the yellow is on the across the back of the property is where the privacy fence is gonna go, and where the green is the approximate location of where the shed's gonna be.

Um it's a 10 by 12 shed, like an engineered wood siding, gable roof.

Uh the color of it's gonna match the home, and it's gonna face the same direction of the home.

That's pretty much it.

Fabulous, thank you.

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

No, okay.

Move to commission discussion.

So can you flip back through the site plan?

The yellow, where is it?

Where all is the privacy fence going?

Um, I'm referencing like Virginia Avenue across the back.

So it'll be completely blocking where the shed's gonna be.

But it's coming all the way up the sides, also.

No, there's a set, there was a separate diagram.

It's just gonna go up to like where the pitch is and the roof.

So it's gonna go up the sides.

Yeah, so I previously approved that fencing.

It will come just like she stated about right here on the sides.

Okay, all the way back.

Perfect.

All right.

Any questions, comments?

Someone want to make a motion.

Brandon.

I make a motion to approve case HC 25117 at 5415, Bay ULA, a submitted pursuant to the Chattanooga City Code, Chapter 10, Article 2, Section 1015E, and pursuant to the St.

Elmo Design Guidelines.

We have a second.

Aye.

Cliff seconded.

All in favor.

Aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Motion carries.

Thank you.