Chattanooga Form Based Code Committee Meeting - August 13, 2026
STREAMING COPY IN PREPARATION — RECORDING AVAILABLE FROM THE ORIGINAL SOURCE
Chattanooga Form Based Code Committee Meeting - August 13, 2026
On August 13, 2026, the Form Based Code Committee met to consider a sign modification request (Case FBC-26-18) for West 10th Street. The applicant sought permission to reuse an existing pole for a new sign cabinet after the previous tenant's sign was removed. The committee approved the request based on a precedent set by a similar case on North Shore, despite pole signs generally not being permitted under current code.
Discussion Items
- Case FBC-26-18 – West 10th Street Sign Modification
Applicant James Reason (Professional Sign Services, 8386 Hicks and Pike, Hickson, Tennessee) explained that existing landscaping blocked the view of the sign, and moving it would violate setback requirements. The request was to reuse the existing pole for a 4-foot by 11-foot (48 square foot) sign cabinet, which is under the 60 square foot maximum for monument signs but exceeds the 6-foot height limit for monument signs. The committee noted that pole signs are not generally allowed, but a recent precedent existed: the Longhorn restaurant on North Shore was permitted to reinstall a similar pole sign after the previous tenant left. Committee member Lindsay confirmed the square footage limitation and asked whether the committee preferred limiting the sign to 48 square feet (the proposed size) or 60 square feet. The committee decided to approve the 48 square foot size as proposed. Additional signage on the building and canopy was also mentioned but was not part of this request. The committee discussed that the building would receive additional channel letters and a small canopy sign under separate applications.
Key Outcomes
- Motion to Approve: A motion was made to approve the allowance of a sign pole for Case FBC-26-18, subject to any and all conditions. The motion was seconded and passed unanimously (no recorded opposition).
- Next Meeting: The committee announced the next meeting date of September 10, 2026. No cases were currently scheduled for that meeting, so the meeting may be canceled.
- Administrative Notes: Major modification permits will be issued within one week via the online portal. Committee members also discussed reappointments and email communications.
Note: No public comments were received, and no consent calendar items were presented.
Meeting Transcript
Terms of reasonable. It is the responsibility of the applicant to meet the burden of clearly demonstrating the reason for the requested code exception, and to provide sufficient documentation to illustrate how the modification is related to a site constraint, and or how the modification would equal or exceed the existing standard in terms of achieving the principles stated above. Do I have a motion to approve? Motion to approve. A second. All in favor? Motion approved. New business. And we'll let a Kirchhoe explain this. And location it is poll signs are not permitted. These are some just images. I would love to ask the applicant to step up and state your name and address photo. Yep, so James Reason, professional sign services 8386, Hicks and Pike, Hickson, Tennessee, 37343. Um relationship, I guess, just with the sign company. Um so yeah, I mean, really, just what uh Kosha said is we're kind of ran into a situation where you because of the plants, um bushes, all that stuff, it's really blocked the um you know, viewing the viewpoint of the sign. So we've kind of discussed trying to move it different spots, but moving it anywhere really puts it we start uh getting into the code of you know, distance the setback requirements, and so um that's really the reason for uh the request is to just reuse this existing poll just like it's had a sign before um and do I think it was like a three foot by nine foot or something like that? What does that say? Four by eleven, yeah. And that's it. There's nobody here from the public to speak, so we can go to committee discussion. Um I had a question. Didn't we recently I don't know if I was at the meeting? Umhorn on North Shore. I took the the cabinet down and they asked for permission to put it back up and resign it to the build a salad, or I can't remember what it was. To the same dimensions, that's it was the same dimensions to the original, it was the original cabinet, wouldn't it? And they just they took it down, they said oops, and they put the original cabinet up and retased it or something. I think it was the same size. It was the same size because it was a tenant, the tenant left and took the sign of the right. The tenant was going to take the size, so um, they wanted to because of the iconic, they want it was a new tenant, so basically change, but they kept the same style and size. Correct. And so this cabinet has already been removed. Um, so I think there's a precedent for us to allow a new sign on top of the pole since we did it with that one. Um my only question is what are the sign on since we don't actually have the old cabinet to measure? Uh square footage, I think are the square footage is closed. Well, this looks smaller, at least from the because it doesn't look as tall. Yeah, yeah. Like if you look at code right now, and I think maybe the only thing that it's not uh meeting is the six feet in height. Um maximum sign size of 60 square feet, which if you're at about four by twelve, you're under that. So it looks like the only thing it's really not meeting is the um height. Six feet is is what the codes are you saying for a monument sign? Monument sign six feet tall. So that looks I don't know. 12 yeah, but it's also it's not necessarily a monument sign. Is it not? No, it's a it's a pole sign. Pole sign. So like um that restaurant is not allowed. Yeah, they're just not allowed, but the precedent that the was bringing up was that restaurant up on North Shore that had the long horn, had a tall pole sign with the the longstone sign. So they came before the committee before um wanting to just re-rect um same type of sign. So the discussion centered on not creating a new non-conformity.
openpublica.com