Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Historic Rooftop Additions topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission postpones review of rooftop addition for 32–34 Market Square
Summary
Commissioners postponed consideration of a multi-level rooftop addition across 32 and 34 Market Square to allow revisions that reduce visibility from the right of way and address materials, ADA access and structural concerns.
The Knoxville Historic Zoning Commission on June 18 voted to postpone a decision on a proposed rooftop addition that would span 32 and 34 Market Square, asking the applicant to revise the design to be less visible and more compatible with the district.
Staff presented a proposal that included multiple deck levels, a timber pergola, storefront glass enclosures and a two-story-equivalent profile that staff said is likely visible from the right of way. The presentation referenced the Secretary of the Interior Standards and prior precedent that rooftop additions are rarely appropriate on buildings under four stories unless they are minimally visible.
Applicant Logan Higgins said the owners planned to consolidate the roof across two buildings and are exploring an elevator tie-in to 36 Market Square to reduce overall height. Higgins asked for guidance on what "minimally visible" should mean on this site and said structural and ADA issues remain active design questions. "Please don't approve it today," Higgins said, asking for feedback and time to revise.
Commissioners pressed staff and the applicant on sightline diagrams, the permanence of the Market Square pavilion and trees as visual obstructions, materials compatibility, and structural capacity for live loads. One commissioner noted that trees and pavilion may obscure views but could change after storms or future changes, and therefore should not be relied on as permanent screening.
After discussion, a commissioner moved to postpone the case for staff recommendation; the motion was seconded and passed by voice vote. Staff recommended the applicant return with a design that is recessed further to the rear, less visible from the right of way, uses compatible materials, and clarifies circulation and ADA access plans. The case is recorded as 6F25HC.
