Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Historic Preservation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Historic zoning panel approves Fort Sanders rear building after months of debate
Summary
The Knoxville Historic Zoning Commission approved a revised plan for a three‑story rear building at 1803 Clinch Avenue on May 21, 2026, despite staff recommending denial; the motion passed 6–3 with conditions for final window specifications to be submitted to staff.
The Knoxville Historic Zoning Commission voted May 21 to approve a revised application to build a three‑story L‑shaped structure behind the primary house at 1803 Clinch Avenue in Fort Sanders, a decision that split the panel and ran against staff’s recommendation for denial.
Staff had urged denial without prejudice, arguing the second building’s scale and massing were incompatible with the neighborhood’s design guidelines. A staff presentation called the proposed second building “significantly larger in scale” than the primary house and said the design guidelines do not contemplate this type of construction. The staff member summarized the recommendation as denial without prejudice.
Applicant representative Logan Higgins defended the revisions, saying the updated roof pitch and stepped‑back third floor reduced visual impact and that the new building “continues this pattern” of historic block massing and is minimally visible from the street. Local historian Steve Cottom urged stronger protections and asked the commission to consider an H‑1 overlay for the house; Cottom said he was worried construction could damage archaeological remains tied to the Civil War trenches beneath the block.
Commission discussion centered on whether the revised design sufficiently reduced massing and whether context — notably a large hospital building behind the lot — should factor into the commission’s interpretation of the guidelines. Commissioners acknowledged the application had been revised multiple times; one commissioner noted the roof pitch had been changed to address an earlier concern, while others remained concerned the overall footprint and volume still overtopped the historic house.
A commissioner moved to approve the application with the condition that final window specifications be submitted to staff for review; the motion was seconded and approved in a roll‑call vote, 6 yes, 3 no. The commission’s recorded yes votes and no votes were read into the record by staff.
What happens next: the applicant must provide final window specifications for staff review as required by the motion; the commission’s approval is conditioned on those specifications meeting Fort Sanders guidelines.
