Chattanooga Historic Zoning Commission Meeting – St. Elmo District – September 18, 2025
Meeting Overview
The Chattanooga Historic Zoning Commission met on September 18, 2025, to consider several certificate of appropriateness (COA) applications for properties in the St. Elmo Historic District. The meeting included approval of previous minutes, discussion of multiple cases involving additions, demolition, reconstruction, and porch modifications, and public comment.
Consent Calendar
- Minutes Approval: The commission unanimously approved the minutes from the August 2025 meeting.
Public Comments & Testimony
- Denise Shaw (resident of 1402 West 54th Street, neighbor) spoke in support of the window replacement at 5112 Tennessee Avenue, noting that the existing jalousie windows are not original to the pre-World War II period and are inefficient for conditioned space. She expressed enthusiasm for the planned renovation.
Discussion Items
Case HC 24102 – 4718 Florida Avenue (St. Elmo) The project: Two-story rear addition with a covered porch, modified awning roof, and asphalt shingle roof (previously metal). The structure is circa 1910. Key points: The applicant (property owner at 4718 Florida Ave) explained design changes, including extending the awning roof to cover a new door and adding a roof over the south porch. The patio on the north side was excluded from the plan after commission discussion. The applicant confirmed no existing doors/windows would be removed except those covered in the back. Outcome: Approved with conditions (see Key Outcomes).
Case HC 2582 – 4914 Florida Avenue (St. Elmo) The project: Rear addition (1,019 sq ft conditioned space), exterior rehabilitation, and side-yard parking. The house is circa 1917 with an existing 1,290 sq ft footprint. Key points: The applicant (Matthew Lewis of 4122 St. Elmo Ave) sought to clarify the addition's size relative to the original home. After debate about counting demolished sunroom square footage, the commission determined the new addition is smaller than the existing dwelling but larger than originally thought. The applicant agreed to proceed with a slightly smaller plan. Discussion included front door relocation, stair material (wood or concrete), and window details. Outcome: Approved with conditions (see Key Outcomes).
Case HC 2526 – 5419 St. Elmo Avenue (St. Elmo) The project: Construction of a freestanding accessory dwelling unit (ADU) at the rear of the property. A previously proposed addition to the main house was removed from scope. The house is circa 1917. Key points: The architect (Denise Shaw, 1402 W 54th St) presented a reduced plan, removing a hyphen connection and modifying the ADU roofline. No public comments. The commission quickly approved the smaller scope. Outcome: Approved without conditions.
Case HZ D 25-6 (Demolition) and HC 25107 (Reconstruction) – 5401 Alabama Avenue (St. Elmo) The project: Partial demolition (HZ D 25-6) followed by reconstruction and addition (HC 25107) of a historic circa 1889-1904 house. The building had been condemned with a structural engineer's report indicating more than 80% of framework needs replacement. Key points: The architect (Denise Shaw, also applicant for related case) explained that the entire structure would be taken down to foundations, but the front façade's defining features (gable vent, shingle trim, elaborate frieze) would be salvaged or replicated. The reconstructed house will be slightly larger (2,247 sq ft first floor vs. 1,619 original). Discussion centered on whether demolition should be approved separately. The commission tabled the demolition case while hearing the reconstruction case. After approving the reconstruction, they took up the demolition again and approved it with a condition tying the demolition permit to the building permit for the reconstruction. Outcome: Demolition approved subject to building permit for reconstruction; reconstruction approved with conditions (see Key Outcomes).
Case HC 2594 – 4601 Alabama Avenue (St. Elmo) The project: Enclosing an existing covered patio/porch on the side with glass doors and windows to create a sunroom. The structure is non-historic (built circa 2020). Key points: Applicant Nate Hefner (4614 St. Elmo Ave) described using slider doors to maintain an open feel. No community opposition. The commission noted the addition is minor and does not affect historic character. Outcome: Approved without conditions.
Case HC 25104 – 5112 Tennessee Avenue (St. Elmo) The project: Removing and replacing existing jalousie windows on the front/side porch with new windows sized to fit original openings. The house is circa 1946. Key points: The applicant (Nate Polk, contractor for out-of-state owners) proposed 12-light windows that complement the existing 6-over-1 windows. Discussion confirmed the existing windows are not original (the space was originally an open porch). The commission supported the replacement, noting the existing windows are inefficient and not period-appropriate. The homeowners plan to convert the space to conditioned area. Outcome: Approved without conditions.
Case HC 2511 – 5419 St. Elmo Avenue (new front porch) The project: Construction of a new front porch based on historic Sanborn map evidence. The house is circa 1917, and the existing porch is not original. Key points: The architect (Denise Shaw) proposed a wraparound porch with metal railings (matching existing), vertical skirting, and a flat-roof cap to avoid climbing the roof slope. The commission debated whether to require wood railings and whether to eliminate a side deck/stair. Ultimately, the commission required removal of the uncovered side portion, retained one set of steps, and required wood tongue-and-groove porch flooring. Outcome: Approved with conditions (see Key Outcomes).
Key Outcomes
- Case HC 24102 (4718 Florida Ave): Approved subject to: (1) the north-side patio is excluded from this approval; (2) all conditions from the previous COA (2017) carry forward, including maintaining existing door/window openings (to be covered, not removed).
- Case HC 2582 (4914 Florida Ave): Approved subject to: (1) stairs may be either wood or concrete; (2) wood half-light door location as shown on plans.
- Case HC 2526 (5419 St. Elmo Ave ADU): Approved with no conditions.
- Case HZ D 25-6 (5401 Alabama Ave demolition): Approved subject to: (1) this approval references case HC 25107; (2) a demolition permit may not be granted prior to obtaining a building permit for case HC 25107.
- Case HC 25107 (5401 Alabama Ave reconstruction): Approved subject to: (1) all windows may be composite or aluminum clad; (2) siding and trim on the front portion must match existing historic size and profile; (3) reinstallation of existing trim is not required; defer to drawings for other elements.
- Case HC 2594 (4601 Alabama Ave): Approved with no conditions.
- Case HC 25104 (5112 Tennessee Ave): Approved with no conditions.
- Case HC 2511 (5419 St. Elmo Ave porch): Approved subject to: (1) remove uncovered portion of the porch; (2) provide one set of steps; (3) use wood tongue-and-groove material for porch floor.
Meeting Transcript
Okay, thank you. Okay, could you do the roll call now, please? Sure. Cliff McCormick. Piper StroMatt. Present. Brandon Penganebin. Present. Todd Morgan. John Cavot. Cassie Courtney. Nathan Byrd. Present. Matt McDonald. Present. Skip Pond. Present. All right. I'll go over our order of business for today and I'll reiterate what Cassie's, I think, has told everyone we're live streaming for the first time this morning. So please use your mic when you're speaking and come up to the podium. Please speak into the mic so everyone in the world can hear you. All right. The order of business for hearing certificate of appropriateness cases will be as follows this morning. Each case will have a staff presentation followed by an applicant presentation of no more than 10 minutes. After which we'll have comments by others for or against the project for five minutes total. After which the applicant will have a chance for rebuttal, no more than five minutes, and then the commission members will discuss the case and make a motion. A certificate of appropriateness will be issued within a week of this hearing. If you defer your case or if you have conditional items to bring back before the commission, you must contact staff and ask to be added to the agenda for the next meeting. If you will not be automatically added to the agenda, if you plan to speak, you must be sworn in and sign in at the podium when you come up. If you need it, there's a laser pointer on the podium to point out anything on screen. If you would like to defer your case to be heard at a later date, a deferral must be requested prior to the statement of the case's motion. If you leave the meeting room, we ask that you please wait to exit the wooden doors before speaking or using your cell phone. All construction work must meet the certificate of appropriateness and design guidelines as approved by the commission or staff. If plans change, a new application will be required. If work is not started within six months of the issue date, a new COA will need to be issued. A COA is not a building permit or land disturbing permit. Please contact the land disturbing office or the building permit office prior to the start of your project. The COA must be posted in a visible location or on file on the property until the project is complete. Applicants are respectfully requested to ensure that they have submitted the required application and supporting documents prior to this meeting and to adhere to the time limits as previously explained. Board members are requested to limit questions and comments on the case to only those within the purview of the commission. Code setback variants and zoning issues are not within the purview of the commission and will have to be addressed by the applicant with the appropriate personnel within the city. Reminder this meeting is being recorded. And next well, actually, first I'll let the record reflect that Mr. Mr. Cavot has entered the meeting. All right, we need to approve the minutes from last month's meeting. If everyone's had a chance to review those, I'll entertain a motion to approve them. So moved. We have a motion and a second. All in favor?
openpublica.com