the october 5th uh tuesday october 5th public hearing of the city of tampa's architectural review commission welcome everyone i'm dan meyers chair or vice chair of the commission if you are here to present a project you will have limited time to make your presentation so we suggest being thorough but concise when coming to the microphone you will need to identify yourself and your relationship to the project the commissioners will not ask any questions during your presentation your project should be presented in the following order site plan elevations architectural details and wall sections staff will present a staff report we will then ask for public comment please state and spell your name clearly if you are here to speak for or against a project your time will be limited to three minutes so take some time now to summarize your comments because three minutes goes by very quickly following public comment the commissioners will ask questions in the same order as the presentation next the applicant will have five minutes for rebuttal the public hearing will then be closed after the public hearing is closed no further testimony can be given the commissioners will then discuss the case and make their decision based on chapter 27 of the city code of ordinances the design guidelines the secretary of interior standards historic preservation development review committee comments and the testimony given at the public hearing the arc can only act on items that are within our specific jurisdictional responsibility owner agents are independently responsible to obtain any appropriate permits and or approvals if you haven't already done so please silence cell phones and now we will introduce the commissioners beginning on my left elena paris ketchum attorney representative john prokop i practice architecture brian hammond architect monica lesnick public policy tim jones general contractor right and now oh and i am dan mars but i guess i already said that right yeah um so now we have here today with us heather bonds ron villa uh jared varnum and our attorney uh dana crossby collier so we will now proceed to the agenda with the silent roll roll call unless i've missed something heather okay uh okay in minutes yes all right so uh we have seen the minutes yep i moved to accept the uh september 9th 2026 minutes second vote please all in favor aye aye all opposed motion passes unanimously unanimously evening announcements there will be a hearing on wednesday one item from that agenda has continued but there will be a hearing for the other agenda item that night elaine lunn is working on our preservation in progress powerpoint so she'll be presenting that on wednesday with her case that night and finally the staff approvals are provided in your packet and they should be received and filed at the end of this meeting thank you thank you we have one continuation we'll start with conflict yes thank you yes thank you uh daniel crosby call your city legal um asking if anyone has a conflict of interest with any item last item okay so we have a conflict on arc 26 442 the armory yes okay um if you'll file from form 8b and hand it to jared our clerk and abstain from action on that item that would be great miss kett and then i know uh mr ross who's actually in the um chambers tonight i don't know if he'll be speaking we are both members of tampa sister city uh different um city representatives but we have run across each other during those board meetings but it will not be a conflict conflict thank you very much and the second question has any um member of the board engaged in an ex parte communication i have not with that there is one continuation to notes on tonight's agenda that is arc 26 000 361 a recommendation for rez-26-000019 for 1350 south howard that will come for you on another agenda i move to continue arc 26 000 361 forward slash rezone 26 000 00019 at 1350 south howard avenue um to the monday december 20 uh december 7th 20 26 22nd all in favor aye opposed motion passes record reflect that that will be held in city council chambers 315 kennedy boulevard thank you next we have the swearing today please stand ready to right tonight's first agenda item is arc-26-0000346 and ron villa will present that case good evening commissioners ron villa i am staff with historic preservation our first agenda item is at 1807 west chaton avenue this is for arc 26-0000346 they're coming forward for uh two requests this is for a variance first the variance will be heard first they have 10 minutes to move forward on that the variance request is from a south side yard setback from five foot zero inches excuse me from seven foot zero inches to five foot zero inches with a 24 inch overhang for eaves and gutters uh as i say they have 10 minutes for that if that has a favorable vote then we'll go into the certificate of appropriateness the agent understands that he's going to focus on the variance first the underlying zoning at this site is rs60 and the structure is a contributing structure and the craftsman style that's date back to 1920. the hardship criteria is in your packet you could follow along it's on both sides he wrote it on the front side and then there was a continuation on some of the items so i'll follow along if you will and then at this time i like to go through some photos this is an overhead shot showing the property in question is highlighted in the green which faces jaton to the west you have albany to the east you have fremont to the north you have morrison this is so you get a sense of place where that is within the district it is a contributing structure as indicated by um the yellow going to the property in question this is the front facade it's the gable end with uh the vent here we talked about the craftsman style we're going to focus on the portico share the whole request revolves around the portico share this is off the primary street which is the ton going through the ribbon drive you see the width of the portico share here this is from the side uh the width is going to stay the same this column is going to be pushed back which will be indicated on the site plan and then this gable will be enlarged is the request at hand to focus on that side you see the the pier and the columns that are there this is a little closer shot of that moving to the gable end you see some brackets and a gable vent you see the overhang here with the facial board looking through the portico share you have an accessory structure you see the the masonry base with the belt course the one over one windows picture here the primary structure has the same detailing as the portico share looking from the rear of the property back at the rear of the portico share just to conclude there is a fireplace chimney that this structure has as part of the expansion of the portico share the chimney should be uninterrupted and shall remain at this time the agent is here i'll have him address the board and just focus on the variance please zachary peas i'm here as the general contractor i'm representing uh my clients matthew and mary uh gordon who resided uh at the given property here ultimately uh we're here to ask uh for the alleviation of what is a side yard setback for the portico share that uh whereas the portico already exists and is already in conflict of that side yard setback we are not actually asking to extend the portico share any further into the side yard than it exists right now uh the sentiment of our of our certificate of appropriate is really more focused on the depth of this structure and creating a situation where the portico share is has a significant or a sufficient depth for the parking of a vehicle and the maneuvering of one around that vehicle to get in the home for the intended use of the portico share as far as the specifics associated with the variants that we're requesting here we're actually not asking for any change in the current uh footprint of the structure when it comes to the side yard setback but ultimately because it's not presently meeting of the side yard setback in the uh in the zoning district of rs60 uh it is uh it's my understanding that we have to request that from the board here uh provided provided that uh is looked on favorably then we'll proceed to the certificate of appropriateness ultimately though i'll kind of bring up some details with respect to uh what ron did such a good job of pointing out ultimately given the architecture of the home and the and the uh even the observance of the side yard setback uh the column placement and the depth and both width of the porticochet make it uh you know practically unusable for the parking of the vehicle which is its in time intended purpose uh we understand the board's concerns with respect to the historical uh value and everything of the home and preserving the aesthetic of that uh i'll kind of further that discussion uh in the in the certificate of appropriate but we're our appropriateness but we're ultimately looking to extend no more to the side than presently is already in conflict you know but but uh but but extend the depth of it which will ultimately go on to so um as far as the hardship uh criteria yeah i wrote a oh sure oh let me get back to that yeah so ultimately the site plan here uh we have our existing here you'll see the porticochet here this is his current footprint inside of that uh you'll note that it is already uh conflicts with the side yard setback of seven which is uh which is the current setback for this uh for this sort of thing uh onward to our proposed here you'll see the increase in the depth but you'll see the no more increase to the side yard than uh what is what is being proposed here so here we have existing porticochet proposed porticochet no modification to the actual width from the from the street view of the footprint of the porticochet uh simply in depth and again uh it presently uh already conflicts with the side yard setback we're asking for the board to uh consider the approval of the variants to to go on uh with with a potential construction of this uh which will make for a more more suited porticochet more usable uh situation for the clients as far as hardship criteria i i've done an abbreviated kind of uh i wrote a pretty lengthy one but i can abbreviate it in a simple uh summary ultimately the historical placement of the home is uh you know and the principal structure you know has vast limitations as far as creating a typical porticochet structure uh both in width but also in depth uh that would be typical and typical for a homeowner or a resident to want um uh there's no fault of the homeowners uh this is a this is a original to the architecture of the home uh it's not anything that the homeowners have have added to and sufficiently or anything it's it's all part of the uh initial architecture of the home uh it doesn't negatively welfare uh negatively impact the welfare it's a it's a modest and minimal modification uh to the porticochet but just making it a little more usable um and observing the historical and and the aesthetic presence of the porticochet as it exists right now our intention is to basically recreate it in the exact likeness of what it is right now simply increasing the depth of it not not even the width uh it's in harmony uh with the general intent i mean it's again a modest design clear focus on preserving the historical character uh that's a high priority of mine as well as the homeowners to keep with the aesthetic of the community uh substantial justice and sufficient uh you know it's granting and allowing for a sufficient covered area for the intended use of the porticochet it allows a client to or a homeowner to park their vehicle under there keeping that sheltered from weather but also navigate from that vehicle to the inside of the home without you know getting wet uh from rain and whatnot and ultimately not having to leave the porticochet in order to maneuver their way around it uh sufficiently addresses like the opening of car doors and and whatnot that are all greatly limited uh from the current design and it's consistent with the design and uh the design standard of the area again it's our our sole priority is to recreate this in the in the current aesthetic of the home so as to preserve that that look so with that criteria that we feel like this is uh this is a worthy and appropriate uh design to move forward with that'll be all thank you thank you very much ron ron villa staff for the preservation so when you review the variances it's a finding of fact go through the criteria here as i stated in the past variances have five criteria in in the historic district we added the six criteria here so that it keeps the harmony uh if this request keeps the harmony and the balance within the historic districts there is a letter from the a buddy neighbor uh saying that they have no objections that's the neighbor that's most affected by the portico share that shares that common property line i'm here to answer any questions uh delegate on the variance first he's got additional information if you want to look at some of the design he has that but he was instructed to stay with the variance first and then we'll see where this lands thank you very much thank you ron is there anyone president in the room who would like to speak for or against this variance request seeing none we we will proceed uh i'll start with are there any questions i have no questions i have no questions questions i'll ask a question we got you got it down here you know he came all this way yeah let's so is the variance really for the depth of the porticochet or the no actually the depth of the porticochet is really not in conflict from the rear setback ultimately the the variance is essentially a necessary i think a necessary uh it's still there uh the variance is a necessary step i think in proceeding further even though again it doesn't conflict uh any more in my in my design than it presently does because it does conflict based on the original construction and the current setback requirements of the home it's it's a necessary step to uh to essentially approve that before we could move on to uh even entertaining the idea of the construction of it but uh right now it's already in conflict it's part of the original uh it's part of the original architecture of the home uh so essentially we're asking for a variance for you know uh for uh for for something that was pre-existing long before variances were a thing probably possibly and essentially it's not big enough to house the car and be able to get out under a covered area certainly not from a i mean from a width standpoint the car is able to go in there which is why we're not asking for any more of that the real the real kind of dilemma is more uh associated with the depth of it you know by the time you those larger columns are placed in the footprint that exists you know it's not so much of a width issue because the car can freely drive in and out of the port de cachet so we didn't feel like that was as much of a priority to ask for however the depth and the placement of the columns and the and the overall footprint of it is what makes it you know so cumbersome to actually uh you know use for its intended purpose and on the other side on the passenger side i assume there's steps to get up there are to the there sure are though those are those are less of an impact in this current situation however accessing the steps is impossible in the current footprint from the depth standpoint uh because the the front column particularly here if you were to look here the front column is large the stairs are recessed back beyond that column so when the car is parked there ultimately and just sitting in there you have to not only walk around but you have a hard time even accessing those steps you know something that would certainly be alleviated from the increase in depth okay thank you yep sure okay now i believe i should ask for a motion on the on the variance correct yes sir all right any discussion no because okay oh go ahead may i have a motion that's what i was going to do is go make a motion yeah i moved that the variance request for a in case arc-26 at 000346 located at 1807 west jaton avenue as depicted on the site plan represented in public hearing for a side setback variance with an encroachment of two feet 24 i'm sorry a hearing for a setback reduction from seven foot to five foot with an encroachment of 24 inches for easing gutter be granted hang on a second sorry based upon the petition meeting the burden of proof with regard to six hardship criteria set forth in section 27-114d of the city's tampa code of ordinances for grain variances as stated and the evidence provided in this public here specifically that the hardship was not created by the owner and that it was a pre-existing condition that they're dealing with i second thank you very much all in favor aye aye opposed motion passes unanimously we may now continue to the certificate of appropriate thank you on the uh on the front and side elevation uh of the of the uh this i think the the front uh is best summarized by the photo uh seen here on the right again this this articulates very well the current situation this is a a small size tesla parked in the area you can see clearly uh what the what the homeowner is contending with from a spatial constraint situation moving on to the front elevation of it ultimately what we're looking to do is again the footprint stays the same all the architectural details stay the same so much as to even leaving the front column in place uh the existing historical uh front column that was originally part of the the current uh structure that's to remain all of our construction is going to occur from that footprint back in the extension of the port-a-cochet again all details associated with the current architecture and initial architecture of the home are to be met both from brackets to raptor tails on where you know and on from there uh so an exact likeness of the current footprint of the structure uh just just uh or the current architecture of the structure just again increasing the footback footprint from a depth standpoint side elevation you can note here having some of the details that will remain as part of the architecture what you're seeing here with respect to the front elevation it's important that we realize nothing is really going to change with respect to the current architecture of the house everything is associated from the port-a-cochet and the framing off of that to to increase the footprint but here we have the side elevation here we see our existing uh column oh sorry yeah hard time so we see it ah sorry you see our existing uh column here to remain again as as as it looks right here in this image of existing and then we will replicate that uh on the on the column where it extends to the back all while replicating the details associated with the architecture as well you can see the depth increase here from column to column allow and you know sufficiently facilitate uh what we're looking to do here which is again comfortably park a car under there and maneuver around it uh without getting wet accessing the stairs that elena spoke about uh to to access the the main principal structure i mean in the way of wall details and what not it's all fairly uh fairly easy to uh you know understand from this i'm sure you guys deal with a lot more complicated uh you know reviews here but i have somewhat summarized uh what we see as far as some of the details that need to be uh and forgive me this uh the road map is a little bit uh as ron pointed out a little bit confusing so i'll just go line by line roof shingle to match the existing home chimney to remain unobstruct you know unaffected by the construction that's going on here matching trim uh with respect to this uh beam here is going to match as well stucco finish on both columns to match the existing we'll even patina in the likeness of the existing column so it does not look uh bad reclaim brick uh reclaim brick again this front column to to remain in the existing uh size and we will replicate that size by using reclaim brick on the back side um no other changes fascia drip edge all to match uh facade brick smooth ducco uh with respect to the uh raptor tails uh those will also remain as well as the brackets here on the corner to support the overhang on the on the uh furthest south southwest side of the property so it pretty much summarizes it when what we're asking for so unless you think i think that concludes ron thank you once again ron villam planner with historic preservation staff reviewed this request and believe it is consistent with the hyde park design guidelines and the secretary of interior standards on page five of your staff report we had some initial conditions when the project came in the project has um went forward with a request there were some pavers that were put into the uh the ribbon drive off the primary street those have been removed if you want to put the site plan up please uh that is going to remain uh there was some introduction of inappropriate uh papers at that at that site uh the mechanicals nothing is changing he's going to have to there's gates behind the current column that's there now i don't know if he's going to put a new gate and a fence up there but he could discuss that as we move forward uh we talked about the chimney as a character defining feature that that's going to remain one point of conversation is when we look at requests to add on to a period home we look at some kind of delineation point this is much as such a small request i found it very uh challenging to do that on this gable uh and to move forward so there is no change the the second column that's there not the primary column that that's on the front but the second column will be dismantled sensitively is what we talked about and rebuilt the reason for the elimination of the intermediate column is because the portico sure is so tight when the cars come in and you try to open your door you hit that column it no longer functions properly we run across that all the time in the historic district so there's going to be a challenge there so there'll be two columns one column and there's two columns there now the second column that's there will be just dismantled and rebuilt on that gable end that's uh uh going to be shown uh from the neighbor's side uh the brackets and the gable vent will all be incorporated as the drawings show um i don't believe there's any gutters that are needed for the runoff but uh if they are then you could discuss with staff and uh i believe that concludes my my staff report and i'll be here to answer any questions thank you is there any comment from those additionally in the room seeing none commissioners i'll begin on my left with that's right now um from the way you described it it seems are you demolishing all of the framing on the port co-chair and reconstructing it new or are you reusing any parts pieces are you reusing the brackets so any of the trim so ultimately just in the interest of uh again creating this in the likeness we don't want to create a new looking port-a-cachet that has the properties of its historic uh principle sitting right next to it so i think uh there will be the reuse of you know any brackets or anything that is usable or if in fact it is not usable uh we would try to recreate it in in the likeness of what it is whether that be you know simply to you know bevel the edges of the wood to match or something like that anything that new goes up is with the intention of uh again resembling its its original version so you would be would you be acceptable of of a cause that we uh put into uh if if we do approve this that you reuse as much of the original materials as possible i'd be definitely acceptable to that excluding just the rafters ultimately the rafters themselves although i will incorporate the rafter tails in the framing of that the rafters themselves are not likely to be sufficient to to uh to support the span of this so while they'll have to be sized up where their dove tail or where their extended tail comes out from underneath the roof it'll be modified so it matches the same dimension as everything else that you see but from a structural standpoint that would be my one exclusion with respect to that but it is our intention for this to look original i understand i'm just i'm just asking yes and i'd be like the original materials to be to remain as much as possible and not be replaced i mean that if it's possible our motivation behind even reconstructing the column to reconstruct it is just that we know what we want to go to the fencing um are you intending to do anything with that gate i mean there's an existing fence there of which this would uh this modification would push up against it you know almost uh so so the intention is to move that just uh just it's uh distance forward but but keep it the same as you wouldn't you wouldn't be changing it to a like a transparent fence or an iron fence or anything like that acceptable of that as well as an exclusion we're just going to reappropriate it uh okay you know further to the rear property line to allow for i don't have any other questions no questions no questions um on your front elevation can you pull your front elevation back up again you have noted here on your front elevation on the left side it says three foot seven inch setback and we just granted you a five foot setback variance yeah uh so this could be discarded i can write this off right now as part of an original okay i just want to make sure we didn't we were going backwards so good point um do you have your uh impervious i see on on your site plane i'm sorry can you pull your site plan back up i apologize making you go back no problem that's why i got it that's why i printed on this size yeah specifically your impervious calculations are you referencing where's that at right here okay so you're still so you're am i reading it right 71 71 is your total impervious yes and your proposed is 75 correct that's okay that's that's going to be difficult uh your impervious the proposed the proposed impervious is 75 right you're not supposed to do you have any type of underground drainage systems or lockers or anything like that you're not supposed to you're not supposed to exceed 50 percent impervious the current well the current uh the current uh i understand yeah so ultimately i think the adjustment that you're seeing here in the way of four percent is really more associated with the uh the increase in footprint of the dwelling itself uh it is probably where that that calculation comes in so so over on your on your new proposed floor plan or site plan i'm sorry it says new pavers does that say so there will be no new pavers from the from the position of the gate on where it's all in the back leaving that the same and and uh you know leaving that as a poured concrete area now the new with respect to uh the new pavers here on the side for the purposes uh you know behind the gate you know there is some discussion of potentially doing those and you'll see their pervious pavers uh here so our intention is actually to encrypt but in the event that we add pavers to that area which is not really part of this uh review that would be permanent i believe directly with uh the city should that be intended or should that decide to be uh done which right now is just conceptual which is where these drawings kind of started until we knew we were able to get that done should that be uh entertained by the client then the use of impervious paver pervious pavers from the gate back uh would be necessary in order to uh be again meeting uh bringing bringing this back into its proper impervious and drainable calculations and that was really just a proposal uh part of the original kind of discussion here with the homeowner uh should they decide they wanted to do that that it would be necessary for them to use a a suitable uh material for for okay i have a question for staff uh ron yes sir is this conversation between impervious impervious within our purview you know recently it has been this is something that the board um discusses at times this is something that will be handled at the time of permitting but it is on the site i think it's important to discuss it yeah we had some preliminary discussions it may or may not show up but uh you could put that in your motion to eliminate it from this review and then if it comes back then i'll talk to the voting department okay thank you sir yes sir no further questions thank you i have a question sure so the the existing pork kosher has a flat ceiling or it follows the contour of the roof it is it is uh vaulted ah okay so the new ceiling will also be vaulted correct and so the louvers on the side will be true louvers correct okay all right i just want to make that clarification that's fine thank you yeah so is there anything you wish to say in in rebuttal to anything that has been said here i'd like to close the public hearing now i do have one question for ron are we are we reviewing just port cachet because the the report references site improvements and so i'm not so are we so it says new construction the port cachet extension and then site improvements but it sounds like the site improvements maybe have gone by the wayside they have we when the request comes in we always check site improvements because the the initial request vacillates back and forth so we don't want to miss notice we put side improvements just in case there's side improvements but when this project first came in from the port cachet to the street there were pavers all in here and i told him that was not a historic treatment so he's keeping this detail here this is a concrete ribbon drive wood with brick in between that is an existing detail that is to remain okay so so side improvements is maybe the gate and the fence you know he's got something there i don't think he has any details to show you what that is i have a picture of that if he's just going to push it back that's something that the board could opine on as well thank you okay i just required i just remembered another question that i had so i will ask that now um the gate at the back of the port cocher is not part of the historic fabric is that correct correct okay it's a and so dimensional uh you know board on board so so that but your intent is to open that up or you want to the intent is to just simply move that back uh from from the footprint of the new port-a-cocher so okay all right thank you uh any further questions all right so discussion left or right who wants to start please start um yeah i i have no problem with the with the port-a-cocher necessarily it's just that the it just doesn't seem like these drawings are quite complete enough they don't call out enough details like whether it's a flat ceiling or a vaulted ceiling or how are the what are the dimensions of the the column to say we're going to build that what is that you know so i just i just like to see a little bit more detail and then we obviously have to put a condition in for for the pervious and impervious because that's that's going to raise a huge red flag so uh so how did it get to 71 pervious already well because because he hasn't called pretty permitted he hasn't been permitted right um they've been throwing in pavers they've been throwing in pavers left and right and just now they got a service like uh-oh yeah i mean there are there's no construction there's no wall sections there's no it's just we're going to copy everything and we're going to rebuild everything right um although these aren't meant to be construction documents right no yeah obviously they should not yeah and to they he can work with staff you know yeah he can work with the details yeah i mean obviously if we declare it needs to imagine these um unlike you know we always have this argument back and forth about copying historic fabric rather than distinguishing yeah a new construction from historic so i would like to see a difference between this port co-share and the existing because it's basically being rebuilt yes we're using the same columns we're rebuilding the column we're rebuilding this whole thing um and and ron even mentioned that he had a problem with where's that the the distinguishing line the separation between existing and new and how do you do it for this i don't know how you would do it for this where that line is because it's in the roof you make you make the brackets slightly different you make them slightly different than the existing louver so somebody can say okay that is not exactly the same as the front louver on the second floor we fight with this all because it should not be a copy should be different so that 50 years from now somebody walks up to this and goes this is the original house this is clearly an addition and we can tell by looking at it um and that's our job really to help make that happen because that's what this the secretary of interior standards call for right so i think we need to have a you know when that can be called out in the deep that he works when he prevent prevent presents details for his construction well i think he needs to be in our motion yeah i think he needs to be in our motion yeah yeah that there needs to be distinguishing alterations to be compatible with the existing but maybe the spacing on the louvers is different from the existing or something like that so that you can distinguish about making any sense yeah sure yeah i i mean i i i think accuracy on the i noticed it seemed to me that the front elevation wasn't it looked like wean the columns it's an old drive-in it's an old drone yeah they originally moved it like you could tell he originally made it wider yeah to make it easier to accommodate and made the setback even more of an encroachment right in the variation and then they backed off from that and now they're keeping it in line but didn't change the drawing yeah yep it's a different drawing yeah it's way wider you can so you can see the gap is unfortunately wider from the front um yeah it wasn't just your eyes but i think for this one we leave it up to staff and let over staff yeah on this and making sure that there's some different staff work but i think we have to mandate that there needs to be some sort of difference in detail to distinguish the new construction from the existing and and i correct me if i'm wrong but i believe that we can state so we can give sufficient detail in the in the motion so that we don't need to see the project again that's correct yeah correct okay that didn't work with staff yeah right okay um and i also i also believe yes okay i'll stop talking then let's make a motion you got it john or you want to do it yeah you're very good at this the guy who can't read okay okay i moved to grant a certificate of appropriateness for the drawings and documents presented at the public hearing for arc-26-000346 for the property located at 1807 west jeton avenue with the following conditions uh that the that the presenter provides more details for column details ceiling details wall sections updated construction drawings to actually show what they're going to be building uh that they that they delineate from the existing to the new with some type of delineation in material or design and that they work with staff on the pervious impervious calculations um because based on the finding in fact the proposed project consistent with the hyde park design guidelines in the city of tampa for the following reasons that it meets massing and um good design of that i'd like to amend that that that the motion does not include paving alterations in the rear of the building and only includes the port co-chair and the paving associated with port co-chair and also the gate the gate being pushed back moving the fence back and you wanted to add that they reuse the materials existing materials as much as possible second all right do you understand the conditions that have been placed on you thank you so we have a motion on the floor may i call for a vote all right all in favor aye opposed motion passes unanimously thank you oh my gosh that was so cool it's already over good evening heather bonds historic preservation specialist our next case tonight is 522 north howard avenue it is a local landmark this case a rc c 26 dash zero zero zero four four two this is a request for a certificate of appropriateness for new construction of a two-story preschool facility i'll introduce the case with the photo presentation this is the vicinity map it's very light i apologize the building outline is located right on the southern portion of the parcel it's bounded by north howard avenue to the east north armenia to the west west gray street to the south and west lemon street to the north ariel's a bit the project site is where the arrow is pointing to this space right here this is the 1951 sanborn map to show the old fort and armory located here the national guard still owns this property it is leased by the owner we are solely focusing on the southern portion of the property the northern portion is still occupied by the armory this is a photograph of the front facade facing howard this is a local landmark as i mentioned it was constructed in 1938 as probably as part of the works progress administration projects this is the more northern facing facade you'll see an entrance wing that was a addition by the the current owners it was sensitively added with a hyphen here and again along that same facade the project site is located just behind this area and is not visible from howard this is that project site which faces armenia it also abuts their parking facilities this is again from armenia to show that area over here to the right that's the whole view from armenia this is the building to the north within that same armory parcel and across the street from armenia is the villa brothers park this was rezoned to a pd in 2016. you can see the footprints of a preschool building was included in that pd so this has already gone through zoning zoning zoning has reviewed this request and stated that the footprint proposed tonight is uh fits within the pd that they are site controlled site plan controlled by with that i'll ask the applicant to come up and provide the request thank you heather hello again sol j fleischman jr 324 south hyde park avenue tampa fleischman garcia masowski architecture this is the site and as heather said it's bordered by howard avenue on the east armenia on the west and gray street on the south the um the two-story edition is in compliance with the pd from 10 years ago and you should know that the circulation on the site goes as follows all automobiles enter by way of howard avenue where we have the security gatehouse and they circulate around the site and come they go west and then they go back east under the big portico chair for the uh sean and brian glazer jcc so we respected the existing circulation pattern and that's and the fact that the entrance to the um the big jcc is on the north so our entrance is on the north and our circulation pattern follows that you can see on the on the east side is the big jcc on south side is the aquatic center which is a part of it on the west side we have a single loaded parking area move on to a blow up and there's the blow up and on the north side you can see we have a covered portico chair which references the big one we have at the brian glazer and some handicapped parking spaces and it's set the the new building is separated from the big one by a preschool playground with some canvas shade structures that's on the east side of the building and on the south side of the building we also have a narrow playground this is the east elevation of the building it's approximately 29 feet 4 inches tall above the ground and on the right you can see the covered portico chair straight ahead you're looking at the typical window pattern which echoes and references the window pattern on the big brine glazer vertically oriented with rhythm and repetition below that we have some glass doors and glass walls which echoes the former overhead door openings on the brian glazer next door and we have an exposed stairway on the north side here this is the the main entry as you can see on the right portico chair so that when kids get dropped off they can get dropped off out of the rain again repetition of tall narrow windows some flashes of color for the preschoolers you can see the signage on the building the maureen and douglas cone jcc preschool our major donors the west side this is the side that faces armenia avenue again repetition of the window patterns the materials we'll go over that detail but it's cement plaster to match the brine glazer glazer painted similar white the the grand entry portico chair is composite metal panels again design and color to match what's there at brian glazer and the south side this is the side that faces the aquatic center and we have a wall section the building is basically a concrete block reinforced concrete block cement plaster paint the windows are treated special they're you know they're recessed slightly in the opening and they're surrounded by these aluminum sun shade fins that are painted in bright colors great sun control and architectural features we have we have some projecting aluminum canopies to protect doors and windows from the sun all the glass is impact insulated clear glass here's the roof plan it's basically a low slope tpo membrane with interior roof drains we do not have gutters or down leaders or any of that stuff on the building we have two big package units on the building set in the middle it's a little way away from the edges and and two tall condensing units as far as finishes lighting we have recessed cans in the portico chair we have some surface mounted light fixtures all in dark colors and landscape lighting shown at the bottom the signage the morgan and douglas cone jcc preschool is aluminum letters on standoffs and would be lighted from the ground here's the vertical aluminum window fin and the colors we have a nice royal blue and a yellow gold the stucco finish has some texture again it's white to match the main building and we have under the portico chair we have some this nice tangerine orange color the aluminum composite panels again match the existing in a kind of a nice warm dark blue gray and all of our glass framing is silver mill finish like the main building is as well you can see the doors and the standard storefront hardware we have a walkway canopy that connects the building to the brine glazer so that kids can utilize the gymnasium there in the fitness centers and that runs along the south side of the building and i've shown you the aluminum canopies here is the rendering of it you can see the compatibly compatible architecture the references to the existing building should be a delightful building that will be a small icon with the big icon building this concludes our presentation thank you now present the staff report the evaluation criteria begins with section 27-113 which is the powers and the duties of the ARC staff which gives you the powers to review locally designated landmarks and also per 27-115 k4 the standards that we use for landmarks is the secretary of the interior standards this is the list of the full 10 secretary of the interior standards for rehabilitation nine and ten are the two main standards that we use for new additions and new constructions number nine reads as new additions exterior alterations and related new construction shall not destroy historic materials that characterize the property new work shall be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible with the massing size scale and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment and number 10 reads as new additions and adjacent or related new construction shall be undertaken in such a manner that if removed in the future the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired so with that our staff findings and considerations to those two main standards to the secretary of interior standards for rehabit rehabilitation is that the massing and scale are appropriately subordinate to the contributing structure the structure is not visible from the front facing public rights away on north howard avenue and therefore do not obstruct or distract from the contributor the landmark contributing structure the proposed new construction shares similar details and materials including having a masonry exterior vertically oriented inset windows with masonry sills and a flat roof the landmark structure is within the the accessory structure and the contributing structure are both within the modern movement with art deco styling the proposed new construction has a contemporary modern elements that share the geometric styling of art deco or art modern the projecting entrance cover shares the angular form of an addition to the contributing structure to complement and relate the two structures and the detached structure can be removed in the future so with that we found that the plans dated june 12 2026 are consistent with conditions with the secretary of interior standards for rehabilitation and those standards are those conditions i believe have been met through their presentation which was to provide a color three-dimensional renderings that exhibit the scale and massing with the existing landmark structure prior to permitting provide staff with any gutters or downspouts i believe in their presentation they addressed that and to remain compliant with all adopted pd site plan and details and provide a full site plan with labels that meet the setbacks as required to the pd and provide staff with any signed plans prior to permitting with that i will take any questions thank you heather start uh yes does anyone in the audience have any comment on the items presented so far seeing none let us proceed so we will proceed to questions question for heather so the um is there fencing all the way around well i guess the aquatic center is going to be behind this new structure right there's the new structure then it looked like there was some grass play area and then the aquatic there is a perimeter fence around the entire jcc property and there's individual fencing around the pool and then there will be fencing around the playground area as well okay but otherwise the outside fencing we're not touching any of that no that was approved through a certificate of appropriateness and approved through the pd process all right and there's no there was absolutely no connection between this new building and the contributing structure nothing is being attached at all it's completely separate you can verify with them the walkway that they just discussed um was not um i did not previously know about the walkway so i do not that covered walkway yes i do not know if that attaches or not so that would be a question for the applicant okay so maybe we can ask mr fleischman if it looked like they were freestanding but but you can correct me if i'm wrong in a term we used when we did the big grand addition to the fort former history armory it gently kisses the building okay so we do we do have we do have its own structural post at the end which is at the building but in all fairness it should have a little flashing and caulk to the building so water doesn't run down through so it gently kisses it so there will be a fully covered walkway from kind of the back corner of the building or somewhere around there to the main building itself yes yes if if we were to look back at the uh the site plan here here it is right here so it it connects this way okay it connects from the ex that exterior uh staircase yeah and the good news as you can see this dashed red line that's an existing six foot seven foot high masonry wall we're removing that so it it it it gives more playground and more this walkway that connects along the brine glazer so there is a gentle connection so what is the wall what's that masonry wall what is that it's just like a it was the direct people from inside the building the locker room areas out to the pool ah okay part of the original or it was added we added it when we did the major renovation okay it was for security reasons understood okay i have no other questions it's a beautiful building thank you um i just had a couple of questions um is there are you proposing to put screening around the mechanical units on the roof i knew you were gonna ask that john yeah um the the the main building is is is specifically you know designed and oriented that there isn't that equipment showing from public view and putting units on this that are not screened or don't don't have a wrap around screen i think would be a disservice um one of the reasons we wanted to show you this perspective is that because it's the units are set so far back from the edge you probably wouldn't see them unless you're a block away or two blocks away the problem you know it's a big expense both with the screen and the beefing the structure up to support the screen and the probability of leaks from in the future i'm i'm aware we do it we do it all the time um yeah we just we just had one price the other day that was just like 150 000 just for mechanical screening um which is crazy but um i asked the question we do not i put it out there and we we may do not okay um and the the only other one i really had was was did the walkway attach to the existing building but that could be done in such a way that it's easily removable in the future and no damage to the original okay that's why we have we're going to have the own its own structure so we're not relying on the building right you just slash right right i don't have any other questions i just actually had a question about the stairwell the uncovered stairwell can we pull that up on the site plan please and i'm just curious of the how does that or so this will be completely open or will there be a glass it's roofed over it is roofed over it's set back in a niche and does that really have any impact do you think on the overall appearance of the site with an open stairwell is there any other ones within the property um there's no outside stairwells in the property but it it'll be an architectural feature the way it's kind of a sculpture if you will okay thank you i was just curious it's kind of a positive thing yeah i was just curious thank you so how tall is the existing building the the armory building yeah oh gosh is it much taller than this one much much taller much much taller i just want to make sure it was subservient that's all okay it's three stories okay uh staff elaine uh the the site plan that you showed that was approved in the pd did it it showed the footprint of this preschool area did it also show the parking lot yes it does yes is that yeah okay one last thing for salt uh drainage so you've got scupper you've got interior drains are they going to an underground vault system drain where's where's the water draining from to how um it all ties into the storm um part of the original design we provided they provided the infrastructure so it's all it's all underground then yes okay that's all i got thank you uh my name is kathleen pope with freshman garcia myself all right um any other questions i also want to i want to point out that it is clearly subsidiary right that's all and there are no mechanical units on the roof of the existing armory is that correct or am i did i miss something there you you probably didn't say i mean it but i'm just asking the question i'm trying to remember chiller chiller okay so there's already a chiller on that but it's not visible from the but it's not visible from the street right from at least from howard so now we're looking at something that is on armenia so it's not the principal elevation it's on a subsidiary building so it begins to question whether or not i mean it's not a great thing and it's it is also it's a park across the street right it's the villa yeah so the other brothers park right so it's so there will not be a building directly across the street ever that would be able to see into that i'm just just you're asking the question don't right yeah yeah this is this is actually i i i tend to trespass into the discussion so i've so i have no further questions either so i'll ask a question was there any thought given to doing a screen around the electrical top of the building mechanical mechanical there was a thought but i mean was it this project took this long to get to this point it was originally intended to be built with the building and raising the money has been very difficult and to raise another hundred thousand dollars for something that's not going to contribute to the children going to be difficult oh i have one last question what is there's a parapet on the building right a parapet yes a small prayer pit so you don't actually you know so the at the edge there's a you know the wall goes up higher than the roof and how high is that parapet well it looks like it's uh about two and a half blocks so 16 to 20 inches maybe okay all right that's my only question so any further questions so you are allowed five minutes for rebuttal is there anything that you would like to add um that we're extremely excited about this building what it's going to do for the community how it's going to be compatible with the uh shauna and brian glazer jewish community center building and we thank you for your consideration and support thank you all right so we'll close the public hearing and move to move to discussion yeah oh it's it's and i understand the you know the financial aspect it costs money to do this it costs money to do anything to a historic landmark building um ironically because there's a field across the street everybody on that field will be able to see those every use every user of that park will be able to see the mechanical unit because you're far enough away to see it um and there was a height in in the presentation there was a height elevation of those units above the parapet above the roof um it you know it we're looking at this from the standpoint of this is an addition to a national you know registered landmark local landmark and national i think it's national i'm not sure it's a local just local okay um so the aspect is you know is it attractive does it distract do the with the units of strike i think that's the main question here i think the rest of the building is you know excellent you know um beautiful design i love the the geometry of of the uh the constructive constructivist sculptural you know aspect of all the parts of it um i think it's appropriate it it clearly is differentiating itself from the historic structure by that by that purpose and same same with the entrance the main entrance that they they did a decade ago um and yeah i mean dealing with mechanical equipment is is is a problem we deal with it again in my practice we deal with it all the time on historic properties or additions to historic properties how do you make them go away how do you screen them how do you take care of them so that they don't command attention and distract from the historic property so you know it's a point of discussion yes it's money yes obviously every every case that comes in front of us we ask is there a mechanical screen every case that comes right right we almost did it on the port for sure and it didn't even touch the mechanical right in high park right all the high park driveways everything has to be mechanicals have to be screened screened because it it's a distraction it wasn't what was put there originally originally from an historic standpoint and and it it alters the character of the discussion you know i guess literally this morning got the cost estimate for 50 000 to do one on king high school but that's all another thing um and yes there's structure involved there's booty of leakage involved there's ways to do it by attaching it to the units themselves if they don't bear on the need of structure they're just attached to the units themselves but our job isn't to figure out how to build no i know i know and you know it's a it's an issue i i like other people i think it's the street at the driving down how you're going to see these mechanical systems that's beautiful i agree with you 100 there's a beautiful building the way they differentiated it from the existing historical building i think is is complementary but different i think they did a phenomenal job i think they ran out of ink in their pen before they got to the screens just didn't quite finish it how much are they going to see right how much how much are you going to see of them about six feet if i'm memory from the what was presented the wall is literally as much yeah and the units i think were about eight foot of sea if you can see any of it yeah we can't they're they're the big green painted you know units i mean you can paint them white you can make them you know a little bit that might be the alternative is to is to try to make them go by painting is this something that we could well it's a bit whether it's screened or not screened is not to be left up we'd have to make it so is it better for it to be screened it's better to be screened it would get well it's a compromise it will improve the look it will improve the look of those units if they are paint if they are properly painted and maintained and maintained so that they're you know there's no rust you know there's because they're but that's the point of screening them is you don't have to worry about what the units end up looking for yeah as they get older replaced a different behind screen painted no it's not right but we're only talking about you know the first the first iteration of day one i'm not i'm not going to dig my heels in there's also what you we could we could you know i guess the painting is one thing and also screening solely from certain three sides angles yeah yeah you wouldn't have to worry about the east side because it's facing the other building looking from the public standpoint it's only the north west and south and then the building is indeed set back onto the property so that that sort of increases the visibility visibility yes it does yeah so i mean i'm this is this is a very we are having currently a very subjective discussion and we are not required there is no requirement in the code i believe for them to screen it there's no requirement in in hyde park design guidelines either that the mechanical units all be screened i think that ground units are required to be screened in the guidelines are they this is i'm looking at heather i'm looking at i'm looking at heather interesting but this is not we will have to remember also that this is not a district it's not in the district this is a landmark this is whether or not this can this construction is compatible with the landmark right and this is a local landmark right are we able to open it back up to ask heather some questions i i moved to open it back second second it's been moved and seconded uh i'd like to take a vote all in favor this is unanimously we may now ask questions of heather heather did the issue of the screening of the mechanical come up in your conversations with the it did not come up in our conversation um it did did consider a part of our review we considered that it faces armenia armenia is a southern one-way street um so we our thought is it is very low visible um it is tucked back on the property so we thought that that helped shielded it because they do have the northern portion of the lot that has some structures on it as well um we did not move forward with requiring any sort of screening but that is um to the board's purview and i did want to um correct myself it is also on the national uh register of historic places so it is landmarked in both places and i'm sorry and is this the only time that this will come before this board for that this we're not going to see this project again to have a dis another discussion about the mechanical no this uh is a certificate of appropriateness for the new construction so this is part of that request when this was placed on the national register why was that done um the reasons of significance yeah um i believe first criteria a for the community planning as part of a works progress administration project and c for architecture oh so the architecture was yes because while the architecture is distinctive it has a a very free placement of windows and you know it's it's simple simple right so it doesn't make it's it is not at all pretentious and it doesn't do things that are you know it doesn't do things solely for architecture perhaps with the just with the exception of the whatever that basket thing is on the cupola many of the wpa buildings are done in the art deco style but a lot of them were armory so it is a more simplified um form of art deco for the function of being an armory so is there any questions that's all i have i have i have no further questions as well no okay i guess we can reclose yep okay do we need a vote for that if you would ask the applicant if they have anything to add all right we need to you just allow them to give any additional um i do have a soft fleischman fleischman garcia maslowski um the reason it's on the national register of historic places is because that's where teddy roosevelt had his encampments locally it's because of the fort homer hesley armory which i grew up in going to see concerts and harold and globetrotters and stuff like that so but what i'd like to say is i sat in your shoes in the very first arc for six years and you you know you struggle with these things because um in a perfect world yeah we'd like to have it screened um but i think because of the setback from the edge because armenia everybody's speeding down armenia going one way um i don't think even if it was exposed four feet which i'm not sure it even be exposed four feet with the parapet we have and the setback we have i think the great compromise would be to paint the units properly prime them and paint them and i don't think anybody's going to ever notice them it's all kind of part of the funkiness of the building if they did notice them so anyway thanks for your consideration appreciate all the kind things you've said um let's get this thing done and get these preschoolers in there and it'd be great for the community thank you so much thank you so we are now back to discussing or making or making a motion i just i i you know i'm obviously feel um you know compelled to at least have that issue as a discussion i think it's it's part of our job part of our purview uh that's why i brought up the possibility of painting i think the painting could be a a nice alternative if it's done you know it has to be done professionally and well and not you know not skippy and sprayed on and you know all that kind of stuff but um but it was literally the site plan walkway being attached to the mechanical equipment screening with my only two concerns about the whole project okay um and uh we had this discussion um i know how expensive these things are and i believe that uh that i think if we have them the units painted to match the walls that will be a big gray sitting on i think that we can make and put and that's my only okay are we are we may may someone will someone present a motion please no i was going to say i'm in favor of it being you know whether they have to put screens i'm a little iffy because staff didn't really say that they felt so but i think painting it is the thing to do and from the degree whoever made the comment about that we have to be mindful of the people that are using the park and there are also houses i think that are on the other side of that park i think there's yeah but i think if the applicant and i agree it's a beautiful okay i move to grant the certificate of appropriateness for the drawings and documents prevent the public hearing in arc 26-0000442 for the property located um at 522 north howard avenue with the following conditions that the rooftop units are professionally primed and painted to match the building walls color basically white to help diminish their prominence on the roof because based upon finding a fact the proposed project is consistent um with the city of tampa um secretary of the interior standards chapter seven of the city of tampa code uh ordinances and the building is uh scaled and masked and detailed appropriately um compatible with the existing property thank you very much do i hear a second second to correct that's chapter 27 i heard seven i may misspoke chapter 27 okay it has been moved we have a motion uh it has been seconded all in favor aye and i guess does the applicant agree to ah yes agrees and thanks you all right so call for a vote all in favor aye yeah yeah we did that okay all right opposed uh okay so uh motion passes uh so you have a certificate of appropriateness thank you very much congratulations i'd like to make a motion to accept the minutes from september's hearings receive and file september minutes from the arc meetings and and all and submitted all documents all documents submitted and staff approvals all the documents and staff approvals oh yeah right sorry every yes all of it yeah all second i'll be both there you go it's been moved and seconded all in favor aye thank you very much meeting is adjourned raise raise pitches in 12 minutes oh yes