►
From YouTube: Architectural Review Commission 01062021
Description
Architectural Review Commission 01062021
A
Good
evening,
I'd
like
to
call
the
order,
the
wednesday
january
6
2021
public
hearing
for
the
city
of
tampa's
architectural
review
commission
welcome
everyone.
My
name
is
zachary
greco,
chair
of
the
commission.
If
you're
here
to
present
a
project,
you'll
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.
A
Your
project
should
be
presented
in
the
following
order:
site
plan,
elevations
architectural
details
and
wall
sections
staff
will
then
present
the
staff
report
and
will
then
ask
for
public
comment
following
your
presentation.
The
commissioners
will
be
asking
questions
in
the
same
order
as
a
presentation,
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.
A
To
summarize
your
comments,
because
three
minutes
go
by
very
quickly
following
public
comment,
the
applicant
will
have
five
minutes
for
a
rebuttal.
The
public
hearing
will
then
be
closed.
The
only
comments
which
will
be
allowed
after
the
public
hearing
is
closed
will
be
in
response
to
any
questions
from
the
commissioners.
A
C
B
B
B
C
C
C
E
E
E
Moving
forward
to
the
agenda
item,
which
is
arc,
20-401,
slash,
rec
20-80,
this
is
from
address
of
815
south
rome.
This
is
in
the
hyde
park,
historic
district.
The
request
this
evening
is
a
recommendation
for
rezoning
from
rs50
to
pd,
which
includes
the
incorporation
of
transfer
of
developmental
rights.
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
F
Good
evening,
commissioners
dennis
fernandez
architecture,
review
and
historic
preservation
manager.
I
wanted
to
just
take
a
moment
to
reintroduce
this
case.
By
now.
I'm
sure
you
have
recognized
that
this
case
was
on
a
prior
agenda
was
actually
before
you
in
november
of
last
year,
and
that
was
on
the
4th
on
november
4th,
along
with
a
certificate
of
appropriateness,
request
to
relocate
the
current
structure
to
a
site
within
the
hyde
park.
Local
stark
district
that
accompanying
case
was
approved.
F
F
It
is
going
to
a
use
that
is
going
to
be
site
plan
controlled,
which
the
agents
will
review
in
just
a
moment
with
you.
The
reason
that
it
has
come
back
is
that
subsequent
to
the
hearing
staff
was
made
aware
or
the
area.
The
issue
was
clarified
that
there
would
be
a
placement
of
a
additional
intensification
on
the
site
through
a
program.
That's
called
transfer
of
development
rights.
F
In
this
case,
the
subject
property
is
being
requested
through
the
pd
to
be
a
designated
receiving
area
which
would
place
additional
intensification
in
the
form
of
square
footage
on
this
particular
property
and
the
development
staff
through
discussion
with
the
applicants,
made
it
clear
that
we
felt
that
that
item
should
be
expressed
to
the
commission
so
that
you
understand
that's
part
of
the
scale
massing
site
orientation.
Site
coverage
is
a
result
of
these
transfer
development
rights
in
just
a
moment,
or
your
legal
counsel
will
provide
you
some
direction
for
the
hearing.
F
F
We
have
also
with
us
this
evening,
representatives
from
the
zoning
division
and
the
transfer
transportation
division.
So,
as
you
get
into
your
questions
and
answers,
if
you
have
additional
questions
related
to
the
pd
itself,
we
have
the
staff
resources
here
for
you
this
evening
and
with
that
I'll,
ask
our
legal
counsel
just
to
review
your
your
responsibilities
for
this
evening's
review.
Thank
you.
G
G
In
particular,
we
presented
the
proposed
relocation
of
the
structure
that
currently
rests
on
815,
south
rome
to
a
new
and
what
we
believe
a
more
suitable
location
at
910,
south
fremont.
We
also
requested
your
recommendation
to
rezone
the
property
to
allow
for
a
residentially
scaled
office
building
to
be
located
on
the
815
south
rhone
property.
G
We
received
your
unanimous
support
for
the
approval
of
the
relocation
of
the
structure
and
we
also
received
the
arc's
unanimous
recommendation
for
the
rezoning
since
our
positive
hearings
in
november.
Absolutely
nothing
about
this
project
has
changed.
As
a
result.
You
might
be
wondering
why
we're
back
in
front
of
you
this
evening,
we're
back
for
two
primary
reasons.
One
is
some
of
you
all
will
probably
recall
the
discussion
we
had
on
the
north
elevation
of
the
property
specifically
related
to
the
eaves
and
its
relationship
with
development
to
the
north.
G
So
we
wanted
to
delve
into
that
issue.
More
and
stephen
smith
is
going
to
address
that,
but
secondly,
is
the
issue
that
dennis
raised,
which
is
the
transfer
of
development
rights
or
the
tdrs
stephen's,
going
to
spend
some
time
some
time
on
this
topic
as
well.
But
I
thought
I'd
start
it's
a
since.
It's
a
relatively
novel
item
in
the
city's
code
start
with
just
generally
what
a
tdr
is
with
that.
We've
got
a
graphic.
G
So,
by
definition,
what
a
tdr
is,
it's
a
market-based
planning
tool
that
allows
for
the
preservation
of
historic
structures
in
exchange
for
development
rights
being
transferred
to
another
property.
So,
on
this
graphic,
you'll
see
the
property
on
the
right
side,
the
one
that
says
sending
site
above
it,
that
is
a
historic
structure
and
the
transparent
box
above
it
are
the
potential
entitlements
that
that
property
has.
G
G
G
We
looked
at
several
different
ways
to
achieve
this
additional
square
footage,
and
we
also
brought
the
neighborhood
leaders
into
this
discussion
as
well.
Our
main
two
choices
were
as
follows:
one
is
a
comprehensive
plan,
amendment
which
you've
seen
before
and
where
we
would
take
this
r10
designation
and
propose
a
much
more
dense,
designation
and
talking
to
the
neighborhood
and
also
just
wanting
to
do
the
right
thing
for
the
district
for
this
property.
G
G
We're
actually
not
even
guaranteed
that
now
on
the
illustration,
you'll
see
the
sending
site,
we
do
not
have
a
sending
site
chosen,
and
so,
if,
for
whatever
reason
we
can't
find
ascending
site,
then
we'll
be
restricted
to
just
what
is
allowed
under
the
r10
designation.
So
it
is
tailored
to
this
development.
G
It's
a
part
of
this
pd
and
we
felt
like
this
was
the
better
way
to
go
than
a
comprehensive
plan
amendment,
and
that
was
also
agreed
to
by
the
neighborhood
stakeholders
and
again
just
to
repeat
and
to
put
it
out
there,
we
had
a
lot
to
unpack
at
our
november.
Fourth
hearing
this
was
an
item
that
wasn't
discussed,
but
in
full
transparency.
G
G
H
The
commissioners,
stephen
smith,
cooper,
johnson
smith,
peterson,
architects
and
town
planners
here
in
tampa,
I
apologize
and
I'm
back
before
you
and
to
go
through
this
project.
I
promise
I
will
not
go
and
do
the
30
minute
long
version,
but
I'll
try
to
hit
the
high
notes
and
if
you
have
any
questions
while
I'm
going
through
it
just
please.
Let
me
know
if
you're
hearing
too
much
say,
stop
stop
with
all
that,
but
I'll
try
to
to
kind
of
refresh
your
memories.
H
H
From
being
what
I
remember
as
a
child
and
is
still
part
of
the
village
right
now
to
what
it's
become
right
now,
which
is
a
great
neighborhood
center.
It
just
has
changed
scale,
there's
over
a
thousand
seats
of
restaurant
seating,
tens
of
thousands
of
square
feet
of
retail
and
office,
and
the
intensity
has
been
such
that
neighboring
properties
have
tried
to
defend
themselves
from
the
village
in
terms
of
things
like
traffic
street
markets,
service
vehicles,
people
wandering
up
in
their
in
their
yards
asking.
H
You
know
where
the
bathroom
is
parking
and
dashing
all
kinds
of
things.
So
we
tried
to
show
that
the
site
is
no
longer
viable
for
a
residents
and
then
proposed
what
we
felt
was
a
great
transitional
use,
which
is,
is
an
office,
a
small
scale
office
building
that
is
residentially,
scaled,
small
square
footage
and
I'll
bring
up
the
site
plan.
H
H
There
are
residences
just
two
or
three
doors
down
that
are
10
feet
from
the
sidewalk
as
well,
so
we
feel
like
we're
using
the
same
setbacks,
our
massing
and
our
height.
We
have
we're
adhering
to
the
35
feet,
which
is
the
height
maximum
height
in
hyde
park,
most
houses,
a
lot
of
the
older
ones
in
different
styles,
with
great
pitched
roofs,
exceed
it
our
neighbor
to
the
north.
The
condos
is
at
35
feet
as
well
and
then
in
the
rear
of
the
property.
H
H
Some
views
of
the
digital
rendering
from
bristol
looking
towards
the
parking
garage
on
rome
and
showing
what
I
was
trying
to
describe
as
this
landscaped
and
hedged
walled
parking
court,
we're
proposing
a
residentially,
scaled
and
detailed
entry
gate
into
that.
So
the
hopes
are
like
this,
rendering
that
you
really
don't
see
the
tops
of
cars
beyond,
and
our
hopes
are
that
folks
might
even
confuse
our
building
with
with
the.
H
H
H
You
need
a
lot
of
stuff
to
support
the
the
actual
usable
space,
so
the
area
for
two
stairs
an
elevator,
the
mechanical
area,
janitors
bathrooms,
entry
lobby,
those
sorts
of
things
take
up
quite
a
bit
of
space
and
office.
Buildings
are
measured
in
terms
of
their
efficiency
in
terms
of
their
viability
normally
and
out
in
the
marketplace.
H
H
We
wanted
to
illustrate
to
you
guys
what
it
would
be
like
if
we
worked
within
the
square
footage
the
by
right
square
footage
without
the
density
transfer
and
the
building,
as
you
can
see,
comes
down
to
56
percent
efficiency,
so
nearly
half
of
the
building
becomes
all
those
spaces
that
you
really
can't
use
for
the
office
function.
So
this
is,
you
know,
one
of
the
reasons
why
it's
it's
very
important
for
us
to
have
that
additional.
So
it
seems
like
we
have
the
right
building
type.
H
H
H
Changing
a
bit
to
the
subject
of
something
that
was
a
a
sensitive
area
or
concern
at
the
last
hearing
was
the
separation
of
our
proposal
from
those
townhouses
next
door.
So
I
wanted
to
take
this
opportunity,
since
we
were
in
front
of
you
again
to
just
show
you
that
and
maybe
ease
your
minds
on
that
north
setback
with
the
neighbor.
H
H
And
then
here's
the
can
the
existing
condition.
So
if
the
dashed
line
is
the
property
line
and
here's
the
profile
of
the
existing
cottage
and
then
we
measured
the
profile
of
the
townhouses
and
their
height
as
well
for
comparison
and
there's
13
foot
4
inches
from
the
eve
of
the
cottage
to
the
eve
of
the
townhouses
and
then
in
comparison.
H
This
is
our
proposal
which
our
building
is
pulled
a
couple
of
more
feet
away
from
the
property
line
than
the
present
cottage,
but
our
overhang
we're
proposing
it
to
be
a
little
bit
bigger,
but
we
have
the
same.
We
have
13
foot
six
eve
to
eve
with
with
the
townhouse,
so
I
wanted
to
say
that
we'll
be
careful
about
that
that
we
will
have
a
similar
eve
to
eve
setback
that
exists
today.
H
Typically
in
hyde
park
with
seven
foot
setbacks,
buildings
are
about
14
feet,
face
to
face,
building,
face
to
building
face
and
given
some
of
the
smaller
overhangs
at
two
feet,
that
would
place
them
at
ten
feet,
even
eaves,
so
like
to
say
that
we'll
be
three
and
a
half
feet
wider
than
probably
most
of
the
houses
in
hyde
park,
and
then
we
know
there's
conditions
where
outbuildings
are
basically
almost
touching.
So
I
wanted
to
touch
on
that.
While
we
had
your
attention
but
okay,
that's
that
and
I'll
I'll
see.
A
F
F
We
believe
that
the
content
of
the
presentation
more
adequately
described
the
processes.
I
do
think
that
there
probably
needs
to
be
a
reading
of
the
waivers
that
are
being
requested
number
one
to
get
those
on
the
record,
but
also
visually
for
you
to
understand
where
there
are
some
relief
being
sought
in
your
I'm
going
to
jump
over
to
this.
F
F
Second,
was
the
final
solution
for
the
solid
waste
buffering
be
provided,
and
then
the
third
was
the
discussion
on
that
north
side
yard
setback
and
where
the
commission
ended
on
that
was
to
request
the
city
council.
Allow
you
an
area
of
two
to
three
feet
that
is
able
to
be
adjusted
during
the
arc
review
process.
F
So
consistent
with
the
motion,
the
staff
found
that
the
request
is
consistent
with
the
parameters
of
development
in
the
hyde
park.
Historic
district.
Your
motion
was
approved
four
to
zero
that
evening
as
well.
So
if
you
I'll
go
ahead
and
leave
this
on
the
overhead
for
your
consideration,
if
you
want
to
incorporate
those
or
similar
points
into
your
motion
this
evening
and
as
I
said
additional
to
myself,
we
do
have
other
staff
members
from
the
city
that
can
answer
any
questions
that
you
might
have.
Thank
you.
A
G
G
I
G
John's
use,
which
is
just
a
professional
office
for
him,
which
is
the
least
intense
at
the
commercial
uses.
We
felt
that
that
was
adequate
and
that's
supported
by
the
neighborhood
at
large
and
then
two
is
to
reduce
the
required
use
buffer,
and
this
is
on
the
north
property
line
from
15
feet,
with
a
six
foot
cmu
wall
to
three
feet
with
the
existing
fence
that
is
shared
with
the
townhome
development
to
the
north,
and
that
was
born
out
of
discussions
with
the
town
home
development.
They
wanted
to
see
their
existing
fence
remain.
G
You
probably
saw
it
in
the
pictures.
It
fits
the
motif
of
their
development
with
the
red
brick
and
then
the
final
one
is
to
reduce
the
required
vehicle.
Vehicular
use
area
buffer
along
the
alley.
So
it's
this
area
here
and
in
particular
it's
this
landscaped
area
from
eight
feet
to
five
feet.
So
those
were
the
three
waiver
requests.
G
G
It's
still
just
the
three
waivers:
it's
a
little
bit
convoluted
in
the
way
it's
structured
on
page
one
of
that
memoranda.
If
you're
looking
at
the
same
one,
it
mentions
parking
waiver,
which
is
waiver
number
one
and
goes
through
the
waiver
criteria
on
it
and
then
beginning
on
page
three
at
the
top
are
the
two
buffer
waivers
waiver
number
two
and
waiver
number
three
and
then,
since
those
were
linked,
we
did
a
separate
waiver
criteria
for
those.
A
G
A
G
G
A
F
D
D
Staff
report
they
are
listed
as
well,
it
sounds
like
you
guys,
went
through
them
all
really
good.
I
just
want
to
make
one
clarification.
I
believe
you
said
22
parking
spaces
for
waiver
number
one
and
it
is
23
spaces
to
16.,
but
I
wanted
to
throw
this
on
screen,
so
you
guys
would
be
able
to
see
the
listed
waivers
that
will
be
presented
to
city
council
on
the
three.
A
G
A
A
B
If
I
may
I'd
like
to
start,
please
I'd
like
to
open
up
again
your
review
with
us
of
your
proposal
for
the
transfer
of
development
rights.
Please
am
I
correct
in
understanding
that,
at
this
point
in
time
you
do
not
have
a
companion
or
or
a
a
site
that
is
currently
involved
with
your
development
process
for
that
transfer
to
actually
happen.
G
Great
question-
and
the
answer
to
that
is,
is
yes,
as
dennis
was
alluding
to
the
process,
for
the
tdr
is
actually
an
administrative
process
where
a
site
is
identified,
it
is
evaluated
by
the
city.
Then
a
document
is
agreed
to
and
recorded
that
would
basically
reduce
the
potential
density
of
the
sending
site,
and
so
all
that
still
has
to
occur
going
forward.
G
B
G
H
Only
to
answer
the
question
only
to
say
that
we're
still
committed
as
we
as
we
were
at
the
hearing
to
save
the
significant
parts
of
that
retaining
wall
and
then,
with
regards
to
the
to
the
solid
waste.
I
think
what
we
will,
what
we
will
do
when
we,
when
we
come
back
and
have
a
more
developed
site
plan,
is
we'll
show
an
alcove
where
those
where
those
receptacles
can
be
on
trash
day,
so
that
they're
not
out
in
the
alley.
D
D
A
So
I
have
a
couple
of
questions
inadvertently
or
not.
We
were
presented
with
a
narrative
from
the
december
22nd
on
there.
It
does
mention
that
the
project
size
was
a
little
bit
smaller
than
what
is
being
presented
again
tonight,
also
on
a
site
plan
as
well.
It
looks
like
it
was
kind
of
crossed
out
and
roughly
250
square
feet
were
added
to
the
project.
A
H
A
H
A
H
H
A
F
H
Yes,
what
I
have
what
I,
what
I
have
right
here
is
what
in
black
and
white
was
presented
at
the
last
hearing
as
well.
Just
wasn't
as
easy
on
the
eyes
and
it's
it
is
what's
in
the
pd,
so
here's
the
here's,
the
pd
site
plan
and
then,
with
the
same,
drawing
with
the
6904
placed
on
this.
This
is
really
just
an
enlargement
of
it.
So
all
the
setbacks
are
as
presented
and
all
the
all
the
elevation
drawings
all
the
3d
drawings
they're,
based
on
this
square
footage.
H
A
H
G
G
That's
the
one
that
has
this.
I've
got
to
really
stretch
my
eyes,
even
with
my
glasses,
to
see
it,
but
that's
the
one
that
looks
like
it's
6664
square
feet
and
then,
in
my
left
hand,
is
our
host
drc.
Our
refiling,
which
was
submitted
october
22nd
and
which
is
the
current
one,
has
not
changed
since
our
hearing
at
all,
and
that's
one
that
states
6904
square
feet.
Okay,.
A
A
Your
correspondence
is
december
22nd
and
it
has
all
the
information
from
july,
so
it
has
the
664
square
foot
commercial
office
building
it
has,
as
we
mentioned,
the
five
different
waivers,
which
I
guess
have
changed,
is
the
different
square
footage
for
what's
actually
be
requested
by
the
tdr
difference
in
parking
counts.
So
that's
what
I
think
it's
a
bit.
It.
G
A
G
Is
location
so
don't
have
an
answer
to
john-
and
I
have
had
this
discussion
before.
Ideally
since
it's
a
project
in
the
district
we'd
like
for
that
to
go
to
be
transferred
from
a
property
also
within
the
district,
but
the
way
that
the
code
is
written,
it
doesn't
bind
it
that
way,
but
I
think
I'll,
let
john
elaborate
if
he
wants
that
would
be.
G
The
ideal
is
to
find
a
structure
in
the
district
and
we've
been
looking
around
for
those
obviously
from
a
demographic
standpoint,
there's
other
areas
of
town
with
historic
buildings
that
may
need
it
more,
but
we
have
identified
some
in
high
park
that
may
have
that
need,
including
the
one
that
I
had
thought
of
was
the
the
music
out
building
in
hyde
park.
That
seems
to
be
in
need
of
some
enhancements.
I
Thank
you,
john
touched
in
2916
villarosa.
Thanks
for
your
questions
on
this
a
couple
of
things
I
mean
my
preference
would
be
to
find
a
property
in
hyde
park
proper
and
take
the
density
from
there.
I've
had
early
conversations
with
with
the
property
owner
in
seminole
heights,
which
I
believe
that
is
easily
available.
My
preference
again
would
be
something
in
hyde
park.
I
I
don't
believe
that
it's
required
it's
more
of
a
personal
preference
than
anything
else.
Given
this
issue
also
the
musical
which
was
mentioned,
I
think
we
looked
at
it
and
discovered
that
it
is
maybe
just
outside
of
the
district
and
wouldn't
be
eligible.
I
plan
to
work
with
staff
to
if
there
are
any
sites
that
they
know
of
that
would
be
particularly
well
suited
to
as
a
tdr
sending
site.
I'm
I'm
open
to
the
suggestions,
but
again
regardless
I'm
bound
by
the
requirement
that
we
have
it
before
we
proceed.
Okay,
thanks.
A
A
I
I
just
say
to
the
extent
that
we
don't
and
we
now
have
a
4
500
square
foot
building
instead
of
6900
square
foot
building,
we
probably
need
a
lot
less
parking
and
we're
going
to
have
a
lot
more
dirt
to
park
it
on,
but
candidly,
if
that
were
to
happen,
the
building
isn't
viable
with
the
smaller
size
anyway.
But
I,
if
we,
if
we
did
go
forward
with
4
500
square
feet,
the
parking
waiver
wouldn't
be
required.
Okay,.
D
G
Not
really
a
rebuttal,
but
mr
sutton.
I
was
trying
to
put
my
finger
on
this,
but
I
couldn't
when
you
asked
a
question,
but
I
did
think
it
might
be
helpful
and,
mr
director,
I
promise
I'm
gonna.
I'm
gonna
use
the
right
version.
The
right
numbers
this
time,
but
it's
actually
the
same
notes
that
were
on
our
july
13th
submittal,
just
with
the
updated
square
footages,
and
these
are
our
two
nodes
with
respect
to
the
tdr.
G
The
first
is
general
node
number
10
and
which
this
will
again
will
be
a
part
of
this
pd.
Should
it
be
approved,
number
10,
the
building
intensity
of
6904
square
feet
is
composed
of
the
maximum
allowable
intensity
under
the
r10
future
lane
use
category
and
a
transfer
development
rights
in
accordance
with
section
27-141
and
then
note
number
11,
which
mr
sutton
I
believe
this
is
to
your
point
prior
to
the
issuance
of
the
first
building,
permit
a
certificate
of
transfer
for
no
less
than
two
thousand
five
hundred
and
seventeen
square
feet.
A
B
A
A
A
D
A
C
D
I
move
to
recommend
city
council
approve
arc,
20-401
rec
20-80
for
the
property
located
at
815
south
rome
avenue
for
the
proposed
rezoning
from
rs
50
to
pd,
with
the
following
conditions
that
the
historic
retaining
wall
be
maintained
at
the
solid
waste
buffering,
be
adjusted
appropriately
for
reasons
that
the
proposal
is
a
reasonable
land
use
change
to
the
extent
necessary
to
preserve
the
historical
integrity
and
appearance
of
the
designated
landmark
I'll.
Second,
the
motion.