William (Britt) Cobb PhD Registered Opponent William (Britt) Cobb PhD Co-Signed William and Catherine Cobb, 726 18th Ave N.E. David and Elizabeth Skidmore, 746 18th Ave N.E. Mathew and May Grecsek, 756 18th Ave N.E. May Anne and Ward Boston, 745 18th Ave N.E. Brad and Laura Erwin, 725 18th Ave N.E. MJ and Jerry Robinson, 705 18th Ave N.E. Peter Katcha and Martha Collins, 749 17th Ave N.E. + Additional Letters of Support Filed with Staff 7 of 10 Properties in the Historic District + Several Surrounding Neighbors

FEMA Flood FAR Zoning - City COA Historic District The Historic District has been determined to be worthy of the City’s protection and construction/ modification is held to a Higher Standard than meeting general zoning requirements.

Historic District, St. Petersburg 700 Block 18th Ave N.E. Historic District, St. Petersburg Granted Historic Designation as a Continuous block of 10 contributing homes, each representing the 1923-1926 development boom of St. Petersburg.

“The intent of the COA is to insure the integrity and character of the landmark or historic district is maintained.”

City Code - COA - Guidelines for New Construction Visual Compatibility with Contributing Historic Structures in terms of: Height Scale – Size - Mass Orientation Materials - Finish Styling

(Computer Aided Design) CAD-Models (Computer Aided Design) Dimensionally accurate models (0.0001 in) Data Bases built from McGinnis supplied drawings submitted to city and Survey data provided by McGinnis (Select Surveying Inc.), plus direct measurement. Models and Modeling system, including dimensional agreement with McGinnis’ drawings demonstrated to city staff for verification.

Original Application for COA Unanimously Denied by CPPC, March 13 4 Bedroom 4 ½ Bath “Monterey” style home. New COA application filed March 23 5 Bedroom 5 ½ Bath “Monterey” style home (3550 – 3830 sf)

Unanimously Denied Application Present Application Foreground Unanimously Denied Application Rear

FAR = 0.645 Historic District From Staff Report .597 .552 54 x 110 = 5940 .597 68 x 110 = 7480 .552 Historic District Avg. FAR (all lots) = 0.45 Avg. FAR (single lots) = 0.48 (0.475) Enveloped Corridor 279.5 sf 3551 +279.5 = 3830.5 sf FAR = 0.645 Avg. FAR (single lots, exclude 715) = 0.51 (0.50)

Street Scape – Size -Scale -Mass Changes Peak of Roof + 1 inch (25-6 to 25-7) Top of Wall +1 foot (20 to 21 feet) Patio Elevation + 6 inch (- (1-4) to –(10)) Unanimously Denied COA Application Proposed COA

House is moved OUT Towards Street Street Scape – Size -Scale -Mass Change House is moved OUT Towards Street + 2 feet 8 inches

House is moved OUT Towards Street Street Scape – Size -Scale -Mass Change House is moved OUT Towards Street + 2 feet 8 inches

Denied COA

Proposed COA

Denied COA

Proposed COA

Lot Coverage March 13, (Denied) 40% 23% (His. Dist. Avg.)

Adding Garage Apron and Car Pad Results in 67.7% Impervious Surface

Orientation – fill / flood Illegal, City Code section 16.40.050.12.1.1, Unfilled area receives X 4.51 normal water loading July Avg. 9.3 in 42 inches!

Orientation – Incompatible with Historic District Contributing Resources “tempered by a consistency in the relationship between the contributing resources and the sidewalk, with their visually public space of front yards and the private interiors” Staff Report, CPPC McGinnis 168 13th Ave N.E.

Monterey Orientation - Horizontal lines – wide low appearance ??

Monterey January 29 February 2 January 22 -Island Inspired -Dutch Colonial -”Eclectic style -We are being consistent by being inconsistent -decided to spin it towards and informal cottage feel” Monterey McGinniss per present COA Application McGinniss as related by Staff McGinniss Jan 29 2018

When I met with staff and asked them what it was, they have coached me and have met on multiple occasions to come up with a design that meets the criteria that also applies to the 10% bonus. I don’t know, I think that the response I have is that it is an eclectic home just like many homes on the block; none of which are the same. We defined it as Monterey but also have other elements to it McGinniss Feb. CPPC Meeting The stylistic nature of the proposed dwelling has been primarily discussed as a Monterey-inspired design, though it also exhibits inspiration from Dutch and English Colonial architectural forms. The result is a building whose appearance is decidedly eclectic despite references to styles historically found within the local district Staff, CPPC Report Even, if it were Monterey, why would a 10% bonus be granted for new construction of a 1940’s design style, that is being placed in a Historic District specifically protected because it represents the early 20’s (1923 to 1926) development boom?

(the determining parameters for the COA). The proposed house is grossly incompatible with the Historic Contributing Properties in terms of Height, Scale, Size, Mass and Orientation (the determining parameters for the COA). Approving its construction would violate the very intent of the COA as described in the city code. This proposed out scaled construction represents the epitome of why residents are seeking protection for our neighborhoods under the city’s Historic District designation. Per the City’s Guidelines and the City’s intent of the COA, the application should clearly be Denied.

Size – Scale - Mass