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

2. 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.

3. 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 development boom of St. Petersburg.

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

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

6. (Computer Aided Design)
CAD-Models
(Computer Aided Design)
Dimensionally accurate models ( 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.

7. 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)

8. Unanimously Denied Application
Present Application
Foreground
Unanimously Denied Application
Rear

9. 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) =
Avg. FAR (single lots) = (0.475)
Enveloped Corridor sf
= sf
FAR = 0.645
Avg. FAR (single lots, exclude 715) = (0.50)

10. 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

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

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

13. Denied COA

14. Proposed COA

15. Denied COA

16. Proposed COA

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

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

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

20. 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 th Ave N.E.

21. Monterey Orientation -
Horizontal lines – wide low appearance ??

22. 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

23. 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?

24. (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.

26. Size – Scale - Mass