Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Design Review topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
ARC continues review of large second‑story addition at 1902 W. Chaton after staff flags massing inconsistency with Hyde Park guidelines
Summary
The ARC continued consideration of a proposed 1,700-square-foot second‑story addition at 1902 West Chaton, a non‑contributing 1949 house in Hyde Park, after staff called the proposed massing and scale inconsistent with Hyde Park design guidelines and commissioners requested significant revisions.
The City of Tampa Architectural Review Commission voted to continue a proposal to add roughly 1,700 square feet as a second story at 1902 West Chaton (case ARC‑25‑0000339), after staff found the scale and massing “atypical” for the block and requested additional perspectives and revised drawings.
Historic Preservation staffer Ron Vila told the commission the house is a non‑contributing 1949 minimal‑traditional structure on a larger-than‑typical Hyde Park lot (approximately 90 by 125 feet). The owners propose adding about 1,700 square feet above an existing footprint that includes an earlier 2010 addition; if built as shown, the project would increase the house to roughly 4,220 square feet.
Owner representatives said they had pushed the new massing five feet back from the existing ridgeline and that much of the visible change would be behind the primary street facade. The applicant’s presentation stressed that the owners are also undertaking first-floor flood repairs following storm damage and that neighbors immediately adjacent to the site had provided letters of support.
Staff recommended that the commission find the application inconsistent with the Hyde Park design guidelines because the proposed second story produces a large, relatively unarticulated volume above a modest primary house. Commissioners voiced similar concerns: multiple members said the proposed addition reads as “a box” atop the existing house and asked the applicant to break the massing into smaller components, add recessed connectors or gables, and supply accurate right‑of‑way perspectives showing what the public would actually see.
The applicant asked for a continuance to revise plans and gather the additional perspective drawings; commissioners granted the continuance to the October 6, 2025 hearing. Staff recorded the item as inconsistent pending submittal of revised massing and detailed wall sections, and commissioners requested the applicant return with roof‑and‑window head heights, building sections and accurate perspective drawings showing adjacent context.
The applicant said the family needs additional bedrooms and bathrooms but also indicated a willingness to work with staff and the commission on massing and detailing prior to the next hearing. The case will return to ARC on October 6, 2025.
