ARC approves certificate of appropriateness for infill house and ADU at 2904 N. Elmore with conditions

The City of Tampa Architectural Review Commission on July 7 approved a certificate of appropriateness for new construction of a single‑family residence and an accessory dwelling unit at 2904 North Elmore Avenue in the Tampa Heights Historic District.

Commissioners voted unanimously to grant the certificate of appropriateness for application ARC25‑000047, subject to staff review and approval of specified items including front‑door specification, scale of light fixtures, roof overhang dimensions, coordinated site and elevation plans, window configurations, elimination of a stamped brick‑stucco pattern, prohibition on exposed painted plywood porch ceilings, and additional material specificity.

The project, presented by Tyler Thibodeaux of Onyx Construction, proposes a narrow infill lot development on a 32‑by‑112 parcel (approximately 3,500 square feet) with about 2,000 square feet of living area across a two‑story primary house and a rear ADU. Thibodeaux described a front porch with 10‑by‑10 square columns, smooth stucco on side elevations, hardiplank lap siding on visible faces, dimensional asphalt shingles, and impact‑rated single‑hung vinyl windows. He said finished floor elevation is about 41.75 feet and that the house itself measures roughly 17 feet wide.

Historic‑preservation staff member Elaine Lund reported the application was generally consistent with the Tampa Heights design guidelines and city code (chapter 27), but she flagged that patterned or “stamped” stucco is not typically approved and should be replaced with an alternate finish. Staff also noted some materials and drawing inconsistencies that needed resolution.

Neighbors spoke during the public comment period opposing the current design. Rick Fernandez, president of the Tampa Heights Civic Association and next‑door property owner, said the building’s proportions and window patterns “bear no resemblance” to nearby contributing historic homes and urged the commission to reject the application. Roger Grunke, another nearby resident, said he did not oppose redevelopment but objected to the project’s massing and lack of façade articulation.

Commissioners discussed the constraints imposed by the narrow lot and the tradeoffs between preserving historic character and allowing infill. Several commissioners said the lot width limits the degree of articulation possible and noted the applicant had reduced mass by separating the ADU from the main house compared with earlier iterations. Commissioners requested more consistent drawings, clarified materials (wood or Hardie trim), grouped or paired windows where possible, smaller columns on the ADU to make it subordinate to the main house, and staff sign‑off on the listed details.

The motion to grant the certificate of appropriateness was made by Commissioner John Prokop and seconded; the motion passed unanimously. Staff was delegated authority to review and approve the specific items listed in the motion before issuance of final permits.

The commission closed the public hearing and directed the applicant to return final coordinated drawings reflecting the conditions before building permits are issued.