Tampa ARC denies variance for porte-cochere at 407 S. Delaware; approves revised house design

The Architectural Review Commission voted to deny a variance request that would have reduced the north side-yard setback for a porte‑cochere at 407 South Delaware Avenue and then approved a certificate of appropriateness for the project without the porte‑cochere.

The variance sought to reduce the north side-yard setback from 7 feet to 2 feet, with an additional 6‑inch encroachment for eaves and gutters, to preserve a porte‑cochere the applicant described as a character‑defining feature. Commissioners said the petitioner had not met the burden of proof that the hardship was not self‑created and voted to deny the variance. After the denial, the applicant removed the porte‑cochere from the plans and the commission approved the remaining design with conditions.

The project is new single‑family construction on a vacant, platted lot in the Hyde Park Historic District expansion area. Applicant agent Kareem Taheri presented plans and the six‑point variance justification, telling the commission the porte‑cochere was “an integral part of this design” and that locating it as shown would help preserve the neighborhood’s historic fabric. Mr. Taheri also said the proposed two‑story house totals about 3,190 square feet and that the building width on the plan is 31 feet 6 inches on a lot that measures about 53 feet across.

A neighboring resident, Don Roberts, who said he lives two doors south of the site, described general support for block improvements but opposed granting the setback variances to allow a larger house and the porte‑cochere. “I just think it’s too large to fit in that space, and I respectfully ask that you not grant these variances,” Roberts said during public comment.

Commissioners spent significant time questioning whether the need for the porte‑cochere was caused by distinctive, lot‑specific constraints or by the design choices for the house. One commissioner summarized the board’s view, saying the petition appeared to present a self‑created hardship because the width of the proposed main house, not a physical condition of the lot, created the need for the encroachment. Staff confirmed that the advertised request was for a 2‑foot side yard with a 6‑inch encroachment limited to the portion shown on the plans.

After discussion, a commissioner moved to deny the variance (ARC‑25‑000050) “due to the failure of the petitioner to meet the burden of proof with regard to the six hardship criteria” in Section 27‑114(d) of the City of Tampa Code of Ordinances; the motion carried. Following that vote, staff told the commission the applicant could proceed with the certificate of appropriateness if the porte‑cochere were removed from the drawings or the case could be continued. The agent agreed to remove the porte‑cochere and continue the presentation.

The commission then considered the certificate of appropriateness for the primary structure and a detached accessory building, including materials, windows, porches and site features. Staff described the proposal as consistent with the Hyde Park design guidelines, noting materials and details shown in the December 17, 2024 submittal. Commissioners and staff asked for a few clarifications (for example, dimensions of the detached structure and fence/gate details). The project includes a detached accessory structure set 3 feet from the side and rear property lines (17 by 22 feet, 22.5 feet high as presented) with garage space and a dwelling above.

The commission granted the certificate of appropriateness with conditions that the applicant accept and document changes requested by the board: removal of the porte‑cochere from all drawings, addition of a window on the alley side of the accessory structure to improve symmetry, a more historically sensitive garage door design, careful staff coordination on an eyebrow (small protective projection) over the side door where the porte‑cochere was removed, and further design development of the fence and gate. The applicant indicated agreement with the conditions on the record.

The commission’s decision leaves the applicant able to proceed toward permitting and construction with the approved design elements and the required revisions recorded in the final plans.

The ARC’s review focused narrowly on design and zoning‑related variance criteria; no financial incentives or funding sources were part of the hearing record.