HARB grants general approval to Sisters of Saint Joseph campus plan with conditions; board presses stormwater, height and materials

The Historic Architecture Review Board on Sept. 18 approved an opinion of appropriateness for a proposed new institutional building at 241 St. George Street, the Sisters of Saint Joseph property, finding the project’s general concept met the Architectural Guidelines for Historic Preservation while asking for more detail in forthcoming certificate‑of‑appropriateness submittals.

Staff summarized revisions the applicant made after earlier continuances: lowered covered balcony roofs along Cadiz and Aviles streets by 3.5 feet, reduced upper‑story window sizes and changed window arch types, added vertical architectural banding to divide fenestration patterns and more clearly indicated details such as exposed rafters and rafter tails. Staff said the planning and zoning board had approved a slightly higher finished‑floor elevation to keep the building further out of the floodplain; HARB members asked for clarity on how finished‑floor elevation relates to measured building height.

Representing the applicant, project team members said they had consolidated exterior detailing to echo the existing mother house (the historic Sisters’ building), proposed to reuse salvaged coquina in the property walls, and moved mechanical equipment to a rooftop setback. Speakers from the public, including alumni, longtime residents and preservationists, supported the Sisters’ continued presence downtown but urged accurate archaeological practice, careful repair of damaged existing coquina walls and stormwater solutions that do not create mosquito‑breeding standing water.

Board discussion focused on massing, roof materials and how stormwater and finished‑floor elevation interact. Several board members praised reductions in porch height and the way revised fenestration now differentiates upper stories, but asked the applicant to show additional context views, detailed profiles of roof materials (standing seam versus tile), how the retention/reflecting pond option would be engineered and whether exfiltration or an underground basin could reduce visible surface water. The board asked the applicant to consult archaeology staff before finalizing stormwater work in sensitive areas.

The board voted to approve the opinion of appropriateness for the general concept; members said full certificate‑of‑appropriateness drawings (detailed materials, roofing profiles, fenestration details and engineered stormwater plans) must return for HARB review before building permits are issued.