HARB gives opinion of appropriateness for Sisters of Saint Joseph institutional building; board asks for detailing and stormwater clarification

The Historic Architecture Review Board on Sept. 18 issued an opinion of appropriateness for a proposed new institutional building at 241 Saint George Street for the Sisters of Saint Joseph, after the applicant revised roof and window treatments following earlier continuances. The board’s vote allows the project to proceed to later certificate of appropriateness and permit phases, with several design and site‑management items flagged for more detailed review.

Staff and the applicant said the design changes since the July and August hearings include lowering covered balcony roofs by 3.5 feet along Cadiz and Aviles streets, reducing and changing upper‑story windows from rounded to segmental arches, adding vertical architectural elements and wider horizontal banding to break up fenestration, and removing a pergola from a northeast roof terrace. The applicant emphasized that proposed materials and details draw directly from the existing mother house and that mechanical equipment will be concentrated on a screened roof footprint to minimize street views.

The proposal responds to Planning & Zoning’s recommendation to raise the first‑floor finished elevation slightly to reduce flood risk; applicants noted some planning support for a slightly higher first floor (PZB preferred a higher finished floor to reduce long‑term flood exposure). Public commenters, including alumni and former staff, voiced support for the sisters remaining downtown and urged the board to enable a durable building that will last a century. Others urged careful archaeological and coquina‑wall repairs and asked that stormwater management avoid creating standing water that could harbor mosquitoes.

Board discussion recognized marked improvement in massing and roof treatment after the applicant reduced the porch roof height. Commissioners asked the team to bring the same level of detail used on the primary façade to the other elevations, to clarify the porch/balcony corner treatment so it better references local historic precedents, and to provide additional site context renderings (masked views showing adjacent buildings and the street). Several board members suggested exploring tile at select low roofs to provide material contrast and to consider landscaping that screens and integrates the proposed stormwater element; staff and the applicant said stormwater engineering is ongoing and that underground exfiltration or other measures could reduce surface footprint.

Motion and vote: The board approved an opinion of appropriateness for the general concept of the new institutional building (HP2025‑0052) as presented, with the understanding detailed architectural drawings, material specifications, archaeological coordination and a final stormwater approach would be reviewed in a future certificate of appropriateness and permitting process. The motion carried unanimously (recorded votes: Paul Weaver — yes; Eric McDonald — yes; Catherine Duncan — yes; Randall Rourke — yes; Brad Beach — yes).

Staff emphasized that final approval of construction details, exterior materials, any coquina wall repairs and stormwater systems will occur at later certificate‑of‑appropriateness and permit reviews; the board asked staff to coordinate early with public‑works and archaeology staff to minimize impacts to known historic fabric and sub‑surface resources.