Tampa ARC approves two‑story accessory structure at 5708 North Central Avenue

The City of Tampa Architectural Review Commission voted Jan. 5 to grant a Certificate of Appropriateness for a proposed two‑story accessory structure at 5708 North Central Avenue (case ARCDash26Dash0000063) in the Seminole Heights Historic District.

Historic preservation staff recommended approval, saying the proposal met the Seminole Heights design guidelines, the Secretary of the Interior Standards and the City of Tampa Code of Ordinances. "Staff found that this application was consistent with the Seminole Heights design guidelines, the Secretary of the Interior Standards and the City of Tampa Code of Ordinances," Historic Preservation staff Elaine Lund said during the hearing.

The project, presented by agent Alan Dobbs, would replace an existing small accessory building with a two‑story structure containing a double‑wide garage at ground level and modest living space above. Dobbs told the commission the accessory structure’s total area will remain under the 950‑square‑foot limit for accessory buildings in the Seminole Heights single‑family zoning category and that the plans before the board meet the 7‑foot side‑yard setback required by the zoning code. "We feel like this should be 3 feet," Dobbs said, describing a historic pattern of closer side setbacks in the neighborhood, but he acknowledged the current project shows the 7‑foot setback and that a 3‑foot option would require a separate variance.

Commissioners probed materials and detailing. Dobbs proposed smooth lap siding to match the addition on the main house, brick piers to match existing foundations where feasible, 1‑over‑1 windows for the accessory building and a Clopay overhead sectional garage door that mimics the appearance of French‑style doors. He said the accessory structure will be slab on grade, use dimensional asphalt shingles and include a false gable vent to harmonize with the primary house. Dobbs also said the project preserves existing trees by using pier foundations coordinated with a certified arborist.

A few commissioners expressed hesitation about removing a small front porch on the main house, describing it as a quirky feature they would prefer to retain. Other commissioners and staff characterized that porch as a later, non‑original addition that does not match the house’s original architectural language. On the setback issue, city legal counsel clarified that the board’s review was limited to the plans before it. "That's not before you today," City Attorney Dana Crosby said when commissioners asked whether to consider a separate design‑exception or variance at the same time.

After discussion, Commissioner Tim Jones moved to grant the certificate as presented; the motion was seconded and carried by voice vote with one commissioner recorded as opposed. The board did not attach conditions to the approval on the record and subsequently moved to receive and file submitted documents.

The commission’s action approves the accessory structure as designed under the current application; any change that would require a variance or separate design exception would require additional filings and review. The meeting was then adjourned.