Board says Cathedral Place plan needs more work, continues major hotel review after hours of public comment

The St. Augustine Historic Architecture Review Board continued its review of the proposed PUD at 24 Cathedral Place on Sept. 18 after an extended public hearing that centered on the project’s massing, streetscape relationship and rooftop design. The applicant team said the plan would convert the Exchange Bank tower to a hotel, build three‑story infill buildings and a parking garage, and deliver public benefits including streetscape improvements and a refrigerated trash compactor.

The applicant’s attorney, Ellen Avery Smith, represented the development team; project architect Mike Kopenafer described the infill as “a 3 story building all the way across” and said the design draws from Mediterranean and Spanish revival influences to relate to the landmark tower. Kopenafer said the project would replace a surface lot with a parking deck and add hotel rooms and streetscape work intended to reconnect Charlotte Street to the plaza.

Neighborhood speakers pressed the board on several fronts. John Benoit, who participated in earlier reviews, told the board the plan’s intensity and traffic implications were not sufficiently evaluated, saying the project proposes “150 parking spaces, 120 rooms,” and warning the development could overwhelm a narrow downtown right-of-way. Historian Leslie Keys and others objected to the facade strategy, calling the composition a “Gilded Age” pastiche that does not fit the National Historic Landmark district; archaeologist Carl Halbert urged stronger archaeological review and questioned whether mitigation fees were adequate to protect buried historic resources. Belinda Reconce, speaking for community review, urged the board to send the project “back to the drawing board” for a design that reduces height, mass and scale.

Board members repeatedly returned to massing and the project’s relationship to the plaza edge. Several members said a continuous three‑story street wall along Charlotte Street gives too little relief for pedestrians and suggested the applicant show options that provide voids, courts or landscape buffers and that the upper floors step back or otherwise subordinate to the historic tower. Commenting on rooftop uses, one board member said a visible rooftop pergola over the hotel bar was problematic and recommended it be redesigned or removed from high‑visibility elevations.

The applicant’s team defended the design as an attempt to knit a large parcel into the surrounding urban fabric while providing public benefits. They said the PUD already includes contributions for streetscape and public improvements and argued the proposals were a reasonable evolution of the downtown scale. Architect Mike Kopenafer said the team had reduced height and mass since earlier reviews and was prepared to revise the elevations per the board’s direction.

After hearing more than a dozen members of the public and extended discussion among board members, HARB voted to continue its opinion of appropriateness to the Nov. 21 meeting to allow the applicant to rework massing, provide clearer dimensions and sections showing stepbacks and to address the board’s concerns about rooftop structures and pedestrian relief. The board asked for clearer elevation surveys and more eye‑level perspectives showing how the new volumes would read from the Bridge of Lions and the plaza approach.

Next steps: the applicant will return with revised massing, clearer streetscape and pedestrian‑level drawings and additional materials addressing archaeology and service/traffic access; the board will revisit the matter at its Nov. 21 session.