Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Design Guidelines topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board denies two‑story garage/storage proposal at 116 N. Pinellas Ave, citing scale and incomplete plans
Summary
The Historic Preservation Board denied application 26.40 for a new two‑story garage/storage at 116 North Pinellas Avenue, saying the proposal was out of scale with the one‑story primary building on a small lot and noting missing plan details (height, product sheets).
Get email alerts on the Design Guidelines topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Tarpon Springs Historic Preservation Board voted to deny application 26.40, a request to build a two‑story garage/storage structure behind a circa‑1926 non‑contributing building at 116 North Pinellas Avenue. Staff described the property as non‑contributing but recommended design adjustments — including a front gable roof and architectural shingles — if the project were to proceed.
Why it mattered: Board members said the proposed two‑story accessory building was disproportionate to the one‑story primary structure on this small lot and that the packet lacked a clear height dimension and product cut sheets, which prevented a full compatibility determination with the district design guidelines.
What the board heard: An applicant who identified the building’s business address told the board she needed storage and a workshop for an arts and crafts business. She said she planned to use cement fiberboard (Hardie) for the new construction rather than vinyl. A board member moved to deny the application “as I think it’s inconsistent with the design guidelines,” citing scale and missing information; the motion carried on a roll call vote.
What’s next: The applicant may revise the design to reduce scale, change the roof form, provide full height/site drawings, and resubmit. The board suggested alternatives including a reduced‑scale addition or redesign that better complements the primary building and the alley/street environment.
Vote: Motion to deny carried; staff advised the applicant that re‑submittal with fuller documentation and attention to roof form, setbacks and screening could be considered in the future.

