An owner and their architect returned to the Design Review Board on Oct. 15 with a revised proposal to rework 9 Spa Circle so that what was once the rear of the house becomes the principal facade. The proposal includes a new foyer connecting the house to the garage, a rebuilt porch, revised window patterns to promote symmetry and daylight, and a segmental (barrel) roof feature over the new connector. No formal vote was taken; the meeting resulted in detailed feedback and a request for revised drawings.

Why the project drew extended review

Board members said the application was one of the meeting’s most complex and benefited from an on‑site visit. Several reviewers noted that the portion being treated as a new “front” had previously been a later addition rather than original fabric, which gives the board some flexibility but also places a premium on preserving the rare original elements that remain elsewhere on the structure. The group emphasized that this is an architectural‑review district (not a strict historic‑district review) and that standards are similar but applied with some flexibility.

Principal discussion points and requests to the applicant

- Windows and openings: The board repeatedly flagged the proposed new triple‑window “gangs” on one historic facade and the conversion of existing opening patterns. Multiple reviewers requested that the applicant keep original openings where possible, or at least retain the visual proportions of original openings. Several board members suggested using paired double‑hung windows rather than a triple gang to better match neighboring facades and historic precedent. The applicant was asked to try variations that make the glass‑to‑panel proportions more vertical (for example, a two‑thirds/one‑third glass/panel split) so the fenestration reads as taller and more traditional from the street.

- Restore rare historic elements: Reviewers urged preserving surviving original windows and the arched window detail where it can be documented. At least two board members explicitly said they would prefer the rare historic arch and original glass remain in place rather than be replaced.

- Porch, entry and door: The board asked the applicant to provide railing and stair details and suggested that a solid wood front door (with transom or sidelights) may better read as a primary entry than an all‑glass door.

- Materials and roof forms: The board discussed the proposed segmental barrel roof (a curved gable element) and the use of standing‑seam metal on the new porch; several members asked for clearer details showing how the new parapet/pediment will sit relative to the existing roof ridgeline. Concerns were raised that some proposed modern truss/gable treatments could appear to “float” above the roofline unless carefully resolved.

- Trim, paneling and proportions: Board members said the vertical trim paneling under some proposed windows could work but asked the applicant to test different reveal widths (for example, narrower vertical reveals at 3 inches rather than 8 inches) so the family of details reads consistently across facades. The group asked for clearer documentation of existing trim depth and suggested carrying a single trim motif around the house for continuity.

- On‑site observations that shaped feedback: At the site visit reviewers identified evidence that some of the east/west facade features are later additions (roughly an 8‑foot addition was noted), and that some apparent “historic” features are reproductions. That context led reviewers to allow more flexibility on the newer facade while urging preservation of older surviving elements.

Board guidance and next steps

The board did not vote. Members generally praised the direction of the revised design but asked the applicant to return with refined drawings that respond to the fenestration and material questions: (1) alternatives that retain or replicate original opening proportions rather than creating new grouped openings on historic facades; (2) stair/railing details and guardrail compliance per code (board noted a 30‑inch threshold for required railing); (3) clearer details for the curved/segmental roof and how it integrates with the existing ridge and eaves; and (4) material specifications and color studies to show how the garage and main house will read together. The board suggested the applicant coordinate with the Preservation Foundation for guidance on retaining historic elements.

What the applicant said

The applicant noted that earlier work on the property (2006) created mismatches in window sizes and that the current scheme seeks overall symmetry and improved daylighting while keeping many original ornamental elements in place. The applicant said they intend to preserve documented original openings where feasible and to provide more detailed elevations and material samples on return.

Why it matters

The project reshapes how the house is read from the street — converting a later addition into the principal facade — and the board emphasized that fenestration and roofline choices will determine whether the remodel reads as sympathetic to the neighborhood’s late‑19th/early‑20th‑century fabric. The board’s guidance balances an owner’s desire for more light and function with preservation principles intended to maintain character‑defining elements in the district.

What to expect next

The applicant will revise plans per the board’s direction and return to the board in a future meeting with more photographs, material specifications, railing details and alternative fenestration schemes. The board indicated it would continue to require on‑site context and may review samples before granting final approval.