Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Historic Preservation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Architecture board approves aluminum‑clad, double‑hung windows for 3135 Lexington with reuse preference for front openings
Summary
The Montgomery City Architecture Review Board approved aluminum‑clad, double‑hung 9‑over‑1 replacement windows for a house at 3135 Lexington, asking the applicant to preserve or reuse front‑facing sash where feasible; the Cloverdale Idlewild Association voiced support.
The Montgomery City Architecture Review Board on Oct. 11 approved a request to replace existing windows at 3135 Lexington with aluminum‑clad, double‑hung windows matching a 9‑over‑1 pane configuration, with a preference that original front windows be restored or reused where practical.
The approval came after the applicant said the plan is to restore existing windows where possible and use aluminum‑clad replacements only when restoration isn’t practical. Charlie Coleman of the Cloverdale Idlewild Association told the board, “we support their effort.”
Board members pressed the applicant on a number of technical points: whether the new units would be double‑hung rather than casement, whether the profile matched previously approved windows and the brand (the applicant said the windows are supplied by Southern Sash & Window). The board reminded the applicant that the product had been used on prior projects and that front‑facing windows should be prioritized for retention if they are in better condition than rear openings.
A motion to approve the application carried; the board’s approval explicitly referenced double‑hung units in a 9‑over‑1 configuration and included the condition that, where feasible, existing front windows be restored or moved from other elevations to preserve the house’s historic appearance. The board noted the product type had been approved previously.
Members and applicants discussed the precise sash pattern and whether the approved aluminum‑clad units were mechanically double‑hung or a double‑hung aluminum‑clad product; the board recorded that the chosen window met the profile they had approved previously. Public comment was limited and supportive.
Board procedural remarks reminded attendees that any denial of a certificate of appropriateness may be appealed to the Montgomery County Circuit Court within 30 days of the board’s final decision.
