Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Code And Preservation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee presses owner to replace door and use half‑round gutters at 1309 Adam Street
Summary
Applicant sought retroactive review for work already completed at 1309 Adam Street; staff recommended the full‑light door with integrated blind is inappropriate for a prominent front facade and suggested half‑round gutters and in‑kind trim repairs; the board urged returning the house to a coherent, finished condition.
The owner of 1309 Adam Street appeared at the Design Review Committee to seek guidance on retroactive Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) items after completing several exterior repairs. Staff told the committee that pressure washing, repainting and minor in‑kind roofing work are maintenance, but the replacement door, new gutters and some trim/siding repairs require formal review.
Elizabeth, historic‑preservation staff, said the building is a circa‑1900 contributing structure in the Adam Street National Register Historic District. She described the door replacement as a full‑light door with a built‑in blind — a contemporary product that staff said is inappropriate on a highly visible front facade. Staff recommended a full‑light door without the blind between the glass or a full‑wood door; interior blinds are an acceptable interior treatment and do not require review. On gutters, staff said a half‑round profile would be appropriate to the house’s age and character; the applicant had installed an ogee (“K‑style”) profile in black. For trim and siding repairs, staff said smaller, in‑kind repairs looked acceptable but asked for photos of specific deteriorated elements to document replacement areas.
Monica Underwood, representing homeowner Rachel Felix, said the house was in very poor condition when acquired, with termite damage and longstanding deterioration; the owner made repairs with limited funds and selected a door to improve security and privacy. Committee members expressed sympathy for the financial and safety constraints but recommended returning the property to a historically compatible appearance when feasible. Several members explicitly preferred returning to a panel-style wood door or the previous historic door if available, and asked the owner to revisit the blind‑in‑glass door choice.
No formal enforcement action or COA was issued at the DRC meeting. Staff asked the owner to provide closer photographs of deterioration, bring examples of proposed doors that meet the guidelines, and explore replacing the gutters with half‑round profiles; staff encouraged a follow‑up submittal to the Historic Zoning Commission if the owner wishes to pursue a formal COA for the more visible elements.
