Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the New Construction topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission tables COA for 102 Kennedy Cove, asks Joel Lyons to submit detailed window elevations
Summary
The commission tabled a COA for a new house at 102 Kennedy Cove after commissioners said CAD renderings and the proposed window sizes/configuration made the design appear overly contemporary; the applicant agreed to return with manufacturer elevations, product images and precedent photos to show traditional transoms, mullion widths and trim details.
Oxford's Historic Preservation Commission on Tuesday voted to table a Certificate of Appropriateness for new construction at 102 Kennedy Cove and asked the applicant to provide detailed window elevations, manufacturer product information and precedent imagery showing the proposed windows installed in context.
Staff updated the commission that the applicant had presented revised exterior details including extension of a front porch roof, a reduction in glazing on the second-floor front elevation, the addition of window sills, a change in siding color and removal of previously proposed shutters. Commissioners focused on the amount and visual effect of glazing shown in CAD renderings and on the appearance of mullion widths and transoms. One commissioner said the current rendering "makes the glass look sharp" and that the product as depicted read as contemporary steel-framed glazing rather than the aluminum-clad, bronze or tan-clad divided-light windows the applicant described.
The applicant (identified earlier in the meeting as Joel Lyons) said the windows would be aluminum clad from the same manufacturer, match in profiles and would not be dark steel as depicted. "This rendering makes the windows jump out; in real life they will not be steel," he said, and offered to submit manufacturer elevations and photos of the same window product installed elsewhere. Commissioners requested clearer elevations that show mullion widths, transoms, rails and the window trim/detailing so they could assess compatibility with the historic district. Several commissioners said they could be more comfortable if the applicant provided realistic window samples and precedent photos; one asked that the applicant also show the product on the adjacent house for comparison.
After discussion, a motion to table the COA passed by voice vote. The commission did not reject the project outright but directed the applicant to return with the requested window elevations, representative product images and updated renderings that show the proposed trim, transoms and divided-light pattern.
