2424 Burgundy St.

Staff Recommendations: 

Soffit Vents:

To increase the amount of attic ventilation, the applicant installed approximately eight (8) new round, decorative iron soffit vents along the left and right side roof overhang eaves, where no vents previously existed, and without a Certificate of Appropriateness. These vents are not considered appropriate in these locations, as they are generally only approved when centered within the building’s bays at the primary front elevation. For example, these vents could be approved for installation at the front porch soffit; however, more simple, plain rectangular vents are recommended at the side roof eaves so they are more minimally visible and do not appear to be original historic features or conditions of the building.

Based on the high visibility of the vents at the left and right sides, the potential need for additional vents at the more visible left elevation to achieve balanced ventilation, the likelihood that the vents may be misinterpreted as historic features, and because the work was completed without HDLC review or approval, Staff recommends denial of the request for retention and recommends that the decorative vents be removed and replaced with simple, plain, and minimally visible vents. If retention approval is granted, Staff recommends a proviso that the vents be painted to match the adjacent soffit surface to minimize their visibility from the public right-of-way.

Replacement Door:

The previously existing wood 15-light front entry door at the left side of the porch was replaced by the applicant with the current wood two-panel pane-over-panel door without a Certificate of Appropriateness. The applicant has indicated that they may also replace the adjacent multi-light front entry door at the right side, which still remains. The replacement door is not considered appropriate because it is not consistent with the building’s Craftsman architectural style or period of construction, as required by the HDLC Design Guidelines. For example, the raised two-panel door would be more appropriate on an earlier Classical Revival–style building. Additionally, the glass pane area appears enlarged and is not proportionally consistent with the building style or with the adjacent multi-light sidelights. The replacement door alters the historic character of the primary entrance and disrupts the relationship between the door and its associated sidelights. Additionally, it features an integrated textured glass panel, where clear glass or uniformly frosted glass is required.

Based on the prominence and high visibility of the door at the primary front elevation, the inconsistency of the door design with the building’s architectural style and historic character, and because the work was completed without HDLC review or approval, Staff recommends denial of the request for retention and recommends that the door be replaced with a more appropriate wood door consistent with the building’s style, such as a multi-light or appropriately proportioned pane-over-panel configuration, and that both front entry doors be designed consistently to maintain a cohesive appearance at the primary façade.