DRC split on stone arch proposal at 900 Fair Street; members ask for smaller, simpler option and structural review

Owners of 900 Fair Street returned to the Design Review Committee seeking input on a proposed alteration to the front façade that would replace a recently approved awning with a stone‑faced arched entry intended to better reflect a Tudor aesthetic. Staff and commissioners said the proposal is not supported by the design guidelines as presented and urged a more restrained, better‑detailed option and structural analysis before a COA request.

Applicant proposal and staff reaction

Steven Scott and his team presented an AI‑rendered concept showing a heavy stone arch applied over the front porch opening to remove the awning and “dress up” the opening. Elizabeth (staff) said the guidelines recommend preserving original porch elements and to avoid adding architectural features that mimic a different historic period. She stated that the proposed alteration “is not supported by the guidelines” and that historic photos show the porch entrance was originally squared, not arched.

Committee concerns and technical questions

- Appropriateness and scale: Several members found the stone arch too large and heavy for the house and cautioned that the AI rendering exaggerated the effect. One commissioner wrote that the proposal “feels a bit too massive” and recommended an approach that references existing arches on the house but in a simpler, lighter way.

- Historic fabric and invasiveness: Commissioners warned the arch could become invasive in construction because adding an arch may require removing historic brick or modifying structural headers. One member asked the owner to obtain attic and interior photos or contractor input so the DRC can understand whether the porch header is structural and how much historic fabric would be disturbed.

- Alternatives and refinement: Members suggested alternatives including a lowered lintel with a brick arch feature or a more modest stone treatment and urged a “lighter hand” in detailing. Several members said they would be open to an arch if it were proportioned more carefully, if the stone was a thin veneer rather than heavy ashlar, and if mortar and bonding details matched the house context.

Outcome and next steps

The DRC did not support the current arch proposal as submitted. The committee asked the applicant to provide more documentation (attic/structural photos, historic precedents, and refined elevations) and to study smaller, less intrusive options that preserve as much historic fabric as possible. The applicant said he would return with additional details and contractor input.