The James House, a focal point of the meeting, is set to undergo extensive restoration to return it to its former glory, reminiscent of the 1920s. Applicant Bob Taylor presented comprehensive architectural documents, including 3D renderings and a detailed historical narrative of the property, which traced its ownership and significant events from the 1800s through the early 1900s. Discussions revolved around specific architectural features such as woodwork, ceilings, and the addition of a handicap ramp, which sparked debate about maintaining historical accuracy while meeting current accessibility requirements. The restoration effort was bolstered by letters of support from both community and state leaders, and a grant application had been submitted to assist with funding the project.

In addition to the James House, the board reviewed proposals for a property on Kirby Street, which included a new metal garage, extended porch, wooden gazebo, and pavilion. Planner Sher Farmer presented the case, highlighting the fire-safe garage and the relocation of a portable shed. The board examined each element of the proposal, focusing on the garage and porch due to their impact on the street view and historical integrity of the property. Questions arose about the materials, design, and visibility of the structures, with the owner, Mr. Anthony Kamacho, clarifying the dimensions and intent behind the changes.

The proposed metal building at the same address sparked a discussion about its industrial appearance and compatibility with the historical surroundings. The applicant cited the historical significance of steel buildings in the area and future plans to enhance the aesthetic appeal of the metal structure, albeit constrained by the current budget. The board considered various factors, including the cost and design of the metal building, before moving forward with a determination.

Another highlight of the meeting was the approval of a painted facade for an accessory building behind a main house. The board suggested that the front rolling door be painted to resemble a traditional double opening barn door, with the addition of two fake windows on the side, to mitigate the industrial look. This proposal was approved following a motion, seconded based on the homeowner’s previous work on the property.

The board also discussed the restoration of windows in a historic building, emphasizing the importance of preserving eight period windows while replacing non-period windows with replicas. The conversation included concerns about environmental hazards, such as lead-based paint and asbestos, which would be addressed during the restoration process. A motion to approve the restoration project received unanimous support from the board.

Further discussions involved a COA for exterior improvements and the closure of a rear porch on South 6th Street. The board reviewed additional materials and engaged in a dialogue about the architectural details of the rear addition, focusing on the windows and the need for stairs and railings. Concerns about the massing, scale, and size of the addition were raised, as well as the consistency of the windows with the original structure.

A property on the agenda faced various issues, including inconsistencies with siding and windows, and the design of columns. Debates centered on whether these elements met historical standards and building codes. The board considered approving the project with conditions to ensure compliance with the historical aesthetic, emphasizing the need for the siding to match and potentially modifying the column design. After deliberation, a motion to deny the certificate of appropriateness for the columns was passed unanimously.

The meeting concluded with the board addressing administrative matters, including the tabling of a discussion on an ordinance and a brochure due to time constraints. They also acknowledged the presence of a legal intern, Joe, who joined the city staff for six weeks, and bid farewell to a departing member.