Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Design Review topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Architectural Review Board requests design revisions for proposed three‑family building on Union Avenue
Summary
At its April 23 work session the Mount Vernon Architectural Review Board reviewed certificate of appropriateness application ARB‑25‑4356 for a three‑story, three‑family building on Union Avenue and asked the applicant to return with revised drawings, material samples and lighting cut sheets; no final vote on the application was taken.
The Mount Vernon Architectural Review Board on April 23 reviewed an application (case ARB‑25‑4356) for a proposed three‑story, three‑family residential building at Union Avenue and asked the applicant to revise several exterior elements, provide material samples and return for additional review.
The application, presented by Kevin Medina on behalf of owner Daniel Amakushi, described a three‑unit building with a basement unit and identical two‑bedroom layouts on the first and second floors. Medina said the building footprint is 1,178 square feet and the lot measures about 25 by 105 feet (approximately 2,625 square feet); the basement unit was described as about 311 square feet. The property is in the RMF 6.75 multifamily residence zone. Medina said the exterior would use fiber‑cement siding with a light “mist” tone on the lower level and a darker gray above, Bluestone treads on entry steps, white stucco risers and an aluminum front door.
Board members focused their comments on proportion, the front entry and roofline, window details and lighting. One board member said an overhang or decorative element above the front door should be scaled to the entry and suggested a bay or bow window as a “nod” to neighboring houses. Another board member recommended 2‑over‑2 divided‑light, double‑hung windows to add “character” and suggested placing any mullions on the interior for durability. Commissioners also urged the applicant to soften a heavy front overhang, add a modest decorative element in the gable or roofline, and reconsider utilitarian wall fixtures in favor of more decorative exterior lighting for the entry and garage area.
Medina described the proposed exterior lighting as LED, wall‑mounted Lithonia fixtures and said recessed “puck” lights were planned under some overhangs. The board asked for cut sheets for all proposed light fixtures and asked the applicant to show the final location of lighting on revised elevations. Medina also described landscaping that would include azaleas (including swamp azalea) and seasonal plantings along the front and side of the property.
Board members raised practical questions about access and garage layout for the building’s four‑car garage area and the unit entrances; the panel noted circulation and access issues but did not take formal action on parking allocation. The board repeatedly requested that Medina return with the samples, cut sheets and adjusted drawings showing (at minimum) a scaled entry overhang, proportioned window treatment and the location and type of exterior lighting.
No formal vote on the certificate of appropriateness occurred during the meeting. The board approved a separate procedural motion to defer review of the minutes to the next meeting, and the session concluded after the applicant agreed to return with revised materials and documentation.
Cut sheets and material samples were requested for the next submission, and the board indicated it expects the applicant to address massing/proportion, the door/overhang detail and window configuration in revised drawings.
