Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Commercial Facade topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board orders revisions to as‑built storefront at 7 South Fifth Avenue, declines immediate approval
Summary
The Architectural Review Board reviewed as‑built alterations to the three‑story commercial building at 7 South Fifth Avenue and requested the applicant return with revised drawings and a comprehensive facade plan showing cohesive window, door, railing and lighting treatments; the board did not approve the as‑built work and required resubmission.
Mount Vernon’s Architectural Review Board reviewed an application to legalize as‑built alterations to 7 South Fifth Avenue and declined to approve the work as submitted, asking the applicant to return with comprehensive, coordinated drawings and facade renderings.
Tom, the applicant’s lead design professional, said the storefront and a second door were installed after the building received a Department of Buildings permit in 2018 and that the owner believed prior permit work did not require ARB review. Board members and staff responded that storefront and window changes are within the board’s purview because they affect the public streetscape; commissioners stressed the AS‑built condition appears visually inconsistent with the building’s original architecture.
Commissioners identified several issues the applicant must address in a resubmission: update the renderings to match technical drawings and show the basement door and accompanying railing; provide a cohesive treatment for all storefront glazing and windows (the board suggested fixed glass or casement windows rather than mismatched double‑hung units where appropriate); show consistent finish and contrasting paint for mullions, transoms and balconies; remove or document remaining temporary protective film on glass and clarify soffit/ceiling lighting under the storefront canopy; and include signage proposals; the board noted a separate signage application was pending for one tenant and said signage proposals should align with a unified facade plan.
Board members said the as‑built work appears uncoordinated and asked Tom and the owner to come back with a single, cohesive facade submission that shows how the windows, doors, Juliet balconies, transoms, railings and storefront bases will look together. “We need to see the whole facade,” one commissioner said. Another added that painting and consistent trim treatments could substantially improve the look.
Rather than approve the as‑built condition, the board recorded its direction and asked staff to circulate detailed notes (including a list of missing items) to the applicant; the applicant agreed to return with revised materials.
