Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Major Remodel topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
ARB postpones approval for 609 Sherwood Drive remodel; construction documents must match concept drawings
Summary
Board members said concept renderings for a substantial remodel to 609 Sherwood Drive differ materially from submitted construction documents; the board declined to grant partial approval for demo and asked for the CDs to reflect the renderings' detailing before approval.
The Architectural Review Board declined to grant partial or conditional approval for demolition at 609 Sherwood Drive after members found significant discrepancies between concept renderings and the submitted construction documents.
Harry, contractor with Freeman Homes, described plans to remove an existing sunroom, add a larger great room, enlarge the primary bedroom and replace windows to match existing patterns. Board members said the concept rendering shows articulation, brackets, chimney detailing and roofline features not present on the construction documents (CDs). Carol Dunkey told the applicant: "For me right now, there's just too many discrepancies, to to, feel confident reviewing this and and knowing what actually is and is not in the scope of work. ... The brackets need to be shown ... the facials need to be shown in the proper dimension."
Board members were explicit that they would not approve a partial demolition package covering interior work alone because unapproved exterior demolition could remove features the board had not authorized. One board member said: "A partial approval to go ahead with this demo would not be feasible ... if something that gets removed that, is not approved to be removed, there's no really undoing that."
Board members questioned the plan to replace a clay tile roof with architectural asphalt shingles and discussed whether original roofing could be repaired or restored. Several members said that if the applicant wants the concept drawing's changed style, those details must appear consistently in the CDs.
Outcome: The board tabled the application and instructed the applicant to update construction documents so they match the concept renderings (or to adjust renderings to reflect the actual intended built details) before the board will consider approval for exterior work. The board said a separate interior demolition/permit package would be feasible if submitted as its own package, but exterior work requires a completed and consistent submittal.
Why it matters: The project would significantly alter the appearance and character of an existing Tudor‑style house. Board members emphasized that construction documents must clearly show proposed materials and detailing so the board and permitting staff can evaluate compliance with design standards.
What's next: The contractor said he will update the CDs to reflect the rendering's level of detail and resubmit. The board offered to re‑review the revised construction documents at a future meeting.
