Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Residential Addition topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board requests redesign and materials for Elwood Avenue house raising, flags roof pitch and fenestration
Summary
An application to raise a single‑story house at 157 Elwood Avenue to add a full second floor drew extensive design critique on Jan. 22. The board asked for a rearticulated roof form, larger picture window proportions, removal of a decorative gable, and a landscaping/site clarifications before the applicant returns.
Mount Vernon’s Architectural Review Board reviewed a plan to add a full second floor, raise the roof and add a rear deck at 157 Elwood Avenue on Jan. 22, and asked the applicant to return with revised roof proportions, window rearticulation and a clearer set of finish and landscaping plans.
Shane Badali presented the proposal on behalf of owner Ina H. Billy to replace the current low‑profile roof, build full second‑floor walls and add a new porch and deck. The applicant proposed retaining existing green lap siding on three sides while changing the front elevation to a light gray with brick foundation accents and a new charcoal roof.
Board members raised multiple design concerns. Several members said the proposed shallow (4:12) gable on the new addition made the house look out of proportion and advised either increasing the gable pitch (to match the existing deeper pitch) or exploring a hip roof with deeper eaves to create a more deliberate mid‑century or contextual profile. One member called a shallow ornamental gable a "fake gable" and asked for that decorative feature to be removed.
The board also recommended reworking the large front glazing: if the design keeps the Chicago‑style picture window, the central fixed pane should be proportionally larger with double‑hung windows at the sides ("a larger, more proportionate, piece of fixed glass consistent with the Chicago style window"), rather than the currently drawn three equal windows with a small fixed center. Members suggested lighter‑scale trim around windows and reconsideration of shutters for stylistic consistency.
On site and landscaping the board requested a clearer depiction of existing and proposed trees (the applicant said some trees on the site are city owned), a flagstone patio beneath the proposed deck, depiction of an impervious landing at the new basement egress door and a planting plan favoring native shrubs and trees. The applicant confirmed a flagstone patio exists and that the driveway will be repaved; he said the basement will be finished to provide accessible bedroom space and a new exterior egress door for convenience.
No motion to approve was made. The applicant was asked to rework the drawings — including an option analysis comparing roof types and pitches, a rearticulation of the window composition, a removal of the decorative gable, and a landscaping/site plan — and to return with updated materials and an accurate color rendering at the board’s next review, with a target resubmission date noted by staff.
