Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Historic Preservation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission asks dental office to revise Glendon rear‑addition plans and return after design changes
Summary
The commission denied the Glendon rear‑addition application and asked the applicant to revise plans addressing setbacks, elevator placement, and accessibility concerns; the applicant was instructed to return by September or face code enforcement.
The Landmarks Preservation Commission on June 12 declined to approve a rear addition to a 1931 Colonial Revival former bank at 4817 Butler Road (Glendon Historic District) and asked the applicant to revise the design to address setbacks, the placement of an accessibility elevator, and the relationship between new and existing elevations.
Preservation staff described the structure as a two‑story brick building built in 1931 that now operates as a dental office and characterized the proposal as a one‑story L‑shaped rear addition with an EPDM flat roof and standing‑seam shed for a side entry. The applicant, Dr. May, said the additional clinical space is required to expand the practice and that designer David Sutphin was retained for a context‑sensitive solution.
Commissioners raised concerns about the limited setback between the proposed addition and existing walls, and about an elevator that would open directly onto the driveway. Multiple commissioners suggested an 18‑inch offset on both sides of the addition to better differentiate old from new and to provide space for railings or ramps and for building systems; they also urged the applicant to reconsider the elevator orientation so accessible users would not have to exit into vehicular circulation. Commissioners and staff asked the applicant to return with revised drawings that address the setback, elevator access, and the coordination of ramps and entrances.
The commission voted to deny approval of the application as submitted, with the intent that the applicant return to the commission after attempting the board’s suggested revisions. The roll call recorded unanimous affirmative votes on the motion to deny as submitted and to ask the applicant to come back at a future meeting; staff said the applicant may present revised plans at the July meeting but set a September deadline for required return. Staff also advised that outstanding concerns could be referred to code enforcement if work proceeds without approval.
