Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the As Built Permitting topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Design board asks for refinements and returns Bond Avenue as-built renovations to board review
Summary
On March 10 the Single Family Design Board reviewed as-built repairs and alterations at 821 Bond Avenue and asked the applicant to revise window alignments, roof/entry detailing and landscape softening before returning to the board.
The Single Family Design Board on March 10 examined a submittal for 821 Bond Avenue that seeks to abate code-enforcement violations and permit multiple as-built improvements, including a simplified gable roof, replacement windows and doors, a new privacy wall and a small accessory structure.
Why it matters: The work is largely as-built and driven by enforcement; because the remodel raised the building height above a municipal 17-foot threshold the project triggered SFDB review. Case planner Julian Fantasy told the board the project is under 30-day review and that the applicant is seeking to abate unpermitted work while preserving much of the existing footprint.
What the applicant proposes: Designer George Monserile presented plans to simplify the roof by consolidating smaller profiles into a single gable, to strip failing wood siding and trim, replace windows with dark-anodized fiberglass units and to introduce a small privacy wall and updated rear overhangs for shading. The applicant said most changes are maintenance-driven: degraded wood trim, failing deck tiles and deteriorated exterior materials.
Board feedback: Members supported the general approach to repair and simplification but asked for clearer window alignment and stronger transitions between new and existing elements. The board asked the applicant to re-study the roof/entry relationship, step and window head alignments on the east and west elevations, and details for the proposed privacy wall. Chair Sherry and members urged the team to preserve positive architectural features while improving material longevity.
Action: The board continued the item back to the Single Family Design Board for further concept refinement rather than sending it directly to the staff hearing officer. The motion called for the applicant to return with solutions that reintroduce the front-yard charm lost in prior, unpermitted work: add softened landscaping, review window alignments so upper/lower openings create a consistent rhythm, and study the rear roof projection for clearer structural expression. Motion passed unanimously (Vice Chair Sherry — yes; Board member Moslihy — yes; Board member Richards — yes).
Ending: The applicant will provide updated plans addressing window alignment, the roof/entry relationship and landscaping softening; the project will return to the Single Family Design Board for another concept hearing before staff-level review.
