Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

So we'd like to call the meeting to order. This is the meeting of the Architectural and Historic Board of Review for Wednesday, 04/08/2026. Roll call, tonight we are only missing Ms. Manco, so we do have quorum, the meeting can continue. We'd like to open it for public comment now, this is when anybody may address the board regarding anything that is or is not on the agenda. We ask that you keep your comments to five minutes or less. Is there any public comment tonight?

You want to come up in?

Yeah. Sure.

My name is Chris Winters. I live at 152 Hudson Street, And, I have lived there for almost twenty five years. And, I have had many dealings with the architectural board. So, I'm pretty much familiar with how that goes. However, if there seems to be a great deal of inconsistencies in the architecture board and it's going to be affecting me directly with the demolition of 9 Hudson Street.

First of all, I had inquired I had heard rumors about the 159 being demolished, and I inquired to a council member whether this was something that was going to happen. And they assured me because it was in the historic district that it could not be torn down. Imagine my surprise when I found out that the historic district that I have lived in since it was implemented, does a U-turn around the North Side Of Hudson Street midway, even though the signage for the historic district is on the North Side Of Hudson Street down at Aurora Street. I don't know how this happened. I don't know how they qualify one side of the street versus the other.

159 Hudson Street was built in the thirties. My house was built in the thirties. It's catty corner across the street. The house next door to me was built in the thirties and several years back, they requested to tear that down and rebuild. It had some issues.

They were denied and at great expense and miraculous work, I have to say. They cut that house in half, moved half of it into the backyard and put in a new basement, lifted it, all kinds of stuff. And, when they were done, you wouldn't have even known that they did the work. I mean, it was just perfect. But, why were they required to do that and the house across the street can be torn down and wiped off the face of the earth?

I do not understand this. It's a set of precedents that other houses down the rest of the way of the street on the North Side can be torn down. I gotta tell you, some of them have gone through some really radical renovations that you may wanna tear it down instead of deal with that. I think it sets a terrible precedence and I'd like to really understand how half the street, not even half the street, just one particular section of the street is in the historical district and now it's not in the historical district. There's also the inconsistencies of enforcement of the rules.

When my husband and I about ten years ago took down an addition that had been built in the seventies and replaced the addition, we were required to have wood windows. Most people now are not required to have wood windows. Then, we wanted them earlier on, when we lived there, we wanted to put a story and a half small garage barn kind of thing in the back corner. We have about three quarters of an acre. It would have been down in the back corner, although it would have been directly catty cornered to a two story garage behind us in the neighbor's yard.

We were denied because it would have been taller than our house. Even though not visually taller because it was back down in the corner. And, we obliged by that and went on our merry way. And then a couple years ago, I think it was 188 Hudson Street in a renovation, they put an addition on the garage and now the garage is higher than the house. Right next to it, right up on the street.

How do you expect me to make sense of that? Is it worthwhile having an architectural board if there are incongruencies in what the terminations are? Anyway, that's and I'm just worried about the precedence this is setting for tearing down houses and I see that there's also one on the agenda for Elm Street. There is a big concern with the layout of the house that I have seen online. The house that's depicted online, and I understand some of that may be reviewed later today, they have a driveway that comes around and goes down the right side of the house, which is where the driveway is now only it goes straight back, not weeping around the front of the house.

But then there's also this courtyard wall that goes all the way to their neighbor's house, yard, property.

Gonna interrupt you for a moment. You're over five minutes if

you Am I already?

Yeah, almost six minutes.

I'm sorry, but that will be a flooding problem because the flooding comes from the Western Reserve also, not just from the size of their property. And we also don't want another driveway in that section because there already are three driveways.

Thank you. Is there any other public comment? Seeing none, will close public comment, move on to consent applications. Tonight we have two, twenty six-two zero seven-six thousand five hundred and ninety eight Stone Road, and 25 Dash 150550 West Streetsboro Street.

Make a motion approved as submitted. Second.

All in favor?

I second.

Opening old business. First is 5530 Stone Creek Way, case 2020 Two-seven 30. Yes. I

can give a brief orientation to the project. Staff notes that the project received HBR approval at the 09/28/2022 meeting. Upon final inspection staff observed deviations from the final approved plans including changes to the proposed window design, changes to the stone material on the front elevation, and the removal of freeze boards. The applicant has submitted revised elevations for the board's consideration to request the approval of the changes. For the window design, staff notes that a different window design was implemented as well as grid patterns.

However, the windows are consistent. Section four three e four states that the building shall have a typical window use for most windows. Additionally, additional stone has been applied to the front mass. Section four d three states that material used in any mass must be applied consistently on that mass on all sides of the structure. Staff notes the board may consider the additional stone as it is expanded in a small area and ends on an inside corner. For the freeze boards, the originally approved freeze boards have not been installed, but staff notes that there is no specific requirement freeze boards. The applicant is here this afternoon to answer any additional questions that the board may have and staff put together an exhibit that you have in your packets with the red line changes for easier understanding.

So you state your name in relationship to the application.

Absolutely. My name is Mayor Hlozada. I live at 12107 Nathaniel Lane in Twinsburg and I am here on behalf of the homeowners. One of them is actually out of the country on a business trip so she couldn't be here. So I'm here to actually request your blessings for our spare of the moment judgment calls on deleting the freeze board for the purpose of making the windows stand out even further and make the turret look a little bit taller.

We experimented with a freeze board and it didn't look as good as without, so we kind of made a decision right on the spot to just kind of do away with it. And the other thing about the windows is that, as Lauren said, they are identical or consistent with the plans. We just chose prairie window grills as opposed to colonial grills. And those are basically the two enhancement judgment calls that we made to the plans. As far as the stone, we just added that border on top of the transom above the front entry door just to be kind of consistent with the soldiers that are over the windows on the turret to also just make the transom stand out a little bit more.

In terms of the type of stone, it is synthetic stone. It's cultured stone. Same as the other stone. It's just that the color is black. It's not brick or anything. It's just synthetic stone or cultured stone just like the rest of the material, but it's just a different color.

Mr. Brown, any questions, comments or concerns?

Wanna confirm the the turret, the on the left, the height is the same, right? I I thought you said at one point that you made it taller.

No. The height is the same. It's just the appearance.

It makes it look Okay.

Without the freeze board, the appearance makes it look like it's a little bit taller.

I I don't have of the three, freeze boards, windows, and zone up on the least. If I understood, so that where the stone has been added, that's circled there, that's in the plane of the Dull window to the right, correct? Like that entire centerpiece is

out It's the entrance above the transom, you can see the soldiers.

The transom is in front, closer to us back at the same depth as the upper level.

I actually don't think you guys talk about the same thing. So Mr. Brown, are you talking about the area between the entrance and the turret where it's boxed out and says stone to be added? No.

Okay. To the right above where it says PVC window trim, the detail of the freeze board is pointing, yeah, that window right there, that is in plane with the area where stone was added, correct? I see. That's one mass, it's under that big hip.

Okay.

That's the only I mean, I'm not crazy about that.

You see where Lauren drew like a square and it said additional stone, that on the plan exactly right there, that on the plan was supposed showed it as siding. Siding would have looked like a little bit of a patch. So, kind of eliminated the siding in that little area and just continued the whole phase with stone. Let's go back to the previous one. Right, see that area that says proposed additional stone application right there, that's siding on the So

I understand, but my question or my comment I guess is making that stone makes it to me appear less differentiated from the stone over the entrance. Like it pushes those two together like a single plane rather than if it was siding, it would appear like it's part of the mass behind the entrance, which I would have preferred. I wasn't here when the board made determination, but I don't the window grills. Why that's I don't object either. That's all.

Stravinsky.

I'm kind of in the same boat as Mr. Brown where I agree windows I'm completely fine with, freeze board I'm completely fine with. It does feel just a bit off with that change from the stone. I think it technically follows standards. It's just a little bit even here, this second picture where because this sits back in here. It's a kind of a strange

Is it stone where it returns?

Because the stone doesn't return where the front door is, It's just flat on the, okay. Again I think it technically meets standards. I don't love it. I don't think it's I think it would have looked more consistent with the original design but

Are you referring to the stone that was added?

Yeah.

That does not meet standards.

Oh, does not. No. Because it's not.

It would have to be applied consistently around that entire mass.

So then it would need to go?

That whole mass would need stone then.

So it would be this piece also?

Correct. Like the other side of the from here To the other side of those two metal projections.

Because in that case it looks like it's recessed back but it must not be.

It's in the same plane as the double windows on the right.

On the right, okay.

Would

have There's little roof in front it between the cupola and the front entrance.

Okay, yeah I'm seeing that. So yeah, I guess in that case I'd prefer it to meet the standard of the siding that is on the right hand side of windows. So

the stone that you switched out the siding and put in the synthetic stone is black?

Oh no, no, same stone. I have a picture if you'd like to see it.

The black he was talking about is above that arched window.

It's kind of blend in, but it's falsely it makes you think it's part of the same plane as the entrance area. So it sits back, it's not part of the siding area that's to the right of the door. No. It's part of the other area that's back with the two windows. So it's really much much much deeper than would have stood up, it's it's really not on the right, it's not applied to the plane that you anticipated but doesn't look bad

on the fence about it.

Mr. Workley.

No consistency. I'm okay with the change from changing the grid location to the smaller size of the Craftsman style. It doesn't match the house, but at least it's consistent. Stone, I am opposed to because now not only is it in the wrong plane, it's an end in the inside corner as well. Right side does, what does the left side look like?

Rents into a roof. Ends

with with roof. Does

end at an inside corner in both cases. It does end on this inside corner.

Right side. What about the outside corner on the left?

It's the roof, it ends right at the roof right there, which is basically a corner with hip

That's a left elevation?

Intersects with the

Let's look at the left elevation above that. I don't agree with that. So I'm assuming that the vertical piece right there where you just had the window hand right there is where your stone is.

No. There's no stone there. With this elevation, see the entire siding. That little area is like independent. There's no corner. It doesn't come out. I mean, the roof of the Tourette hugs that corner.

The roof plan?

Yeah. I was just going to ask. I

don't see one in the packet.

I don't have one in this packet. I can see if there's previous one.

I mean just to jump in, the majority of the Board is feeling we should just adhere to the standard, you can certainly require them to go back to what we approved and approve the freeze board and window design change with this request. That's

So I would agree with that because it

does not

meet standard.

I agree that it doesn't strictly meet standards, but it's a very, very small surface and it stops at the corners on either side and

It's such a small area. He's saying it's cultured stone so it's not huge to remove it and replace it with something to make it compliant. That's my

Okay. Pet So that is your

and and the, you know, the change on the eyebrow windows, I'm not crazy about either.

But it's consistent.

No, it's not.

Well

Can you go to the photo and show the eyebrow stone over top of the windows itself? Yeah. So that black tile instead of stone, it was supposed to be stone to match the stone, it looks like an eyelash.

Eyebrow, yeah.

It looks like an eyelash, it's supposed to be an eyebrow but it's just, it's not, you would not normally do a change of material in the same thing. It was called out as stone and now it's tile or brick or something, it's not stone. I think that should be as well be removed and replaced to be the cultured stone because it doesn't match. Opposed to the color, but it just, it doesn't make sense that, you know, those stick out that way. That's the drawings, they were supposed to be stone. That's a fourth point that I don't like.

What is that material that he's referring to?

I'm sorry, I'm not sure I understand.

The black over top of the windows and Oh, the soldiers?

Yeah. They are synthetic stone exactly like the synthetic stone that's on the surface. It's just that they're just black just to make the arch look more pronounced. But it's not brick. It's not a different material. It's the same material as that's on the house. It's cultured stone. It's just that soldiers in black. The previous soldiers were almost the same color as the stone. We just made it stand out

with

black soldiers instead of the same color, but it's the same material.

So on the turret area, on the original plans, it is called out as stone soldier cast keystone.

Doesn't Alright.

Look like stone. It looks like a rectangular piece of material. It doesn't look like the rest of the stone material, so it doesn't match in that consistency.

The

existing's not right on. It's got the comparison. So it does say stone, but it's drawn like there's a keystone at the top and smaller stones on each side. This one is like square bricks around it. It. That's what I'm saying.

I agree.

But I do think that that small area should be changed back to siding. That's my opinion.

Yeah, I do agree with that also. I don't see why we should make an exception after the fact just because we didn't follow the drawings.

We accept the changes to the window, the removal of the frieze, but because the siding removal is against the standards, we oppose that and we ask that it be replaced with siding. That's what we're saying. That's Okay. It's not a question of like or dislike, it's a question of following the standards. That Okay.

Okay. So I I do think that's the general opinion here?

Mhmm. Okay.

Know, may I make a comment? That little area is is like a rectangle. When we put the stone on that area instead of putting siding, it looked like a patch of sidings by itself. It's not connected to any siding of the house. So it was more of a, I guess, prudent decision to make this whole front stone altogether instead of just breaking up the stone into stone stone and then that little triangle as siding material because it's not connected to any siding of the house.

But it is connected to the siding because it is in plane and it is part of that mass that runs around the right side, and so when you just start changing materials, they're supposed to be consistently applied, and the drawing showed siding there, and somebody decided to not follow what was approved in the drawings and ask us to make an exception for it at this point, don't see a reason to. It should be applied consistently around, so if you want the stone there, you have to wrap it all the way around that whole mass. So you have to go from that whole right side there and all the way around because it has to be consistently applied to the entire mass.

I'll take it all the way around including that little triangle on the side? Yeah. Can you go back to that area and

It has to be consistently applied around the entire mass.

So that corner right there where you're pointing that triangle should also be stone? If if if we had done that, that would have been okay?

Not only that, but also on the opposite side of the house because it's all the same mass.

Yeah, it may have to wrap around the inside.

So it has to wrap around the right side also, not just the left.

This side and then the right side, which I'm not sure I understand. I thought the right side is completely filled with stone.

No, no, the right side is not completely filled with stone. Go back to the front elevation. So you would have to take stone where it says on the far right where it says removal of freeze boards around the entire mass, that section there, and you would have to come around that corner also because that's all the same mass.

You're talking about to the right of the door. Yes.

To the right of the door where she has the cursor right now. Both stories. Yeah. Both stories. You have to come all the way around that outside corner. It's the entire mass. It has to be applied around that entire mass.

So what options do I have? Either demolish the stone in that marked square and then put siding in there?

Yes. The best option is to do with the plans that were approved. That's the best option.

Okay. So wrapping the stone to that corner is okay. It's just that the front would have to be changed back to side? Every

Every wall plane under this roof that I'm pointing to would need stone. It would have to be around the whole mass. You have to go around the sides, back, I mean that would be substantial change that we'd need to take another look at if you were to propose something like that.

I'm not looking at adding a whole lot more stone. I mean So just

remove that little triangle and put some siding as was approved. That's what

the Board

is trying to say that would be the simplest, cleanest solution.

Build the house the way the plans were approved. That's the simplest solution.

The color of the siding is dark so it's just going to blend in and it's not going to stand out like a white siding or something.

No, you're right, it's not gonna stand out like a white siding, it's just that area would have siding that is not connected to any siding of the house.

It is part of that entire main mass under the hip roof. It is connected. That's why we say it has be consistently applied. So we need to move on.

If you just

make a motion.

So I move that we approve the change in the window design because the windows are consistent. Second, that the freeze boards remain uninstalled because there's no specific requirement for freeze boards in the standards, but that we request that the applied stone in the small triangle area be removed and replaced by the siding that was approved when the application was presented to the board.

Second.

All in favor? Aye. Anybody opposed? Alright, so you go over to staff to get those changes updated.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next is 20 Five-ten 2241 East Main Street, and this is an addition on a commercial structure in the historic district.

Yes. This is a commercial addition for office and storage space. Staff notes that this proposal received informal review at the 04/09/2025 meeting and planning commission approval on 01/12/2026. Section four of the architectural design standard state that details in the wing should be the same or subordinate to those in the main body. Staff notes the introduction of gable lens, window paneling, and widened corner boards on the proposed addition as well as staff notes that the design does follow the guidance of preservation brief 14 by being subordinate to the existing building.

The design is lower in height and is separated by a hyphen or link. Comment e is a administrative review just to remove the references to or approved equal where materials are referenced in the plans as well as verify that the proposed exterior door materials for the overhead and man door. The applicant is here this evening to answer any additional questions that the board may have.

You state your name and relationship to the application.

Hi, I'm Elizabeth Swearingen, I work for Peninsula Architects. I am here on behalf of the architecture firm.

Do you wanna walk us through the project?

Sure.

So the owners have a dentist office in the building that's right down the street. They've then been there for maybe thirty years or thirty so. They've absolutely loved it. It's a great space but they have kind of outgrown the building. And so they approached us to build this addition onto the back, so that they could have adequate space for their offices, their storage of materials, and then also, provide better maneuverability for whenever they have to replace things such as equipment.

And so this building here, is two stories. It acts as a nice bridge which was kind of mentioned before where we're bridging between a commercial into the residential and so we were using precedents from the neighborhood to kind of create this design as well as pulling elements from the building. As mentioned, the we tried to be as cautious and taking in the guidelines of the National Park Services Secretary of Interiors by creating a subordinate building that is smaller in height, smaller in size, and also connected with the breezeway which would reduce the amount of actual intervention that would happen to the historic building. That way if one day in the future if something was to happen and this addition would need to be removed, the existing historic structure wouldn't have have as much intervention as maybe some other things. Let's see.

So then I included some images and some of the neighboring precedents that we had taken. I think it's on maybe the second or third pages, to kind of look at the dormers and the windows and things like that. We also pulled some of the motifs that are on the front of the building, which I included some pictures as well, but I have printed out a couple other ones, to kind of help tie in the existing structure into this new, new design. When it comes to materials, we are sticking with, stone and wood, which is different, from the brick and stone but we wanted to be very deliberate in saying that this is a new addition versus a historic structure. We are looking at putting in wood windows, half round gutters, asphalt shingles.

We've got these beautiful custom doors that are gonna be put on the side of the building as well as on the back.

Yeah. Is there anything?

Hi, my name is Steve Plovlich, I'm the one who's overseeing the project and I'm the preservation carpenter on the project and I'm doing all the exterior details And some of the details that we want to include in the building we are taking from this building because it's such a unique Asher Benjamin details and I feel that we should include those. Like I suggested the panels on the side on the Division Street side in the lower windows, I'd like to include and I would like to include some of the larger corner boards and some larger trim details around the windows. I know what the standards are, I read that and I understand, but I don't think that you're still going to be able to tell that this is a new building versus the 1841 Building. And then the doors, the side door, the carriage door I'm proposing to build, it would be an out swingers and they would have glass in them, it's not gonna be an overhead door which was original what was on the print or what was proposed, right?

Originally we had, when we first approached the board there was gonna be an overhead door in the back, but we had switched that. Another thing that I'd like to mention is that the owner has also asked to replace the soffit, a portion of the soffit on the existing milling that's starting to decay and fall apart.

Yeah, that's soffit on the original building. He said he replaced it thirty years ago when they got the building and what was removed was tongue and groove bead board and they just put up benefits half inch or three eighths plywood and it's all coming down. I'm proposing to put back the tongue and groove that was back in its time and it's same on the original or excuse me, on the new building, I would like to do that also is add tongue and groove on the soffits in that section too. I'm not a big fan of the plywood soffits. I mean historically it's not, it doesn't represent especially this age of this building.

Mr. Brown, questions, comments?

The siding is cedar, the bulk of the siding is cedar, but all the trim is Azac?

I prefer on the trim around the windows. I'm planning on using Sepele and the corner boards the same or it could potentially be Windsor one trim, which is a pre finished exterior material. But all the sills for the windows, I'm going to use sepele. Just generally that's what I'll I don't use a lot of the composites. I'm not a big being a preservation carpenter, I'm not huge in the composite world.

Just reading the note. Yep. I just want to make sure. So the corner boards, the sills, the window trim, everything is the same material?

Wood, yeah. And I'm planning on pushing hard on this project that to use. I don't know if this makes a huge difference to you guys, probably doesn't, but Alinsia Oil paints because of how beneficial they are to a wood structure versus the modern day plastic paints.

That's my only comment now.

Ms. Strudinski?

Do you have any questions or comments right now?

Ms. Orzula.

I don't think anything was noted but I had question in regards to the brackets under the gable proposed. There's really not, they're very substantial and there isn't anything similar in the existing house original building.

Sorry Ms. Brazulla, I just wanna interject here for staff. That set of plans that was, I'm not really sure what happened there, but that set of plans was the old set of plans. I just downloaded this and put this up on the screen. These were the plans that were reviewed with when the board set the agenda as well as the plans that should be before the board this evening. The gable brackets have been removed but the paneling was added and the wide and quarter boards here. I had pulled the wrong one up on the screen, I do apologize for any confusion on that but these are the correct set of plans, the gable ends or the gable brackets have been removed.

That's better. I did have a question though on are those gutter buckets and why is why are they more into the interior of the building rather than at the corner.

So we had designed this so that it looks pretty deliberate and, I guess a little bit more beautiful than having something that's just a gutter that's coming straight down because if you slide it over a little bit, it's gonna kind of conflict with the corner boards which are gonna be very beautiful and so we wanted it to look deliberate but also aesthetically pleasing.

So it is sort of a gutter bucket but it's a tiny, it looks really small. Yeah, yes.

It's a leader basically what they're called. Probably proportionally in this building it would be a fairly small one. I mean, they come in all different shapes and sizes. Probably want something pretty inconspicuous, I would assume. If if you guys aren't real keen on the downspouts there, then I could probably get really creative and do something different like possibly run them. I'm not doing the spouting but I could potentially run them. Maybe get myself in trouble here into the corner somehow and hide them. But

I don't know, I just was questioning them. I'm not sure I want them bigger or I don't know. Kinda not quite sure on it. But on corner boards, you're making them more detailed with the capping on them.

Yeah, I wanna include on the base on them and then on the top I wanna include some of the detail which is on the old pilasters, the different moldings.

Any approach? Yeah, I mean they look more like a pilaster than Oh, corner on the front.

Yeah, this molding here is kind of molding. Would be smaller than this very large.

I'm to

have to build into smaller.

I'm sorry

if you just want to speak into the microphone. Oh.

Well I feel very special. But this was the detail that I would like And to then similar on the bottom too just that Greek Doric, I mean those are Greek Doric columns and that's what I would propose. The corner boards, I'm not doing real fancy, I just want to include larger ones. I think originally what was on there was like maybe only like a four inches and I want to go something I'd like to at least a seven. I think that would be proportion for the building. So the corner boards didn't look like toothpicks when you're seeing it from Main Street.

The way you've drawn these you could consider that proportion?

Yeah this is what I would be, what they drew up would be around the same size, yeah. And

then what did you say about the panel and why you're doing the panel below the

The panel I'd like to

include below the windows here. This is on front and this is the very Greek revival detail. And I'm proposing that just to simply break it up a little bit, the siding, and just incorporate that because it's such a beautiful detail in the building.

One of the questions I would have is that that side of the building on division is very

plain. One conversation,

that's why I want to try to

I know, but the problem is for division to see the addition that is so much fancier than

the very plain or I

was gonna say shaker like front. I think it seems a little off, so I understand the need for the corner boards, but I would, I'm afraid to my eyes from this side it's not really compatible with the plainness of that side of the building. You see what I'm saying?

Oh yeah, I don't agree with it but yeah I see what you're Yeah. Absolutely. Yeah. But again that building, when that building was designed, I mean I can pull it up in a book.

Uh-huh.

Astro Benjamin's 1797 book, which has basically that building front on there. And it's very plain, but at the same time, this is included in that. So that's why I thought it would be nice to incorporate a little bit. My opinion, what it's worth I don't know, but I think it's worth a lot. But I don't think it adds that much to the building that shows that much different that it would be.

Well not from the main street side,

but

certainly from the division Yeah, street

yeah I mean it could go one way or the other, but I

Alright, mister Workley, have any questions or comments?

Are you finished?

I am,

sir. What

do I

do with this?

Here. Just sit on the table with your

Oh yeah, we're gonna do. Alright,

so can I see the garage door? Does it show what you were talking about, the changes you wanted to do? So those are two built doors, is that what you were saying?

Yes, those are swing doors now.

Yeah, and unfortunately, Azam, the owner, Katri, he has a picture and he's not here. So they're very similar to that with carriage style with with this with the glass and and I'm I that's about unfortunately all I can offer you. I brought some samples of wood that I would like to make it out, I can show you if you're interested.

But is it gonna look like what's being presented or is it gonna be different?

It's very much the same what's there.

Okay if it's gonna be the same then that's fine how construct it. We're worried about bit matching.

What he has is very similar to what, and I believe that Peninsula Architects, because that picture that, okay.

Yeah, picture that we submitted, I think we submitted it a long time ago, but it's basically the exact same thing.

And then just on opposite of what my neighbors just said about the contextual of you bringing in the front detail of the building, I think it helps relate this building proportions to the residential neighborhood and back, whereas the front building with them being so, with bunch windows and everything is more commercial, this helps I think make that adjustment from commercial front street to the residential component, so I appreciate that detail from that standpoint. Where the gutter goes, I'm not, know, it's corner, you had it off a foot from the corner to this location, it's proportionally at this location in between in that division, so

I don't have a problem

with where it's located right now or the detailing. So I'm good with it. And the foundation is matching now? Yeah,

we wanna go with a veneer but it would be a real, it's not a cultured product, he wants to go with an actual sandstone. Sandstone

I think that's all I had.

I'm fine with the updates. I like that the brackets are gone. The windows on that side do not bother me one bit and I like the column detail on the corners. It does, it ties it to the front of the building and it is a street side, so I think it makes sense to do that. So yeah, I'm fine with it as is.

Is there any now there's regulations on color because no

It'll do colors.

Okay. I mean I'm not saying it's gonna be some It's gonna be contrast and

Okay. Were there any other?

On this set as opposed to what we have, is the material schedule changed on the on the corner

of sheet?

I think before it might have said brick, but now it's stone.

The the wood trim too because it said AZEK before.

Yeah. So it'll it'll be wood.

Which part of it?

You're talking about

talking about?

Up in the upper right hand corner there's material schedule and it said AZEK in the copy that I have. But it says it says here, no, down below. Exterior elevation all exposed. Yeah. That's an Azac wall.

Mister mister Brown, I'm tracking for potential conditions of approval. That would be one of them to revise the elevations to align with the materials that were stated today, submit the final door design to staff and remove references to or approved equal on the elevations like for the windows so we know the exact product that you're using. Those are the three that I'm using.

I just wanted to

make sure that

it matched.

Do you

want to see I brought a window, the brand I brought a sample and I don't know if you want to Which window was proposed?

It's Marvin.

It's the Marvin Ultimate? Yeah. Marvin Ultimate's fine.

Okay. Yeah. It's out in the hall.

We've seen it a lot.

Right. I figured that. But, yeah. He's very persistent in giving it to me so I said okay, I'll take it.

That's good, you don't need to drag it

in. The other question, there was a note about Gable and returns, we didn't talk about that.

I think with the brackets being gone, I mean, personally I don't have an issue with those returns. I mean, it is a detail that isn't anywhere else, but as narrow as that end is, I think the returns do kinda help it. It's just such a narrow but tall. I I think the the returns help. But

does anybody have Generally, the the the gable end returns, I I will do them a little bit smaller and they're not gonna be roofed like like everyone does a 45 and put shingles on it. No. This is gonna be very small and be very you know, just walk around town here with all the Greek revival buildings. I mean, or the houses, all the beautiful Gable one returns. It's just

Yeah. The way you detail it, it kind of finishes the column, the pediment and that little gable Yeah.

Exactly. Yeah.

You won't be disappointed, I promise.

Is anybody greatly opposed to

the One thing we should probably comment though on since you mentioned it, the replacement of the soffit should be in kind, that's all I think we direct you on.

Should be in what?

Replacement in kind.

Okay.

So since you're saying you're dealing with the original material, then you're meeting standards.

And then the door on the Division Street side that goes in, is there questions about that?

You just have to detail that to staff. If staff flags it that it's an issue, then it'll come back. Okay. So it'll just be one of the conditions that those details have to be submitted.

Okay.

And and staff will review that. If they find an issue with it, it'll come back then. If they don't see any issue with it, then we'll give them the authority to just carry out with the approval.

I'll make the motion. Nick, you're gonna have to help me. There are three things. Make approve as submitted with three things to provide a submittal of the door detailing to staff for review.

Both doors.

And what else would we have? Materials. Materials match, so we remove the note that or others, it should be the exact materials and to update the siding from a exact to materials being proposed. So that's just staff for approval.

Replace soffit with in kind material.

And replace the existing soffit with in kind material.

Second.

All in favor? Aye. Anybody opposed? Alright. Thank you.

Thank you

for your time. Appreciate it.

(202) 514-7888 and this is a door replacement?

Yes, we've been in contact with the applicant, our city solicitor has also, we've been advised by our city solicitor to table this one more time, and we will vote at the next meeting.

So if we have a motion to table it.

Motion to table this. Second.

All in favor? Aye. Aye. 2020 Five-nine 80 Six-six Thousand And 50 Pine Ridge Trail.

Okay, I can give a brief orientation. Staff notes this project received approval at the 09/10/2025 meeting. The applicant is requesting a modification of the approved plans and has submitted the revised elevations for the board's consideration. First is a window design change. Staff notes that window design change is proposed on the front and rear elevations.

Staff notes the proposed window changes meet the requirement that this building shall have a typical window. You can see it here on the front elevation on the porch. This window is proposed to be in line with the rest of the windows now the same size as well as this window on the rear on the original application there was three windows here, there's now two. Additionally, there's a window bump out, staff notes a rear elevation kitchen window bump out was added. Section four of the architectural design standards state that projections on Ground Floor should be carried through to the foundation and staff notes was to revise the rear kitchen window projection to depict a full foundation underneath.

That can be seen here. And as well as foundational height, staff notes the applicant is proposing to raise the foundational height on the rear elevation creating an inconsistent water table and to revise the elevations to depict a consistent foundational height on this side here. As well as the chimney staff notes the applicant is proposing the chimney on the rear elevation and just to revise the proposed chimney material to match the stone foundational material. The applicant is here this evening to answer any additional questions that the board may have.

You state your name and relationship to the application.

I'm John Russell. I'm president of Prestige Builder Group. We're the builder.

Elaine Schmidt, Vice President of Sales. So

I think the windows look good, but the chimney, is that

We're gonna change it. Okay. Let me make it. What happened there, it's kind of funny because we just looked. We actually took one chimney out. There was two of em. We took out one of the fireplaces. That was there but we'll change that to stone. It's set up for it. You know, yay. I don't know how that ended up like that. We never do it like that.

And then, oh, so the stone that raises up now and messes up your whole foundation water table.

What they do is they added a half wall, that's the porch. So, they added a half wall instead of a rail, okay? And the little lines there are are open so that if any water gets on the porch,

you can drain So, it

but we can redraw that elevation because it's not. It doesn't drop off quite like that. We can we can redraw that. Is that what you're asking? No. What are you asking?

The

Do not put the half wall in, leave the rail?

Water table term is what throws people.

Yeah. Yeah. So it it appears that the foundation comes all the way up in that one section only. Like, there's no break. It doesn't it doesn't appear to be a a half wall. It appears to be the foundation coming all the way up. That's where that comment comes from.

Okay.

Want me

to put a break in there? Can put a break in there. That's not a problem. Because inside of that is a concrete floor. Okay? And I don't think, I don't know if that porch has been poured or not but if I run that concrete out, you got stone to here but it'll pick up the stone up there but there'll be a break in there. Right below where those little slots are. Okay. That good? So you have

a concrete band and then the above will look like railing instead of foundation. Right.

So differentiate the foundation from the railing.

Above will look like railing?

You want the above to be railing and not stone?

No. Okay. Yeah.

So, it'll look like railing though. It's a half wall.

Yeah, the two little

holes where you have

look like scuppers would be concrete. Yeah. A band. Yeah.

Great. Inside, it's a half wall. Outside, it looks like a foundation. That's what

you're getting. That's the issue.

We can fix that. Not a problem.

And then underneath that window there on the left.

You know, that that is that window is up high. That's behind the sink, okay? So, it's just a matter of it. They want to extend the the countertop out a little bit but they're not extending like the floor out there because there's a cabinet there.

You know, have this design standard that says when you come out that far, you gotta put a foundation under it.

You're you're

coming out a little too far. How how far is that? I think it was

Like one foot.

Oh, think it showed more than that.

Well, I don't think so. Can you bring Yeah. The plan

There was a dimension that showed like two feet.

I don't think so. I don't think so. Let she can bring that bring it up

on her Yeah.

You have the floor pan?

Nick, what's the dimension that you have to put a I'm

looking that up. Okay.

Well, in the meantime, mister Brown. It

just says projections should be carried through to the foundation. So it's a should clause if it's minimal enough to

One foot five, Mr. Rung.

It sounds like the three previous are unsatisfied with the resolution of what you've already discussed. Maybe too often, but I've not been on the board since this has arisen, so I'm not sure what the board has decided in the past. Two feet would have probably was too much. A few inches is fine. I I don't know where I mean, one five kinda on the back of the house. I'm not as long as there is, that's what the board has done, that's consistent with what the board has done in the past.

Miss Rudinsky?

I'm the same. All the other ones I'm fine with. I can't think of since I've been on board where it's been a fairly small one like this where it just bumps out a little bit. So I don't know what the precedence is of this size.

I don't know how often we really see can you go back to the elevation?

It was tucked in the corner there.

I don't know if it makes sense to for a foot, not even a foot and a half to side all the way down. Miss Barzula?

I recall that it was 18 inches, beyond 18 inches needed the foundation but that's if you can find it in there. You have definitely verified that it's one foot five inches.

I'm okay. Mr. Workley.

Yeah, I'm good with changing the chimney back to brick. I'm okay with this window being one foot five out and as long as that brick, the concrete line for the porch protrudes out past the foundation line and looks like railing above as a separate detail element, I'm good with that as well.

Nothing to add.

Okay. Before you move on this, can I present something else? Sure. Okay, can you take the front elevation please?

Grab that microphone if you can get up and walk around. Thank you.

Is it on?

There you go.

Okay. So the owner called me originally on one of the plans we had the metal roof over here. Okay. I don't want to get into the middle of stuff, but the wife thought it was too many and took it off and now they'd like to add a metal roof there. Okay? To be consistent with these and I have it drawn on the plan and it looks like that. I mean is it good? Is it bad? It makes it consistent. You wanna add one over here.

So it would be three metal roofs each one over the triple windows more consistent than what it is but it takes it over to the side there. Looks good. Smile.

You love

that don't you? Love that. What do you think? All right.

Anybody opposed to the third little shed roof?

Okay. I do wanna make one more quick note. Talked about on the rear elevation where the water table's gonna go across, we talked about the piece of porch where the two kind of scupper drains are, but there's also the piece on the left and if you look at the side elevation, that kind of where the railing dies into a low wall, that low wall there also turns the corner and the same I would want the same detail there. Does that make sense? Yep. So it'll be the same. Just that that porch and that porch.

I'll do

it. Okay.

Thank you. That's all.

Can I just clarify that? You said use the word railing on it. So he's gonna have the bump out with the concrete. So

just imagine on that elevation, you see the two whole scuppers? Uh-huh. Imagine that's concrete and it's all the way across. Yeah. So it separates the foundation from above.

Yeah. Not that but

above it is.

Above it is, it could be wood railing, it could be stone, it's whatever but by separating it, it makes it a distinct element from the foundation.

Because you used the word railing and she said no railing, well Well,

the stone is the railing for that porch. It's a wall, not a traditional railing.

We're just making the distinction by separating it with the concrete.

Yeah, I get

that, okay.

Yeah, it becomes a detail and not part of the foundation.

Make a motion to approve with the changing of the chimney to brick, the windows being acceptable, the overhang of one foot five being acceptable and the change to the back porch having protrusion of the concrete to the outside separating the foundation to the upper component.

You wanna

note about that metal roof parting?

Metal on shed the front elevation being applied to the third window. Second.

All in favor? Anybody opposed? If you just give that copy to Lauren so that she has what you presented at the meeting. 2025 Dash 36133 East Streetsboro Street, and this is windows window alteration in the historic district.

Yes, just a brief orientation, staff notices application received approval for Pella Reserve series style windows at the May 14 meeting. At the March 11 meeting, the board reviewed the Anderson E series windows and requested additional documentation for consideration within the historic district. Staff understands that the applicant is currently working with their contractor to provide the requested materials. Staff does note the applicant is seeking approval for Anderson e series and that the window proposal is for new construction and not for the replacement of existing historic materials. As this is new construction, the proposal is for a wood aluminum clad window.

The board could consider approving the e series for this particular request. The board could then instruct the window representative to provide additional documentation to further evaluate whether this window series would be appropriate for the replacement of historic windows on historic buildings in the future, which is a higher bar review. The applicant is here this evening to answer any additional questions that the board may have.

Hello. If you state your name in relationship to

the applicant.

I'm Tracy Crawford and I am the daughter of my father, Alan Sabida, owns the house.

Okay. So I mean I think we've seen this a couple of times already.

Yes.

Mister Brown, do you have any issues with the aluminum clad being that it's a new structure? We have approved the Pella lifestyle on new structures and not going with the higher bar of the Pella Reserve.

My only question I guess is which, because as I understand it the E Series is more flexible than Pella Reserve so there are full divided lights, simulated divided lights, between the glass divided lights, so it's kinda like rather than, you know, I I feel like the windows that we lines that we accept are uniformly acceptable. Does make sense? But so I I don't have a problem with the e series in this case. My question is just like which one? I I would prefer

That's a good point, full we typically would require simulated divided even for new. So that's a good catch

So for not

to between the glass,

but in terms of like the product, don't have an issue with it in this application. And even though it was mentioned in the staff notes, we're not making a determination like broadly at this time, Okay. Yeah. So I would just ask for simulated divided lights or full divided lights if we approve this. That's all.

Miss Serensky?

I think I pretty much agree with that. I don't think I was at the last I think I was in the first meeting or at the second meeting when we discussed this. Yeah. So I don't have a whole structure, the it sounds like this could meet the requirements.

Mister Azula?

Okay. Aluminum clad and divided simulated divided lines. Right?

No additional comments.

Okay. A question last time, you said you would check to see if this was used in other historical districts like in Chagrin Falls, were you able to determine that?

I actually talked to Tony Tropey from Akron, are you familiar with his So he has sent us and told us that he used the Anderson E Series window in the renovation of the Beacon Journal building.

Okay.

So he added 84 of the Anderson e series windows in that building and he was doing it with also getting credits from the Ohio Historic Preservation Tax Credits. He had gotten $2,550,000 in the renovation credit from them using that for that building by using also using those Anderson windows. And I did have a picture as well of the building that they did use them. And I have a email also from the Anderson salespeople saying that they did provide those windows and they were the e series windows to confirm that that was what he used. Bob had talked to people from Peninsula in

Peninsula in Chagrin Falls and Shaker Heights and getting ahold of somebody in an architectural review board is very hard. They said basically same thing, bring it, present it, and we'll take a look at it. But they did say that aluminum clad wood is acceptable.

Anything else? No. Okay.

We also did take down the vinyl shutters and if you put shutters back up there will be wood. He's still debating whether he wants shutters now at all.

Thank you.

So I move to approve the substitution of the Anderson e series windows for the Pella Reserve series that had originally be accepted and, excuse me, with simulated divided glass.

Should you mention that's the caveat that it's new construction?

And because, yeah, understanding that this is a lab because it's new construction and does not mean that it will be accepted for historic buildings.

Second.

All in favor? Aye. Anybody opposed? Alright, thank you.

I'm the next one too.

Just side, just mention that. Alright, so 26 Dash 20429 East Streetsboro. This is an accessory structure in the historic district.

Okay. This is a proposal for an approximate 300 square foot detached garage. Staff's only comment was staff notes that the Anderson e Siri windows are proposed in this proposal as well and understood the board was currently considering their appropriateness for use within the historic district.

State your name in relationship to the application.

I'm Tracy Crawford and I'm the daughter of Alan Sweeta. This is my father, Alan Sweeta, this is his garage for his own personal house.

Mister Brown, questions or comments?

There's no existing garage there. I'm not tearing something down. Don't

think so.

Miss Zwinski?

I don't think I have anything for this.

Miss Origula.

Previous note was material windows, question mark than we just answered, so I'm fine.

Miss Workley? Yeah.

What's the foundation material gonna be? Concrete block? Okay. That's all I have.

Miss Sweeney?

Any question?

Motion to approve as submitted.

Second.

All in favor? Aye. Anybody opposed? Alright, thank you.

Thank you, and that's Anderson E Series Windows

For the new construction, and they have no divides?

Right, it

didn't show any divides

in the Yeah.

Correct. Thank you. Alright.

261-5340 Roslyn, this is window replacement in the historic district.

Yes, this is for six windows to be replaced within the historic district. The applicant did reach out to staff earlier and mentioned that there was a mistake with the original submittal that the windows that are proposed are actually aluminum clad wood windows and not vinyl clad wood windows. So you have updated documentation in front of you that just confirms the the material for that window. Staff does note that this house was constructed in 1987 and is considered non contributing. The existing house has vinyl siding and other vinyl windows. The applicant is here this evening to answer any additional questions that the board may have.

You. You just state your name and relationship to the application.

Sure, David Thomas, owner at 40 Rawson.

Mr. Brunin, questions or comments?

These windows, there's two here and two on the other side.

And two on the back. Two on.

So there's six total? Correct. And they're all aluminum currently?

They're a combination, it's some vinyl and aluminum. Some are, some. They're 30 years old and rather inefficient.

Have a question, I'm trying to remember looking at this. Can you look at the sheet further down that shows the divisions?

I can't remember.

What will the pattern be of the divided lines?

Exactly as Exactly

as they are. I assume for non contributing building week. Replacing kind.

Yeah, was part of the expansion. This is non contributing, it's not in the period of significance And the house is vinyl sided with vinyl windows. So it's doing a wood with aluminum clad is an upgrade.

But wood with aluminum clad is not being proposed, right? They're wood with vinyl cladding?

No they are as noted on page two of the submittal I gave you tonight. Paper one. That's there on my part. Miscommunication, so it's anodized aluminum clad.

Okay. Okay.

And I have no other. Okay. No other questions.

Ms. Morozilla. Mr. Workley. Any additional comments? Miss Kippin. Additional comments.

I move to approve this proposal. I'll second.

All in favor? Aye. Anybody opposed? Alright, thank you. Next is 26 Dash 1, I'm sorry, 26 Dash 846142 Independence Drive. This is an addition.

Yes, this is for a garage addition and existing garage renovation. Staff notes that section three of the architectural design standards state that large expanses of blank wall are to be avoided. Staff suggested to incorporate additional fenestration on the rear elevation to meet this requirement As well as question the shed roof extension on the proposed addition as the main mass has a gable roof. And lastly, section four of the architectural design standards state that details in the main body must be consistently applied throughout all sides of the main body and to revise the elevations to depict shutters on the side elevation where the new windows are being added and the garage is being renovated to meet this requirement. The applicant is here this evening to answer any additional questions that the board may have.

Just state your name and your relationship.

Rob Cogdell, the contractor for mister and missus Luria. So yeah, I think I can make this pretty simple. I think the first notation here for the window, I think you're talking about the rear elevation. We talked window on that back of that garage, he has no problem with doing that. The roof structure I believe you're talking about the shed roof, it's just basically a roof overhang, that's what we're talking about on the back right here.

So that is basically for a TV area, didn't know if that was a major requirement. If we can keep it as is, we'd like to, if not we can do cable there just to enhance it a little bit. In the drawing it's more pronounced than what it would be in real life, but we can discuss that. And as far as the shutters, have no problem with putting shutters on the south elevation as well.

Alright, so really the only thing to discuss is the little shed roof there.

What about

the window on the left?

The left?

Roof, I don't know where

the windows are, we would never let that happen.

That was never mentioned, that to maintain egress for the 2nd Floor bedrooms. We had to do a separation between the house and the main structure so that we can keep the egress for the 2nd Floor bedroom.

How wide is that?

I think it's four feet.

Intersecting. What's the It's I mean it's relatively flat, but what's the pitch on that?

You're gonna get about two twelve pitch on that. It's totally rubberized roof that's going down in there on the back of the house. You know, it's one thing we tried to avoid but the the challenge we had is if we push that garage further south, we had no ability to turn in and out of the garage. So if you you look at the floor plan, you can you can see what we're up against. Well, that's I'm sorry, the site plan.

At having the two car garage pitch be different than the one car door garage

area to alleviate that,

to make that attachment in the house smaller?

You're still gonna wind up with a side, you're gonna wind up with a gable end between the two structures.

Right, but if you make that a very shallow pitch for the connection, it's gonna alleviate that window issue. The

whole window being inside of the well. And that's an option, don't know what is less for the two Eagles having the pitches on the back all be relatively the same with the small or alleviate that section drop it down. I don't know what would look. I'm almost thinking that if you did a shallower pitch on that, that's that one car. I'm just not sure that was.

What's the pitch on that you're proposing?

It's in the green one here. 12 or twelve twelve? I think it matches the existing.

It's be twelve twelve. It's an eight twelve. 812. It's eight.

I'm not even sure that would get us where we need to be unless we lower our plate height, which then runs into the situation where we're we're dying into the existing house.

I just think if you went four twelve there, that would cut that in half. You you would look at elevation, rear elevation, you're almost covering up half the window.

Yes. So you would drop that whole pitch between the two. You're still gonna be even in a four. You're gonna clip that window. There's gonna have to be some change in elevation one way or another. If you look at that elevation there you can see how small of a section of roof that were actually altering to accommodate for that window. It's not a large area. I also think that if we went with a four twelve between the between the main two car garage and the house, I'm

not

sure elevation wise that would be very attractive.

On the

south elevation, the north elevation, again, that's the pool house. There's another bump out of the existing structure there. It's really kind of a hidden area. Not sure if we're trying to eliminate that flat roof structure or we're trying to what we're trying to accomplish by going to a four twelve.

A water issue and a snow issue for our client against that window.

Well, we're still far enough away from that that we have rubber, we have a built up structure. Situations like that, I understand there's snow buildup, but I don't think it's going to be significant enough for changing a whole roof structure.

Mr. Brown, questions or comments?

I don't think I am the the little shed for the TV, I don't know. Don't have a comment.

Ms. Zavinsky?

No, I don't think I have any other. I think that shed for the TV area, I don't think it would look good with a gable so it's kind of, I mean it's just kind of tacked up there but it's harmless as far as I'm concerned.

Yeah, I agree and while I don't love the window egress area, I don't think it actually is an issue as far as the standards go. Do think it'll be a maintenance issue for the homeowner, but I guess that's up to them. Anything else Mr. Workley?

I have no additional comments.

Miss Kim?

No additional comments. Okay.

Motion.

Yeah. Yes. That's

yeah. Okay. So let's move. So gonna add the window to the windows of the room? Move I move that we accept the proposal with the understanding that there will be a window added to the back of the garage side, that shutters will be added to all sides of the main body, and we accept the shed roof extension.

Second.

All in favor?

Aye.

Anybody opposed?

Aye.

One nay for mister Workley. Alright. Thank you. 26 Dash 101200 Laurel Lake Drive, and this is for new villas.

Yes. Staff notes this application received informal review at the 02/28/2024 meeting, and the project received site plan approval from Planning Commission and the Board of Zoning and Building Appeals. Staff notes the board may want to take the first meeting for project orientation, initial comment, and review. Staff comments were attached in the additional PDF within the staff report and the applicant is here this evening to answer any additional questions that the board may have.

State your name and relationship to the application.

My name's Donna Anderson, I'm marketing director for Laurel Lake Retirement Community and I live at 1827 Windsor Street in Cuyahoga Falls.

I'm John Duckerman with RDL Architects.

So why don't you I guess start walking us through these villas?

Sure, so I think back in 2023 and 2024 when we originally submitted, had nine villa designs, duplex designs and as we continued through the process and had some issues with siting and with planning commission and the board of zoning appeals, we are now down to six duplex cottages with one single family home. Cottage 1 being the Cuyahoga on the Upper Northwest side of the site. Cottage 2, Villa 2 right next to it. Villa 3 is now down on the secondary loop of Laurel Lake Drive. Cottage 4 continues up, keep going right there.

Five is a different rendition now up towards the lake and then eight and nine are back towards the other lake. So I think as you'll see as we kind of get into each design, Villa 14, eight and nine were original designs that you guys saw that have kind of been modified with comments that we received from our informal review way back when. Two, five and three are modified based on the site constraints or are there kind of similarities between all of them? We have reviewed staff comments and willing to discuss them.

Yeah, we just start, I guess start with the Cuyahoga and start walking through staff comments. I I do think this will take two meetings to get through all of these. Nope, we understand. So yeah, if we can get maybe through the Cuyahoga and Brandywine and that might be all we have time for tonight. So

staff comment, the first one for the Cuyahoga discusses I guess and this filters through all of them really,

the main

front facing garages on some of them. We had initial discussions back when we first presented it, Planning Commission and the Board of Zoning Appeals have approved their locations but I understand that the front facing garages don't necessarily meet the architectural standards. However, majority of these cottages I think are setback villas, I'm sorry, from the 130 foot setback that would negate that requirement. We have implemented some side of loaded garages on some of the other villas we'll get to but the Cuyahoga, the first comment is the front facing garage. I think we have some opportunity to potentially push the garage back.

The second comment here regarding the visible mass is something that we've been kind of looking into in terms of to meet that requirement, but I guess it's, I don't wanna say BZA and Planning Commission approved it and not discussed it obviously, but that's why it's still facing forward. It also in tunes to the rest of the cottages on-site which do have forward facing garages of their existing cottages.

Going back to the informal, understanding was the board was comfortable with the front facing garages based on the existing conditions and land development code requirements, but the projection forward was an issue. So if you said you can have the opportunity to set those back because we looked at the existing villas and they are set They're in line or set back slightly.

I actually think the Cuyahoga is an opportunity, the garage is very large that we can move it back, reduce the size and then there's opportunity I think to bring the entry forward so it helps that garage and that larger mass in front and that might take care of comments one and two that you guys have. Question three is regarding shake siding in the interior of If we go to the rendering of the elevation, you'll notice that the shake siding does We do have these stone kind of pillars on front that are trying to accentuate the entry, but the water table, the stone water table and the shake siding would return into the front door and then come back and then die on I think the rendering, first rendering kind of depicts that in there as it kind of comes and goes back and comes to that stone. I think that answers your question.

I guess I do have a question on the column there when you look at this rendering, so how does that stone and then the siding under the soffit there in this view right here, how do they how do they meet? Because it looks like that column comes all the way up and, like, the siding goes into or or

Oh, so I guess we're trying to depict maybe some sort of like faux cast stone header, is that what you're talking No,

I'm talking about that outside corner. To the left of it. Right behind the gutter basically. How does the siding and the stone meet there? Because you can't change materials on a corner like that.

Well, could build out the column and have it So the column could be its own entity, the siding would not be in plane with it, so it could bump out further to the siding, it would have something to die into in terms of the stone.

You'd have to do something else.

It just looks like, I understand, looks

like it's

in the

same plane currently.

Yeah. No we can, I think we can actually probably beef up those columns or adjust the detail of how the truss is bare maybe? But there will be a differentiation in plan. Comment number five was regarding window trim and I did notice that on some of the drawings. It will be consistent on all windows.

I guess the only caveat to that is we do have some locations, not particularly on the Cuyahoga where there is window fully encased in stone. So we wouldn't put window trim around a window if it's got full height stone. We'd provide a header and a sill and the stone would die into the window jambs. But on this particular one, the trim is supposed to be all the way around the windows and we can correct that if there's any missing on the drawings. Comment six regarding the proposed hips roof as they kind of conflict with the gable roof.

I think we've looked at pushing the garage back and I think it gives an opportunity to where we don't need a hip roof on the front of it because the gable that you see there that kind of spans between the main mass and the garage will just kind of go all the way through so there'll be a gable end now on the side of the That's a possible solution for that. I think it also relates to the sunrooms too. So we can, the witcher on the back of the villas, can Right now they're depicted as hips, we can easily change them to gables. I think that's it for the Cuyahoga, unless there are any other specific questions.

Can I have the arch circular window on the right elevation? Mhmm. It just seems like it's an element that's not in anything. If you could maybe that more like a cupola since you've, you know, you got three consistent bays. If you just make three consistent things

to the You

did on one

of them.

The other ones. That match that Sure.

So the catheter bay?

Doesn't feel

like such a foreign element. Okay. In the renderings, it looked like the the, you know, the asphalt shingle was gonna go would make it look like an eyebrow. It doesn't feel right.