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, May 13th, 2026. Roll call tonight. We have Mr. Brown, Ms. Srdynski, Ms. Marzulla, Mr. Workley, and myself. We do have the required four members for quorum. We'd like now to open it to public comment. 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? Seeing none, we will close public comment and move on to consent applications. Tonight we have 26-284-5951 Stowe Road, 26-228-39 Church Street, 26-314-40 Roslyn, 26-316-39 Roslyn, 26-215-257 North Main Street, 26-246-53 South Hayden Parkway, 25-1462-6812 Evergreen Road, and 26-281-5107 Darrow Road. Motion to approve is submitted.

Second.

All in favor?

Aye.

We have no old business. Opening new business. First is 26-409-2115 East Streetsboro Street and this is demolition of an accessory structure. here yet okay we will move them to the end of the meeting then and go to 26-400-258 north main street and this is an addition in the historic district oh same also not here same applicant yeah 26-391-6591 walnut court and this is an addition

This applicant was not able to make it, but they let us know ahead of time. What is going on? So they asked that the board review the application with their comments to our staff. And I can just walk through that. So this is for a covered patio at 6591 Walnut Court. And we had three comments. One was to verify proposed six by six wood posts would be wrapped in additional material. They stated that they would be wrapped in Azek. To verify proposed shingles would match existing house, the shingles will match the house. And we asked for the, essentially to verify the applied stone material, and they stated that it would match the foundation of the existing house. All of those items could be incorporated as conditions of approval if the board wishes.

Okay. Mr. Brown, do you have any issues with this project given the responses by the applicant?

Yeah, I had one question. There's an elevation of the end of the proposed covered roof open gable that differs in construction from the rendering. I assume that line drawing, that's correct, where they have, I can't remember how they label it. Yeah. essentially the two by 12s are the bottom of the truss and then later in the rendering there's some kind of member above the

to so I was in a rendering yes in the renderings just we're happy to verify that I would assume the the drawing is correct.

It has to match the elevation. That was my only and then your comment about the you know does the stone veneer on the proposed match the stone veneer that's already on the House. I think that's something you're on the House.

It's exposed foundation.

That's all.

All right. Mr. Inskey.

I don't have anything further. No, I'm fine.

Mr. Workley. Yeah, the only issue I had was the roof, if there was going to be like a diverter there at the bay window where it touches into that component. I didn't see anything on the roof plan. It kind of just showed the framing. It doesn't show anything for that area. Is that the roof plan?

No, that's just the foundation.

it's kind of a valley up against the house at that point or up against the bay window just make that a condition make a motion to approve with specifying that the six by six posts are wrapped by a sack that the shingles match the listing house the the specification sheets will be presented to administrative for staff for review at the front elevation of the pitch trust member will be depicted for the elevation versus the rendering and oh the roof plan will have a cricket or saddle at the roof edge touching the bay window second all in favor anybody opposed okay

I believe our previous applicant. So we'll move back to 26-409-2115 East Streetsboro Street. This is demolition of an accessory structure.

Yes, I can provide some brief background. This is a proposed detached accessory structure demolition. The property is interesting as it is a historic landmark. It is outside of the historic district, but it is a designated historic landmark. So I worked through some of the history of that and our documentation. And from what I found, it appears the building itself, the main building, was designated the landmark. and the detached structure here in question was omitted from that. I did also find it wasn't in your packet. this additional document that was, my understanding, presented to the Architecture Review Board and Council when these were being added as historic landmarks in 2002. And it gets into greater detail on each property and the structures that are added. And it just does state the house for this property. So some of them say house, house and barn, or just barn, things like that. So that kind of led me a little more down that road that this was not... added as a historic landmark during that effort.

So that means that we are just coming to a finding of whether or not it has historic significance.

That's my recommendation, yes.

Nate Bailey, Harat Architects, 10 West Streetsboro, Hudson, Ohio. Yeah, as you know, propose, you know, we had conversations with the city early on, and the process was explained, submitted, and we'll track down whether it's historic or not. So the homeowners have no intention of touching or altering the house. There's actually an addition on the rear of the house that probably, I don't know what all happened, but yeah. So we have no intention of touching or altering the existing house. This is just an application to demo the rear accessory structure just because it's racked and it's old and it's out of shape. Their intent is to replace it with something probably of similar scale, probably a slightly different roof line that would accommodate some parking, some hosting space, et cetera. So it's... No intention of I just imagine like a carriage house kind of vibe so Obviously that'd be a separate application.

We'd appear before the board But this is step one So mr. Brown so we're just coming to a finding as to whether or not it has historic significance since it's 50 years older than 50 years

So the 1920 date of this, it says 1893 was the house, I think. But the 1920, is that a guess based on construction? Nick, did you verify that?

I verified 1920s from somewhere other than the county. So I think it was a little more exact. I'll try to find out where that was.

I don't know that there's no pictures of the picture show the other garage the show on the site plan is correct here is the other newer or over or.

It's it's it's newer just based on. It's current condition. I I'm trying to think this one, but yeah, 100% yeah, it's on percent newer than this one. I'm trying to think, Nick, I don't know if we captured it in any, like, if it's shown in the rear of any of the photos we submitted. Sorry, I did not submit pictures of that.

I mean the reason I'm asked like I mean, I think Nick is right. It doesn't list it lists house. Yeah on the forum, but it does list on the nominate on the inventory. It just says description of environment detached garage and I didn't but there's nothing else. So I don't know if that means this building or if that means the other building.

To answer your other question, I found 1920s garage here in the Lois Newkirk book, Hudson, A Survey of Historic Buildings. That's referenced in our code, and we have a copy at the office here. So I scanned this one.

It's an image of the house, though.

In the description, I'm saying it says 1920s garage. Oh, gotcha. That's where it's a little more clear on the date. I don't know where she obtained that, but she did extensive research on our properties.

It's a so sorry there's confusion it might be slightly visible in the aerial they can always get back to that but to your to your right there. Obviously we're highlight the structure was going to be done demolished to the right there is any another yet would mix cursors Mister sugars cursors. That's an existing garage to remain. You know, I'll be honest, guys, I didn't like spend a lot of time looking at that because it was never in scope and it's in good condition and it's not dilapidated or, you know, in disrepair. So I can't answer your question, Mr. Brown.

Anything else? No. Okay. Mr. Ninsky.

This is more important question it this is outside of historic district so we normally not do it.

Site visit because of that it's just a finding that it's not binding it's just fine.

I don't think I mean questions besides what's been asked.

The existing the test for us is to the right there right. So you you're only request for this property is to demolish that shed.

Yeah, the one highlighted with the dashed white line. And then it'll just be illuminated in space.

There's no intention to put something else there at this point? There is intention to put something else there.

There is something. Correct.

Which you're going to come back with?

Yes. Which will be a... A structure of a similar scale, probably. It will not be an attached, it will not be an addition to the house or anything like that. It'll be a detached, imagine carriage house. It'll probably be a single car garage and it'll probably be some sort of pseudo mudroom space with maybe some hosting space as well. There's some cool in-between space between the house and the structure we're proposing to demolish. It's outdoor space, so they really like that and they'd love to have something on the rear of that to accommodate larger groups.

I know you'll say it's not relative, but so how do people get to that garage? I don't see a driveway. Or is it just covered by the trees? It's all gravel. Yeah.

I don't have the mic, but I'll show you.

Oh, you go to that to the garage from there. Oh, I see. Okay. Yeah.

I see.

It has character, but it's been neglected, and that's a shame, but it would be nice if it could be restored, but I understand we don't really have.

I would just simply argue that what we intend to return to the board with is characteristic of most of our work, which would feel fitting in A, to the house that's there, and B, to the location. So what we bring back to the board for approval would probably also be full of character.

working um yeah i think that the proportions the detailing um even the siding doesn't match the house you know it's lap siding whereas the houses shake the edges and soffits are detailed totally different from that standpoint and you can see there's a lot of disrepair around the base perimeter of the building so i'm good

So again, this is just a finding. So if somebody's willing to read the, it's in section D here, as to whether it does or does not have historic or architectural significance.

As the structure is outside the historic district and is not an individual historic landmark, the architectural and historic board of review may only make the following recommendations upon review. The Architectural and Historic Board of Review finds the structure at 2115 East Streetsboro Street does not have historic or architectural significance. Further, the board finds that the application for a permit to demolish these structures will not voluntarily consent to the retention of this building. Second.

All in favor? Aye. Anybody opposed? Okay. Next is 26-400258 North Main Street. This is an addition in the Historic District.

This has been brought forward to us as informal for a couple meetings, so I'll just let Mr. Bailey highlight any changes if there are, and this is for formal review.

RIGHT, SO NATE BAILEY, ARCHITECTS. SO, YEAH, AS MR. SUGAR MENTIONED, WE'VE BEEN TO THE BOARD AND INFORMED ON THIS. WE NOW HAVE THE ENGINEERED SITE PLAN AND OTHER INFORMATION PULLED TOGETHER FOR FORMAL APPLICATION. You guys are familiar with this project, but we'll just touch base on that. The last time we were here, we discussed some of the pivots we've made. We built up the third car, the third bay. We discussed with you guys the exception that we were seeking relative to the foundation and the water table. The exposure this has from Owen Brown and being the historic district and visibility from North Main, we're asking the board to consider an exception that accommodates using siding below the water table just so that we don't have an obscene amount of parched foundation wall. uh those are only some of the so in our last conversation the board we were showing a delineation of two different exposures of siding that would kind of highlight uh the portion above and the portion below conversation the board board thought it would make sense a lot more sense to just match the horizontal freeze board and then keep the siding exposure consistent from top to bottom which is what we've, we agree with that. We like that better anyways. So we made that change and then resubmitted. So beyond that, there weren't other significant changes to the massing, the architecture, the trim, et cetera, that you guys have seen previously. I ACTUALLY, FROM A MATERIAL STANDPOINT, TOO, THE WINDOWS ARE GOING TO BE A MARVIN WINDOW, WHICH IS ONE OF THE ACCEPTED WINDOW, I THINK IT'S MARVIN'S SIGNATURE, ONE OF THE ACCEPTED HISTORIC WINDOWS IN THE DISTRICT. WE ARE GOING TO USE HARDY CEMENT THAT'S PAINTED TO MATCH WHAT'S ALREADY ON THE EXISTING HOUSE, EDITIONS WE'RE ATTACHING TO, AND THEN AN ASPHALT SHINGLE ROOF.

Mr. Brown, did you have questions or comments?

Only one. One of the staff comments was regarding the windows, which are, I assume they're Did you there to match the existing detached garage is that correct in appearance, I mean with that because they're all cases are on. Right, but they don't that they have that vertical million in the center. The so they all look the same whether they operate as an on or a case.

Right there's a there's a there's a couple double homes that we are shown in the previous elevation.

Mister should reach which match the House correct, yes, it don't match the House.

Our casements with a single vertical.

And that matches the garage, correct? Isn't there a single window? There's a picture. Yeah, in the back over there. Is that where that came from?

I mean, I think it came from that, but also picked up on, you know, the double homes you see here with the single vertical. I think we're, we're, you know, when it, when it's a smaller punched window, like we're showing the three by threes, the double hung proportions are pretty bad. So that's why we'd show it as casement for function. And then the single vertical would just reflect in our opinion, what's shown in the house.

THE WINDOWS ARE ALL IDENTICAL. YES. EXCLUDING OPERATION. YEAH. THAT'S FINE. JUST ADDRESSING THE STAFF'S COMMENT. I HAVE NO ISSUE WITH THAT.

Other questions. You say more of an ultimate or did you just say more.

I apologize, I believe it's the more of an ultimate is the one that would use use recently. I think that's the line that the the city acknowledges is appropriate for the historic district.

Yeah, the old yeah, yes, more of an ultimate yeah, so I didn't want you to go to yeah, it's not just one of them.

No, it's not Martin vinyl. Martin also that yes.

you could change that through the uh the board yeah i saw like the sierra pacific was listed we hadn't seen that window but which is not yeah i'm not saying it's not appropriate we just haven't seen it no and they're trying to get it approved but that's their problem so we would go with one of the approved ones marvin ultimate it's fine it was like one of the conditions yeah you could add that in yeah yeah

The other one was, actually that was, the casement windows are extensively used on that back addition. And especially with both elevations, the east, especially the south is very visible from 3 as well as on Brown and it's just an inconsistency using the double home versus are using the casement versus the double home. It's you know most evident on the South. Right. I'm sorry I was just going to say I think it's I feel it's too much of a deviation from what you expect to see on the double home set.

And understood, I mean one thing I would to know I think you know you can see from the way great is falling here. The odds that you're able to see this view from Main Street or probably very unlikely if possible just because great drops after a portion of the House so starts to slow back down and main streets continue to climb. The reason we're not showing a double hung, honestly, is because you can see how the windows are relative to the horizontal freeze board. That's a fixed location relative to the house. Does that kind of make sense? For the lower portion. For the lower portion, yeah.

But for the dormers particularly, I think.

Gotcha. Yeah. So the dormers, you know, I would say though, characteristically, the windows in the dormers want to be sort of inferior to the mass of the house just because they are like, you know, smaller moves to activate the roofline. So if you're talking about the windows and the dormers, right, we feel like the proportions are pretty fitting. Sorry, I thought you were talking about the windows in the garage.

The last portion of the addition all the way to the left.

Yeah. Yeah.

So the reason that you put the casement in the dormers?

Versus a different operation?

Most of the house is double hung, except for that connector.

Correct. Well, I think the reason that most of the house is double hung is because they have enough wall space to make the proportions of the double hung look good. When you have a smaller window, a double hung cuts that window in half. So it makes a smaller window feel even chunkier because you've now divided it into two. That's why we would advocate for a casement operation. But we'd also say that we're matching the character of the house through the vertical mullion, which is what Mr. Brown asked about. So the reason we're showing a casement operation is because the window is small, and we don't want to make the small window look smaller by dividing it in half with a double-hung operation. But we feel that we are matching the house to the Munton pattern, the grill pattern.

But there's also the horizontal because of the double-hung, so it's not just a vertical. That's my opinion. Understood. That's all I have.

Mr. Worker. I get what you're saying but I also kind of agree that you know what's been proposed kind of mimics the double hung with the vertical but doesn't duplicate it which is what we don't want to have happen we wanted to so you can see that it's a difference from the existing as an addition so And plus with the lower window on the bottom being in what's so called the basement band line. I think it makes it feel more like that's associated to that with still feeling that it's tied to the window with a double. and not trying to force it or be a bigger window with a double hung, which would have to happen. And I appreciate you coming in several times, I think, to go over this prior to this meeting, which helps get this understanding and alignment from that standpoint. So that's all I got.

Yeah, I agree. I think, you know, if the House had, you know, six over six, it would be a different conversation. But because of how the double homes are split, I'm actually fine with the with the windows that are proposed. I do think if you use the double hung those donors, it's just too squat. It just it wouldn't look right. Uh huh. and yeah i'm fine with the with the uh how you treated the what would have been nine feet of parched block uh i think it's a much better look nobody has any other questions or comments i think product spec sheets just need to be submitted to staff

Are you keeping the existing detached garage? I can't remember. Yes. Yeah. You're just regrading them back there. You said something about the wall or wasn't there something about that?

Yeah, the whole wall's coming out. Yeah, that whole wall's coming out. Yeah. is the concrete going around the side of that garage coming out also yeah so actually uh we're currently at i think 41.1 impervious percent uh you guys know a lot book by code is 40. um but uh i think right now what we're sitting at is like 36. so you're reducing we're reducing which is rarely what happens in these projects but it kind of just tells you like there's a there's an obscene amount of hardscape there right now so yeah we feel like that's a win losing that retaining wall and all that concrete

The site plan shows it. It's just an L-shape now versus the whole back area. So it's just the front doors of this one and the front doors of the other one, or what would be the front door of the other one.

So the motion, if we would make sure that we acknowledge the exception due to the site conditions and what the applicant has done to create what seems to be a separation, almost like a carriage house between the main home and the addition.

in the condition that it's more of an ultimate.

Yeah, all product inspections would have to be submitted. Can you do the motion?

The section.

I can start. I was tracking the exception to III-1G3 as the project is designed in a response to a unique situation. This is a historic building. It is separated from the main building, main mass, as Mr. Caputo mentioned, also based on the grade that the applicant is working with. And it would not be appropriate to apply that much parched foundation to a historic building addition.

to approve with the notes that staff has just noted for us as a recap and that the specification sheet should also be submitted confirming window type and sidings.

Second.

All in favor? Aye. Anybody opposed? All right.

Thanks to the board for working through this with us.

26-14731 Church Street, and this is window and door replacement in the historic district.

I can provide some brief background. The board had looked at this proposal last year, and we actually had a site visit in the fall of 2025 last year. The submittal has been updated to include additional information. The proposed windows, it's a window replacement and door replacement. WINDOWS ARE WOULD BE A MARVIN ULTIMATE SERIES WINDOW AND THE BOARD THE WOOD ENTRY WINDOW DOORS ARE THERE ARE SPEC SHEETS FOR THOSE AS WELL SO THAT'S JUST A QUICK BACKGROUND FOR THE BOARD

You just need to name relationship to the application.

Yeah, I've been so be with Kesselman construction group a 6500 Davis industrial Parkway and so on. And with the contractor so.

I don't recall who is at this site visit Mister Brown were you at it.

I think it was I was there and to you don't know.

Well, I can give a little bit of an update from the site visit of what we saw. So this front window on the left is not actually a double hung window. That's actually two pieces of glass with a piece of wood that somebody stuck in between. So they just, they created their own like divided sash, I guess. I guess just some.

Yeah, that's what it looks like.

Yeah, it's not a double hung window. It's just two pieces of glass with a piece of wood between them. And then on the rear, those windows were non-conforming anyway. For sure, yeah. So going to the Marvin Ultimate is an upgrade to the windows. Those, yes, it's an actual upgrade.

The house appears to, like that room appears to be an addition at some point, because the siding, if you look on the house, is way different. Like it looks similar, but one is in much better condition. So yeah, those windows are of much lesser grade currently. Yeah, it looks like a 70s edition. Yeah.

Like a 1970s edition to the house. So the Marvin windows would be, and that window in the front is in terrible shape. It's really rough.

Yeah, she has plastic over it because it's like equivalent to being open.

Yeah. And the doors were, I think, two of them are non-conforming. They're not wood. The front door is, but it was in pretty rough shape.

Yeah, the front door, it has a half-inch daylight crack. If you look at it from the inside when it's shut, it just wasn't maintained very well. And then the door, the other door, which is the one... That one. It also is just in bad condition part of this is they're going to have to replace some of the trim would around that just because it's so run it out. The flower box fell off the front window as well since then just to the snow.

So so I would agree that you know what we'd rather see it repaired than replaced these are in a condition that replacement is appropriate for this one from from what I saw the site visit.

only other window is the little bathroom window up high which is also uh somebody replaced at some point with something so it's it's not original that little one number two so miss marshal you were at the site visit do you have anything to add

Yeah, I was just, you may have just clarified it before, but I missed it. So the front window that has that three-quarter look, what to style in the Marvin Ultimate, are you doing it?

Yeah, so we're just gonna replicate it, because you guys had mentioned you wanted that, I guess it's a little more than a third, but that he measured it out, the guy from Marvin, there's there is so let's go 1 3rd 2 3rd it's just gonna be operable now that's good most importantly not leaking air into the house I'm thinking that perhaps I mean there are styles of that window like that for it and sometimes they have like a

Some decorative maybe decorative millions and it's maybe that's this year to some time or could even have been the thing that's but probably some of the decorative yet the there's no there's none nothing like that on the House anywhere so you guys. Yeah, I was just still wanted that to 3rd 3rd or whatever you want to say.

The split like you just want to split like that you do I feel yeah, OK that's what so.

Mr. Brown, did you have any questions or comments?

My only one question. So the windows seem pretty clear, like the spec. The doors, it wasn't clear to me that those are also, like the lights are like two divided lights. It's not...

So just background on the doors, we're getting those from the same supplier. They're not Marvin's, but they're from the same people we source them from. So part of the reason it took so long for me to come back here is just because of cost-wise we had to work out with her, but these are very expensive doors. So I can get you spec sheets for them. They better have them. That's what I'm saying. We just want to make sure they're applied and it's not just between the glass. Yeah, no, it's not. If it's between the glass, I'm going to have a problem with somebody. So it should be.

My other question is really maybe a staff question or a board question. In cases like this where there's a historic wood door that has a storm door over the front of it, I assume the storm door stays there. Kind of as it is. I mean, it almost feels like a shame to put this, you know, replacing this door with this, as you say, expensive, beautiful replacement wood door and then storm door stays. But is that a...

It's typically been up to the owner. There's so many around town in the historic district, but...

If you recommend to her, and I recommend it to her, she's a very nice lady. She may want to see her door.

If the new door doesn't require a storm door because the new door is sealed and performs all the functions that the storm door probably was put there to do, it would be great to have it taken off and have the trim restored, whatever. But I don't know if that's something that we can ask for.

We historically haven't. I can recommend. I was going to do that anyways. I'll make a recommendation then that's non-binding.

Mr. Dinsky.

I don't have any other questions.

Okay. So it's a full glass with The door? What am I looking at there? That's a side, isn't it? That's a side one.

That's not the front door.

So is there... I was just looking for it here.

Is it the front? Yeah, and if you want, I can have a... I can get a spec sheet and also take some photos with a tape measure of the existing doors if you want to do like a...

I'M OKAY.

I THOUGHT THE OTHER ONE WAS GOING TO BE THE FRONT AND I WAS NOT COOL WITH THAT.

NO. THERE'S TWO.

OKAY.

ALL RIGHT. MR. WORKLE.

YES. THANKS FOR SUBMITTING THE CUT SHEETS ON THE WINDOW ITSELF. BUT IT WOULD BE GREAT IF YOU SHOWED THE PICTURE FRAME AROUND IT AND THE DETAILING OF HOW YOU'RE DOING THAT, IF THAT'S GOING TO OR IS ALL EXISTING GOING TO REMAIN. so you mean like the the trim and everything yeah because you know we get a lot of the window replacements and all we see is the window replacement but no detailing of how it's how deep it's set in to match the existing depth and how the picture window frame and sill and all that's going to be detailed once it's replaced

When we had talked on site, it was we don't intend to change the trim outside of doing repairs to it. So some of it's going to have to get bond out and sanded and other parts of it will have to get replaced, but it won't be... We're not changing profiles. And these are 2x4 walls, so the window's going to have a pretty fixed set point with how deep it's set in. I guess we're not looking to change trim or anything.

So the trim and everything is going to stay the same, you're just replacing the window unit inside of the trim? Correct, correct.

And if we have to replace it, it's going to match. Because some of it, like the head casings on a couple of them, can be reused. The front one where the flower box was attached, that cannot be reused. So we're just going to be recreating what was there to match, which technically that wasn't even visible. Because it was behind the flower.

So if you can remember to keep the profile and shadow lines and what's there. So right now that like that front windows got the picture frame and from the trim, it's in set like two inches is what looks like it has. Yeah. So don't put that when replacement window out to the flush with the faces. For sure. Yeah. So all right. Yep. As long as that happens, I'll be happy. And then also the doors that you're replacing, those are going to be simulated divided lights.

Yes. That means the woods on top of the glass, what you're saying. Yeah. Yep.

I was going to say, so I just was flipping through the spec sheets here, and it says it has two things, like 2.13 is simulated divided lights, but then it's listing everything, and then it says 2.14 grills between the glass. So are we circling? Are we saying definitively which one? Maybe there was an option. It has a page number on it, so I don't know. What is it?

Who's making the conditions? If you just make a note. I'm making a condition. Yeah. I've gone through so many spec sheets on this job, so I'm sorry.

Is that the only condition?

Yeah, I think it's divided together.

I move to accept the proposal as presented with the condition that the lights will be simulated by the lights with the exterior applied.

Second?

Second.

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

Cool. Thank you. Paint colors. If we paint the house that new colors.

Great. 26 dash 274126 North Main Street. This is a window replacement in the historic district.

Yes, it's proposed window replacement, 126 North Main Street. There were a variety of windows proposed to be replaced, existing wood to wood, and then also existing vinyl to vinyl. So we did have some comments on that. And to follow up with the Secretary of Interior standards that relate to those items.

Do you just state your name in relationship to the application?

or Heather Davies, Davies Architecture.

If you want to address the staff comments, that would be helpful.

Sure. And just to clarify, we were proposing aluminum clad Marvin Ultimate for all of the windows. There's sort of three, almost three groups of windows. The first six are in the front. And then there's... 3 along the South side of the building which overlook on the 2nd floor they overlook the flat roof and those are currently vinyl but we're we're proposing to replace them with Marvin ultimate and then there's 2 in the rear overlooking the parking lot and those are currently vinyl we're proposing Marvin ultimate for all 11 of them.

So this sheet will be updated, you're saying?

So it says existing. Oh, these are existing. I'm sorry. Okay. Yep. So they're all Marvin. Understood. And... you know the existing the front windows. Yeah, there's the top photos show the existing conditions where they're currently would and in poor shape. They have storms on the outside. The sashes don't fully close. So instead of repair, we're proposing to replace. And then These are showing the south-facing windows, which are currently vinyl. The building next to them raised the roof. because of adding insulation below. So right now the sills are only a few inches from above that roof. And there's been a bunch of deterioration because of water and snow buildup. So we are proposing to raise the sale about five to six inches. Um, and there's a drop ceiling in there so we can, we can still keep the same window size. Just, um, bring it up a little bit. And especially the front six windows, it's quite drafty. And yeah, there's quite a bit of, because of the storms, they're not really able to operate the windows. So we're hoping to get nice new ones in there.

Mr. Brown, questions or comments?

So on the front windows, you're proposing the no grills, right? No, the same. Correct.

We were going to match what's there.

I guess regarding whether or not, I mean, you commented prior, John, that the last application that the the windows were based on the site visit beyond repair um i don't know if i mean i i all this makes sense to me but with just looking at the pictures i don't know that i feel comfortable saying that they can't be repaired so i don't think we've ever approved window replacement in the historic district without a site visit So I mean, I would just want to see them in person to confirm that the six, obviously the vinyl windows, great to replace those with Marvin Ultimates, but the six front-facing windows, I would want to see.

Yeah, I would recommend that we have a site visit.

And then one other question on where you're in the back, where you're raising the sill. You'll raise the sill, but it will still be in line with the window, right? You're not going to bring out the wall. There's just not a detail for how that works there. Correct.

We're just raising it. Currently, if you go to the existing photos, it was a vinyl replacement at some point that— is within the brick opening, but yeah, they framed out above the window there. So we're just pushing those windows up to get away from the roof. So there's currently a drop ceiling in those rooms, but the window will just go above the drop ceiling, which is currently how the front windows are already.

Do you have anything? So make sure I'm reading. So the windows will go all the way up to that brick horizontal above or just below the arch? Yes. OK.

I don't have any additional questions but agreed to a site visit.

OK. Does everybody agree that a site visit is in order for this one?

Yes. So I'll move to the board to take a site visit for this to review on the conditions. Second.

All in favor? Aye. So staff will work with you to schedule a site visit. It is generally, it would be this coming Tuesday?

Yeah, we'll coordinate on that, but that's their general date. Okay. All right, thank you.

Thank you.

26-403-204 Sunset Drive. This is a front porch siding and stone application.

That this application was withdrawn after the agenda was posted.

We don't have to make a motion or anything on it, correct? No. Okay. 26-296-150 Aurora Street. This is an addition in the historic district.

It's just brief background. This is one 50 or a street located in the historic district. Elevations are here up and can explain additional information, but proposed dormers along the front elevation. Bump out at the roof towards the rear. and a renovation of an existing addition on the home. So we provided some staff comments related to the preservation briefs and that's all I have.

Thank you.

State your name in relationship to the application.

Eric Kuchak, Sojourn Architects.

Justin Capella, Sojourn Architects. If you want to walk through the staff comments and

Sure. So the addition has three dormers on the front elevation to allow for natural light into the existing attic space, which is converted into living space. All three aligning with the center line of the existing either double windows and center of the existing porch below. The exterior rear elevation has, if you can scroll down. Also has rear gable reverse extension into the existing. And all of this is to gain some head clearance into this new third story attic space, which is being converted to living space. All of this, that shed dormer also is capturing, maintaining that slope so we can still have and maintain that architectural shingle that we're matching to the existing. The rear window is prioritize as a characteristic of the existing home to maintain that existing character. And on the side of that mudroom that we have that was originally a three-season room, they're using that as cabinet space against that exterior wall. and maintaining that existing, either maintaining that existing wood trim details and then just replacing those windows with the height of windows that would be right above the cabinet, right above the backsplash. And either that or we can also have an alternative as the boreal trim details that match the existing And there's some photos that we have that are, it shows the state of repair that that back would, it's starting to deteriorate, so that is our proposal is to match the details with the boreal trim. I think there's some photos around that. Yeah, there you go. Of course there's a tree in the way.

so that's that's an overall scope for the entire work so you see the staff comment regarding the especially the rear dormer roof line and did you look at lowering that below that ridge

So, I mean, we do have an alternative option to that. Are you stating below so it doesn't meet the peak of that reverse gable doesn't meet the peak of the existing roof?

I think the intent of the comment, and noting the preservation brief, and Nick, you can jump in if I'm not saying this correctly, but the intent of that comment was that... Not only has this changed the character of the house considerably in its historic structure, it's in the historic district, but it's also coming right up to that roof line. And it should be, well, it's not maybe a true addition. It should be subordinate to the house itself. And it's coming right up. Is that what Steph's comment went to?

Yeah, that it was pretty impactful on that rear roof line.

So if a solution was presented that we just reduced the plate height of that existing gable down maybe a foot or so and still maintain the existing form, would that be a alternative solution that would be, that would

would work well with i i guess accommodate the the briefs statement on is that option or is that that's number that's b right so like when you look at this elevation here right which is which is what you would see kind of driving down the street i know it would be a slightly different angle but you know uh that's that's a pretty substantial change to the roof line in front and back and and i think that's the concern that was that was your staff's comment was coming from is When you look at that, that is substantially changing the profile of that house. It's not like a subordinate little addition off, you know, like the one off to the side down below. It's really changing the main mass of that house. So I believe that's where their comment was coming from. Maybe we can run to the board in that, but I mean, Mr. Brown, your thoughts.

that i would argue that's not an addition it's a substantial change to the historic house itself and it especially on the i mean i know that the back is a much more substantial change but the preservation brief says the addition of the dormers on the front substantially changes the character of um the building and it's not uh I mean, I know dormers, there are dormers in the historic district. There are no dormers like this on Aurora. There are wall dormers on a few of the houses. But I just, I think that for me, it would be very difficult to justify a change to the historic mass of the house at all. I mean, you know, there's... So that's kind of where I am on that. I do have a couple other questions about the siding. What's the current, the existing siding? It's Hardy Siding. It is Hardy. Okay. it stays because there were a couple comments about notes about like feathering in like the areas and I did have a question there about the removal of the one window on the side to accommodate the kitchen. I think it's on the left window. For me, that's not as big a deal as the as the roofline change. But that still is a, you know, a mod, a modification of convenience to the historic mass. would be hard to justify.

One of our solutions for that, as we understand that that's a drastic change, is allowing for closed shutters, the existing closed shutters, to be in that once open window opening and still maintain a closed opening. but at least allow those existing shutters to be there.

So sign it and then apply the shutters?

There are shutters there now. And if you scroll up on that window, or sorry, down.

Yeah.

Basically take those existing shutters and turn them into a closed shutter detail there with the trim around it.

I apologize, this is the north side? Which side is this?

That's technically the north side, yeah.

That's the most substantial thought I have. The most substantial part of your project is the third floor, and I just don't see how you can not dramatically alter the massing of the historic structure. I think you need the headspace and you need the light to use it up there, but unfortunately Unfortunately, from the perspective, I mean, you know, I think the way to gain space is to add to the addition or to, you know, to reconfigure the addition or not to modify the main house. I mean, one of the things we talk about often is that if the changes were to be taken away, you know, or, you know, how do you, does the original historic structure, is it visible? Like, can you take the structure, you know, what's added away and it's still there? And in this case, I don't think that is possible. It's such a

I agree with what you're saying there. In fact, I think if you look at the left side elevation, that to me reads very differently from the original roof line. So I can see where you're going with that. And as I'm looking at some other questions, it looks like, still on the elevation, but the doors, so you're adding a door there. and replacing the one below, is that correct?

Correct, yeah, that's the portion of the house that was an addition. So it would be a new full light glass door and then another double glass light door.

And so what was there was not a historic door or anything, because you said that's an addition. questions, but I do generally agree with what's been stated previous to me too.

Uh, yeah, I feel especially about the third for Gable on and the shed that is just extremely impactful and changing that I agree with the secretary of interiors and I just think it would be totally inappropriate to do that. Um, The idea about the window doing the shutters who I would be possibly. OK with that I'd rather have the window. I don't want to see the blank him have it removed totally and nothing nothing to replace it. But it just that rear. Gable first cable is just way off the charts for me impact.

Workley?

I have them make everybody I like all the changes you've done on the first floor in the back area on the upper story. The dormers in front, I agree the information the back if it was more like a dormer on the roof itself, I think would be more successful. So maybe if you can make it just a shed dormer off the back or something where it's more pertinent from that standpoint, I think that would be more of feeling

but would not change the overall look of the building and be such a back you know massive component historical precedence of a dormer like that is something like this that we found that's using the you know two gables that would then when you do look at that side elevation um it would match more in line with you know the height of one of these dormers in the front and then we put the shed roof in between them So here's another historical precedence from Connecticut with three dormers in the front, which we think would fit.

Yeah, I would say I think that's getting more on the right track. I mean, the dormers in the front wouldn't be an unprecedented thing in the historic district. I believe there's been a couple of houses over the years that have had some dormers like that added. I just think that, yeah, as it's drawn here, the dormer in the back is just too much of a change to the rear. And it is visible. You're not going to be able to hide it. right it's not just kind of buried in the back single story edition uh so yeah i think you know i'd like to see a different something like that would lower it but obviously we have to see that in elevations uh and again yeah i'm pretty well fine on on the uh the changes to the first floor uh like that edition uh as long as you're you know matching those details it doesn't matter to me if you use boral uh And I don't really have an issue with the doors, adding those. The window, it kind of creates two problems removing that window. One is it is visible from the street view. It's not obscured. And two, you should have fenestration within 12 feet. I'm not a big fan of the closed shutters. I mean, I know we've allowed it on sheds and some kind of things that are way out of public view. When you look at the photos that you gave for the house, it looks like you took them from the sidewalk, even on the side, you're on that north elevation. It's visible from the sidewalk. It's very visible. So I'm not a big fan of removing that window and just putting closed shutters.

The other option we've had is they've left the window, but just blacked it out on the inside. That was the other option you could do.

My recommendation would be to table it to make some revisions and then resubmit.

would be the would be just as far as far as the the rear gable goes um is that is that what we're focusing on um and if we come presented with that shutter detail and or maintaining it with blocking it on the interior is there a direction that that's leaning i mean is or should we just resubmit and that'll be voted upon

I guess I don't quite understand your question.

Are you saying... Well, I don't want to come back, you know, have to continue to come back for things that aren't, you know, understanding that rear gable, we need to revise that. But the window shutter detail versus, you know, the blacked out interior maintaining that existing window. That's understanding, trying to understand that direction.

Almost like a round of the board opinion on that one item.

Yeah, we can go through...

For me personally, I would need to understand. You said there's examples. There's precedent of adding dormers on the front of historic buildings. I would want to see them. Because I honestly... not say the dormers are not a historic feature, but they're not a feature of this historic house. So I would question the addition of the front dormers as well. Not because I don't like them, but because they change significantly. I think the look, not to the extent that the rear dormer does. So I just don't want to say, yes, if you change the rear dormer, I'd be fine with it. I'd want to see some more about what boards have done in the past regarding the addition of them.

There's the corner of College and Aurora. The south, it would be the south, Sid's house. Yeah. They had a door. It's on the south side of the street. Yeah, south. I guess it would be the southwest corner. Yeah, southwest corner of College and Aurora. The dormers on that house were added probably 20 years ago, I think is when they... That's when I could think of. It was before I was on the board, but I do recall them having those dormers added.

But otherwise, I agree with what people said. I mean, I have no issues really with the first floor changes and the changes to the addition, the existing addition. I think the window closure would have to be, if it looked like a window from the outside, I'd definitely prefer that, even if the shutters were closed, because you'll still see behind the shutters. But I'd need to see a drawing or see what it looks like to know for sure. That's all.

Thank you. um just on the front dormers is that what we're we're just in general i guess kind of general direction overall like your general thoughts on on what what might be acceptable yeah and

The front dormers, I think, again, that's kind of an overall ruling of, they're not wrong for the architecture of this home. If we as a board feel like it's not changing the existing mass significantly, then I think they'll be okay. I think that's kind of the debate right now. most of the other changes other than, as discussed, the window. Do you know what the footage is between that window? Like if it came out all together, like is that more than 12 feet?

I'm sure it's less than 12 feet. Okay. Close. It's like 12.4. It's really close. You must have measured it.

Okay, so we're right at like where it needs to still be there. So yeah, I think I'm struggling with that one too, to remove it even as just shutters. I don't feel on this type of historic house that makes as much sense as in some other places where we've allowed it. So that's kind of general feedback.

I also wanted to point out compatibility to the neighbors. The house, when you look at that photograph of the front elevation and it's also showing a little of the east side there where you can see that window, but to the right there, it's almost like a little cape next to it. unless I'm not looking at this right, but your neighbor to the, is this on the south side of the road?

Yeah, to the south.

Yeah, so that's on the west, to the house's west side. There's a small slope that looks like a little cape, or I don't think it's a salt box. But you can see how much lower that next door neighbor is to this house, where you want to even go higher with all of these additions on the third floor. And this house is, you know, it's a classic colonial look, but it's not, it's really not that large of a house. And then you have the neighbor just right there next door on the west side, so much lower. And you're going to be adding quite a bit of additional height to that. I just think it needs to be rethought. And I would like to see that window stay.

Mr. Workley, anything more?

um i prefer the window staying with the back lip i think that's a better solution than closing the shutters off and my preference um the the normers in front i i do think are a little too dainty they don't match the other windows to some extent in size um long, you know, sticking them out way forward, having a really long roof line overpowers the daintiness of the front of them from the side angle. You know, it looks okay from the front elevation, but when you see the side, it's just a big, huge, long, proportional element that I think a lot of the board is having issue with that amount of Structure on the front on the back of it goes to a dormer of some sort. I think that would be much better solution not being inside the roof plan versus being a huge passes. From the elevation making it look like the second or 3rd story elevation. In the lower I'm good. That's it.

It's clarifying some use and party board are you saying an existing signing is hardy now is new houses hardy with world trim. When did that happen?

So we will table it and you guys make some revisions. So we have a motion to table.

Move to table this application for revisions.

All in favor?

Aye.

Thank you.

Thank you.

26-333-39 Laurel Lake Drive, and this is an addition.

This is a rear addition to one of the Laurel Lake Villas. This is Villa 39. There are just a few staff comments for the board to consider.

If you just state your name in relationship to the application.

Thelma Anderson, Marketing Director for Laurel Lake.

Brian Harvey, Estimator for Lewis Construction.

Chris Brower, Laurel Lake.

If you want to address the staff comments.

Yes, so I'd like to speak to the comment regarding the bay windows and the question of whether there should be a foundation beneath the bay window. These original 58 villas were built in circles with very similar looks and All of the existing original villas that have bay windows do not have foundations below them. So this would be the only one that would out of all of them.

Honestly, the bay window thing is because that's how the land development code is written. Generally, if it's not more than 18 inches off of the wall of the house, we've allowed that exception. It just hasn't been updated in the land development code yet.

Do we know how deep these are? Are they... Is it more than 18 inches? I don't know.

I think it was right at 18 inches. It was real close. That is an exception we have generally granted.

And it would just stay consistent with the rest of the villas? Okay. Thank you.

On the casement windows, on the back master bedroom, we were doing that to accommodate a king-size bed with end tables to be in between there. So I think we can get a king-size bed in there if we do do the sliders, the end tables would be in front of the window, but I think we can make that work.

All right, so Mr. Brown, questions or comments?

I don't really have an issue with either.

I don't have anything additional, right?

No, I'm fine.

Mr Berkeley. I'm all right. Look like it's out 2 feet has drawn.

Everyone I have 1 foot 6 inches.

she comes already 18 inches okay we're good we'll make sure it's one foot six inches i don't have any others well was there a foundation question oh that's just that's that was the yeah i'm good okay so somebody's going to make a motion yep

I'll move to approve as drawn. We don't have to make a comment on the basis. Second.

Okay. A second for Mr. Brown. All in favor? Aye. Anybody opposed? All right. Thank you. 26-374-11 South Main Street. And this is an ADA lift for the gazebo on the green. Yes.

This is the city let application. We had presented this in a high level to the board along with some of the other information for the gazebo but since then we we have coordinated with GPD group here to to develop drawings for the proposed lift. I did have a quick video that might help show how the lift functions. It's pretty unique. But as we talked, it essentially functions as stairs that integrates into a lift when in use, and then back to stairs. lift is customizable we have talked to the manufacturer and we have color matched the what the gazebo color to the what the lift can be the the manufacturer would run with that process so it could be a white lift they did recommend that the treads remain wood not painted white and the railings can be painted as well so we have the the colors matching in in that so yeah Any additional background for us?

And if you just state your name and relationship to that. Sure.

Yvonne Valentick, Senior Project Manager with GPD Group. Thank you. Thank you. We put together a couple of slides. Nick, you want to just click through? Again, the city was working with KGK initially to kind of come up with this idea to refresh the gazebo, which you can see is under construction now. The part that wasn't done by the city at this time is the stair. this ADA lift stair. So that's where we came in to do the ADA lift stair. So if you click Nick to the next slide, our scope of work is this stair assembly. It's one unit. It's anchored to the existing gazebo. There's an electrical connection to the existing panel as well. Mainly, you know, we're going to You know, that existing picture you see, I think it's a southeast corner of the gazebo. We're punching through there. We're going to modify that gazebo railing slightly. We're going to add a couple of posts there and then attach this stair slash ADA lift to the existing gazebo. All the other work, again, will be done as part of the city's current facelift project that they have going on. As Nick said, we worked with the city and the manufacturer to identify the system. It will be painted white at the factory. We're going to have them paint everything white. The wood railings are going to be painted by the contractor, though. And then, again, the stair, the treads are going to be mahogany. They were recommended not to paint those. I think it we did try to paint it and it might become slippery so avoiding that you know um it does have a safety feature hopefully you saw it in the video when this goes down as a lift there's this panel that comes up so nobody could come over and fall down in the lift and as the lift goes up that panel slides down you can see it in that first image that little little bit of panel. There is a mechanism too that if somebody goes underneath the stair it senses it and it will not operate if someone goes underneath the stair as well. There's two ways that there's two kind of wireless buttons to operate it. One down below and then one up top in the gazebo to operate the lift. So pretty neat solution, I think, to find ADA access to the pavilion without building a long ramp or really changing the character of the landscape and the park. If there's just a couple just again, here's the here's the plan view, you know in that southeast corner, the main main stairs are to the to the north, you can see we're just punching through we were adding to kind of posts there on the. on the gazebo structure. This is not attached to the posts. If you look at those details, this is a standalone kind of structure, kind of sitting down, but attaches to the actual side of the gazebo. If Nick, you're gonna click the next one. We kind of created some details. We're again very closely with the manufacturer. There's the existing condition to the left, and then the proposed condition to the right, and then a little section view of how the stairs attach to the bottom foundation of the gazebo, and we're matching the post that's already out there. would post that are on the other side of the gazebo and again as Nick said everything's intended to be painted white we got the color from the city to match everything else in the gazebo. And then the last one just kind of, oh, this shows just like what it looks like in section view. So you can see our stair, the lift to the left in the first detail, and then the existing kind of steps to the right. And then we kind of flipped it the other way, and then a front-on view of the gazebo. And then electrical is very minor. There's an existing panel there. It has space in the panel. We're just running some wire from that panel underneath and over to a little control center and an outlet. And then the buns operate wirelessly from that little control panel. And that'll just get mounted on the gazebo. Hopefully with the landscape that comes in after the fact, that'll hide any of it. really that's it any questions mr brown questions or comments

So it's a lot more risers than treads than the existing stair. And it looks to me like that's because they're open. It's an open riser. So they're only five inches high. Is that why it has to be?

Yeah, because when they come up, when it goes down, they collapse. And they create their flat surface.

And to avoid having an open riser that doesn't meet code, they're very short steps. Yes. And which causes them then to come out. i'm not a fan how it comes out into the walkway like i mean honestly i think i understand and i think even some people on the board mentioned that maybe a stair a lift that looked like a stair might be better but i mean i think that it's more um i think just a straightforward lift would be more um less intrusive like to the look of the gazebo than the stair, because I don't think the stair, I mean, regardless of what the color is, I mean, of it the fact that when it's in like kind of resting position it's up and everything's visible rather than like a lift that in resting position is kind of concealed by the landscaping around it um and the requirement that the railing existing railing be completely you know permanently removed um

Yeah, and the way it's positioned on this corner, too, the main kind of entrance in is the other side. The concrete that's getting redone is all much bigger on the other side. And this is really kind of like, I'll call it, if it had a back, this feels like the back of the gazebo.

I assume there's no way to match the, like, there's that, like, really kind of contemporary railing style. There's no way to modify that, I assume. That just kind of is what it is. Yeah.

I guess I don't have any other questions.

I guess I would have liked to have seen what if there are just straight lifts that could fully fit within the kind of depth of the planter.

maintain the railing when not in use um that's i would have liked to have seen that i know when we originally show this we had like three examples and some were straight lifts and i felt like those weren't well received from the from the board but that was my do we ever i feel like we never saw a drawing like not not a not a strong sheets they were correct yeah i mean

Yeah, I know. I mean, I've seen lifts that were, you know, where you could essentially build a lift into the platform of the gazebo. So that the lift itself is not something that's outside the existing gazebo, but a portion of the gazebo floor. I've seen that done in historic buildings. I mean, there's different, you know, and I don't know what is possible, but I'm just, I mean, seeing it and seeing that the length of it and the... I'm not crazy about it. I understand council wants to add accessibility to the gazebo, and I appreciate that.

I think, too, the lift, if it just looks like a lift all the time, just sitting there as a lift, it's not going to get used very often. So it's going to, from a visual perspective, it's going to, I think, stick out a little bit more, because then when you look at it, you're just seeing this lift attached about how do you prevent anybody from coming off the gazebo? Maybe we have to put a gate or something up there, but you know, it kind of starts.

The existing railing could be maintained as the gate.

but then you just have this lift sitting on them where the stair we felt like looks more purposeful as like it at least belongs to the structure, feels part of the structure. Nick, if you could go to the next plan. I mean, I think we just site plan real quick.

Let's get through this. Let's get through all the board members' comments.

Those are my, just my thoughts. Mr. Denske.

I don't think I have really, I mean, a couple of things that he had mentioned were kind of the same thing. I wish the stair rails matched up a little bit more to the gazebo, things like that, but I don't have anything separate from what he just said.

Yeah, when I was at one of the other board meetings and we talked about, I was hoping that the side, the balusters or whatever you want to call them, could have been altered to look more like the ones on the railing of the gazebo. And I don't know why they couldn't. Maybe it's because of the metal. When you say customizable, I thought that might be part of it. So it is a little disappointing, but it'll still be this blending. And I think with the standard lift, isn't it more of a box? Like you would have a permanent side to the boxes, so you'd see a big white box there rather than this staircase that sort of blends. Except for the fact that it doesn't look more like the railing that's on the gazebo side. I'm okay with that, the way it is.

Yeah, I'm good with the operable stair and the lift in this format versus what Alim was just saying about the clunkiness of just a lift and that it's not as user-friendly as this could be when it's not being used as a lift. So I think it blends in because of that usability. The two concerns I have is that, you know, so you said like in the right view here, whenever it's up, you have safety so that if somebody crawls under, it doesn't come down. Is it the same thing when it's going up? So like if somebody's hand was in between the riser and the two treads?

Yeah, there's a warning system anytime anyone's underneath. If it's either, if it's like down and it's about to go up or if it's up and it's going to come down.

Right, but as it's moving to go up, if somebody reached in between the risers, is that the same situation?

We could double check that. That's a good question. I'm not sure if they put their hand through the risers level instead of crawling underneath. Yeah, that's a great question.

The question I asked before was could you have a material that's attached to the bottom and the top that just compresses and then doesn't allow that to happen if that would be the case? You know, just have a cloth material in there so that it looks like a riser but it's not there. Yeah. And then the sides, I just would, you know, I'm just concerned about that triangular space itself crawling in there from that standpoint, if, you know, if you could be coordinated with cities, having rocks on the side or something of that nature that helps distract that that would be more.

I think the city would be open to doing something with on the sides, some sort of landscape or something.

Yeah, something that can be done or maybe rather than building something that's either triangular shaped or a wall of that nature. So that's just what I'm saying.

Yeah, I think we want to definitely avoid like modifying the structure because they build it to a certain spec.

And if it's landscape, it would be much easier to deal with rather than just robbery. But some kind of Stone Age would be great. That's the only two things that I have to be concerned with.

I think no matter what you put there, whether it's a stationary lift or these stairs, I mean, from a historic standpoint, it's not going to be exactly fitting. So I think this is a good alternative to what's not great alternatives to begin with anyway. So I'm fine with it.

Is that the only railing option that lays stronger?

Yeah. Okay.

And one question where are the operators at how does it actually work is or button somewhere or what do you do if you go I think make to the next plan.

She got yeah, so what we put one operator down there on the post. And then the other operator is up top on the other post.

The top ones attached to close that you're adding the bottom when you're adding a new post yeah, what does that look like it's just a 4 by 4 white painted post sitting in the landscape.

You said they're wireless? Yes.

Would there need to be any sort of signage saying what it is, operating it, a number to call if it breaks, anything like that?

I'm almost thinking that that white post that you're adding, if you could add one on each side, that kind of mimics the top rail, and then there would be a bottom rail. I think it would make more sense than just having a post out there all by itself. I don't prefer that it's back from the face of the steps, but I understand that's in the concrete, so I know it's got to be somewhere in the landscaping component. Is the dash line the accessible path to get to that button?

Yeah, just showing that there's plenty of room there. The posts that are part of the gazebo are beefier. We didn't want to make something very large in the landscape for just like this little push button controller, so that's why we just went with just a four by four post.

But I don't want it to be hidden either, that somebody doesn't know what it is or what it's for, that it hides. So if there's some way that we could make it an element that maybe mimics the post or the base of the columns or something above that makes some sense why it's there.

I don't know.

With it being standalone, I don't know. If you made it bigger, you probably want to keep it smaller because it's just kind of standing there. It's just a hold-a-button.

Is it PVC or something? What is it?

Is it just a wood post? It's just a wood post, yeah. We can match the ones that are up above. It's too big. With the cap and everything. We went the other way. We kind of had the same thought. It's like something just smaller because it's not really that much function but just holding a little controller on it. I mean, there is an option to mount the controller, I think, on the actual railing, you know, on the railing of the structure. We just felt like it might be harder to get to if you did do that for somebody, you know, in a wheelchair.

So in the plan, what moves and what doesn't move? Can you go back to the three elevations? All right, so can you zoom on the right one when it's up? So is that are those 2 front post actually in the concrete area and then.

He said that the yes, they said in the country.

That that's like their whole statement structure and where that if it was mounted to that where with the the button be.

It is one of those in between the they put it in between the like the pickets of that structure.

I prefer being there than on a post. Because then somebody knows they're going up to it. The button's right there. They don't have to go to one side and then wait and come back to the front of it. It just seems user-friendly, much better there. And we don't have the additional post.

I have a question too, because in the video it looked like, I assume because of the nosing, that when it operates, it extends. It takes up a longer footprint in operation than it does as a stair. And I'm just wondering, I see your space next to your post there, but now, is there space between the bottom of the stair and the edge of the concrete?

It doesn't get longer. It just goes straight up and down.

Yeah, I think there's a flap. There's a flap that comes, but the stairs themselves don't change footprint. There's just kind of a stop.

There must be a nosing on the stairs to meet code. So I think it does... Like in the video, it looked like to come together, they didn't overlap. They kind of expanded. And then, so like you'd gain like an inch per tread. And I just was looking, so where the red line is kind of, which I assume is the extent of the, Does that red line have significance at the bottom of the stairs? Is there room? Is there ADA clearance there? Like when it's in operation to get on the lift between there and the edge because it's kind of not completely aligned with the sidewalk but not. I just think in the context of moving the buttons around and want to think about that too. Because that your ADA kind of rectangle was kind of in like model space without the context of the planter around it. And there's not one for the base of the You know what I mean? The base of the stair. When it uses a lift, like when you come off the lift or enter the lift, the ADA must, you know, how much space you need.

Well, that's why I'm saying if it's on the side of that front of the panel, they've got either the front approach to hit it or the side approach to hit it. Whereas the other one, they got to maneuver to the side, hit the button, back up, maneuver around to get back to the front.

You know, there may not be room. It looks pretty tight to me between the bottom of the stair and the edge of the concrete before the planter starts.

honestly that's that's up to the city in terms of us kind of recommending i don't know they can look at that but that's yeah that's that's up to them to figure out and the from a safety perspective when that goes up maybe go back to the where the three across image was um that okay so on the far right the upper level is there is there a pretty large gap between basically the little um piece that comes up and then what goes across like i'm just thinking if a child is on that and decides to can they jump out of that like this upper level yeah i guess they could yeah they could jump out we did we had that a

on a wheelchair, they can't roll backwards. But yeah.

I agree. I think it's perfectly fine for a wheelchair. This is a town with a lot of children in it. And I just am curious if that's the, is there anything else that can maybe be a secondary, like nothing else that can go across?

Yeah, nothing that they provide as a manufacturer.

Sorry, mom of three boys.

Yeah, understood.

Yeah.

Anything else?

I move to approve as presented. And you'll coordinate the position of the button with staff to make it as easily accessible to someone in the wheelchair and not having someone with them to go push the button.

So it's a recommendation to move the button?

into the lift into the lift yeah okay even are we sure that can occur i i just haven't been yeah that is an option that's an option and we're allowing them to coordinate with staff so if it's impossible okay okay that's helpful yeah okay so we need a second oh a second all in favor anybody opposed okay thank you thank you 26-320-159 Hudson Street, and this is a new home.

Sadly, our presentation does not have music. I can play the movie again. I can play the video again. I was getting into it. My name is Brendan Boatwright, and I'm the project manager for this with McAlpin Architecture. Thank you.

Nick, if you want to introduce yourself.

Yeah, I don't have much else other than, this has been in front of the board in terms of informal reviews. This is a formal application for a new house located at 159 Hudson Street. There has been some changes and we do have a few comments to go along with that.

So you already stated your name in relationship to the application. I know you've had a couple of informals. If you just kinda wanna go through where we've evolved to

Yeah, I would love to. And also this is Jill Harrington. She is the client and owner. So some of the previous comments, just to like go through them, I'll be quick. We reoriented the house to be parallel with the street. We relocated the carriage house to be in the rear all the way behind the main house. We have brought the main mass to be within 10% of the adjoining houses on either side. the front of the main mass. We are proposing design sensitive to the neighborhood by using similar materials and keeping the building at an appropriate scale. Like as I've mentioned previously, there's only an eight foot ceiling on the front section of the house and the materials are, painted brick floral siding and wood shake roof with we're proposing the Marvin ultimate wood windows that are clad on the exterior we revised the house roof line in the front projections to be more of a singular central mass. Um, the front door has moved forward. And so what were considered, I believe wings that were projecting, uh, more than five feet are now, uh, they now meet the five foot rule, but with one exception of a bay window, which I will touch on in a bit. Um, We added additional windows on each side of the house to meet the 12 foot fenestration rule. And we also relocated the drive based on a neighbor's comment from our last meeting. We really are trying to do everything we can to have this just be a happy and charming addition to Hudson Street. I will touch on the new comments, the first of which was about that bay window, which I mentioned. The first comment is basically saying that we still project more than the five feet in the front from the main mass. If you see the bay window on the right side, of the gable, the gable that's on the right, that bay window does project another couple of feet past the main mass, but it's only a single story and since it doesn't project out too forward, we would love to have it if possible. I think it kind of adds to the charm and cottage nature of this and it's, You know, so that's, that's obviously up for discussion. But I don't know if we want to focus on one at a time.

What's too far? What is your dimension?

It's on the plan. Sorry, I left my plans. It's if you go to the floor plan, first floor plan, which one more after this. Yeah, it is. If you zoom in to the top. If you go down just a hair, it's two foot four is the projection. And as you can see, it does step back. So. we'd love to keep it. I think it, I think it helps kind of enhance the cottage nature of the house, but I just, I hadn't seen that rule until this meeting, these comments.

Okay. So yeah, why don't we just start with that? That way we can get through these one at a time. Yeah. Mr. Brown objection. This is, this is comment a

You're taking the foundation goes around that bay window, right?

Yes. And it comes up to the sill.

Given the layout of that bay window and the fact that the construction of the wall, so you have the thickness of the brick in front of the thickness of the wall. I don't see how it can be reduced to a foot and a half and maintain what it is. I don't have an issue with it. I appreciate that you pulled everything else back and pulled the door forward to meet the five foot. And I think, essentially, It's just you're going to have the same. You have to the same towers tonight, right? Right. Which I like.

Yeah. And yeah, we like the kind of casual nature of it.

I personally would be inclined to accept it as it is.

Mr. Insky.

So how many feet forward are we again?

Two feet, four inches.

Seven overall.

Oh, right, yes. It's a hint under seven, right? Because I think you're four, six.

It's like four, six and a half or something like that for the main part of the mass, which I think is...

It's like six, eight. Yeah.

Yeah.

You also have the other side that... Is four, six. Okay, that's four, six. And then...

Right, so the two ends are coming out four, six, which is under the five foot.

Yeah. And then that one window is coming out another two, four.

Yeah, I mean, I agree. I mean, it is kind of, really just the window because the walls themselves technically it is just the window the it's not we don't come across this very often we're just the window yeah it's just the window okay yeah i think i could be okay with that because i mean the walls themselves are within the code of the five feet

So is it, when I'm looking at the plans, it looks like just a straight bump out, but you're saying it's a bay. Correct. Do I really see any curvature?

Yes, and if you look at the side elevation, you can see it projecting just ever so slightly. It's only like a pane of glass so far on the left. Okay.

And you have the the crux of it was is if you were more than 18 inches than you needed to have foundation under and you have the foundation and and it is a bay window so it's not a bow it's not a bow into it's just an extension is just a right time to pay out. OK.

work with yeah i'm fine with it because you have the main dependencies meeting and this is an element off of that so i feel that that with the architectural character that it complies yeah and i actually agree and i you know he's not coming out to the five feet he's actually in slightly from it and then coming out a little bit more i'm okay with it i think it's a good trade-off and you know itself is really 18 inches call it over So I'm fine with it.

And it has a foundation.

Thank you. I believe the second comment was something that we briefly touched on last time, which is the foundation being of a consistent material all the way around. It is brick all the way around the house, with the one exception being at the carriage house where the doors go all the way to the ground. I believe there was some discussion of doing some sort of like a potential detail of a water table where the brick continues up just so that you separate the two for the foundation from the wall. Historically, that has been done, but it's not a very common thing. And I think it's a lot cleaner the way that we have it. It's less fussy. So I guess my question would be if we needed to distinguish it or if it was OK for the water table to stop at the foundation when we have a wood wall and for basically the brick foundation to just continue all the way up when it's a brick wall.

And just, Nick, if we could have some clarification on that. I was going to say, I reviewed this again, and I'm okay with it from a code perspective of what you're showing. Is the grade line accurately depicted all the way around? It's a pretty flat. It's flat? Is that flat? Yeah, it's very flat. That was my other question.

are the only two places where the water table kind of comes up the that front bay and the the primary bedroom kind of yeah where there's a bay window just because it i we we just think it would it kind of looks silly yes exactly yeah okay yeah on the bay it makes sense otherwise it would just look a little finicky i think and then that's repeated on the back correct i have no comment on that

Ms. Sudinski, any issue there? Ms. Marzullo?

No, I'm fine with that.

I'm good. OK. The third comment was about the flat roof. Flagged as different from the main mass roof. One of the things about this house is it's really meant to be an empty nest house. So it's meant to be lived on primarily on the main floor. So that's where the bulk of the program is. And aside from that, aside from the second floor not being that large, what we liked is that you still get a second floor mass, but it's in scale with what, you know, other houses in the neighborhood and therefore like lowering the. You don't have to do a whole lot of explanation. Okay.

The code says they have to match. Gotcha. staff always makes that comment when it is because that's how the code reads. Right. It's something that we generally are, especially like in a situation like this, we're pretty lax on. Oh, okay. When it's in the back.

Yeah, because I remember someone say, it might have been you, someone said, that they were fine with it last time, but I just was checking.

So we can run through, but yeah, that is something that is not abnormal. It's just the way the code reads, staff does need to flag it.

Gotcha.

Okay, understood. Mr. Brown, any issue with the flat roof? And it's not pitching towards, it's coming back out, right?

I understand why it's a flat roof. Yeah. I'd rather see the way you've done it than build a giant massive roof. Yeah, exactly. I do have a question on the way you've depicted it on the roof plan. You don't have to go to it necessarily, but you have the two side flat roofs are shown kind of as flat roofs, and then you show the one as a hip, but it's really a flat roof. Yeah.

So are they different? So here's what we're thinking. That the windows that you see above that big bay window that's on the back of the house, they were getting very tight to what would be the flat roof portion. And we were running out of room to do a proper parapet. And because, again, we're trying to keep the house so low for a two story house that we're thinking that we will need to do like a flat seam copper at a very shallow pitch that takes that water down to the lower flat roofs, which will then have to have like an internal gutter system.

So they are two different. They are. They are two different.

Yes. Yes.

I don't have an issue with that. I just noticed that the two roofs that are both essentially flat are shown differently on the roof plan. I wasn't sure why. Sorry, I said I was done, but I'm not. Is there a parapet then around the two flat roofs on the side?

So the lower flat roofs, that is a parapet, yes. Okay. Yeah.

And how do they, because there's, and they drain. Yes. Is there, is there going to be, I mean, well, yes, they drain, but how, I mean, is there like a collector box somewhere? Yeah. Yeah.

I think there's going to need to be an internal gutter system. Um, we've shown gutters elsewhere on the house, on the pitched roofs where, where we would like them. Um, but I, I was looking at it and I'm fairly confident it will have to be an internal gutter system. Okay. Yeah. That's all. Strinsky.

No further questions.

No issues.

OK. And it was just spec sheets. So that's right. So Mr. Brown, questions or comments?

Questions or comments?

OVERALL ON ANYTHING ELSE?

NO, I APPRECIATE THE TIME YOU'VE SPENT WITH US AND THE INFORMALS YOU'VE DONE AND THE CHANGES. I THINK IT STILL IS THE HOUSE THAT YOU WANTED AND MEETS. YOU'RE NOT PUTTING US IN A POSITION WHERE WE HAVE TO MAKE 12 EXCEPTIONS. I THINK IT'S STILL THE HOUSE YOU WANT. I THINK YOU'VE DONE A GOOD JOB.

THANK YOU. MS. DYNSKI?

I DON'T THINK EVERYTHING ELSE.

I agree, I echo that. Thank you for coming in, looking at it prior to submitting. I make a motion to approve with submitting spec sheets to staff. And that's it.

I also recommend making a finding on the demolition as it was just shown as informal. But it is not a that it's not it's not in the historic district and it is not an individual sort of landmark. So it would be the finding that's on page that we made for each one page one that for each one to 15 East streets for I forgot about the whole demolition.

And to add to that, the Architectural and Historic Board of Review finds the structure at, what is our address?

159 Hudson Street.

159 Hudson Street does not have historic or architectural significance. Further, the board finds that the applicant afford permit to demolish these structures will not voluntary consent to the retention of these buildings.

Do we have a second?

Second.

All in favor? Aye. Anybody opposed? OK. Thank you. Thank you very much. So that is all under new business. Under other business, the first thing that we have is the findings of fact for 88 North Main Street. If everyone would take time over the next week to review that, make sure that staff has captured those findings of fact before it's

I'll be sharing an updated version. I've been working on this a little bit. So I'm requesting the board table to the next meeting and you'll receive it well before the meeting. So we'll have some time to then give comment at the next meeting and hopefully to authorize myself and Mr. Caputo to finalize the signature and any other details.

So we'll discuss that at the next meeting. Correct. Yeah.

And so I wouldn't review what was attached any further because I'm going to send an update. I've been working on it a little more than that.

Motion to table to give time for review of the updates.

Second.

All in favor? Aye. Aye. Okay. And then we have the approval of the March 11th minutes.

Looking at it. Right?

Yeah.

so nick how do we handle this this is the fourth time i mean i was just i'm sorry um this is we don't have the quorum from that meeting we'll never have court we'll never have corn for that meeting uh miss manco is no longer on the board um so that might be a legal question i might have to look at that okay

I mean, we may have to do something like I would recommend that we have to review the minutes so that board members can say, yep, that's what I review the video.

I'm sure there's some protocol. I'm sure this has happened to some board. Well, if you could ask the solicitor how. Yeah.

Yeah. Just so that we can get minutes approved. Yep. I will do that. Okay.

And just clarify if it's quorum for that meeting on this meeting or if the quorum on the current meeting for those meeting minutes. You understand what I mean? Yes. Is our ruling. That would be helpful.

Yes. Do you have to abstain if you didn't attend that meeting? Correct.

Yes.

but you could read the notes.

Right, yeah. Is it good practice normally, but when it's required, can it happen, right? Yeah. I get it. OK. We'll hope the answer's yes. Yes. We hope so.

Thank you. And then we have the approval of the April 8 minutes.

Move to approve the April 8, 2026 minutes. Second.

All in favor? Aye.

Aye.

And we have the approval of the April 22nd minutes.

I move to approve the April 22nd, 2026 minutes. Second.

All in favor? Aye.

Okay. Any updates from staff? No, I did mention Ms. Makos no longer on the board, just from scheduling issues, things like that. So we'll be looking to fill that vacancy, work with council.

Okay. Anything from anybody else?

Oh, what's the status on the historic landmark? Yes.

Oh, yeah, that's a good update that we had the neighborhood meeting. It was it was it was great. I would say like eight or nine people came, which was pretty good turnout considering the list and things like that. So the next step, we will be working with HHA to revise the OHI forms for those. Most of them have OHI forms already and there would be like three new ones. So we've contacted the state or the historic preservation and they've given us the directions. They do it through like an app now and volunteers and things like that, people like that can help us with that project. We're going to be working with HHA to finalize that. Then the list will come back to the board for recommendation. So we're hoping to do that within the next month or so, depending on our timeline. Great.

Did we get any additional people that said they wanted to?

No, I know HHA had a few in mind and they reached out. I haven't heard of any additional from the list of 20 or so. Yeah, it's about 20 that would like to be added.

Is the clock tower considered a historic building or is it just part of the green?

I don't know. I think it would be a building.

Maybe a historic structure.

Yeah, that would be my guess, yeah.

It feels like it. I just didn't know for sure. I mean, I would think it is. Do we have to look to see if it could be designated? It's within the historic district. Okay. Yeah. And it's the age. Yeah. Yeah.

It's the right age. It's contributing already. So, yeah. But I don't know if it was called out in a separate form or something like that or studied.

Like an address of its own or anything like that.

No, I think the green has, because I used it here. The 11? It's 11. That just is that whole section, like call it the whole block right there.

That's not the gazebo address.

Yeah, it's 11 South Main is the whole address. It's the parcel. Yeah. And fun fact, it's technically right away. I don't know if you knew that. The whole green? The whole green is right away, which is just interesting. It's a huge right away. It doesn't really change anything.

All the way across the other clock tower green as well?

The clock tower green.

Does it change a little bit for updates?

Updates?

Yeah, as if it's an easement for right away. Is it really historic space, I guess? Yes.

Yeah, it's in the boundary. Yeah, I don't know.

I think it was designated as an historic green. Within the district, I might be wrong, but HHA probably knows better.

It's definitely within the historic district. It's definitely within the historic district. I'll make that, yeah.

Maybe if we could ask somebody those questions just so we have it and somebody else ask us in more detail so we can respond properly. the address? All right, that's good to know.

Anything else? So I think we're ready for a motion to adjourn.

Move to adjourn at 9.32 p.m. I'll second.

All right, we are adjourned.

Thank you.