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 27th, 2026. Roll call tonight, we do have quorum. We have Mr. Brown, Ms. Sardinski, Ms. Marzullo, Ms. Kenney, and myself. So we do have quorum tonight and the meeting can continue. We'd now like 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 would ask that you keep your comments to five minutes or less. Is there any public comment tonight? Seeing none, we will close public comment, move on to consent applications. We have none, so we will open old business. First is 26-101-200 Laurel Lake Drive, and this is for new home.

Yes, this is for the project for the Laurel Lake Villas for nine additional new villas. Staff notes this application was continued from the April 8th, 2026 meeting. The project received site plan approval from Planning Commission and the Board of Zoning and Building Appeals. The applicant has submitted revised elevations for the board's review this evening, as well as has a presentation for this evening. And then the staff comments are attached as previous. The applicant is here this evening to answer any additional questions that the board may have.

You just state your name in relationship to the application. John with RDL Architects, the applicant.

with RDL Architects.

if you want to just walk us through the staff comments yes or your presentation i think it would probably best we we have some revised elevations based on the comments that we received on monday that might expedite kind of the review if the board would allow us to present those in lieu of the presentation we have um do you need a handheld we have uh well we have hard copies and we also have perfect I should be under the... You're heading right there. So like last time, I'll just run through and I'll kind of explain how we're trying to address your comments. Sure. It seems that I know staff left on the comments pertaining to every villa regarding the garage. We've talked about that on each, so I'll kind of skip that and go into the comments pertaining to each villa. So on the Cuyahoga, the comment was, interpretation of the front mass maybe not being as large as the rest of the building. So what we've decided to do here was to present. There was a jog originally on the front of the building and eliminating that and if you scroll to the next slide which is the elevation. Main gable together we initially had kind of a smaller roof. But we've pulled that all together to kind of tried to make the massing of the entry more than as we push back the garage. Next slide, please. Pertaining to Villa 2, the comment was regarding the transom windows. Our first attempt was to try to avoid changing the floor plan. But based on the comment, we decided to try to give a little bit more space to the bedroom on the right corner there. And if you scroll to the elevation, the next slide. elevation on the lower right hand side there I think you know is more consistent with the window sizing you guys are looking for as well as kind of creates this stepping of gables to to meet the requirements.

I do want to just before we get too far through all these if there are any comments from board members regarding Villa 1 or Villa 2 if we could do those now just so that we don't have to backtrack to everything. So, Mr. Brown, did you have any questions or comments regarding the changes they made on Villa 1 and 2?

I did not.

Okay. Mr. Denske?

No.

Mr. Workley?

No comments. Mr. Kim?

No. Okay.

Then go ahead. All right. If we can move on to Villa 3, which is the next slide. So, Villa 3 for... 8 and 9 are very similar in terms of the approach we took. So you can see obviously on the right hand side we've extended the plan. We were really tight on the site based on Planning Commission and Board of Zoning Appeals. But we're able to scoot that wall out, I think, to eliminate the, you know, the fenestration requirement that we talked about last time, the gable was too large. It just had kind of too much open space. So if you go to the elevations, please, the next slide. We've kind of taken the same approach. See, we've broken that down more with kind of a nested gable approach, added a little bit more roofing on the middle gable and tried to really cut down. I know there's still space there. We're having trouble obviously with it because it is an attic. It's just the way that the plan lays out and the roof structure that it is a larger truss. we thought about you know implementing potentially some other materiality there but staying consistent with the other cottages we tried to avoid that and stay you know just consistent with what's on campus um you know without really getting into significant floor plan changes we we thought this was the best approach i i'd like the addition of it it does break up that that gable end uh mr brown any thoughts on i agree with you

it makes sense for the gable vent to be any larger just to kind of it is still such a large open space there trying to keep it consistent throughout all the cottages um you introduce a larger uh vent it might feel a little foreign um but we can definitely explore that if

Yeah, I think that maybe it's just looks, it's called out more because it's just black, you know, because it will have louvres, right? Right, right.

And it has this layering effect that we don't see in the 2D that brings, you know, extra dimension and texture to the sides of the buildings.

Good.

And we tried to use that same language in the rest of the units, the rest of the cottages. So for four, this is four, and four, eight, and nine.

Let's finish up going through this. Oh, I'm sorry.

No, I don't have any additional comments on the louver. I'm fine with it as is. I think if you make it any larger, it's going to call too much attention.

I agree.

Sorry, lots to go over. If you scroll to the next slide, which is essentially just a different rendition based on the site constraints, the four, you'll see it's really the same design implemented there on the side. And there's the convention. Moving on, oh, did you want to comment on four?

Does anybody have any comments on, I think it's basically the same.

Okay, yeah, we can keep moving. Bill of five, the only comment was really, I think we had kind of gotten this one right the last time. The only comment was regarding the entry into the garages, which this one, based on the side constraints, is actually off of the side, not on the front, and meets those requirements. And if you the next slide, please. Put in the elevations, you can go to the next slide, please. So this is Villa eight and nine pertaining to the kind of the same issue on the right and left elevations, you can see the floor plan has been bumped out. A great room area, and if you go to the slide to view the elevations. The same approach with the nested gable, although these are a little bit larger and cutting it down based on how the floor plan kind of allowed us to pull those. So we do have kind of a on that main gable, but I think it's broken up a lot better on the middle gable extension to it.

Mr. Brown, do you have any additional questions or comments?

I just have a clarification on the front entrance stone and then you've got the doors that are set back what is that inside alcove material is it the same stone?

We did siding with the lower stone

We're reviewing it as the second cable coming through as its own mass. So I guess the material would continue. We could do stone if there's a better approach to it. That stone would kind of, the floor plan, if you go back one slide, may kind of show it a little bit better. the stone would would go back on the columns but on the on the door side it would be kind of the water table to three feet siding above it is our standard okay um the one i had was on four so two up was No, the dormer, it was clouded on the presentation we gave to you prior to showing you these. We thought that it, we changed the massing from over the garage to this side. We thought there would be a nice option to add something architectural. The other cottages on site don't have these, but the main building does. So it does tie back a little bit to that. We thought it potentially is a nice feature for the cottages.

look very small here, all the your portions are rather large, just and then this one just really condensed down.

Yeah.

So unless you make it over accentuated, like the rest of them, it just looks out of place.

we run into trouble getting closer to the gables meeting up if we make it too large we're happy to remove it if if you think it's i would prefer i would agree with it being removed i think proportionally it doesn't i didn't catch that but i think i mean it is nice to break the roof up where it has that large massive roof but i don't yeah i think you're probably better off without it it's my opinion anybody else have a thought on that

for villa one we actually have two dormers if we go back um over the garage so is this something that we should remove as well small too they're the same size but there's two that roof is much longer it's a much smaller one yeah yeah there's two right

for Zip 9.

It's a little small, but very symmetrical, very pleasing. I have no objection to it.

Yeah, Ellen was saying she's okay with it either way. I mean, I'm not saying you have to remove it. Let's just leave it in then. I think it's sort of created a debate over two doors. Mr. Brown, any comment on that?

Yeah, I prefer them on this elevation, but I don't, I would not have, I agree with what John was saying, but I wouldn't object to their inclusion.

All right, so let's leave the dormers.

Leave the dormers? We could try to maybe work on four's scale a little bit.

Okay, if you could just run that through staff. Yeah, that'll be fine. You can give staff the authority to review that administratively. You don't have to come back then for it.

Okay, so do you need a motion?

So we didn't motion, but as part of the motion, we do have to acknowledge, even though BCBA and Planning Commission have approved the forward-facing garages, it's still an exception technically for us. So we just have to acknowledge that exception.

So I move to approve the application with the understanding that we accept the exception of the front-facing garage because it is all the other buildings on the property and it has been approved.

Staff can administratively.

Well, since the dorm is on its initiative. But staff can administratively handle. And staff can review the size of the dormers.

Second.

All in favor? Aye. Anybody opposed? Thank you. Appreciate your time, guys. Thank you. Next is 26-274-126 North Main Street, and this is a window replacement in the historic district.

Yes, staff notes this application was continued from the May 13th, 2026 meeting. A site visit did take place on May 19th, 2026 and additional documentation of the existing windows is attached for the board's consideration. The applicant is here this evening to answer any additional questions that the board may have.

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

Sure, Heather Davies, Davies Architecture.

And I think we just go through the site, visit the folks that were there. I think, Mr. Brown, you were there. If you want to give your thoughts on the window replacement.

I mean, regarding whether or not the, in terms of replace versus repair, I think the windows were, showed a lot of water damage from the years, and with the storms on the inside and outside, I think that the new windows are reasonable.

I think- Ms. Radinsky, you were at the- I was there, and I agree with everything he just said.

Okay, Ms. Marzullo?

I appreciate the

plan for the replacement, it would have been nice, because the windows on one side of the front, I think there's three on each building, right? One side has some historic, it would have been nice if the sill could have been, or the bottom base of it could have been repaired, but then it wouldn't match what was on the other building, so it would have been distorted, so I think it's better that they cross the front and the others get replaced.

As far as replacing them, I do think it's appropriate. You're using all of the Marvin Ultimate, correct?

Yes, correct.

Which is a tremendous upgrade from the vinyl that are along two sides. So we appreciate bringing those to a better quality and more historically accurate window. And I don't see any reason to not approve it.

Second.

All in favor? Aye. Anybody opposed?

Okay, thank you. All right, thank you so much.

Thank you. I was going to get to keep it. 26-296150 Aurora Street, and this is an addition.

My name is Jenny Abernathy, and I'm one of- Okay, you let staff introduce it first.

Oh, sorry.

I appreciate it. No problem.

One second, just bringing it up here. It's just running a little bit slow this evening. Okay, this is for an addition at 150 Aurora Street. This is within the historic district and it is for office space and dormers on the front of the home. Staff notice this application was continued from the May 13th meeting. The National Park Service Preservation brief number 14 for addition states a new addition should be smaller than the historic building and it should be subordinate in both size and design to the historic building. A new addition should be simple and unobtrusive in design. and should be distinguished from the historic building. Staff does note the applicant has submitted revised elevations for the board's consideration this evening that depict a reduced rear dormer centered on the rear roof line and proposed shutters on the left side elevation. Additionally, staff just questioned the proposed front dormers, and however, staff acknowledges the dormers would not result in a footprint expansion and are common throughout the historic district. and they are designed appropriately. The applicant is here this evening to answer any additional questions that the board may have.

You can state your name in relationship to the application.

My name is Jenny Abernathy, and I'm one of the owners.

I'm Jacob Abernathy, one of the owners.

Eric Kuchak with Sojourn Architects.

Justin Capelli with Sojourn Architects.

Mr. Caputo, if you would allow, we did prepare a supplemental presentation to address some of these comments. May we share that? Okay, thank you. up to the second page please all right so in the last meeting um i was not present but i according to the feedback it was really a few places um where feedback centered and one was on the rear roof gable addition and the front dormers that was a primary point of concern one being the scale of the rear gable and the potential visibility of it from the street well as having the how the front dormers would impact the massing of the house a second point that was raised was around the proposed removal of the first story east-facing window and those were the two primary points points of feedback that we've worked to address for this meeting so if we go to the next slide So what we have done since then, we've worked with Eric and Justin to incorporate feedback and to do a little bit more research on the dormers to identify precedents and look more broadly about what would be relevant and accurate for colonial revival era architecture. On the rear gable, we incorporated your feedback and worked to make adjustments that we fully addressed these concerns around it being subordinate in both size and design. And we believe that the adjustments address this. And on the front dormers, we identified a precedent down the road of a colonial revival home within the village and did some additional research, which we will share. And then in terms of the east-facing window, we identified a solution that we believe addresses the concern, but also takes into account the long-term durability constraints and constructionability, if that is a word. So before we jump in, if we can go to the next slide, we just wanted to set a little bit of context about the home, which Jacob will share to give context as we're evaluating

Can I just ask one question? Is there a way to go full screen so any of the images are bigger? And then you just have to tap arrow.

I can zoom in on this, just with this is our program that we use.

Before we continue. Great. Yeah, so we just wanted to start with just kind of a brief overview of the house. And if you go to the next slide, I think it'll be... So, the house was built in 1953. There's no historical, I guess it's an HH, that's an historical marker on the home. We noted that when we bought the house, some additions to the rear of the house had been added over the years. And then multiple updates inside and outside the house in the last 15 years by previous owners, All of the siding, new roof, addition of the shutters themselves, updating the style of the upper middle window just above the front door, and then the roof cover over the front door was added as well. One of those things before we move on. And then if you continue on we've got just I think just for context and we're looking a lot of like flat to the imagery and plans so that I think it's always helpful to see actual imagery so I want to give you guys just like a sidewalk view of every of the House so we have the left side which gives you a sense of the front but also gives you some to what you can and can't see the back of the roof. And then we have the front view, just to give you a sense of the home. And then on the right side, you can see basically from the sidewalk leading into the driveway what it looks like. Hopefully that gives you some context as you start looking at some of these designs. And then next up we have some 3D renders with our updates. The Sojourn designed, this is me. So yeah, so we just want to cover off on this one to give you guys a couple different references because I was in this helpful work in design and I was like to see references to see what's in somebody's mind but for the rear gable and the dormers on the back. Maybe using the word gables wrong, but the dormers in the back. This is kind of the idea that we've we've landed on we really like actually prefer to to what we had before so thank you for helping us revise that. But yeah, we've made considerable changes to both design of the windows as well as the size. So we'll get to that in a minute. I kind of like a side by side so you can see but get some references there on the bottom of the kind of design that we're after. Page gives you a sense of, again, kind of a 3D render, but similar to those photos, what you see from the sidewalk. We can just kind of cycle through these real quick. And then the third one gives you a sense of what it'll look like in the back. It gives you kind of an aerial shot, and then this one is kind of just from the driveway.

And the key point we wanted to show here was that we were really aiming to not have this be visible from the sidewalk from whatever angle you're at that you wouldn't see it so if you go to the next slide and I know that's what you were getting into we wanted to show you the before and after The before and after, whereas the prior version that you saw in the meeting last time, it came almost all the way out. It was taller, and we really tried to reduce both in height. It's not extending up to the top of the other roof, and it's not going all the way down. So we really tried to bring that down in scale while still maintaining the usability of the upstairs space.

Yes, keeping in mind we really wanted to make this stairs a livable space and offer a natural natural light. The workspace in an area for a girl so we want all as much natural light as we can while still maintaining is kind of historical elements.

And in terms of the front dormers, there are a lot more drawings, I believe, in the packet that you would have received. But we just wanted to give the before and after there. If we go to the next section, it gets into the front dormers. And we included a snapshot of several homes within the village and surrounding area course they're not all colonial revival but just noting I think the top left is probably the most similar to our home although I believe that's it's technical outside of the technical village area it's still in close proximity Oh, it is in the village, okay. Just showing the widespread use of dormers and varying sizes of scale. If we go to the next slide, we really did wanna find though an example of a home that was within the village that had dormers added later. And we found 52 Aurora, which is, about a quarter of a mile down the street from 150 Aurora. The house was originally built in 1919. Again, ours was in 1953. And these dormers were added into 2011. And we appreciated how they did it. We liked the size, we liked the scale. We appreciate that they really did try to maintain the integrity of the home, and that would be our goal as well. We also wanted to make sure, as I was looking through the National Park Service notes, the long PDF they have, they were talking about conjectural architecture where you're trying to bring something older to newer property, and that's something we really don't want to do. So we did find proof, well, tower mine proof, and if you go to the next slide, of homes that were the colonial revival style built in the 1940s and 50s, which this one was. It was very common for them to have all of the components there and noted dormers being one of them. So it is relevant and accurate. I know it's an addition to this home, but it would be accurate of homes built in that era. So that is the presentation we wanted to take you through. I think the last thing I would note is I tell a lot of people this, who asked how we ended up here, because I'm originally from Medina. And I always tell them, well, we wound up here because when I left high school, I told my parents I was never moving back to Ohio. But if I did, I was gonna live in Hudson. And that is because when I was in high school, we would drive over to the high school to compete, and we'd have to drive through the village. So it really is, we are really trying to maintain the integrity and we're not trying to overall shift the house because we love that area. We love Hudson and we love that area of town in particular. Thank you.

If you would just bring up the rear elevation because I think that was the So, Mr. Brown, your thoughts on the scaled down?

I think it's an improvement on what was there. I do, I have, can I talk about other stuff? Sure. I'm just trying to understand, because I know these kind of are not building permit ready. They're like preliminary. But is the ridge being replaced? of the main ridge of the house, is there other roof work being done? ridge the ridge beam will have to be replaced yes so is so i was just trying to understand the full so the the main roof is going to be left intact and you're going to is there like what's there now because it looks like there's posts coming down through the new window in the end where the desk is and it said like six foot eight for like new lvl ridge or something i was just trying to fully understand kind of the scope

yeah i mean the the existing um rafters are currently two by six or even and then there's color ties in between so what we're essentially doing is removing the collar ties and introducing a new ridge beam and allowing um you know structure on either side so opposed to drop down to so that this is actually structurally sound with trying to maintain as much of the existing framing as possible granted you know we are cutting in some dormers so in doing that we'll have to sister in some existing two by eight rafters these rafters will stay and these roof will stay you'll put the ridge in from underneath okay and

What's up there now? I mean, there's a stair, and it says the stair's been replaced. Is it unfinished? I mean, if I can explain it.

Yeah, the whole house is beautiful, right? It's great. But that one element, the stairs to the attic, I don't know what happened there, but they're all different sizes. It doesn't feel like a real staircase that was finished. It feels like they had leftover pieces and they made a staircase.

We don't. We're not going to judge an interior stair. but just in terms of like because at the ends of the end gables of the main house right now there's i assume what look like big roof vents um as if the it's it's uh insulated at the second floor ceiling and it's unfinished unconditioned space up there um but so but are those but then there's a note that says there's gonna be new ridge vents so are those roof vents at the end gonna be removed because they're shown in the elevations but um but they're gonna come out

I think they would have to. If we're taking off and residing, there's another window on that side anyways, too, I think. For it to be a functioning, livable space up there, I think that's how I would want to approach it.

I don't want you to, I'm not trying to raise new, I mean, I don't think any of these kind of rates to the level of our kind of general concern over the kind of scale of the rear dormer, but I also don't want to move you forward with if everything that's being done isn't fully understood by the board or shown, you know what I mean? So for example, the window on the, I guess it's the east side elevation, right there, that window, there's a post in the plan supporting the new ridge coming down that looks like through that window. So there's a header over that window and then it so it just comes down but the but the okay but the ridge like or the um the gable you would just take the siding up to the top?

I think that's probably the best approach.

So I just wanted to ask about those issues. But in terms of the things that we discussed at the last meeting, I mean, I think that I have less issue. I think that this is a good solution on the back for the size of the dormer. And regarding the window, we talked the kitchen window. There's also not a plan of the first floor, but I assume that the kitchen is being,

it's a programmatic need yeah behind that directly is there's a new kitchen and then they would have some sort i'm assuming we would have some sort of um back it would probably be either a quartz backsplash that might run it even the full height of the wall so i mean it's it's really distracting or detracting from the design from a floor plan standpoint too is there i mean i guess i mean my my concern there is the is the not that i have a huge issue with

the closed shutter look, but the kind of reversibility thing. If the original window, one of the National Park standards or the Secretary of Interior standards is that changes should be reversible. And I think, I don't know if it was Mr. Workley, somebody suggested last time like maybe somehow closing the window from the inside, but leaving the window there rather than just. putting, you know, the trim and the shutters. Because kitchen renovations are on a shorter time scale than like whole house renovations. And like if the kitchen or this, I know you don't plan to, you know, but if you then, if then the next owner or something like changes back, that window's gone. And if the program, so that's,

I guess a shutter detail only in because you know if that it's it's blacked out from the inside and then you've got the glass there I don't know how you or maintain that or keep that you know with trying to keep the window there um So it's more of a maintenance thing?

I don't have an answer for you. I hear that, but I guess that is my concern.

The standards do mention that an addition should be able to be removed. Do we consider this an addition? Because it didn't strike me as being an addition.

Well, it doesn't just apply to additions. It's any, so like, for example, on the original rear dormer design, I would say that it'd be extremely difficult to switch that back because it actually went into the rear wall of the house, basically. Where this design, you could pull these dormers off of this house. roof over there and you would never know that the dormers were ever on it. It could be replaced just like it was never touched. And that's really more of what the preservation brief is going to is, is that if you're removing some of these things or hiding them, that they're restorable later. That's the intent, is that they're restorable later. You could put it back to how it was originally built or a close proximity of.

and window area would be considered an addition, not a...

It's the removal of a historic feature.

Well, so, but you could have the same argument about windows, right? To remove all windows and you replace the material with new material. This is almost a theoretical question, right? How far do of addition? I'm curious.

I don't understand the correlation there of replacing. I mean, windows are, I mean, it's not a forever thing. You have to replace windows over time, just like siding. I mean, wood doesn't last forever. It has to be replaced over time.

So the existing header and window frame would all still be there. So if somebody did want to come back, that hole would still be there.

Okay. So it's restorable if needed.

Mr. Brown, did you have anything else? No. All right, Ms. Serdinski.

I think the dormer, specifically the rear one, is much improved from where we were. I think that is getting more what we were discussing last time, so appreciate that. I don't love the shutter, but it's, I mean, one way to meet the fenestration in the kitchen, so it is what it is.

Ms. Arzula.

I feel that the window should stay. I don't appreciate the shuttered window. It's very visible from the street and sidewalk. And I think it should, like I said, if you want to black it out, that's fine from the interior. But it should stay, not be a closed shutter. And I feel like there's a discrepancy in the Dormers front and the rear, when you look from the front elevation to the side, it appears that they both are much higher up towards the ridge. than it shows in the elevations. When you're looking at the front dormers, they sit quite a bit lower than the ridge line. And the same with the rear. But then when you see it on the side elevation, they both look like they're much higher than what you've drawn from their front and the back straight on elevations. So I'm a little bit wary about where it's actually gonna sit. My concern.

Okay. Mr. Workley?

No additional comments.

Any issues with? No additional comments.

But a question. So are you asking which is accurate?

I'm saying it appears that both the front and the rear dormers are sitting higher than the way that they're drawn. Right.

So which is...

So in this image here, the dormer on the right side is the front. And you can see it is lower than the ridge there. The one in the back, because they are a little bit wider, they would be a titch of the dormer and the ridge of the main house. Call that, I don't know, an inch. It matches what the side elevations show. That gap right there. And then if we flip back. I think what you're noticing is an optical illusion, whereas here you're seeing a big block, right? Whereas from the front, the only thing that's that high is the peak.

Does that make sense? i don't think it's a drawing error i i think it's when you look at it from the front it's whatever that is two feet down and then at the back you're probably a foot below the ridge yeah i mean i think that's relatively accurate matching you always check that so yeah i think the chimney's causing the issue yeah i think it's i appreciate you guys scaling down the back dormer i'm not a huge fan of the shutters but i'm not gonna die on that one i mean i think just one thing to note they could go home tonight and close those shutters and just leave them closed Yeah, it's just, you know, if it was on the backside of a shed on the rear, you know, it's, but I'll get past it.

Yeah, we're also less than the 12 feet in that section too. So, you know, not having any window, but we prefer that detail.

I think overall the board is in agreement that it's okay, so.

I have one additional question. Sure. I don't think we've talked about the actual windows. Are the windows, because it's in the historic district, windows have to be one of, on the spec sheet it's bubbled that it's grills between the glass. And I believe windows in the historic district have to have.

Which window are you guys using? Was there a spec sheet?

Applied grills versus between the glass, yeah. So the simulated divided light, Pella Reserve.

Okay, you're using the Pella Reserve? Okay.

It was just circled, the grill between the glass. And so I just want to make sure that it was understood.

I'll make a motion to approve with the updated modifications.

Second.

All in favor? Aye. Anybody opposed? All right, thank you. Thank you everybody. Thank you so much.

Just wanted to clarify, that's approved as submitted with the shutter, correct? Yes.

If it makes you feel better, my parents moved to Hudson too.

Which is partly why we're moving to the village.

That is all for old business. First new business is 26-19548 College Street. This is an accessory structure in the historic district.

Yes, this is for an accessory structure in an outdoor fireplace at 48 College Street. This house is actually just right down the road here. Staff's comment was question how the proposed sandstone material and parched finish relate to the existing house, and if a brick finish would be more appropriate. The applicant is here this evening to answer any additional questions the board may have.

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

Tanya McInerney, Tanya McInerney Landscape Design.

Brian Wilmot, Wilmot Construction, I'm the contractor.

Before we start, may I approach and- Sure. I took some pictures that weren't included on that drawing that kind of show the existing architectural details and why we chose some of these finishes. So it might be helpful for you to see them before we start. Thanks.

Just yesterday. All right, so if you want to address the staff comments on the material.

The staff comments about I think the appropriateness of the materials and why we're using a parched finish instead of brick. So the parched finishes, the majority of the chimney, it will have reclaimed sandstone wide facing around the firebox. There, as you can see, and a big piece of, well, three pieces of sandstone as a hearth on it. The patio that's going to be part of this whole project is all reclaimed flagstone as paving and reclaimed sandstone as accents, retaining walls and other things there, stairs. Now the house has the brick foundation. I know the architectural design standards say that chimneys should be of the same material as the foundation. Now the foundation of this house is majority concrete block of various kinds and concrete all of that is parched with the same masonry material that we're using for the chimney and will all be matched There's a kind of a colored sealer, kind of an aging sealer that's going on all of that, that will coordinate with the sandstone. The brick foundation is about 64 feet of foundation, concrete and concrete block of various ages on that house. There's about 200 plus feet of that foundation on there. And then the construction of that fireplace is, we tried to make it proportional to historic fireplaces.

Does the house have a chimney? The house itself have a chimney?

It has a chimney coming out the roof, it doesn't have any. exterior chimney what is the material for that chimney coming out it's brick it's a more modern brick than the body of the house

One other thing to note and I updated in the notes but wanted to say it here is one thing we were kind of trying to do I know one of the principles for what your review kind of not necessarily having kind of adding in diversity might not be the right word but you know something different while still kind of tying back to what's existing and and so that was kind of the intent as well to not have everything necessarily match architecturally exactly but to draw on some of the accents that are on the existing home the pieces i just showed you kind of show where the existing door used to be you know they have the sandstone over the top of that and then um there's there's some other spots around the house that there's the existing sandstone so we're kind of trying to instead of matching exactly back to the brick portion of the house pick up on the other accents of the house and kind of use that as like creating a little bit more interest and variance it was kind of the design intent thoughts questions comments

I don't know that I, because the house does not have a, I don't think this is, if the house had a large, I think this is a slightly different case than if the house had an existing large fireplace with a brick chimney, which it doesn't. I mean, is there a fireplace in the house or is it a furnace?

No, there is a fireplace in the house. You only see the part of the chimney that comes out of the roof. It's not anywhere external, and it's not an original fireplace. I mean, it's probably a 1920s fireplace. It's not very visible, I guess.

I mean, so this is kind of the only, will be the only visible chimney. And I mean, I think it does tie back to some of the details on the house. So yeah, I have no further comment.

Okay, Ms. Radinsky.

Yeah, I don't think I have, I mean, I'm kind of mixed on styling with the rest of the house. However, I think there are elements that are pulling from the house. The house has a few different things going on. So I don't think I have any major issues with it.

Okay, Ms. Marzullo.

I think that the house is predominantly, you see brick. What I would probably be okay with is if similar to what number two is, which current door with sandstone accents, where it's like a smear over the brick. If there was some random brick pieces showing on that chimney that tied back to the house, which has a lot of brick, then it might be more of a tie-in in my eyes. So having it just be the sandstone, I think it's too dramatically different than what you see on the house, even though there's sandstone accents. having this whole fireplace be sandstone I think doesn't tie in and even like I said if it's just a couple of random bricks up the chimney it would be more of a subtle tie-in

Yeah I agree with that comment as well it's a very large mass that doesn't tie anything to the building and it's so different in shape and materiality that I would agree that if you could make it even if it's stamped concrete the texture to look like brick And since you're purging it already, you could easily do that and then do the, you know, paint over it to make it mask and feel a little bit more resemblance versus being a foreign element that. Rather large, so I would think that would tie it back to the house much better.

See.

Good comment.

two previous comments that there is no tying into the house and that some brick would probably just the color and a gesture symbolic gesture to tie it to the to the

There'll be some brick in there. We're going to do, it's a pretty big firebox opening and that will be brick inside the firebox. I don't know if that helps.

In the picture, let me ask you about that. It's more of that orange tone, which is not quite, I mean the house is more red brick. In your drawing, it's more kind of a taupe color. Is that the intended color as shown, or?

If you, can you? That kind of shows. So that's an existing example of where we got the idea from.

I guess that color is a little closer to the home versus what's drawn. So I was just curious, is that more realistic or is the drawing?

Well, this is the actual color we're trying to match the part. Yeah, the photo and the texture there. And then number three shows kind of the hearth. stone that we're looking at so there wouldn't be any of that more like reddish orangish brick tone that's on the house is what i'm just we're not intending okay that's what i'm just trying to clarify no i think yeah the intent is to have kind of that um and actually that picture i took from a home on ravenna it's finished that way and it's really pretty but i that's kind of what we're going to try or what we fireplace portion and then the stone around it would kind of be with the rustic sandstone point the interior i don't think we do that color of brick on the interior but it would be brick fire brick on the end and the the tone of the parging is going to kind of be colored to coordinate with the reclaimed sandstone and that being reclaimed you can't just

order what you want you have to see what you have and kind of match the the tone of the parging to um what we what we have yeah with the stone where is this going how visible is it it is not very visible it is in the backyard yeah um not visible for so this is a corner lot and it's

well and we're putting so there's a lot of this this house was just renovated as well and as part of that their entire backyard is torn up and all the landscaping has been removed so right now the whole yard is open but as part of an already approved plan we're you know and everything we're doing a row of science along that western property so that would be kind of behind it then we're doing um so really the whole thing is surrounded and then from the other side of the street you just where it's tucked in you can't really see it so actually i don't think you'll be able to see it really at all if you look yeah right there so i would say it's not visible from the street at all from either college or i always forget what the other street is it's right here it's outside the house it's not yeah it's the people it's not a wall that that So they have a breezeway that you step up, so that's a little retaining wall. That little retaining wall is all going to be and we're looking to use the barnstone rather than the tanner tone but they're all similar and then we're using reclaimed treads uh kind of old sidewalk for the steps up to the main patio and then the main patio she has an existing walk on the other side of the house that's the same materials you see for the sidewalks you know the old stones of the sidewalks so the intent is to that same stone on the patio so the whole patio will be all reclaimed materials this isn't just the chimney you have a wall and steps that you're doing too in a new material none of that's existing but that's already this that is separate i guess of this technically but all of that will be new this is really just a fireplace

We're also removing a retaining wall in the back and removing some regrading the yard to remove. It was obvious that the 1990 addition on the back of the house, they just kind of took the dirt through it in the backyard and planted grass over it and then built a retaining wall out of concrete block. We're going to remove all of that and return it to the original topography of the lot.

Double dashed line on this side of the garage.

Is that trees or is that open to the left of the house?

Oh, that'll be, no, there's evergreens that are going to come down. Arborvitae will come down the west side of the entire property line and actually the north side of the entire property line. And then on the right side, we're doing upright horn beams, just a few, just to kind of add a sense of enclosure, because her backyard is really her side yard, so she, you know, she doesn't really have any, her only privacy is really where that patio is going, which is right behind.

When we attack, oh, sorry. Corner lots at the top and to the right.

So if you go to the east, which is right, that is college. This would be easier. And if you go to the south, it's division.

Yeah. So it won't be visible from the street, but it will be highly visible from the neighbors' houses that are one to behind, right? Because it's a very steep grade.

One up to the hill that's higher. They've also planted arborvitaes, and then we're coming in with a double layer. So... I know what you're saying. It is. It does sit up higher, but technically, I think once those trees come in and we're adding, we're kind of creating a courtyard. So the fireplace. Is here and then we have four ornamentals going in at the corners, one on either side of the fireplace and one kind of at the start of the courtyard. So the canopies of those ornamental trees as well. Those will be right around the fireplace and fill in. So honestly, when you add in that in addition to all the other trees we're putting on the perimeter just to create, I really don't think you'll see. I mean, initially it takes a year or two for things to grow in, but I do think it'll be really hidden actually.

It says 14, 16.

It's approximately 15. We pulled it taller. Well, you can speak to the fire code, but the idea is that it'd be wood burning, so we just wanted to make sure we had clearance, a little bit of clearance.

It's from the upper grade, so from the house or down another. Steps are, so really you're 18, you can't even see it above the garage.

Well, not from. The garage is down low. The rest of the house is up at that level.

Like you're pulling into the garage, you could potentially see it like a chimney would be to a house.

I'd show it. I don't know if I kept it on there or not.

I still think it should match the house. There it is.

That's the street view from. That's from Division Street. From Division, from college, you're not gonna see it because she has a two-story, her home is two stories, but it's right behind those horn beams, actually.

The trees are behind the garage. Behind the trees. The garage isn't going to screen it.

It will screen most of it. You'll see just the very top over the garage. Because Division Street is then much lower than all of that.

Staff just wants to know, you will. We did some preliminary search. It would be visible over the ridge of the garage. It would be visible from the street with adding in the additional plantings, but just as a note that with the height, it would be visible.

is with chimneys not matching the house yeah the chimney's supposed to match i mean that's so that's why i would say the parging would make it meet standards whereas what's proposed does not

The purging would make it meet this?

No, the purging with adding the brick texture into it and the white wash.

There's only about 64 feet of brick foundation in the house and I think the chimneys are supposed to match the house, the foundation material from what I read in the architectural design standards. There's over 200 feet of foundation that is not brick that will be parched basically to match that chimney but that 200 feet is not on the historic portion of the house that's well we weren't allowed to touch any of that when we remodeled the house so i think that was all considered historic by you i mean we went to great lengths to not disturb any of the existing parts of the house we rebuilt that whole back section of wood house from the inside out the house that they were built within like both sections were in the 1800s or yes okay that's what i thought i remember that well the yeah the uh the main part of the house was built That house has had a lot of remodeling. There's original brick and then there's a division in the brick where they added a full second story to it. And in probably the 20s, the original house was built 1840s. But there's records that the original brick part of the house may be 1820s there. And then there's many additions on the back. Yeah, the most recent is last year. The one before that was in the 1990s, so the sunroom on the back of the house.

yeah so i i mean my perspective is i think we do need to tie the brick in a little better than just parging uh and and i would like to see that brick you know it at least something more of a brick maybe not a pure red brick uh than parging i don't think i don't just don't think it's appropriate for a chimney I don't know if you guys wanna, I don't think it would pass tonight, but. So we can table it.

Yeah, we'd like to table this.

Okay.

That would be good, okay.

So if we could have a motion to table.

Make a motion to table.

Second. All in favor? Aye. Okay, yeah. 26-451-5801 Ogilby Drive, and this is an addition.

Yes, this is for an addition for a rear covered deck. Staff notes that the house does have gable roofs. The proposed is a shed roof, so just question the roof shape on the back of that, as well as just wanted to note that the submitted elevations depict a proposed standing seam metal roof. However, staff notes the applicant did verify that shingles to match the existing roof are proposed, and the standing metal seam on the first page of the elevations is a drawing error. The applicant is here this evening to answer any additional questions that the board may have.

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

My name's Chuck Conway. I'm with Weather Seal Home Services. I'm the contractor.

Steve Erips, homeowner.

Okay, so we're going to do shingles to match the house. I guess the only question I'm sure that will come up is the posts, what are the actual size of them? Are they going to be wrapped? And on the edge of the roof, is it just a roof? What are you doing on the side there? Because it didn't really show in the elevation.

So the roof is going to have a game on no not balled all the way up going to have a it's going to have a gable up 2 thirds of the way across there. Because you want to be able to match the rest of the House on that shed roof, not just a shed roof.

But you see a talking and wall. Are you talking and wall like a triangular piece and no yes, I'm on both sides.

What material will be on that?

It'll be siding to match the house siding as well. And the same underneath, it's going to have vinyl soffit to match the soffit on the rest of the house as well. The beams are going to be wrapped with aluminum like the rest of the house and the fascias. And the posts are six by six posts that will be wrapped as well.

I think that will cover most of the questions. Mr. Brown, do you have? Mr. Dinsky?

No.

No questions.

Ms. Marzullo?

That'll work as long as there are notes and drawings into the plan here.

Mr. Workley. Yeah, the only other thing we've requested of additions or added elements would be to move it off of the corner six inches. So because that shed inside triangular fill that you're going to add would be in alignment with the face of the house. So if you pull the shed over, you know, four to six inches.

Yeah, we're going to pull it over something just because of the corner of the house with the trim, you know, their vinyl siding corner. So it's going to be bumped over, you know, at least four to six inches.

Motion to approve with reviewing with staff updated drawings for the wing walls on each side of the shed to show siding and it pushed back from the corner. Second.

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

Thank you.

26-3367563 Sugarbush Trail, and this is an addition.

Okay, this is for a bedroom and dormers and an addition of a gable on Sugarbush Trail. Staff knows that the existing house would be classified as a two story wing type. Section four of the architectural design standards state that addition should be designed to be compatible with the main structure by incorporating materials and a foundation to match. staff notes the stand a standing seam metal roof is proposed to mix with the shingle at the ridge staff note was to revise the elevations to depict one consistent roofing material additionally to verify that the shake siding material would end on an inside corner that's proposed on the dormers as well as question the removal of the south elevation second story window there isn't a window existing there but that does create a break greater than 12 feet on the the new revised plans as well as to um Question the second floor addition extending to the west wing, which would further de-emphasize the small main mass containing the front door. The applicant is here this evening to answer any additional questions that the board may have.

You just state your name in relationship to the application?

Yeah, name's Chris Lueker, homeowner.

Okay, and you want to-

Talk about the staff comments. Yeah, the choice for the standing seam on the east or upper floor there is due to the low slope. That is almost a 312, maybe a 412 if we're lucky. So that is a concern right now. It's rolled asphalt. It has severe leaks in it, which is why we're here. And there are some homes in the neighborhood that are mixing asphalt and standing seam. I know mostly it's on dormers, but I figured that being on the rear elevation, you wouldn't see it from the street. The only mix there would be would be at the ridge and the ridge cap, which I could easily make asphalt. Same thing on the porch roof to the left there. That is two different roof planes, but that lower plane is 312 pitch, so that's a really low pitch. My concern is just with that and the roof leaks that we're getting. I go back to an asphalt material. I'm going to get the same issues that I have right now. my question on that one was it looks like in the drawing that that is like the roof just is there an actual vertical wall and then the standing seam it didn't look like that in plan correct no it's it's a it's a 812 over the garage if we can go to the other elevation yeah so you're eight twelve over the garage and then there's that porch which is about a three to four twelve it's about a three and a half if you look at it And the same thing on the second story, that west elevation is about a 412. Proposing a new dormer on the front east elevation to match that 412, which is why the standing seam on the front dormer too. Go ahead, I'm sorry, please. So that was a big issue with it. I can go back to asphalt if required, but that's the choice in the same material. It'd actually be more cost-effective if I did, but that's that. The other concerns, the shake material on the front dormer, yes, it's not a true inside corner, but that would die into the roof. That main pitch roof. So that would be that inside corner. And then the window that I was removing on the south side, I can move that window current window back. So I meet that 12 foot requirement. The reason why I'm removing that window is it is about three inches off that roof. The current. I'd like to get it a little bit further away from the roof line. Snow, water, ice, all that good stuff that we get.

So, and then the second floor addition front west dormer.

Not sure what else we can do. There is a small roof in front of that. You'll see me probably back in a couple years. This is part one of part two kind of things. There will be a front porch we'd be looking to add on to this. Obviously right now it's not in the plans. But there's a little bit of roof. It's about a foot and a half of kind of like an eyebrow in front of that. So it would appear like it's set back. But that is going to be bedroom space. So I need as much space as possible. As much space as possible.

Mr. Brown, questions or comments?

I think the metal roof is an improvement on the existing rolled asphalt.

Sudinski?

I still have reservations of mixing them. It's kind of in an odd way. Especially on the east elevation. I still don't quite understand where that break's going to be. between the shingled in the it's not really it doesn't the way it's drawn it doesn't really look like it's going to be coming out as a shed it's almost looks like you're just drawing a line and changing materials but maybe I'm not looking at it right.

Go back to this side elevation of the garage I think it's the garage there. She could see to the right of the garage door. in that elevation, that is that extension of the roof. That's this portion. Right there.

Kind of a mismatched, but it's a. Ms. Workley?

Yeah, all the upper area is a shake then sided.

I can provide revised drawings. The front dormer will be shake. The rest of the second floor will not. They'll match the existing. I'll be using LP siding and painting it to match the existing vinyl. And that's just due to cost.

Will this elevation then be, there'll be siding?

To the right of the chimney, correct.

That'll be shake?

Using the chimney as the inside corner.

Inside corner, okay. Yeah, using that chimney. And you're okay to move that window slightly back?

I can move it to meet the 12-foot requirement. It's just I want to try to get it away from that roof as much as possible, but it moves it back, I think, a foot and a half, so.

Yeah, if that's all it is, I would agree to do that if you can. And so how is the ridge material happening? All right, so where the chimney is, both sides of that upper roof is siding. I mean, is aluminum, metal. Obviously steel, correct. Okay.

This is on which we could agree to a different material for the roof. Metal is the practical, the current practical difficulty.

Correct, it being sort of low slope.

Material is inadequate.

Correct.

Okay, so that satisfies, for me, .

Make a motion to approve with modifying the window on the south elevation. That's the only change, right?

Staff would recommend walking through the exceptions if the board is going to make an exception in this case. This is atypical. This is not something that we would typically see. So I just wanna flag that and that would request that the board walk through the exception standards for the record.

Can you pull that text up? Cuz nobody remembers it. With that one.

So I think we're finding that it's the difficulty of the site has not been the unusual program requirement of the existing condition of the low slope roof. Number one, the reason that we are saying the exception and allowing the metal roof first. Asphalt shingles are citing.

I second.

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

If you just want to submit your revised drawings, we can.

Yeah, especially the top one.

Yes. 26-135, 530 Acres Lane, and this is an addition.

Okay, this is an addition for additional garage space, bedrooms, bathroom, kitchen, and laundry at 530 Acres Lane. Staff notes that the board did receive this application informally at the April 8th, 2026 meeting. The applicant has submitted revised elevations for the board's consideration this evening that depict a reduced overall footprint and consistently applied foundation material around the rear wing addition. Just a general staff comment here to verify the proposed foundation material. will match the existing house and the applicant has submitted all product spec sheets after receiving these comments to staff so we do have those on file the applicant is here this evening to answer any additions of the board make live have you just state your name in relationship to the application hi i'm alyssa and i'm the owner i'm matt plusnick from cleveland draw architecture the architect and i think it'd be easiest if you just kind of walked us through the changes you made since the informal

Yeah, would you like to?

No, I think Lauren kind of covered it already.

Yeah.

Switched up the game plan at the last minute.

Yeah. I suppose if you start at, oh, that's good. Elevations are fine, A201. So the main primary structure, which is toward the right hand of the page, as Lauren mentioned, So that's the existing building. The existing building kind of extends towards the back. Our addition is towards the left-hand side. We reduced the overall footprint, made it less wide, so that it's smaller than the primary structure. We took about 10 feet off, approximately So we reduced the footprint, a little bit smaller garage, a little bit smaller bedrooms, bathrooms above. But it's our understanding that this is within the design guidelines. Also, the existing material around the front of the house and everywhere... It's an old, like a parge coat, a cementitious parge coat over existing foundation. It's that material that we're essentially going to redo it everywhere around the house. The old, a new parge coat, the cementitious waterproofing or dam proofing material around the base of the building. It'll all be the same height, height wise. House is white, so the parge. Originally, it was white, so we're going to redo the existing and the new, so it should... Mr. Brown, do you have any questions or comments?

I think just because I have the old drawings here as well. I think it is... Especially in relation to the adjacent like the other buildings. I think this is. I remember talking about the connection between. or the kind of location of the stairs and how that was going to, if there was a possibility to separate them or not, and it was complicated.

And I just wanted to know. We were calling it the last meeting, that's somewhat of a breezeway type option, which we did look at that. We have a couple options. I can show you the exercise, I can show you the drawings, if you'd like to see them. After looking at those options, we thought that this was the best way to go. You know, in talking to the contractor, the owners, everybody. But we did look at it, I'm happy to show you the sketches.

explored it but it kind of made the mass seem bigger and it was just going to add such a greater expense the reason for doing that was mr workley's um suggestion to kind of break it up more and then it would be its own mass um correct me if i'm wrong but that was kind of the way it was explained to us and so i had matt draw that out but um we presented both options to Lauren as well as like a kind of hybrid option and this one seemed to be the best option, reducing for the code as well as saving us on a bit of cost.

I guess to Alyssa's point, I don't want to backtrack but I'm happy to show you our results if you'd like to see them.

No, I mean, I guess hearing discussion of kind of where that went and that you thought it through. I mean, I don't. I have no further comments on that. Were there any other? I'm just trying to, as we talk about it, remember back to our conversation when you were here in April. I don't have any further comments now. I might, though, if someone jogs my memory.

Mr. Dynski?

No questions. I think this was much better from where we were originally with the informal in terms of the massing and overall mass as a whole.

Sarcella?

I appreciate that the uh adjustments that you've made I do quite wonder what what you're planning for the garage doors now this is all your neighbors come right past and around that circle and to their individual homes um is it going to have some sort of a carriage house look or what what style garage doors are you proposing

So the garage doors we were looking at, and actually the elevations show somewhat of a flush panel garage door, but in discussions with Alyssa and Jamie, the owners, I think it's somewhat of a, the Wayne Dalton garage door calls it a long panel. It's basically a panel line.

Just simple.

Second floor windows. So it'll be somewhat of a carriage house looking garage door.

I'm still sad about the Chippendale, and I saw you flip through some design.

You did. Would you like to see that?

I mean, I know that, of course, it needs to be to code, and I've seen renditions of Chippendale style with still meeting codes. I mean, even if it was... just a couple of course it's not like you couldn't do a center one I think it's what the way it's divided isn't you couldn't do it so what have you looked at our original design started off with somewhat of a preserving the Chippendale and then as things progressed the more

We looked at retrofitting an existing Chippendale railing. It was getting, I don't know how to describe, it gets clunky, you know, because you've got, I could, could I show you these? So this, this is sort of the question, Matt. You need a... Sorry, real quick.

I just want to... The microphone. Oh, I can go back. No, it's okay.

We have these.

It's so, just so they're hot, just so we have it all.

If we were to replicate the Chippendale railing, what could you do to infill those areas? There's a mesh that you could put in there. It's a guard mesh. It's a product kind of made for that, like retrofitting kind of stuff like that. Or there's an acrylic or a glass. So it... I don't know. But once you start doing that with such a thin member, like a lattice-like member, you know, for glazing, you need like sort of a glazing channel or something to hold that. The whole assembly starts getting clunky and you lose the effect of the lattice-likeness of the, you know what I mean? The decorative Chippendale kind of look, if that makes sense.

it's just that this house this is the big house of this 30 acres and it was the main house and it was it's such a prominent feature of it right on the you know daryl road number route 91 and it's It's the introduction to the 30 acres and I don't know, to me it's a big loss. And I know you don't have to because it's not a historic landmark, but I think it's important to the whole complex, compound, whatever you want to call it.

We definitely considered your opinion and we tried hard to find a Chippendale that I liked but I just preferred this at the end of all of our exploratory research on finding a Chippendale.

And what did you what did you think about the backing it with the glass or acrylic?

Well, it's not tall enough. The existing one right now, not only is it not too wide, but it's also not tall enough. It's not safe for our children on that balcony.

So you could do a taller one, but still do a chipper.

But then we would be doing a new design. But you still have to back it.

Yeah.

Yeah.

And also in glass, in theory, it's nice because you think it's transparent all the time. But in reality, it's not always transparent. You know, glass.

Reflection. Yeah.

So what it starts to look, it starts to look heavy on top as opposed to like a light airy, open structure. That's Mr. Workley.

Can I see another long elevation? Sure. Just continues around there, all right. Do you have demo on this too, with the garage in back, or is that already demoed?

There's an existing garage in the back that is being removed, yeah.

Not contributory.

No. No, okay.

I'm sorry, what was that?

The demolition of the existing structure, we don't have to do anything with that?

No, I don't think that, was that part of this application?

The demolition of the existing garage? Yeah.

I wasn't aware. I didn't think that that was part of this application. Staff hadn't reviewed it that. If we didn't have the comment, it would just be the finding comment. But I was not reviewing this as part of this application.

Let's just include it then, if we don't know for sure.

It should be in there.

Whether we have to have it or not, if we include it, then it doesn't happen.

So we have to include the demolition, but we're not. There's the fine. There are no architectural. So we have to have that reading.

Yes. And it should be included in their application.

Was that your intent was to include it with this or to apply separately? I SUPPOSE WE'D LIKE TO INCLUDE IT WITH THIS IF WE IF THAT'S I THOUGHT THAT WAS IT'S ON THE DRAWINGS IS THAT WHAT YOU MEAN WELL WE HAVEN'T DONE I WOULD I WOULD SUGGEST WE HAVEN'T WE I WOULD SUGGEST DOING THAT SEPARATELY STAFF HASN'T DONE ANY ADDITIONAL RESEARCH ON THAT I DON'T KNOW THE AGE I I WOULD NEED I WOULD RECOMMEND EXISTING GARAGE Separating that out for the separate demolition of the existing garage at this time to give staff some time to prepare some comments and just to get the age accurate and have accurate representation to bring back to the board for that.

Yeah, I would agree. Yeah, there's not enough information to do any finding on it.

Correct, yeah, and I apologize if that was supposed to be included in this, but that was not included in staff's current review, so we would need time to prepare that. We could have that prepared for the next meeting, but right now I would advise that.

Yeah, I mean, I don't think that stops anything that we're doing right now.

That doesn't affect anything else going forward, right?

Correct, yeah, I would just be for the demolition of that structure.

Okay.

If he was to work with.

And that the foundation.

The existing one sits away from this.

The existing is detached, so this would be just included in the addition.

So anything from, Mr. Brown, did anything jog your memory?

Just the Chippendale railings, but I agree. I mean, I know you love them too, but they don't work. It's fine. Okay.

All right, we have no changes, right? Make a motion to approve as submitted. Second.

All in favor? Aye. Anybody opposed? All right, thank you. Thank you. You can just sit at that table up there. Thank you. 26-527-6799 Dana Avenue, and this is an addition.

Yes, this is for a second story addition of a master bedroom and bathroom for 6799 Dana Avenue. Staff notes that section four of the architectural design standards state that the front face of the main body must sit forward at least 18 inches from the front face of the wings. Staff knows the existing wing does sit forward of the main mass. However, the second story addition would increase the degree of nonconformity. would not meet the intent of the requirement. Additionally, Section 4 states that details and wings must be consistently applied throughout all sides of that wing. Staff notes that shutters are proposed on the front elevation only. However, staff does note that three sides of the existing house currently do not have shutters, and the proposed design would be consistent with the existing home. And then additionally, question if the existing chimney is being removed. It was just unclear from the plans, and the applicant is here this evening to answer any additional questions that the board may have.

You just state your name and relationship to the application. My name is Eric Wright. I'm with Sojourner Architects and I'm the applicant. If you want to go through the staff comments. Sure. In regards to the first comment about the body and the main body versus the secondary body, the wall itself was placed there just to allow for the interior space that was needed for the design. But there were steps that we took to help reduce the overall size of the addition itself. The plate height and subsequently the ridge height were lowered to below the existing ridge height to help lower the mass itself to lower than the main mass of the home. And then also we kept the existing eave that runs across the existing garage to help break up that massing so it wasn't a two story just wall of siding. to help separate between the first floor and second floor. So those were some of the design moves we made to break up the mass itself. For the second comment about the shutters, we were keeping it consistent with the side elevation, so that's why the existing side elevations that didn't include shutters so that's why there aren't shutters shown and then as for the existing chimney yes it is being removed mr brown questions or comments i have no further comments um

Can we read that comment? So would increase the degree of nonconforming would not meet the intent. So are we still looking at that needing to be reworked? OK.

Other than that, just the fact that it's. Ms. Marzullo.

So is there, if they set that back, the second floor, is there a way to step that back and then not, how many inches are we talking about? Eight now. Eight inches.

the current garage wall is four feet in front so overall it'd be losing five and a half feet to move it back wouldn't and that's where the the issue arises that's difficult yeah either you don't do it at all i don't have to agree that it's just really not practical to move it back

It's with the existing conditions. It doesn't it wouldn't make sense. So I would think, you know, from an exception standpoint, it would be the practical difficulty of. Moving it back 5 feet. And I mean, how are you going to do your structure? What are you going to bear on? Right.

That was another physical constraint. Just having it aligned with the foundation itself. Right.

Having it aligned with the existing foundation. I mean, how are you going to build anything above if you don't put it on that bearing wall? That's reasonable.

Right.

Can you flip through the rest of the elevations?

Is there a side elevation?

I don't think there was one in there, since it was on the opposite side of the house. The floor plan shows the existing garage, and it's a four-foot step in front of the main body of the house.

Once it lifts that elevation, you would just see the new siding. Correct. It's at four feet. Mm-hmm. Do you have a roof plan?

Yes, there should be one.

concerned that that valley was coming in at the corner but looks like you've got that there's an over build so then it sheds it out Same way as the existing house, whereas looking at that practice as a dormer versus it going corner to corner. It doesn't kind of match what you have in the roof plan. It all comes up to like a diamond point.

On a roof plan, you mean?

Yeah. It should be set back from each other.

Yeah, they don't reach the main ridge. They're below the main ridge itself. Is that what you mean? From where the main wall of the house meets and those corner would be taken from there. So that's why they're not exactly aligned.

Bearing point is what helped get rid of that valley. Correct.

So we have a situation where the house is not conforming, right? Because the wing is in front of the main house. So does that justify adding to the non-conformity? Say...

Thank you.

I mean, it's either that or you really can't build anything. I mean, they made it lower. If it were higher than the existing house, I would have issue with that. But they did make it lower than the main mass. And because you have an already non-conforming structure, there's really no way to do this addition. We only drop it to the first floor and I guess you could. I don't know. I mean, I don't know if on the site plan, if they meet the setbacks or if that would be an issue, if that creates a different issue.

I would have to, we would have to take a look at that. It is a unique lot. It is a pie shaped lot. But we would just need to study that further depending on the setbacks because there would, with this being a pie shaped lot, it just changes things a bit.

I think the client's expectation would be to add on to the second floor. There isn't too much space to be added on the first floor. They have a sunroom that goes off the rear of the house on that main body. There's an addition that comes off there. So trying to fit it within the first floor may be difficult.

Oh, this is a rear-loaded garage. Yeah, correct. Oh, so you'd have to move the garage door. Like, it's a rear-loaded garage. You can't... To come off the back would be really problematic.

Okay, so we've answered the question in a sense.

Yeah, and there is a practical difficulty in... I think it was one.

Yes, so. Motion to approve with the practical difficulty of the existing site. Build on the lower first floor because of the garage door being back loaded and already think forward and noncompliant.

All in favor? Aye. Aye. Anybody opposed? Okay. Thank you. Thank you very much. 26-253-7541, Lake Edge Court.

Yes, the applicant contacted staff prior to the meeting tonight. They were out of town, they were unable to make it back, so they requested that this application be tabled to the next regularly scheduled meeting on June 10th.

Make a motion to table. Second.

All in favor? Aye. Okay, 26-72130 North Oviatt, and this is in addition the Wing Innovation Center.

Yes, staff notes this case received informal review at the February 11th meeting. This is for an addition at Western Reserve Academy for the Wang Innovation Center off North Oviatt Street. Staff notes the site plan was approved by the Planning Commission at the May 11th, 2026 meeting with a condition of meeting approval to receive from the ARC board. The subject building was constructed in 1990 with an existing wing addition completed in 1996. As the building is not yet 50 years old, staff notes that this is not subject to review under the Secretary of Interior standards for rehabilitation. The proposed project would instead be reviewed for compliance with the architectural design standard type standards part four. However, the overall compatibility to the surrounding buildings and campus is considered. Staff notes the board requested additional study of the curtain wall. The applicant has submitted additional perspectives from surrounding streets regarding that factor. Staff notes the removal of the windows on the south elevation from the previous informal design. However, the revision complies with the intent of section three stating large expanses of blank wall are to be avoided. Fenestration placement should be at a maximum of approximately every 12 feet. Section four additionally states that the wings may not be larger or than the main body of the structure, but they may be the same height. And staff notes that the ridge of the addition would be taller than the existing building. The applicant is here this evening to answer any additional questions that the board may have.

Just state your name in relationship to the application.

Sure. Jason Bolts, Wheeler Bolts Architects.

Jeff Jaco, Western Reserve Academy.

Suzanne Walker-Buck, Western Reserve Academy.

Yeah, I'll go through the list here from from last time we met. So one of the comments or one of the requests was if we can get a couple extra views of of the building from different. So from Yeah, Oviatt and then also over by the chapel as well. So we've included some views of those. We can look at those a little bit later. Let's see, what's the other? And then also a request was if we could look at other ways to maybe treat the curtain wall areas specifically to the north. other options there and and looked at several different options and as a team we just we discussed those in depth and the other options really muddied the waters a lot more and this cleaner approach we we kept with building on the other side of that curtain wall taking all these things into factor. We feel that the that solution is the correct solution. And then as far as the. Gable height being a little bit higher. I think it's maybe a foot and a half, two feet higher. So what's in color on the right side of what's shown on the screen right now is the new, is the proposed addition. And what's on the left side is the existing building. And there's two reasons, really, that it's a little bit higher. We covered this last time. One is the floor-to-floor. They're pretty low in the building, so we needed to get a little bit more height to get some more mechanicals in there. But the other one, real driving factor is, if you look at another elevation, if you could look at the east elevation, please. There you go, the bottom one. yep so the entry point there um if we didn't raise the belt line or the the drip line of the roof the main roof that's going right to left on the screen we would get into some geometric issues with the way the entry building. If we shrunk the entry down anymore, it wouldn't be a very usable entry. So we that's the other reason why we. Brought that bearing height up a little bit more on that elevation. The scale that just really needed to have that a little bit extra pipe. Cover everything. So if you wouldn't mind going to do. Does anybody want me to go through the plans or walk through the elevations again to remind you where we were at or. We go to the renderings.

Who do the renderings?

Those are existing shots there. So if you go back to the shots prior, that is actually photographs that we took and then we superimpose the rendering into those shots so you can see to the right on that bottom one on the other side of that white car to the right of that white car is the proposed addition. And if you the. Image above that is from. Said Hudson Hudson Street, so it's North looking South across the green. So you can see it's pretty far away, but you eventually see it. And then you really don't see the building from College Street at all. You have to walk all the way up to the chapel before you start to see the building. So that's a shot as you're most of the way up the hill towards the chapel. So from College Street, most of the way to the chapel, that's the view you're getting there on that top view. And I think there was one not to think of it one other comment and staff noted that the South. So I'll explain the the top left. Rendering shows a little. Half around window up in the gable. South and we took that out because what's happening on the interior of the building it conflicts with that window. That elevation faces another building in sort of don't see it so we we took that window out on the opposite elevation but kept it in this elevation. I think that was what the comment was that right that that half around windows what was taken out from the last rendering.

The removal of the windows. Yeah. The removal of the window comment was in regard to the window. Was there a removal of the windows on the first floor?

No, those are all still there. Just the rendering where that shot was taken is just blocks the view to those windows. Okay. That's all. Everything, really, it's essentially the same that we looked at last time. We just provided additional views. Again, we did look at alternatives for the design of that window. Atrium type space, but I'd like to keep it what we were looking at today.

You guys have anything to add? We tried different roof tops on that thing. And it just it looks like it connected. It makes the two sides right now. Whenever we change that, it stuck out like a sore thumb. So I think it makes a good connector.

Then it mixed different styles together. When you mix the styles, it doesn't work. In our opinion, it's better to go with that clean look.

It also keeps the scale down, too.

So we would have to make 2 exceptions for this. The 1 being the glass wall and the other being the height. I would say from my opinion that they're both appropriate exceptions. I think when you look at the unique programming, it's an educational institution. This is supposed to be an innovation center. I think it's very tastefully done. I think when you look at those street views, you really can't tell that it's taller. So while we have to make those exceptions, I think this is an instance where it does make sense to do it. But Mr. Brown?

I would agree. I mean, looking at the east elevation, existing building that it's taller than really appears to me to be a wing off of a larger mass to the south so i mean they're so near each other it's just um i have no issue with that in terms of an exception i mean regarding the glass i guess the only question i would ask um is how like what kind of i mean this is north facing and with the building the new building to the west i mean it's not going to be getting a lot of direct sun so i i really like the the way it kind of disappears in the it looks really ephemeral kind of in the picture the you know the existing picture but then you superimpose the rendering but but i guess my question is just how how would that class be treated

Yeah, so it's a solar band 90, which means it's just a higher performance glass. And we do have different options for color and reflectivity. But what we're opting for right now is just a standard slight gray tint, so reflectivity to it, but still have reflection. We don't want it to be mirrored because then it starts to look foreign. So it's basically a light gray kind of a tint to it. So it won't be blue, it won't be some offensive color. The intent is for it to blend in and then let the reflections of the rest of campus come off of that.

I mean, so the rendering is kind of, I mean, maybe not perfectly materially accurate, but kind of captures your intent.

Yep. Frank or butt-placed?

Butt-placed. yeah so what john was asking was uh so the mullions between the glass on that um on that north-facing piece will be give or take three-quarter inch silicone joints so it's glass to glass with just a silicone joint between them i have no further

And that, what you were just referring to, will that match basically the white that's on the building, or?

No, it'll be dark.

It'll be dark, okay, because from the mock-up picture, it looks light, so I wasn't sure. There it looks dark, but then in the rendering it looks dark, but in the mock-up picture it looked light, so I was curious.

In the render, you mean?

Well, the picture mock-up, I guess.

yeah that there you go oh it does somehow read a little bit yeah you're right it does so i'm just curious what it's supposed to look like it's not meant to be that okay that light yeah good call um no i don't i don't have any other issues no i'm fine no additional comments just one question the glass wall supposed to

to bring in more light. And then you're making it gray, which is not going to be very bright. So I'm, you know,

yeah so by by gray you know it's not going to be tinted dark it just has a it's it's it's a clear glass that has a little bit of a gray hint to it to just tone it down some so it's not meant to be blue or colored or anything like that it'll just be a subtle subtle Dark, I hesitate to say the word tint, but subtle dark, subtle tint to it, not dark color.

Yeah, it shouldn't look much different than the other glazing in the building.

Yeah, the other glazing will actually look much darker because they're punched openings.

It does mute it a little bit, so it's not just this big clear glass. It'll look nice. Yeah, it'll be nice having that little bit of gray to it.

I'm sorry, just wanted to add, just for clarification for the record, just for staff's comments. What our comments were referring to was this expanse here.

you're right for the removal of the windows i completely forgotten about those yes so that grade um we determined there were too many utilities in jeopardy there did not want to lay back the site anymore and jeopardize so many utilities coming into the building so you're thank you i forgot all about those three windows had to had to go in this option

They do meet the intent on the 12 feet.

It is below grade. Staff just needed to just clarify that for the record and then make sure the board is aware and include that just within your consideration.

So it used to look like the proposed north elevation to the right.

Well, yeah, a little bit like that. So there are three windows down. You could see him sort of shaded below grade. So we were able to pull the grade away from the building on the north elevation. But in the south elevation, we were not able to pull the grade away because all the utilities that are running through there.

The primary electric runs through there. We also have a 15-inch storm line that comes right through there.

There's a manhole sitting right by there.

It collects all of that. Gas lines running in there. We're trying to stay as far away from that as possible.

I make a motion to approve with the various requirement again of item one that the site difficulties or constraints for the program that we have for the three exceptions is that the new addition is slightly higher because of the elevations required in the building as well as the elevations of the central courtyard to the entrance of the new building to the other existing building at the lower level street grade. The slope adjacent to the building removal of the windows is requiring those to be the requirement, the change there with the other.

The glass wall doesn't fit.

Oh, that the glass wall is separating the historical pitched elements as a negative element between those two to help define that site constraint and issue.

Second?

Second.

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

Thank you. Thank you very much. Good night.

Next is to 6 dash 4, 5, 3, 7, 5, 0 West streets borough and this is an addition

Yes, this is for an addition, a commercial addition for a vestibule entrance and second story. Staff notes the proposed vestibule entrance expansion and second floor addition would support the church's existing children's ministry program. Staff notes the proposed addition would utilize compatible materials to the existing structure. Additionally, the existing building is identified as a large mass type per section four or five. Large mass are described as follows. This type has a complex massing with several large masses added to each other. It does not have a dominant forward main body but may have one or more central masses to which the other masses are attached. Most of the building is two stories tall. It may have more than one entrance and several subordinate wings or projections. Additionally, the wings may be extended or made two-story. In this case, the original wing and its extension shall be considered one wing and shall be reviewed as such under these standards. Additionally, the section states that wings may occur on any of the masses and be the same size or smaller in height than the central masses. Staff knows the proposed second story addition would be smaller in height than the central masses. However, it would be taller than the adjacent masses. It's just some additional question. If the proposed aluminum storefront vestibule entrance is compatible with the existing building as well as question of the proposed stone panels would be inset to match the existing. The applicant is here this evening to answer any additional questions that the board may have.

You just state your name in relationship to the application.

Sure. My name is Eric Del Pais from Seoul Harris Day Architecture. We're the architecture firm working for Christ Community Chapel. Thank you, Ms. Kaufman. Just wanted to quickly give you an overview of the project just to help out. Ms. Kaufman, if you could start on the site plan, possibly C40.

Yeah, that should work.

So this is located in the southwest corner of the existing building. You can see the building is very large, as you know. And this, the addition portion of our project, is only approximately about 300 square feet of vestibule addition that is coming outside the existing footprint of the building that is one portion that you will see tonight and then also i just wanted to clarify it is not i know on the the application is the second floor addition This is actually expansion of the first floor. It will be a taller first floor space so there will not be a second floor put in. We will be demolishing part of the roof and raising the roof up higher and that will be a single story space. So just to make sure that's clear. So the actual addition portion, like I mentioned, is only 300 and so square feet for the actual children's entrance vestibule. If you could, Ms. Kaufman, in the photos, I think the third photo shows the existing children's entrance as it sits. Yes. so currently this is the existing children's area entrance you can see it's very inset back into the building doesn't scream kind of entrance another entrance point to the building so we're looking to bring this out closer to the parking lot create a separate entrance for this revised entrance for this children's wing and then if we can go to the first picture This picture here is the existing southwest corner. In the center, the kind of the tan panels there above the stone where the roof kind of dips down a little bit. This is the section here where we would actually remove this exterior wall, rebuild it in the same spot, but it would extend up above the roof on each side. So if we could go to the new elevations, we can kind of hopefully get an idea of the intent here. Just zoom in on that left portion.

Yeah. And this elevation, the entrance is to your right there.

Attention with this is we will be matching the existing brick. We will be matching the existing stone base the stone panels the item G on the agenda Question if the proposed stone panels will be inset to max match the existing I believe that is in reference to the existing stone panels the photo on it's probably the fourth or fifth photo in and we would match those existing stone panels that are on the building with a slight reveal around the edge and the other question regarding the aluminum storefront at the vestibule the other entrances to the building have similar aluminum storefront we are just trying to mimic that and create more of a welcoming entry for this area primarily this project is interior renovation to create a new entry and check in for this children's area and then provide this indoor what will be an indoor playground space for the kids hence the need to raise the roof to provide a little more headroom in that area for the playground space Mr. Brown questions or comments

The overall southwest elevation. On the right side, if you kind of mirror it around the, not the big steeple, but the cupola. Is that a similar, something happening over there?

That looks almost like the same thing. That is existing. It's existing, but is it also a double height? Yes, we are trying to match that height, basically. That is the current entry on that side.

That's the entry on the other side?

Yeah, on that side of the building, correct. Yeah, it's a large building, so it's a little disorienting depending on which side you're on, what you're looking at for sure. So yes, we were trying to match the elevation of that portion of the building. As you can see, the sanctuary, the steeple, everything else is much higher. So we were keeping below that.

I guess in terms of if we would be making it wasn't clear to me if we would be making or required to make an exception or there's no exception. There's no there's no exception required required. OK, yeah, then then no, I mean, I. I think you've addressed the staff questions and I think that it. I'm not exactly mimic, but it's kind of like, you know, a match pair with what's going on on the other side of the buildings. I don't know for the comment.

Mr. Inslee?

I don't think I have any other questions.

No, I think it'll blend well and coordinate.

So the inset area we're talking about is the new entrance. That's 300 square feet, right?

Yep, coming to the exterior.

So the cladding area that looks like a two-story element is how much square footage? That's the play area.

That square footage is... That's about... 1500 square feet I think that area in plan and that's where the whole clear story is around that whole area yeah correct yeah and what what's the that's like a rectangular area that is a pretty much a square yeah if you uh if we can go to the floor plan it would I think it would help yeah it's just so it's the center section of that large mass so you can see the outside wall that's shown very dark there it's basically that square if you just drew a square around that center portion

I can take the microphone.

Yeah, this section right here. So if you just extend this over around. It's that portion right in the center.

Effectively a square, and that would just pop up above this roof, this roof, and the existing roof here slopes this direction.

This is kind of a mechanical bathtub right now, and the slope of the roof bends around each side.

And where's the 300 square feet of proximity that's being added?

right here okay that little vestibule because currently this kind of goes back in to the plan and we're just adding this portion here basically to create the airlock outside the existing footprint that way we have the airlock here and they still can use all this interior space for the renovation okay yeah where's the elevation of those yes okay So on that, we are just creating the hip roof, wraps around, so the roof would be continuous around that side. This up here, that elevation shows it too, so this portion right here.

Yeah, no problem, thank you.

I'll make a motion to approve the submitting.

All in favor? Aye. Anybody opposed?

All right, thank you.

Thank you again, thank you.

That is all for new business. We do have a couple of informals tonight under other business. So first is 868843 Wellgate Drive, and this is an addition.

Yes. OK. This is for an addition for an attached garage. Staff just questioned the proposed forward garage wing expansion. There are included pictures in here. The existing garage does sit forward of the main mass on this house. Just noted that section four of the architectural design standards state that wings may be attached at the rear or on the side. However, staff notes that the existing garage is forward of the main mass. Additionally, staff notes that a previous approval was granted by this board at the June 28th, 2023 meeting for a similar proposal to expand the existing forward garage mass. It wasn't as encompassing as this existing addition you see before you, but there was a previous approval on file. That project just didn't end up being completed, but the applicant is back this evening for the homeowners to kind of restart that project, but it is larger this time. The applicant is here this evening, and she can explain and answer any additional questions that the board may have.

You just state your name. Bridget.

Bridget Tipton.

I'm the architect for the owner.

So if you want to take us through it.

Walk you through. So I was not the architect for the previous proposal. That person was not able to make the new modification. So they did some of the work of that previous proposal, covered porch in the rear, covered front entry. So they did some portions of that. But their needs have changed, and we've studied a few different options, and this is what they're looking to do. So there's a couple quirks with this. So obviously, this is a garage ahead of the main house. So before we move forward with the engineered site plan and structural design, we wanted to just Kind of hear your thoughts on where we're at now before we make that considerable investment in fees. So The previous proposal had a few different roofs and then we studied this one with some flat roof components because the the main home already does have some flat roof but the owner would like to try to use some of the garage attic for storage and so moving to a singular hip roof over the entire Existing garage and addition, that was what motivated that choice, was the ability to use the attic for some storage. Obviously, the addition includes more space in the garage, unconditioned storage space, and then an office gym space on the first floor. He does work from home quite a bit, and there's not really peace and quiet in other areas of the home, so there's part of that. In this edition. So the existing home has that strange double hip thing happening. So we're working to complement that the existing garage has it as well. So we're just kind of mimicking that, but unifying the whole volume. The They did an interior renovation with the mudroom locker space that jutted into the garage And so the geometry on the outside no longer matches the interior. And so with this renovation, we're gonna kind of capture that Or kind of continue to include that locker room under the main roof of the garage as well as the new addition I do seem to remember this one and and making the exception on the

addition to that mass. It wasn't quite as large as this one, but I think it was because of the, just how it's sited. I mean, the house doesn't, it just sits kind of odd, and it would be really difficult to do anything with that without But I think that was our thought back in 23 when we said we were okay with the exception of even making the garage coming forward more pronounced. It was kind of at a weird angle, which is, I know that was discussed, kind of the angle of the house on the lot. And you really couldn't do the space in a different section of the house. Yeah, so I do vaguely remember it. I mean, I don't remember it infinitely, but I do know there was discussion around that.

And we did study a second story addition over the flat roof area between the garage and the house, and it was unattractive because we attempted not to have this garage sprawl. Yeah, so we did look at that and very quickly decided that wasn't going to be the way we would ask you to consider that we go. It's on a private drive as well. It is a really unusual site. It's kind of like that one-way loop out there and very oddly shaped lot and the house is positioned at a strange angle even within the odd lot. So it is pretty unusual, yeah.

It's kind of a unique condition and a difficult one to really, you know, do much with. And I think that was our thinking when we approved it previously that, you know, what else are you going to do was kind of the thought process.

And it's kind of oval of unique houses.

Yeah, it's particularly contemporary. It's pretty unusual. I mean, relative to all the other homes I've worked on in the Hudson, it's unusual unto itself even. And it has strange detailing even on it. We're just trying to mimic what it's already doing. They've upgraded it significantly since the photo. If you looked at the previous application, it looks nothing like that now. They've painted and done the trim. It looks great. They just need a little bit more space for all the

kids bikes and things so yeah so i mean i think that's really kind of the big issue with this one is is that that exception is is i mean obviously we can't approve that tonight kind of thing but uh mr brown would you have issue with with granting that exception uh

I don't think, I assumed the board's prior logic looking at it and the site, and although it's a bigger addition, it's not, I don't think it's more imposing on the condition that you already felt was, that the board already deemed worthy of an exception. I guess my only Question is, I mean, whether or not so before there was kind of like an addition out to the front and addition out to the side. And now you're kind of filling in the corner and making the garage the whole thing larger. And you included the drawings of the garage. And I don't know if that would have not been on the board when this came before. It still looks like because the main mass of the house is two stories. The garage would still be subordinate, even though it would get larger than it wasn't, you know, because the whole thing is one big mass now.

Yeah, and the house is interesting. There's one wing that has a hip roof and a flat roof in between, and then a hip roof and a flat roof, and then the garage will be a third hip roof. So there's kind of this rhythm of mass, small connector, mass, small connector, and mass, versus the previous design where this addition had little wings and smaller roofs on it. This is actually more in line with kind of the rhythm and pattern of what the house started doing.

The entire roof would have to be rebuilt.

Yeah. Yeah, he wants to put stuff up there.

yeah yeah no i mean i don't see anything that would change what the board decided i mean i think it was a reasonable position in the past and it looks like same to me

The double hip, is it a design choice, or is there something about it that, I mean, is it like putting light in on it?

I'm not looking forward to detailing it, I'll tell you that. But it's on the existing garage, and then the two main hip bodies of the house masses have that as well. So we're going to do it again. Yeah, I don't really understand. But we're going to keep going in that direction.

The rear elevation where over the porch there, was this part of that one small window by itself? It just looks, was that done? I don't think that was part of the addition.

I think just the porch.

A different, it's a

I think it was just the porch on the previous approval. And I don't, I mean, I didn't go through the previous approval on those items because they did the front, right? It was the front, like call it entry that was redone. And then the rear porch. Correct. And then the garage was kind of the third element of that, of that application.

Yes.

Okay. Yeah. So I don't, I think that was an existing condition.

Can you pan to... I think they're talking about a different elevation. The rear.

It's on the rear. If you go to the house floor of the rear, it's easier to... On the second floor. No, not that one. It depends on what you call the rear, right? the side they're all the same yeah uh so it would be the bottom left photo this one here yes so you have that second story there's that window kind of just little window hanging out there yeah that's existing yeah and that wasn't part of the previous approval or addition it was just that roof i think coming off the porch was what was the previous

yes that was my understanding that it was just this portion of the the new roof and the roof on the front and then um the the garage addition just was not completed within that permit we did close that other permit out so that's that inspection has been completed and then we had them apply for a new permit um just to kind of tie everything up for 2026.

And I believe the thought process behind it was is because they're kind of touching those two sides that are really the only two sides you could go onto to add to the garage. And it wasn't really pushing it closer to the street was, I think, one of the other points of discussion when we were going over making that exception was when you look at it on the site plan, where you're adding on or where you're proposing to add on doesn't really push that structure closer to the road.

Right.

it really pushes it more towards the neighbors and a little bit towards the rear of the lot. It's just because of the odd sighting of the house.

Yeah, to extend the garage towards us in this view, obviously we would impact the entry. And then every other face of the house, on the second floor in particular, every window is into a bedroom. So it gets tricky. Possible, but tricky.

Mr. Workley.

Yeah, my only suggestion is whenever you submit it is maybe have a smaller elevation above rather than just the component. So we can kind of see in context to the existing that.

Was it easier to make an exception because the garage addition was fairly small or it was not

I don't recall that being a factor. I mean, I could go back and do the minutes, look at the minutes for it, but I don't remember that really being a factor. It was really the factors that were looked at was how else do you do it? How does it make sense to do it? And with the house in general, to get any more space, what would you do? And when you go around this house, there's not really a spot to do more without really impacting the current use of the house.

Right, and the neighbors aren't close.

Right. It really has actually minimal impact on the neighbors overall. It's either equal or less than if you just did an addition off of a different side of it. And while it is, call it a non-conforming, it wasn't making it that much more pronounced, I think in our mind, because it wasn't moving it towards the street. while it's still the front of the home, but the front of the home isn't square to the street. And so the thought process on that I think was that we, well, you're not really bringing it forward towards the street, which we have had difficulty with, do we really allow people to do that? How does that make sense? This is really kind of more off, really more to the side when you look at the lot as opposed to the house.

And this, too, introduces lots of windows on that side of the house that is pretty much not detailed, not addressed, not penetrated at all. We're adding more than the required windows on that side. But it is sort of the least desirable part of the lot from the neighbor's perspective. I don't think it's going to make a huge impact.

I mean, I think the overall feel of the board would be that the exception would be granted again. Yeah.

Okay, great. We're going to move forward with all the big stuff.

Thanks. And then 8689278 West Streetsboro, and this is an addition.

Yes, this is for an addition of a kitchen, bedrooms, bathrooms, office, mudroom, and porch. Staff knows this proposal would be subject to all applicable land development code requirements, and the applicant is to verify that the proposed addition is not an ADU. Section 4 of the architectural design standards state that the single story wing type Has a main body and subordinate wings. Question the overall size of the proposed addition. Staff notes that the proposed addition is slightly subordinate in nature to the main mass. Additionally, section four of the architectural design standards say that the front face of the main body must sit forward at least 18 inches from the front face of the wings. Additionally, the section states that wings must be attached at the rear or the side of the building and may not extend forward of the main body. Staff notes the proposed addition would extend in front of the main body by approximately six feet and suggested to revise the projection to meet this requirement. The applicant is here this evening to answer any additional questions that the board may have.

You can just state your name.

Good evening. Robert Shearer, the applicant architect at Quadriga Studios. If you just running through it. Sure. So in terms of trying to keep this short, just because of the time. But no, it's not an ADU. This is an addition to the house that the owner intends to use. As far as the overall size of the addition versus the existing house, and it's a it's a pretty small House now it's 1600 square feet. So the addition brings it up to some around the 3,000 square foot House, which is not out of scale out of character for the neighborhood, you know we don't think. So while it is you know in terms of the existing House a fairly large addition. It's not going to make the House, you know out of scale for the neighborhood. And then the projections, our approach to this was to add some symmetry to that front facade because right now you've got a sort of wing coming off, an existing wing coming off and toward you on the right-hand side. And we thought that by matching that with a similar sized reverse gable coming on the other side of that, it would sort of give more attention to the central mass and emphasize that just by providing that symmetry. So it sort of draws your eye to that center line of the symmetrical Facade and we push the rest of it back to somewhere along that that main body of the house again to give those 2 projections with a spot in the middle. That is the entry of the house versus. If we had pushed the addition back, then you'd still have that one mass on the right hand side pushing forward and then everything else would be behind that, giving that portion of the house, which is the garage, more prominence on the facade. So we felt that this was sort of an appropriate way to mass it to sort of match that projection. I guess the rest of the rest of the edition, you know, this is going to be sort of a master suite and new kitchen. In addition, there's a small office where you can work from home with its own sort of entry and an antechamber and a little back porch there. So that is kind of the view so you can one of the place to sit in and hang out and look out in this backyard. So that's certainly the idea of the program of it. But other than that, I'm happy to look at any questions you guys have.

So Mr. Brown, I guess the real issue is it coming forward.

So this existing projection here is what we were trying to match.

So our portion comes forward of the main mass, but only as much as that one in order, again, to create sort of symmetrical wings to give you a little bit more prominence to that central area. So the addition we're talking about is sort of here. This sort of T shape is the existing house.

So I guess, I mean, the front of the main, sorry, the front of the main mass is where the door is, right? So that the garage protruding over there would be considered a wing or an element off the main mass, which is why this would be, it's not another face of the main mass. It's in front. I kind of agree with you. I mean, I think that

It would... Yeah, if this were pushed back here, then you're really giving prominence to that, I think.

I think you'd have to change the... I don't think you'd have two gables, two nested gables then. I understand why you did it. I don't... know i don't i don't have a lot of comment i mean i don't know what the board's done in the past on this i mean it doesn't i think it's i don't think it's i don't have to take the issue with it um in terms of like finding because from a plan from a plan perspective there's nothing stopping you from pushing it back of the main mass i mean so that you from so you could accomplish all the things you want to do programmatically um I guess I'd have to see what that might look like, but in my head it might not look as good. I don't know how we weigh that when we're considering an exception.

Well, I think taking it so for an exception, I think taking it in context of again, this is where is it a practical difficulty to have, you know, and there's kind of the spirit of things being symmetrical, right? When you look at most of the land development code for Hudson is about symmetry, right? We talk about the vertical lines of how windows align and symmetry is a big portion of the code. know and again if this were a new house we'd be saying we'll just push it back uh so it it is something where i i think you know we take that into consideration of what is the overall look of the house when the project's done and does it make sense you know and you could

agree so i just don't know what the board's on done done in the past i mean i you know i think in terms of symmetry too i mean it it then with the the little is that a vent above and the different window in on the elevations yeah you know the windows are different on you know compared to the other i mean they're not identical right um but in terms of passing which is the only the only question i mean although we do raise that issue sometimes you know yeah or all the time i guess should be consistent. Those two windows are the only... These guys here? Yeah, those two double sets don't match the rest of the windows.

Yeah, I think he just wanted more light in that room. I mean, we can probably work with that.

I would imagine that would be fine.

You can't shutter ganged windows. No. Because the shutters are supposed to, in theory, be able to cover the windows. So ganged windows, normally you would not shutter.

So they'd have to be smaller windows. Yes. So if they want that size windows, the shutters won't work.

Right. If we went to something similar to that, then we would add them. Yeah.

That would likely be the staff comment on the formal review. But just as for informally, the comments were aimed more towards just the general massing at this time. But staff would obviously go more in detail for the formal review at that time. And Mr. Brown, you were correct. Just wanted to note for the record that that existing garage is currently non-conforming because it's a garage and it's also forward of the main mass. So it's a garage wing that's forward of the main mass. So it's non-conforming as existing.

Right. given i mean we just we just this isn't quite as odd a lot as the last informal but it is a kind of trapezoid on a corner and the driveway comes in from case not from streetsboro so the address is on so it's kind of like where's the front and is it is it in front i mean how's the line it's because it's not parallel to the to streetsboro the house right so i i don't know it gets a little wonky so which leads me to think that it's not as yeah big uh did you have anything else no okay it would look odd if you just had to push that back it's

That's probably the right thing to do The existing picture window would not have shutters on it, but it's existing, and it does.

Yeah. Yeah, we generally don't. Yeah, I mean, I can't make you take it off. Right, we generally don't do that, right, when it's an existing condition from many, many years ago.

But to add that much square footage and just stick it behind there just would look strange, especially since it's so prominent right on that corner.

Mr Berkeley.

Yeah, no, I agree with the concept of, um, you know, making it. Similar to the garage and then make it a little more phenomenal. Focus away from the garage component now to a building component. It's just not the entrance area, so.

Would there be another exception, given that the ridge of the reverse gable is higher than the ridge of the existing house?

That would be one where I would really like to see that lowered. I didn't notice that. That's a good catch. Yeah, because it really should not be taller than the existing mass, main mass. Even is okay, but taller, we generally have not granted the exception for taller unless, like there was the one with the school. I mean, it's a little bit different programming than a residential home, obviously.

They had a lot of stuff going on there, yeah.

yeah uh so yeah if we could get that that ridge pulled down a little bit i think that solves i don't know if the vents are needed or not um the garage doesn't have one so if it didn't have any you know that's a cost budget thing then that makes the other one better versus it not having yeah

Nothing.

I do just have a question. Just to clarify, we can go through it on the formal review, but is the applicant, are you keeping both kitchens at this time? There's a kitchen on this floor plan or is this being remodeled into not a kitchen? Just staff's concern with the definition of accessory dwelling units is can this operate independently from the existing mass? Can it be separated? Can it be closed off? It does have a separate, I know it's not the main entrance, but there is an additional entrance here somewhere around the office. And then the kitchen here with the living room, it does have a kitchen, a dining room, and a family room on the other side. So just questioning how it operates and functions.

Yeah, we will look into that. To be honest with you, I don't know. Yeah, absolutely.

We can have further conversations, but just thought I would just want to say. I was wondering that myself. That's the concern.

Bringing in the groceries from the garage, you're going in the garage. through several rooms and then two doors to get your new kitchen so it just seems a very long i would need a way again or something yeah so that's just the concern with the adu because the accessory dwelling units are allowed within residential districts but they have a maximum

so overall square footage of 850 square feet of gross floor area so that was just staff's concern it is not intended to be a you know a separate dwelling unit or anything like that it is intended for his use but yeah i will look into that and just because it'll come up on the staff comments right the massing itself i i don't have an issue with the massing i mean it is a large addition but i think when you look at it and with the elevation especially on the front net It doesn't come across like it's that big, but that will be one of the staff comments, the question, the overall massing. So just if anybody has any strong objection, I guess please say so now. So, yeah, I think overall it's on the right track. I think it being forward and kind of getting that symmetry, it does make sense in this instance. Great. Thank you.

I really appreciate the feedback. I appreciate staying this long.

Thanks. Good night.

And then we have the findings of fact for 88 North Main Street.

Yes, staff has prepared these for the board's review. Open to if there's any additional comment or anything that the board would like added or open to revisions or any just general comments on what has been provided for you this evening.

I guess the only edit I would have is on kind of the history, and it was the Farmers Rail slash Gap slash Post Office. I believe that when Farmers Rail came, that there was an actual approval for that front door system when Gap was there. And it didn't really say that in the findings of fact. But I believe that that came up in the meeting. And so why they are allowed to have the war commercial storefront is for whatever reason, I don't know why, but for whatever reason, this body 30 years ago or 25 years ago, whatever it was, made that decision. uh i i think it's the wrong decision but it was made and and in that instance we couldn't make them go back because they hadn't approved so it really wasn't a choice at that point for the board Ah, but I mean, I think that's kind of important in the, in the, like the finance effect was, I would not have been, I mean, I was on the board when we looked at Farmer's Rail. I would not have been in favor of that door replacement, but we couldn't, as it was, we were advised that you really couldn't take away a previous approval. we were talking about because it was previously a post office right and that was when we had you know leap year to that it was potentially when that change happened because it was their requirements or whatever the case was well and it was 98 which was before the current land development code so that you know it i don't know if that specific decision and maybe that why was why the board it's just not in the minutes but that's why the board allowed gap to do the storefront was, again, they were doing the same thing we did with Farmer's Rail. I don't know that, but that very well could be the case, because I don't see the post office doing anything but that type of front entry. I mean, that's a pretty standard federal building entrance way.

Or heavy duty entrance.

Right, right. So that was the only, was that it didn't, I don't think it really, when I was reading it, it didn't come across to me that there was a previous approval that was brought up during that approval. And that, because that was the reason it was approved. was not because it was felt to be appropriate. It was that it was already done and you couldn't take it away.

OK, sure. Yeah, we can take a look at that and revise to better capture that and make those revisions.

That's the only thing that I saw.

OK.

I did want to ask about the only thing that I wanted to discuss was at the end, were there the six based on the following findings for the exceptions or unusual conditions. Number five, I guess I'm not, I think is a little concerning because it implies that we would, the application of some kind of simulated divided lights would, that the board said we would approve that door as submitted if they stuck Divided lights on it and I don't know that we. And previously in the finding the fact there's discussion of the hardware as well and the material and mean I guess. From a legal perspective, I don't you know, I'm not it's not clear to me what these findings have to say, but I mean my personal opinion would be that they could be at their predicament by getting up.

I think we did say we would be open to looking at modifications to the existing door. Correct. But they had to bring us those modifications.

And we expected them to bring us those modifications. And they instead said, you know, we're not going to show you modifications. We think we're entitled to keep the door that we have. so we never got a chance to kind of assess a set of proposed modifications and the way i read number five is that we kind of you know pre-approved some modifications that we never actually saw um i don't know i guess maybe wording that as the board indicated it would look at

modifications to the existing door. Because we didn't say we wouldn't. We did say that we would look at it.

They did bring precedent photos that they then withdrew. So that's kind of what we were talking about, the precedent photos.

Sure. We can take a look at that as well and get some edits on that.

So I had a problem with the way the sentence went.

The applicant's predicament can be updated.

That's the general standard for the variance language for all of the variance. That's how number five reads of the Duncan factors. Yes, can the predicament be obviated through? Okay, because...

In an English class, probably would ask for a revision.

Understood, yeah, but this is taken, the way these findings are written is to the Duncan factors, and that's how the Duncan factor number five is written.

Extend it?

Yeah, I would say.

Extend it or can we accept it with the modifications?

that would be that would be we would those are i would say if they were minor but just based on the feedback that i've received this evening it seems like we we need we will be making some modifications and um to to appease what the board would like the the findings to say so yeah we'll just we'll kick it down the road Do we need a motion under? It's an agenda item, I would say, just to cover that.

I'll make a motion to extend this until we get the modifications updated.

Second.

All in favor?

Aye.

Okay. And we're on the staff update.

Okay, just a brief staff update. As a department, we did have an intern start this week. His name is Nathaniel. He's going to be helping us out with the historic landmark expansion program. We do have our first site visit set up for Monday, and we were able to contact the State Historic Preservation Office to kind of see how we can update the OHI forms with HHA. So we figured out how to do that. There's an app that you use and you take photos. So we're going to test that out. We're going to have our first run, first go of it on Monday. And then we'll have more to report back to you at the next meeting, but just wanted to let you know that we are moving forward with that. And looking to schedule the site visits, there was just a little bit of logistics to figure out exactly how we do this as staff partnered with HHA for the update, since we haven't actually done that before as a body. But there is an app that seems pretty user-friendly to use, so we're going to be using that interface. And our intern is going to be helping us out with that, so that'll be a big help. Additionally, for the minutes, we did have a technical issue with the minutes from last time. So they weren't ready at this meeting, but we will have them for you next meeting. I believe that we did. I think that the ruling, I don't want to speak out of term, but I think that the ruling, you will see those minutes again on the next meeting to get those approved. I can get a gent or more so those of us that were not at the meeting say what in that case we do I can clarify that I will I will have that clarified by the follow-up meeting I was not involved I was not within that meeting for with the question that was raised last time but I will have a very clear answer for you at the next meeting on on how we're going to vote on that or the procedure. What's the procedure? On the procedure for getting those approved for the March 11th minutes.

So the question would be, can, because we have got the meeting minutes and read them, whether we attended or not, we still approve them based upon that understanding? Mm-hm. So if that's hopefully the way we could do it.