Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Wednesday, June 10th, 2026. We'll move on to roll call. Tonight we do 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 for public comment. This is when anybody may address the board regarding anything that is or is not on the agenda. We do 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. Tonight we have one. It is 26-59596 First Street, and this is a hanging sign. Motion to approve the consent agenda.

I move to approve. I'll second.

All in favor? Aye. Anybody opposed? Thank you. So we'll move to old business. First up is 26-19548 College Street, and this is an accessory structure in the historic district.

Yes, I can give a brief project background on this. This is for an outdoor fireplace within the historic district. Staff notes its application was heard at the May 27th AHBR meeting. The applicant has submitted revised elevation for the board's consideration this evening that could depict additional brick detailing within the proposed fireplace design. The applicant is here this evening to answer any additional questions that the board may have.

Could you state your name and relationship to the application? Brian Wilmot, I'm the contractor on the job.

Tanya McEnerny, Tanya McEnerny Landscape Design.

If you just walk through the changes that you guys made.

If we if Ms. Kaufman, do you mind going to the top? There are some pictures of the existing house. Yeah, right there. The request was, I think, to add more brick. So we were going to make the entire thing out of brick, and it'll have sandstone elements similar to those shown. You can kind of see in the window. It's painted white, but it's above the window. There's also a window well that's not painted. And then you can see there was an old door if you go over to the right a couple pictures there. So we're going to show that over the fireplace and then we're also going to cap the top in sandstone. We also added a little bit of a banding element that picks up the existing chimney, which you can see in the middle picture at the top. So we kind of re-designed it to meet the suggestions you made at the last meeting.

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

No, I think this is what we discussed at the last meeting.

Ms. Sierinski?

No, I'm good with the changes. Okay. Yeah, thank you for making the changes. And I noticed on the way over here that the house that's on the west side of you is the same type of brick. Yes. So that's good. Good change. Thank you.

Okay.

I move to approve as revised. Second.

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

Thank you. Have a good night.

Next is 26-2537541, Lake Edge Court. This is an addition.

Yes, this is for an addition of a great room, dining room, and covered patio. Just some brief staff comments here. Section 3 of the architectural design standard states that all chimneys must match the foundation of material. Staff suggested to revise the chimney material to match the existing chimney and foundation material. As well as section four of the architectural design standards states that buildings shall have a typical window used for most windows. And to question the proposed fixed windows on the rear elevation, as well as the proposed transom windows on the right and left elevations. 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.

I'm Dan Posar, designer.

I'm Tracy Corpus, builder.

Okay, so you get a chance to look at the staff comments?

Yes.

Okay.

Yeah, we want to address the chimney. The homeowner's not real enamored with the brick on the house. It's kind of dated for the time period of the house. So he was hoping to have the stone look on the chimney and that. So we're trying to see what other options you guys would accept. Would you accept three sides wrapped in brick and the interior face stone? What we could do with that.

The other thing is that the fireplace in that instance is not connected to the house. It's almost like a freestanding fireplace, if you would. I've noticed quite a few of freestanding fireplaces or outdoor fireplaces that are stone, even though the home has a brick foundation.

based on the elevations i'm seeing it is connected to that roof i mean it is connected yes it's yes So completely freestanding, yes, because it's considered more of a landscape feature.

OK.

But when it's connected, they're all supposed to match. And I don't think we've given that exception. We've kind of stuck with it needs to be.

So if we do the sides and the areas that's exposed outside to people, well, you're not going to really see it because it's on the back of the house. if we did the sides in the back as brick and he still kept the face the faces into the house's stone would that be acceptable uh we can talk through it as a board uh i don't think anybody's ever asked that before so uh and obviously we can't uh because it's a chimney you won't allow sighting correct correct i don't think the chimney's allowed to have sighting

I don't believe so. I could double check on that.

I don't want to give the wrong answer, but I think it's supposed to match the chimney supposed to match the foundation. Right. And then a second or third chimney is supposed to match.

I think that inside face is what he with the homeowners are more worried about because they have stone on the inside of the house as well. And they were hoping to tie that in when you look through because there's a big 12 foot slider there that looks into the family room where there's another fireplace in there. So they were trying to tie the inside and the outside together a little bit with that.

And then there's a comment about typical window. So yeah, there's supposed to be a typical window.

So in the laundry room, if that's the first one that they're talking about, because I think twice there were comments on windows. The reason why we did that is because the area is not massive and they wanted to be able to use that area for counter space. um for that and we were keeping you know windows obviously um on a span of space which i know a certain amount of feet you're not allowed to not have a window so we did you know stick with that but we're hoping to be able to do this for them in their laundry room and mud room just to add to what tracy had mentioned they would they were preferring to have a short window in there because they're planning on putting

sorting bins below the window and that. And then the other window on the left side is in the powder room. The area between the covered patio and the laundry room addition is going to be his grilling porch. So he wanted to maintain privacy there, not have a long window or have to have a blind on it and that. So having that higher up window to let light into that powder room and maintain privacy. And in regards to the stairwell, the windows, I'm assuming you guys are referring to the transom windows and that.

Well, I think it was in, Lauren, please weigh in here. But not only the transom, but it looks like all these windows are six over six double hung. And what you're adding is none of that.

So we're doing kind of like what we did at 277 and 222 Ravenna Street, where the back of the house, we've kind of made it all glass so that you can just kind of enjoy nature behind the house. It's basically the exact same concept. Just creating a wall windows.

All right, well, Mr. Brown, any questions or comments?

So regarding the fireplace. Yeah. Is the covered area outside vaulted or is there a- It is vaulted. So you'd see the entire fireplace. I mean, so it's not just kind of like a surround around the firebox itself you're talking about.

It's going to go all the way up into the cathedral.

OK, so you'll see that full. Yeah, I mean I I just I don't know how you reconcile like doing three sides brick and one side stone. Yeah, because there are other rules in the in the land development code about materials turning corners and you know it's it's amazingly object. So the object I mean I could imagine they could take the stone and do something. You know, like decorative around the fire box like on the brick, but I think that the chimney itself.

It could be cut stone.

would have to be, but I think it, I mean, like you said, I mean, I just think that code is pretty clear. I mean, where the code requires that we, and I'll have, sorry. The code requires that it match the foundation. So unless you're going to go and change the foundation on the rest of the house to stone, you know, it's got to be brick. Okay. But I think there, you know, you could do, there would be possibility of adding stone to kind of relate to the interior on the face around the firebox kind of as an, you know, acts kind of like, Right. But I don't know. I mean, without, you know, I don't want to tell you what that might look like, but that's the only way I could kind of see.

Yeah, they're looking for more of a lodge look where they look out and they see the stone go all the way up to the cathedral ceiling because that's what they're doing inside and that. So if the fireplace is detached from the covered porch, does that make it considered landscaping then? Like if we pushed it out a little further?

I don't know what I don't know what the I've not yeah, I mean the one just before was this kind of exact scenario and that's off totally freestanding and it was you know originally I think was all sandstone or a scene like parched look and it was well no you know it needs to be more uniform to what the house was and that's why they changed it to brick. Okay. I mean that was that was literally the one right before you guys.

Yeah, that brick on that house was a lot more attractive because of the setting. This is a 1980s Center Hall Colonial with vinyl siding and brown brick, which is what they're trying to get away from for the new addition.

It's just hard in terms of how the land development code is written and how we're required to judge. There's nothing about it that says that this house, unlike other houses, should be exempted from that rule.

So even the face that only the homeowner sees, they can't decorate the face the way that they want? Because when you look at it in the picture, all three sides to anywhere is brick. I would think that they wouldn't be allowed to decorate the front of their fireplace in a way that they would like.

On the interior, but kind of where it comes up past the roof line. Oh, that's fine. I think the fireplace itself has to, or the chimney itself has to be correct. Oh, so the part above the roof. So if we wrap it all the way around.

Okay, that's completely fine.

It's possible. And because there's no elevation of that interior face so it's I can't be sure exactly what that looks like but I think there's the possibility that you could do something with stone.

If we did stone on that face up to the cathedral and then above the roof we have the brick that surrounds it yeah because we're more than likely going to be doing a thin brick on it anyways that matches so it's feasible that we could have that wrap four sides above the roof and you won't see it from the inside

I mean, I do think I think it's personally I don't think we could approve it or I would prove it without seeing a revised drawing of what it would look like with the rest of the board. But I think there's a possibility that you could do something around that, you know, decorative around the firebox. And I don't know that that would be. But I'm I haven't seen a fireplace like this before. So I don't know if that's something that has come up in the past.

I know that there's homes in Hudson that have both brick and stone integrated into the entire exterior.

I mean, the land development code is 1998, is that correct? 1999. 1999.

So I mean, yeah, there's a lot of- And there's been a couple iterations to it. So it's what was done on houses before. And it could have been done by the brother-in-law on Saturday and they just haven't gotten caught. I mean, it happens.

Well, even on Prestige, I've seen some Prestige on Cheswick. There are homes on Cheswick that have brick and stone.

I'm not familiar with those, I don't know. I don't recall this board, since I've been on it, allowing a mix.

It's like usually you're only allowed three materials on the exterior of the house.

yeah when we're talking about chimneys and foundations that's that's not a wall material okay so so wall materials are different okay they're they're defined differently okay okay uh so so if it is all brick there's no problem well let us get through everybody first okay one person okay yeah um and no that's any comments on windows

Yeah, I guess I really don't. I mean, I understand that the windows don't follow the same pattern because you want more windows for light, but I don't see a reason why they couldn't be. 6 over 6.

I don't believe this existing house has divided, it's just regular. They were replaced years ago and that, so there's no grills in the windows on this existing house.

From the photos it looked like there was, but- It looks like there are.

It looks like the front has them.

The front has them, but the back does not.

The back does.

Yeah, it does.

Yeah, go to the, yep, right there. Maybe it's- Six over six.

You know what, it's the kitchen windows that didn't have them.

Okay, well there's one eight over eight and the rest are six over six.

Yeah, okay.

and so generally you know on the one call it a special window on the directly on the back that has generally been allowed but for all of them I mean you know you're kind of given that that special window configuration but then the ones to the right really should be the double hung six over six and whether it's a drawing error but all the ones on the back should really be the six over six okay well i think i think we can accomplish that so even the even for their great room i mean no that would be like this that's okay okay all right very good and i think the

high sill window of the transom. I mean, in the powder room doesn't bother me. I mean, that's reasonable. It's a programmatic issue for the house.

Will that require grills or no grills?

Is it operable?

It is not.

Is it? I guess maybe.

I usually ask.

It's too small of a window. It's a 30 by 20. Right.

The grills on the transoms for the, that's typically, that's an atypical request.

Yeah, grills on the transom are usually, it's just too small to put grills in.

And I think it does bother me that the bathroom is on it. Just to clarify.

Could you take that microphone with you? Excuse me.

There's a mobile microphone. Yeah, just tap the top of it, make sure it's.

Yep, there you go. You want me to tell a joke? Just to be clear, so these windows have grills existing. This one has grill existing. This is a replacement because of the new addition. It's OK to put grills in this window, but leave these without grills?

I personally would be fine with that. I would consider that a special window, which has an allowance to you can do a different special window. OK. That's how I would consider it.

OK. I think that they would be OK with that, yeah. I think so, too.

Ms. Serginski.

For the fireplace, I agree. It probably makes the most sense to do it all brick, maybe a decorative face. But to your point, probably should see what that looks like in all four sides to really understand what that would look like. and the windows exactly what he just said was completely fine with um how i was trying to count how many transom windows do we have here though i mean i was okay with it like a one-off here and there but it seems like we had quite a few in one space well including the great room we've got three on the great room three in the stairwell one in the laundry and one in the powder room

And the reason is they're spaced.

Approve, right? Like we usually like one here or there, but that seems like a lot.

So I might say it again. There's there's three in the stairwell behind the in the great room, one in the powder and one in the laundry. Yeah, that's two to five total.

Well, are you counting the ones in the great room too, the transoms? No. No, I won't count those.

Just kind of the standalone.

Five total. But three of them are spaced against one area. And I think that doing one long one is really kind of unattractive in this and does not go with the rest of the house. I feel like that the three looks much better than doing one long transom.

I think they're asking for longer windows.

You said there's built-ins behind those windows?

No, it's just an open stairwell to the basement. It's like a hallway, if you will.

is why couldn't you put it in the laundry room in the laundry room there is built-ins with counter and that kind of stuff for them to do the folding or ironing or whatever else under that yes right and those are on the left elevation yeah correct i'm okay probably with the laundry in the powder room just understanding those spaces but it seems like

Just to me, that seems like, again, we'll usually allow it in a couple spaces like that, but having that many gets a bit much. So I think on the other side it would, I mean, it'd probably just be a scenario. Yes, they'll probably have to put some sort of window treatment on there, but it probably makes more sense visually from the exterior for those to be, well, the typical size windows.

I feel like for cohesiveness- Let us get through the board quick, because otherwise we're never going to finish this.

Okay, I'm done.

Okay, Ms. . It should be brick, all brick.

I would not go along with.

special face in the one area in the front and dividing it up I don't think that's going to they're saying like when you see it from the inside do something like do stone on the inside below the roof line so you're going to have brick and most of it and 20 percent of it's going to be stone from the front or you know from And then as far as windows, I'm fine with the rear with that picture window and with the transoms or not. And because that's consistent on that one, is it the right side with the three in a row by the staircase? I'm okay with the windows as presented. That's all.

Okay. Ms. Kinney.

so chimney brick uh but they can do whatever they want from the inside right so because we we do not uh rule on the inside only the outside and then looking at the interior of the house yes inside of this remember it's open it's it's not an interior space really it's open it's like a pavilion of it yeah it's just a covered porch yeah it's just a covered porch Well, so it's not considered inside.

It's not really an interior space. Yeah. Otherwise, they'd have to have windows.

Covered porch. OK. So if it's not considered inside, then the four sides have to be brick. And I agree with your comments that to have the same kinds of windows, left and right elevation, makes sense. I'm okay with it.

On the chimney, I would have to see a detail of what that would look like before I would say I would or would not accept the interior being something different. Depends on how it's detailed out, depends on how those corners are made with the different depths of the material. So I'd have to see a detail of it before I could say whether, does it make sense or not. I think the kind of gut reaction is that it should just all be brick and it's just simpler that way. But there's ways of detailing it that probably could work. I'm not a designer.

One thing I wanted to add, you mentioned that the existing brick foundation, the brick is not attractive and it's an ugly color. The requirement has to do with the material. It doesn't have to do with the quality of the material or the colors. So that could be an opportunity to make it better, so to speak.

No, the brick on it would have to match.

well could we pick one color out of like it's kind of a variation could we pick the nicest color and then make that a solid so that it looks nicer and more up to date I guess I'd have to see I I don't know you didn't submit a material sheet did you for that yeah so I I mean

I can't tell from the photos. I mean, it looks like the same brick, just on the photos of the house. I don't see a variation in the brick. I mean, I look at the chimney, it just looks like basically red brick.

Yeah, it is just red, brownish red brick.

Okay.

Yeah, there's nothing special about it.

Okay. And so it would have to be the brownish red brick.

Yeah, it would have to- That's what you got. Yeah, it would have to match.

Yeah. And as far as windows, as long as those other ones are double hung on the back,

I you know, I'm fine with the transoms myself, but so no, no change in the windows with the exception of adding the grills to the one set of windows.

Okay, so just be that right hand set in this elevation, right? Okay. I mean, I'm fine. I think overall that everybody's overall okay with the transom windows.

And then we would just have to- I can live with them if everyone else is okay with them. I said I can live with them if everyone else is okay with them.

So it's just the chimney. So I don't know if you guys wanna just table it and come back on the chimney.

no we won't table it um i know that sometimes that you can then come back and show a design like say everything's approved and then say hey we've come up with this we have this drawing you can submit a revision yeah yeah a revision if we want to do that yeah okay uh so then we need a motion with the chimney being uh brick to match and the uh rear elevation right hand windows being double hung to match the rest of the house So what you're asking for is an approval tonight and then- If they decide, if the customer is upset with it, then I would ask someone to do a drawing and ask for a revision if necessary. They may be totally fine with it. Well, just like he had said, he would have to see something. So if they wanted to change it or didn't like the outcome, then submit a revision.

But we're just saying that it would need to be, it can't be partially stone and partially brick. Right. That's not an option. Okay. All right, so I move to approve as discussed for the chimney to be brick to match the existing and for the transom windows are approved as they're presented and then grills applied to the rear two windows on the right side of that rear.

Got it. I think that's all.

I guess as part of that, when you guys do the revision on the elevations, just revise the other double hung windows to accurately depict.

Yeah. OK. Second.

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

Thank you.

That is all for old business. Opening new business first is 26-644-179 Elm Street, and this is demolition in the historic district.

Yes, this is a proposal for a demolition of a single family dwelling within the historic district. Staff notes the proposed scope of work is to demolish a 1952 home located within the historic district in order to construct a new single family dwelling on the property. Staff notes that Elm Street was incorporated in both the local and national historic districts in 2022. Staff additionally notes that the boundary increase application included 179 Elm Street as a contributing building based on its age. The historic district period of significance extends to 1960. 179 Elm Street was categorized within a sub-period identified as 1940 to 1960. It is described as follows, the one story minimal traditional side gabled house with aluminum siding is asymmetrical in design. The six by six double hung windows are flaked with shutters. The attached front gable one car garage projects forward from the main facade. Additionally, the boundary increase application further states the boundary increase exhibits the established architectural styles and type of residential buildings and expands the period of significance from 1940 to 1960, exhibiting colonial revival, Cape Cod, minimal traditional styles with a strong predilection for colonial revival styles. Staff suggests the board utilize this meeting for questions for the applicant and the time to set up a site visit.

the applicant is here this evening to answer any additional questions that the board may have good evening uh nate bailey hurrah architects 10 west streetsborough and hudson christina utrop homeowner 65 brandywine drive in hudson great so we were here in front of you guys for an informal recently and um based on some of the feedback from the board obviously pulled together some information and i returned tonight uh before we jump into that i know christina wants to share a few things but the goal for us uh tonight with you guys as ms coffin mentioned pending a site visit let's just explain some of the things we've developed in the time away uh some of the conversation we had with the board previously was We're waiting on a property survey, which we can see on screen here, which just properly articulates the parcel we have in the existing house footprint. The board had talked about wanting to better understand other houses on that street and just the nature of what we're requesting in terms of us not seeing 179 as a contributing property. The board also requested if we could generate a quick site plan in front elevation that would just start to help the board understand what we would be proposing. Of course, separate art board process, but what we'd be proposing in this issue, in this scenario that we were approved for demolition. So go ahead, Christina.

to meet you guys and thank you for taking the time i just wanted to introduce myself just as the homeowner i'm christina utrop i grew up in hudson and part of the 13-year club after graduating i went to new york city and when i met my husband and we wanted to settle down and have a family we we wanted to move back to ohio and several roots in Hudson, so we've lived here since 2018. So we've been here quite a bit on our house in Brandywine. I have two young kids that attend Hudson Montessori School. I'm on the board there. I also recently took a job as a CFO and COO at a local foundation here in town that would be walkable from the street. So very dedicated in my day to day personal and professional life in this community of Hudson. It's very important for us to make sure that we are, if had the opportunity, to build something in the character of Hudson. I appreciate that growing up here. Before we even purchased this property, we had talked to neighbors down the street, the flanking neighbors, as well as other neighbors on the street, and did some research on the history of this property. So really just trying to contribute to the character of Hudson and not build something that would be out of place. So thank you for your time tonight.

Yeah, okay, so as a part of what we had submitted to you guys was a bit of a report. And in that report, we had conversed with John Milner Architects and Naylor Wellman Architects, just as they're both well-known industry experts with historic properties. And some of the information that we're presenting tonight came from direct collaboration with them. But one of the other things we submitted to the board was just a report that starts to lay out, in our opinion, seven exceptions that would accommodate. a board's approval to move for demolition on 179. So we wanted to walk through some of those exceptions and then we'll probably dance Ms. Kaufman back and forth between what we've provided here and some of the graphics we illustrated here. exception one was one of the ones that we talked about when we were here last you know we were using the language and the criteria from the national register of historic places which just lays out all the guidelines for you know establishing historic properties and you know it's our opinion that this property does not meet the required criteria uh criteria for evaluating uh historic properties and those criterias are a through d a is it does it have an event that's relative to its place uh b is there a person of known significance that may have resided at this property C, is there integrity or architectural design features that would be considered important? And then D, is there any information potential? Which basically, if you excavate or if you take this down, are they going to find something new from it? So exception one that we'd like to bring forward to the board is just that this property is not contributing because it does not meet criteria A through D. And I think it's important to note, too, the National Register of Historic Places clearly states that age alone is not criteria enough to establish a contributing property. So the fact that this meets the age of significance in the words of the National Register of Historic Places, it's not enough. Exception two, it's interesting. So obviously we've had access to the report that was submitted by the city of Hudson for the historic district's increase. Real quick, there is a discrepancy in that report. The report states that the house actually has aluminum siding, but it's wood. So one thing there. But in the nomination's own description of 179 Elm, there's no architectural distinction in this. So there's six properties in the district that meet this architectural style. There's five on our street and one on Rossland. And we can jump into the graphics in a second to talk about this. But in each one of the explanations on these properties, the nominator statements are pretty pretty clear and pretty detailed as it talks about 184 has an off-center door which sheltered with a pediment stoop 24 rossland has a roof extends over the front entrance with raised masonry porches and spindles 170 elm it's a stoop with an arch pediment hood supported by square classical columns and 187 is an overhanging eve formed porch with centrally located multi-pane picture windows For 179, our project, the most prominent architecture feature that it talks about is the garage, which it says projects forward from the main facade, which we know is clearly it's here before our board and development code, but structural inversion of the quality that kind of meets historic district design criteria. And so it's interesting as we look at even the nominator's statements, what was said and not said about all these six houses, 179 is the least of what they're saying. Because again, in our opinion, there's little to no architectural significance with this property. In terms of the garage, kind of moving to exception three, and this is where Ms. We could go back to the screen. So it's interesting. When we're looking at these properties, we're trying to, and if you just want to jump to this first slide here, this is a graphic that illustrates, of course, the entire district here. We've zoomed in on Elm Street. The five properties in Cyan are all the houses that are of a similar architectural style, which is minimal traditional. Which, as a sidebar, in talking with John Milner Architects and Naylor Wellman, they both kind of chuckled on the phone, because in terms of architectural styles and distinction, this is one that falls very low on anyone's radar. But 179, of course, is in pink here. And both of them recommended that we use a resource that's well known. It's the Field Guide to American Houses by Virginia McAllister, second edition, to just start to establish WHAT THE ARCHITECTURAL CRITERIA FOR THIS STYLE IS SO IF YOU WANT TO GO TO THE NEXT SHEET MS COFFMAN SO WE PUT TOGETHER A QUICK REPORT HERE THAT JUST EVALUATES ALL THE HOUSES THIS IS 184 AND THESE ARE ACTUALLY UH IN CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER WHICH IS WHY I FEEL LIKE THEY'RE OUT OF ORDER BUT 184. This is a house across the street. 24 Rossland, a house down the street. 179. This is ours. It's blurry on screen, but I think it's 170 Elm Street. Thank you. You can see some similarities here in terms of the fact that they're all single-story ranches with lower sloped 179 is the only one with a garage that's built proud, which is interesting to us because there's some oddities on 179 that causes us to take a look back. If you could jump one more slide over, I apologize. Looking back at some Google imagery, it was interesting because from 1970 to 75, and this is kind of pixelated, but it feels like that garage was not present. So you can see here in 1970, the image here versus 79. It's clearly here. And of course, today's beautiful imagery, it's there. And if you go to the next slide, what would support the fact that this garage was an addition is along the side of the garage, you can see here, there's a vertical line and trim, and then even closer up, a misalignment in the siding. And so, look, a lot of this is like forensic science, right? When we try to go back in time to understand what was done and why it was done. But that satellite imagery and the relationship of a vertical piece of trim along one continuous side and the misalignment in the siding would certainly suggest to us that garage was an addition. An addition later in time, right, after the house was built. And to us that just continues to support the idea that this is a house that doesn't have the architectural distinction OF THE STYLE IT'S BUILT IN, ESPECIALLY SINCE THAT GARAGE IS CLEARLY FORWARD OF THE HOUSE. IF YOU ZOOM OUT A BIT TO MS. COFFMAN, THERE'S ANOTHER ODDITY THAT WE CAN'T EXPLAIN, BUT ALONG THE FRONT OF THE HOUSE HERE, YOU CAN SEE ABOUT MID-CENTER IS TWO DOWNSPOUTS AND A CENTRAL DOWNSPOUT. Clearly that was not audition clear that was there from the beginning. But again, it's an architectural oddity Perhaps it happened because they ran out of material or something different But obviously in most situations we'd locate downspouts to the the corner of the perimeter of the house because it's not To not you know command visual attention so we thought these images were pretty important because as the nominator statement is arguing for the architectural distinction of these houses and We've already noted that 179 had the least amount said about it and we do feel like These images along with the satellite image starts to support Our our thought that the garage was in addition if you want to back up one or two slides miss coffin to the overall these are just a sampling of some of the images from that book a field guide to american houses that illustrate this architectural style properties coast to coast and so it's uh it's unusual as you start to sample these they're of various uh it feels like various styles is probably supported by both region and material And what's, you know, sort of resonant for them. Some have dormers, some don't. The roof pitches are certainly varied if you look at this one to that one. But, again, worth noting, none of these have garages that are proud. Most of them were tucked back, much like the other five properties that we've discussed, one on Ross and three on Elm. us uh exception five would be as noted previously when we're here with you guys and the the records we'd submitted this house was approved for demolition in 2011 by arc board of course that was a period of time before the district was in place so obviously different rules were applying but again you know that was interesting that in that approval the only comments that staff made were that they I don't know if they would use the word excited, but they were looking forward to it. And it was a unanimous vote, 6 to 1, 6 to 0. And oh, the city planner's confirming letter just expressed that he only looked forward to a replacement that contributes to the charm of the street. And so I think it's important the way Christina talks about this project, and we've worked with her and her family for a little bit here, that is certainly our intent. And we'll get to the intent, what we submitted later, but the intent is that, you know, we do something that brings back the charm to the district versus what's there now. exception six would just be you know oftentimes we're here and there's neighbors sometimes not in support of this as Christina mentioned and as we've submitted to the board we have neighbors from each we have letters from each neighbor who live directly adjacent to this house and you know I credit our our clients for being very proactive in that approaching them early on before even the purchase of the house to understand if if Something like this was to be, you know, something they pursue, how the neighbors might look and feel about that. The neighbors to the right used to own the downtown general store, Saywell's, I think it was called. So they chuckled. They've had a lot of history in Hudson, but they saw it as a win for the street just because that house, which was approved for demolition in 2011, hasn't changed since 2011. And so there's been no character-defining, you know, improvements changes periods operated as a rental for the last I would say 10 plus years 15 years and it's it's been in a steady date of steady rate of decline the last exception we would just bring to the board would just be the the nature of the boundary increase the 2021 boundary increase by the city of Hudson uh which was developed as a boundary increase for the neighborhood, not for specific properties. So while we will not argue that there are many houses on that street and within the district that meet the criteria and are contributing, we would argue that 179 is not one of them. It was just swept up along with them. Ms. Coffin, if we could jump to the slide that illustrates what we're kind of proposing.

Yeah, this is great.

So actually, if you want to go to the one before, there's a little site plan. So what we're showing here is just a quick high-level site plan. Of course, we want to develop some things for you guys so that you can start to understand what we're proposing. And obviously, we'd be back in front of the board with... Excuse me. Different material if it moves forward. But this white dashed line starts to illustrate just the line across the street. Of course, we want to be respectful to the neighbors based on front yard setbacks and 10% requirements. But also just, you know, continue the rhythm and the cadence of houses on that street. So you can see the flanking neighbors here and here. This is a two-story structure. It's a greenhouse. It's very handsome with a single-story sort of... move on the side and this is all single story with a large addition on the back so what we'd be proposing is a a two-story residence with a portion of single story much to kind of mimic our neighbor here uh a driveway and of course the detached garage some things that we're kind of working against or working alongside there's overhead lines back here and there's owned by the city of Hudson so we have a 20-foot easement, access easement off of that. So that's what we're showing here dashed in blue. And if you want to go to the next slide, Ms. Kaufman. And if you just want to back out a little bit, this is great. So this image here is the house that sits adjacent to us. You can see it's two-story, left to right gable with a single-story addition, or single-story, and sort of a lower slung roof there. what we're proposing early iterations of here is is very simple we'd say it's very classic um our our clients are interested not in scale but sort of in trim in detail and so it's a it's two-story we'd have some dormers across the front uh a deep front porch that would accommodate just sitting Elements of trim are kind of not visible in the sketch, but we're using some imagery from the neighborhood just to start to explain design intent. So the top imagery starts to look at how houses could turn the corner, how the corner trim could start to work with the freeze board. in kind of various ways. In this situation, it continues all the way across. In this situation, it stops short as more of an eyebrow return. So we'd be looking at language like that. And it's important for the board to understand kind of where we're going with this and what we want to be investing in. The second kind of row starts to look at different porch relationships in the in the district Where we'd probably be leaning more towards one like this. It's a bit more substantial in terms of its trim so you can see some little moves here that are picking up on the into the left to right beam here and then using a column of significant proportion but scale and the bottom here is just looking at the way windows are being trimmed. Specifically here, actually, this is some imagery from Western Reserves Academy, where below the windows, we can start to incorporate more of a panel type of a look here. It starts to create a bit of a... uh street impression and uh sort of seriousness on the front porch and some of that detail um in our opinion you know the scale of what we're proposing using a single story move much like our neighbor here this would sort of act in sort of uh reference to this but also out of respect to it where we're not overpowering it and we'd probably be looking at a brick or maybe a stone but maybe more of a brick that just feels like it's resonant in the community so we know these are these are early early graphics and ideas but as a part of what we're arguing for tonight we take it very seriously and we want you guys to have clarity and sort of the direction we'd be headed.

So I would assume that we would do a site visit on this but Mr. Brown do you have any questions or comments now?

I mean, I think between what you told us tonight and our previous discussion, I kind of understand, you know, and if there's anything that I find unreasonable, I just think we need to have a site visit. Any other questions?

Same for me. Yeah, I read very carefully the long report you had submitted and which you repeated tonight. And one thing that I would have asked for would have been pictures of the two houses that were demolished and rebuilt. I think that would have been helpful to me. So, for later. Yeah, absolutely. In the street, two houses were demolished and have been rebuilt, one small, one little big. But I think it would be helpful to the board to have that.

Yeah, and maybe as a part of the site visit, if the board has time, we could walk down there. But certainly, we could capture those and submit them just for information on the record for the next meeting.

OK.

So we'll set up a site visit.

Yeah. Make a motion for a site visit. Second.

All in favor? Aye. Okay.

Staff will reach out to schedule that.

Great, thank you. All right, thanks. Next is 26-546180 West Streetsboro, and this is a sign.

Just to have an update, this applicant could not be here this evening. They also took the staff comments and they are going to bring a revised design to the next meeting, but they asked to be tabled.

So we have a motion to table?

To table. Second.

All in favor? Aye. 26-647-5133, Darrow Road, sign.

Yes, this is for a sign for a proposal for a ground sign, a tower sign, and a wall sign. Staff had just a brief comment here to verify a map finish as proposed for the ground sign panel. The applicant is here this evening to answer any additional questions that the board may have.

Can you just state your name and relationship to the application? My name is Emil Gamadov, I'm the owner of the facility.

Sean Barris, the owner of Atlas Sign Group.

So obviously the staff's comment about matte finish.

It's pretty straight forward and simple, but yeah, I mean, it's just a math finish and that's it.

Okay. Mr. Brown, any questions or comments? Mr. Ditsky?

I was just looking at the, so one is a vertical. Is there a sign there currently? It was.

So it's just replacing what was already there?

Yeah, I'm fine with it.

All right, so let's go to motion.

Move to approve with the verification that it is going to be a mat finish. Second.

All in favor? Aye. Anybody opposed? All right, thank you. Appreciate it, thank you. 26-61319 East Main Street, and this is a sign in the historic district.

Yes, this is a ground and hanging sign at the property, actually directly across the street from town hall. Additional staff comments were to verify a map finish as proposed on this sign. The applicant is here this evening to answer any additional questions that the board may have. Thank you.

If you just state your name and relationship.

Yeah, hi, John Benedict from Electric Sign Company. I appreciate the opportunity to present to the board this evening. Basically a like for like other than name change, a little bit of branding change in the colors because of a relatively recent acquisition or merger with the funeral homes. But it's basically the same exact sign. I'm not familiar with the hanging sign. The scope of our project is just the main ground sign at this point. It's basically just replacing it on the existing posts.

I can comment on staff as well for the hanging sign. After further review, we would categorize it as it is a hanging sign, but it's more of a directional sign. It is very, very small. It's on a directional post to indicate where the driveway is. Just wanted to state that for the record, that it is a very small hanging sign that currently exists for wayfinding for that driveway for deliveries and such.

And so, yeah, the only thing is matte finish? Correct. Okay.

Which we're, I don't think that's going to be an issue.

It's just, it's not noted on there. That's all. I don't see it on the submission.

Yeah, I updated drawings and pointed it to Scott.

Mr. Brown, anything? Good. All right.

I move to approve with the understanding that it's going to be a matte finish.

Second.

All in favor?

Aye.

Anybody opposed? Okay, thank you.

All right, thank you.

25-1081-7936, Winterberry Drive. This is an addition.

yes this is for a front porch edition on winterberry drive section 4 of the architectural design standards state that roofs on projections should match the roof material of the building staff notes that a metal roofing material is proposed while the house has gabled shingled roof and a hip roof is proposed as well while the house has gable roofs the applicant is here this evening to answer any additional questions that the board may have if you just state your name relationship to the application stephen rhodes i'm the contractor

uh and do you have a chance to look over the staff comments yes yeah the metal roof i don't think it's an issue it's one of those they're trying to use mostly materials that were going to last longer and the metal roof they feel would outlast the shingle roof and everything else pretty much low maintenance materials is what we were after but if she has to do an asphalt roof i don't that's not a deal breaker More than likely it was a picture she saw on Pinterest.

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

Regarding that it's a hip, what's the pitch of the existing table?

What we're applying for? 412th.

The reason we have the hip is to not interfere with the two windows up above.

If we had to go any higher to a six, we would be in the way of the windows with the standard roof.

So we were trying to make it

It's kind of hard to actually see it in that picture. It's definitely much flatter and kind of like clipped at the ends as it goes around. It's not your standard Gabriel roof now. But the reason for shorter was to not interfere with the windows and it gave us enough room to flash behind it to guarantee no leaks. Did I submit a picture of what it would look like finished? Because I just think it was a better view of what the roof is. That's before.

I don't know if we got the picture of what it would look like finished, but we have this one. But if you have it on your phone, you can.

One of those, I'm hoping, you could have gotten.

Did you have anything else, Mr. Brown?

I mean, I guess I don't- Do you want to see this or the clip?

Would be up to the chair.

How do you want to see this?

You want me to- Yeah, you can just walk it around here real quick. You can just start that with Mr. Brown there, the easiest.

So this is different. It does, yes, it does. That's why I say it is slightly not quite what he drew. Because it's so small, it was probably kind of hard to get a full detail of it. It does not have that section in the front. I'm not sure why he drew that. We actually had somebody draw it. I'm not sure why he put that in there. It's not there.

I mean, I guess in terms of making a gable, I think, to me, the gable face would be so small that I don't know how you would detail it in the trim and everything. And I'd rather not impact the windows.

I'm just saying, yeah, the way he drew it, though, that section in the front, that's actually coming down. It makes it look like a regular roof, but it's not. It's actually coming downhill. Yeah.

I would be, I'm okay with it being a hip in order to preserve the windows above.

I don't think I have any other questions.

So you're eliminating the front access steps that. What's there now? Yes, that's all. So it'll just be a side.

Correct. We were told we were only allowed six feet. So we gave the six feet to the porch and took the steps to the side. than that encroach on the six feet.

Okay, I'm fine. I'm fine with it.

So everything is okay.

So I move to approve with the understanding that the roof will be asphalt rather than metal.

No, no, it's metal. Yeah, metal, that's it. Yeah, I don't think nobody's objecting to the metal, are you?

They can do it when it's an accident or not.

Well, so technically standing seam is an exception, but it's an exception that we have granted over and over. It's just because in the code it says, I think it says turn coated steel. It doesn't say standing seam. Oh, it does. It doesn't call out every single time.

So it's not even an issue.

It is an exception, but it's an exception that this board has consistently made because it's an update to land development code that hasn't happened yet.

Okay, so I move to approve the proposal.

Second.

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

Thank you for your time.

Thank you, Laura. 26-487-5706, London Area Boulevard, and this is in addition.

This is for a front porch addition on legendary Boulevard. Some staff comments here were to question if the proposed six by six post would be wrapped as well as to revise the elevations to depict a consistent roof overhang on the front porch elevation. Additionally, staff questioned if the proposed port should extend across the entire main mass. The applicant is here this evening to answer any additional questions that the board may have.

Can you just state your name and relationship to the application? Good evening. My name is Tim Dombrowski. I'm the general contractor. And did you get a chance to review the staff comments? Yes, sir. The post will be wrapped with ASIC material.

And then the overhangs? for the i think it had more to do the comment really had more to do with not just the overhang but then also the post alignment on left and right yeah it's just not really symmetrical um it looks like there's an overhang on the left but there's not one on the right yeah i get what you're saying

Yeah, so what I would say is the overhang that's on the left-hand side, we would match it existing to what the house is, basically. So if it hangs past 12 inches, usually we would do that. And then, yeah, I don't know why he drew it that way. I get what you're saying, though. But yeah, same overhang all the way around on all three sides is what we would do. If you guys have any suggestions as far as posts, if you want it more symmetrical. I don't know. Would four posts look better?

I think the post commit more was if you look at the post on the left and you look at the post on the right, they're like one is brought in and then the other one is kind of at the end.

Yeah, we would not do like, we would not build it that way. Of course we would try to make it symmetrical as possible. So if it comes in like on the right hand side towards the front door, let's say it comes in 16 inches. We did the same thing on the opposite side. else it was to expand across the entire main mass is this yeah yeah any comments there um yeah the homeowner she was saying that she did not want to have anything covering those right two windows that's her sitting room so she wants to try to get as much possible natural light in through those windows so she did not want to run it all the way over to the garage

Mr Brown, your questions or comments.

No, I mean, I also think that it extended into the right would cause an issue where it meets that reverse gable, which has a higher like the eve there is higher than this eve. I feel it in the past on the left side. I'd like it better if you didn't. If the little port extend beyond the. left side of the house like so it could die back so you don't have that funny i feel like we've made that comment before do you know what i'm saying yeah so the overhang on the left-hand side flush it with the actual side of the building yeah yeah all over and kind of end the roof in the house so you don't have that kind of weird little yeah end cap on the hanging off the yeah um

I'm a little stuck on the asymmetrical appearance, where I understand where that suggests proposal across the main mass. However, I do understand you're also running into that roof line from the garage. So I don't really have a good comment one way or the other, other than the fact that it doesn't quite look right to me.

I'm okay with it as long as those adjustments and those wrapping of the post and so forth.

No further comments.

so uh yeah i think we could give it you know overall the board would approve if we can make those those small changes with the uh overhangs and kind of that post alignment and the end that left end alignment to the house itself uh and then noting the wrapping of the of the posts so okay

So I move to approve with the understanding that the post will be wrapped and that the roof overhang on the front porch will be consistent. Second.

All in favor? Aye. Anybody opposed?

Okay.

One day. All right.

Thank you very much. Thank you. Have a good night.

26-584-6592 West Point Drive, and this is an addition.

Yes, this is for a rear screen porch addition on West Point Drive. Just some brief staff comments for you here. Section four of the architectural design standards state that roofs on projection should match the roof interior of the building. Staff notes that a metal roofing material is proposed for this project. Additionally, section three of the architectural design standards states That chimneys must match the foundational material and fireplace vents when incorporated shall be located on the rear elevation. And to revise the proposed chimney material to meet this requirement, as well as just submit a roof plan for the project. 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 applicant.

I'm the contractor, son-in-law.

Steve Duttle, homeowner. You get a chance to go over the staff comments? Yes. Okay. The roof I wouldn't spend a whole lot of time on. I don't think that'll be an issue. But the chimney will definitely be.

So you want it to match the foundation brick? And it has to be on the rear elevation, can't be on the side of the screening porch? It's just a gas insert fireplace.

Is that a should or a shall? It's a should. It's a should? Okay, it's a discussion point.

I'm sorry.

We're talking about the- The code, it's for fireplace vents. Okay. That section of the code. It's just that's the whole thing. Staff includes that in the comments. The intent, I don't know if staff would consider this a fireplace vent. This is a chimney.

Okay. Oh, OK. That's just the next sentence of the portion.

Yes, that's the bullet of the portion.

OK. So really, the comment was more towards the material, not the position.

Correct, yes. Yes, that was not a comment on the chimney location.

OK. So the roof is something that, again, we just kind of mentioned that with the last application, that is something we have generally allowed. I don't know why we would not allow it in this instance. But Mr. Brown, questions or comments?

On that image, the fireplace, what was the requirement for coming down to grade? Uh, because it's it's a gas it projects out right beyond.

Yeah, it's going to project out.

So it will be. It's just a gas sensor, so it's not. It's not. There's like, I mean, there's like a soffit under the fireplace.

So generally what would we require?

yeah it's got to come all the way down so you you'd have to i mean like i don't have an issue with the fireplace above but i mean the i think you have to bring the yes bring it down to the grade you know so it's not hanging in space got it okay yes it has to look like an old school chimney where it's coming up from the ground you know pretending like it has a footer underneath and all that right uh and and again the material to match the foundation not a problem

Okay, Ms. Cerninski?

I don't have any questions.

Okay.

Yeah, I just need to match.

All right, so I think if we can get the fireplace to come all the way down to grade and match the foundation, you're in good shape here. All right, thank you very much. Well, we have to vote on it still. So somebody can make a motion. Jump in the gun.

A move to approve with revision of matching the foundation material and to come to the ground.

Second? I'll second.

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

Thank you guys.

26-5112782 Stonebridge Court, and this is an addition.

Yes, this is for a rear covered porch addition. Staff notes that section four of the architectural design standards state that all roofs in the wings must be the same shape as the main body, but they may have different pitch orientation. Staff question the hip roof on the proposed addition as the main mass has a gable roof, and additionally question how the proposed roof will connect to the existing house. 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. P.J.

Robin, I'm the owner of the home.

Okay. Do you have a chance to go over the staff comments?

Yep. And I guess I'm just, again, I'm not an architect.

This is not my wheelhouse. So my wife just wanted to sit outside and not get chewed up by bugs. So anyways, I'm just going to, I've read your notes, and I guess... I'll go through what my contractor was saying too, which I agree with. I didn't know, what's it, Gable? Is that what we call it? I didn't know what that even was. I had to look it up on Google. That's where I'm at with this. But the common sense in me and just the visual look of it, kind of we're trying to build something real simple here something that just blends into the home with the same woodwork the same exact same roof we're going to have screens that you know that go up a screened-in porch and I didn't want anything to take away you know again this is the back of the home so this goes way back to Stowe Road you can't there's no pictures but nobody really sees the back of our house anyways not that that makes a difference but it's not the front and we if we did the gable um like the code says um which is fine and we can prepared to do that um i came tonight because i would like to have a decision tonight so that's okay but then we lose a window um and and the one of my biggest concerns is the water So again, I'm just a common sense guy. And the way the water flows off our house right now down in the creek, it's a beautiful thing. And the contractor said that they could work with the gable, but they're just a little bit worried about the water overflow. again i just want this done i want to get started we're excited um i didn't realize i was crossing any line um with the design it just it just seemed really simple to us we don't lose a window um it's going to be beautiful it's going to be very i guess you'd say kind of blend in so not in a i think with the gable at x and makes it look more grand um we're just not a i guess you say a big fan of of sticking out or or showing too much so but did you read the notes that he sent you in in this thing here or should i he said the current design was done for multiple reasons uh avoid adding the third gable pitch to the back of the house because it must be above the kitchen window and below upstairs windows tying to the existing home at the current location, ensuring water sheds away from the existing walls and roof areas, handling the water drains in the gutters to the location where an existing downspout is located so as not to damage the existing concrete to install or have a water draining in the middle of the patio. that could be a big problem keeping a low profile to avoid being the home's defining feature the patio underneath is is the feature so those were just a couple of things that we talked about and also said I guess that the i guess i just read his response to i guess to your again this is my first time i don't know how this works okay um the patio roof addition is being installed on an existing stamped concrete slab because of this the storm water damage needs to be brought around the roof to an existing downspout the hip roof allows for better storm water management without damaging concrete that cannot be damaged due to the aging In weathering, the hip roof also allows to be easier connection to the existing house without creating interference to the other roof areas or creating unnecessary valleys in the roof system. Due to the requirement of being above the kitchen window but below the second floor windows, we were unable to match either existing cable pitch in the hip roof design, avoiding introducing a third gable with another differing pitch to the rear of the home. And then they also said they wondered about the connection, that you all wondered about the connection to the house. And I guess he said to respond, he didn't fully understand the question. They said, but the roof will be flashed and sealed to the industry standard requirements at all connection points to the existing roof. will be structurally supported by the wall along the existing home that will be added along to the exterior as well as the post beams that are um represented on the drawings and then we've got summit county coming out now and they're going to be drilling holes in my concrete that's been there for 15 years which it's fine if that's if that's what we have to do i understand this is this is just all business and you're trying to do your job and i want to get a patio in so all right uh

So I will say, I do think the roof plan does explain where I think they are shedding it correctly with the hip when you go to the roof plan. Mr. Brown, do you have any questions or comments?

No, I mean, I think similar to the small porch we had. because of the width of this i mean a gable would be just dominate that rear facade so i i don't mind that it's it was like a red barn remember the old red barn yeah i don't have an issue with it and i think the i mean i i agree i understand the cricket i understand how it's going to be built uh mr dinsky i don't have any other questions okay this is the best

The situation warrants an exception.

Also, are you a good variance? Before you vote, of course, the exception you said.

Technically, it's an exception because the roof shape doesn't match the house roof shape. Okay. Yeah, so technically it is, that's why you're, if it was simple, you wouldn't have to come here at all. The staff would just approve it.

I tell you what, I learned a lot tonight, though. That one gentleman, that was interesting to listen to his pitch on that. That was a house in the landscape torn down a long time ago.

All right, so we have a motion to approve here.

So I move to approve the proposal.

Second. All in favor? Aye. Anybody opposed? All right, thank you. Thank you very much.

You did a good job.

Thank you, I'd like to come back next week just to watch. Thank you very much. Sure.

26-276-2250, Wellington Circle, and this is an addition.

Yes, this is for an addition of a bedroom, bathroom, and a screened porch. Just some brief staff comments for you here. Section 4 of the architectural design standards state that additions should be designed to be compatible with the main structure. Staff's question was just to verify the proposed foundational material was to match the existing home. The applicant is here this evening to answer any additional questions that the board may have. Hi, Bridget Tipton with Studio Inlay. I'm the architect for the owner. And yes, the foundation materials will match.

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

No. Okay. Nothing.

All right.

So I move to approve the proposal with the understanding that the foundation material will match. Second.

All in favor? Aye. Aye. Anybody opposed? All right, thank you. 26-372-322 Simon Road, and this is an addition.

Yes, this application is for a few smaller additions to this home for a sunroom, stair tower, and front porch. Just some staff comments for you here. Staff notes that a metal roofing material is proposed on the front and rear elevations. Additionally, staff questioned the proposed flat, shed, and hip roofs, as the main mass does have a gable roof. Additionally, question the proposed rear sunroom windows and how they relate to the main mass. Section 3 of the architectural design standards state that all chimneys must match the foundation material just to verify the proposed chimney material is to match the existing foundation material. Additionally, on the rear elevation, staff notes that there are bubble type Skylight's proposed revised rear sunroom elevation to meet the requirement they are to be flat. Section 3 of the architectural design standards state that exposed foundations and tie courses shall be of consistent material. Additionally, to verify the proposed foundational material is to be consistently applied around the entire structure. Additionally, to question the proposed front porch projection material as well as the rear sunroom and stair tower material, and to submit product spec sheets for all proposed exterior materials.

the applicant is here this evening to answer any additional questions to the board may have pantuso pantuso architecture i think i handled a number of those questions on these drawings i submitted them but it was too late i'm sorry yeah we'll share thank you

So if you want to go through what you updated.

Do you want me to go through? Sure. Sure, sure.

I think it's easiest.

Yep, yep. So hardy siding with a contractor to provide an adult for stone actually. Copper roofing, copper gutters, the chimneys will all match. We are adding a superior clay pot to one to extend it up to meet code. So we'll set that on top. The front entry is cut, stacked limestone. The front door will be solid wood, two and a quarter, mahogany. What else? Copper lanterns, I don't think that was a note. It's on here now though, four year. Yeah, I think she's going to be pretty. No bubble skylights ever. You just don't have to worry about it. This is actually going to be more like a conservatory. It's a Wasco pyramid skylight that is the antithesis of a bubble. I think that covered everything, but if you have questions, I'm happy. Well, I do, actually. Yes.

So what about comments C, about the window?

Will you remind me what comments he was? Oh, I did change those to flat top. Okay, the typical windows, so you changed the- I think that comment was about the arch top doors on that rear sunroom, and we just made them flat. Okay. I did, however, in full disclosure, make the front entry arched. So we still have one arch, but I feel like that's- An important focal point. I think on the previous drawing, we had a flat top door with an arched entry. So thank you for asking, I did forget that.

And then comment B about the different types of roofs.

Yeah, so it's all asphalt, except for the standing seam copper accents.

So the issue had to do with the hip roof versus the gable roof?

Yeah, just like all the other contractors that we're talking tonight, it's in the interest of water flow. Okay.

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

No, I think I'm just trying to look between the two. I think you've addressed these. I don't have any further.

Ms. Radinsky?

I might have missed it. The projection material is all the same on the front porch then? Yes. Okay.

That's going to be cut limestone and the back will be cut limestone. Right now, the whole rest of the house is hardy, but Maybe we'll have enough for stone everywhere.

Sorry, I was still kind of going back and forth. That's fine. That's all I have for the moment at least. I'll let you know if I see anything else.

Answer all the questions. Okay.

So I'm just going to go through them real quick just to make sure we're all on the same page. Yep. So for A, you're using copper, which you're allowed to for any, you're allowed to substitute that for any roof material, correct? I mean, you're using copper.

I am using copper. Yes, you're using copper. All copper accents. Yep. Copper standing seam.

So it's not actually, it's not the standing seam, it's copper metal standing seam.

It will be standing seam copper.

Right, but it's copper.

Yes, yes.

That is the key word. Yes. Okay, so A is covered then. So for B, okay, and nobody had any issue with any of the flat or the hip roofs based on the design.

The only hip roof is on top of the conservatory, right? There's that little.

Yeah, and it's kind of a standalone feature. I'm not really sure.

Yeah. What about the front? Yeah, you are right, Mr. Brown. I just had a momentary lapse in like, I think so, but let's look.

You did change the rear to meet, so you covered C with the change in the rear. The chimneys are going to match, no bubble skylights, and the foundation and tie courses will be consistent. The material was cut limestone for G. I'm sorry, I missed the rear sunroom and the stair tower material.

The rear sunroom would be cut limestone to match the front entry, and the stair tower likely boral trim painted to match the windows. Thank you for going in order. I'm sorry, I did not have that sheet, and I just rattled it off, probably in all the wrong order.

No, that's fine. Okay, so I think that did cover all the comments, but let's give one moment here.

Just to confirm, that chimney on the rear is existing, correct?

Yes.

Mr. Dynski, did you have any? Make sure.

Rear in the front, that rear side is new to match for the chimney.

I'm not fully understanding the roof above those. There are three art stores which are now no longer art stores. Yeah. Is that?

That's the skylight. That's the skylight. Okay.

Okay.

That's actually glass.

The roof will essentially be flat. Yeah. The glass is popping up.

Which is the four, the dash, okay. I see now, I was just trying to reconcile my brain. Yeah. The roof plan and the elevation.

Good questions.

I see it now.

There's still preliminary in nature, so.

Are you good?

Yeah, I'm fine.

Okay. So let's take the motion on it. You want a motion?

So as it relates to the stone, would I come back if we are able to afford that? Or is that a staff note? Or how do I handle that if we upgrade the entire material around the mass?

We could take a look at that depending on the scale. And if there's any discrepancies or inside corners or anything, it may come back here. But typically,

It's consistently applied.

Consistently applied change in exterior wall material in a house that's not in the historic district is typically administrative approvals. But we would take a look at it. If it needed to come back to the board, we would take it.

Well, I'll just give it to you and you can tell me what I need to do. Perfect.

Okay, so I think if somebody's willing to.

So I move to approve the proposal.

Revised drawings.

With the revised drawings. Second.

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

I appreciate it. Thank you.

Let's make sure she has one, just in case that's the only record. That is all for new business. We do have a couple of informals tonight under other business. First is 8711-1957 Norton Road, and this is a new house.

okay um just some brief staff comments for you here staff knows this application was reviewed informally at the january 28 2026 meeting the applicant has submitted revised elevations for the board's consideration that depict a proposed gable roof and more prominent front entryway to be more compatible with the surrounding neighborhood you have the additional comments before you of c through g and the applicant is here this evening to answer any additional questions that the board may have

If you just state your name. I'm the property owner. Okay.

I'm the architect .

So if you want to just walk us through what you guys have changed, what you're doing.

Dramatically?

Yeah.

It was a very dramatic change. Basically, we changed the high roof.

Can you pull that closer to you?

And then we changed the windows to a double hung window. Stuff fixed fixed units. Garage didn't really change much. It's still a garage. Well, finished a garage and then the railing system changed to a balustrade system and the entryway. We added a gable over the entryway that matches the same roof slope as the high high roof. And, uh, The transom above the entry doors from both front and back. That's that's pretty much and then we had a brick brick veneer from the top of the of the footing. A wainscot height of I think it was 3 3 foot 4. Something like that for 2 foot 8 one of those 2. So it worked with the module. Much of course.

No, I honestly, I think that, yeah, this is, you know, kind of fits the land development code, uh, uh, much better than the, than the previous design. Uh, You know, I would say that I would look at the staff comments here. So I think this elevation here, it looks like so, you know, we should have a fenestration, you know, really about every 12 feet. You're a little far, it looks like, between the door and that window on the first floor. And I think the rear elevation has kind of the same, where if we can shift those around a little bit to get closer to that 12 feet.

If we increase the side light at the doors... so vertically and in this way wider to reduce it down i mean i think that would work i mean it looks like it's fairly close but it's probably more like 14 or 15 feet that's 14 14 and a half feet something like that for dramatic reason that the lone window on the first floor is not lined up with the window it couldn't move over a little bit to the right i'm just trying to get it closer to the uh

No, but kind of that solo window there, if it came over and lined up with the window above.

I could do that. Yeah, I think I can do that. Still, that will make that distance there between that window.

So when you're going through, I mean, obviously this is informal, so it's, there's kind of two things with the windows. One is the 12 feet thing, right? And then the other is kind of the vertical alignment of, if you look at the actual land development code.

No, I understand what you're saying.

I mean, it's just something to clean up. That's all. I mean, it's...

Does the garage not need, because the front elevation that says south, does the garage not have to sit behind the mass of it?

The garage can be in line with the main mass. It can't be forward, but garage wings are allowed to be in line with the main mass.

I think I, what is it, item... Item C, we're talking about the setback in that. If I recall correctly, this was a really tough lot, wasn't it?

That is correct. VZBA is the next step for this lot.

So that's considered, is that considered forward-facing the way it's sitting or not?

It is forward-facing. It is greater than 130 feet back off the road as well. Yeah, this is one where there's wetlands. We're at 195, I believe, 185. 195, correct. And it is surrounded by...

it's 80% of its wetlands.

Right. Right. So when we talk about the setback, the overall setback and the average and all that is this one. I mean, I, you know, you'd make it an unbuildable lot. If you said that they had to be, I think within the 10% of the neighbors, uh, because it's, there's only, this is about the only spot you could put a house on this, on this whole lot.

And even then we're encroaching on to the, uh, Oh, the, the setback.

Yeah. Yeah. Uh, I mean, I think it's much better, but Mr Brown questions or comments. Again, it's informal, so we're not deciding anything tonight.

I think in terms of the like letter of the law. Meeting the land development code, it clearly is more. I mean, I think it's it's a challenge now because that gable is so big. Kind of. Just proportion proportionally kind of making the windows. size because you have a couple there i mean and it may just be kind of the the drawing but there's like how big are those those upper windows are they're five and a half feet wide those upper windows are i think they're typically uh three three Yeah, it's something about the wind because there's they're like, it's like the same window, but different sizes. Yeah, versions of them.

And it's, to me, at least a little disorienting, like, well, the ones above the gable in the entryway are that size because they they don't fear I don't want to be interfering with the gable of the roof.

the one by itself when you're talking about a line that one yeah that looks like it has some kind of sill that's above the like brick line you know what i mean oh yeah that might be i might just and i know this is early and we're just talking about that kind of stuff but i mean it just might be a drawing and it's developing you know one big mass like this is a challenge to to make it look good um even if it's combined you know like by the letter thinking through all the windows. I'm trying to get I do have a question. I mean, the comment about the roof over the garage being a flat roof, but that's occupiable space, right? It's a roof deck. So how does the code, I mean, I don't know that I've seen land development code. Would that be an exception?

I could get further clarification on that, but as on a first look, it would be an exception. It's a wing. It's the garage wing. It just... has the additional element to it. But we would do for full staff review for formal. This was informal, but we would come back with formal comments on that.

In general, I mean, our roof decks, restricted um in ways that that would not allow this or this is you i mean is it does it make sense what i'm asking i guess maybe i'm asking i mean it's not it's not real common it's not the deck part it's just the fact that it's not matching it's not

flat roof right it's considered a wing that does not have a gable roof and I mean I think you know looking at it my personal opinion on it is that you know you it's not an uncommon feature to see on houses usually you see it as an addition right where somebody does an addition they do a shed roof on it You know, but I don't see this any really different than that. I think trying to do a gable there with the garage would be, I mean, I guess you could, it just makes it awkward. I think it's actually kind of a nice little detail there to have that kind of roof over top. So, I mean, we may have to, you know, to me, if we had to grant an exception for it, I would be okay with that. You know, I think making the house bulkier by making that a two-story or even a shorter gable, it's just... It's a lot to do for what and it kind of gives them a cool space and they're 200 feet back, right? I mean, it's like you're 200 feet off the road.

So anything they have to do from a drainage perspective in a situation like that To make sure that it drains properly

Oh, you mean it being a flat roof? I mean, in essence, it's between them and their contractor. Like, right, obviously, if the roof doesn't shed properly or it leaks, that's a builder issue, call it. You know, I mean, flat roofs are used all the time.

So, you know, that's... Actually, slope more than a normal flat roof. Slope a quarter inch per foot.

Okay.

Versus a normal roof is an eighth of an inch per foot.

I honestly I think I think it's a it's kind of a nice feature to have I you know cable over top of that I don't know I just feel like it's gonna be really heavy but it would be an exception yes we would be because it does say that the wings should have the same roof shape

I mean, to have an outdoor space to look out to the wooded forest area, so to speak, wetlands area, because supposedly, I don't know, I haven't seen that many animals, but supposedly there's a wide variety of different animals and things that he would like.

Well, you use all the 2nd floor windows on that side of the house too. You know, you, you, you got to put a gable on it. You're going to block all those. You're going to lose all those windows. So, especially if you're not going to have a bedroom or something over top of it, you just. I think it makes sense. I would be okay with it.

I do kind of talk about other stuff. Sure. I think I would prefer the main gable. Like you have those big gable returns on the corners. And then the language of the little gable over the I mean, it would be nice if that little roof kind of related to the big roof, like if they were versions of each other or something like the archetype, like the language of how, you know, how you have, they're just very, very different. Like that porch looks like a kind of a roof off.

So it overhangs the same distance.

Yeah, it's not the overhang so much. It's like how it's trimmed and how you have like the big kind of, because that's like a little shingle return, right, on the upper roof. Yes. And just, I don't know, and I understand this is early, but I just think it would help me if it was some kind of repeated, you know, the language of the big gable kind of translated to the language of the... That's all I have. That's all I have.

And you were saying you would like to see another return

Well, yeah, I mean, it could be a lot of different things, but it just, they seem it to me unrelated right now. I mean, you know, so unrelated other than shape. Yeah. I mean, they're, yeah, they're both the same pitch seven on 12, but you know, they're, the detail at the edge is different. The deep, you know, I didn't add a freeze.

I didn't add a freeze board to, to, to it either. So I think I'm going to raise those up anyways to the height of the. Height of the transom above the door.

I think that'll help a little bit too.

Elevation wise, I think it'll help.

Mr. Inskey, do you have?

Um, the windows obviously we kind of echoing what he said, um, where they can be wound up more typical, um, understanding needing a smaller above the pitch. But, um, in other cases, I think there's some work to be done with trying to align them a little bit more and, um, sizing too. It looks like that one just doesn't seem to match up. Maybe it does match the ones to the left, but it just doesn't show it right on the drawing. Honestly, I haven't looked at the interior, but is there a reason, is there no room for additional windows there to kind of balance that out? I think that one just by itself.

The stairs between the stairs going up to the second floor right next to the window. And that's one of the reasons why it's so far apart.

The only way you could do that

narrow window up above the stairs as it goes up. Because the stairs only goes up to a landing at like six foot eight or seven foot, and then it goes back up to the rest of it. So it would be difficult. It would look funny if I added a window that was more of a long rectangular type of window.

That one's the kitchen, right? That one's above the sink.

That's the other side. Yeah, that one's above the sink.

You're right.

That one there is above the sink, and to the right and left of it are... Yeah, that's right above the sink.

That was the reason. To line it up, I'd have to... That's this one right here.

Yeah.

So they...

And is that why the sill is higher? Yeah, because you want to keep it above the countertop. I mean, which makes sense, but it does make it look odd on the outside.

Maybe I'd eliminate that board underneath it.

It might not be so bad.

That was the reason for it.

And I think if I do raise it, the windows on the side... Maybe make them a little bit wider. But they actually line up with the smaller windows above. And then you have the issue again of it not lining up. I'm thinking maybe if I raise it up and then add a shutter, another shutter there, that'll reduce the distance down. And on that one where the kitchen is, I think we're almost there if you were looking at 12 feet. 14 feet between the window and then you add the shutters, which are 18 inches wide, you're within 11, 12 feet, so to speak.

Anything else, Mr. Rudinsky?

Overall, I feel like the main gable is very... It kind of overpowers the house a bit, so I don't know if there's any other detailing that could be done there to make it feel a little... Not making the gable itself smaller, but somehow detailing a little bit more in there that could maybe balance it out a little bit. I don't know what anybody else thinks about that.

That's why I put the sunburst up there.

Something's needed to not have a blank wall, but I'm almost even thinking does a no something that gives it it just fills it up a little bit more to where it just doesn't feel like this i mean it's probably technically meeting code there it just feels like a very large space

Continue on that the so the sunburst if what if it came could it come down even in large and I was going back and put events and I was going back and forth on the size of it, maybe it become bigger and deeper. I think it can be bigger and then maybe you could vent on the cable. Just have something else up there. It does look too diminutive.

The problem is that once you get to a certain size, they're all custom.

And this elevation is north rear, so it's not going to be visible. But a single window on the first floor does bother me in the fact that it's not aligned. You believe you can't align that with the right?

I'd have to rework the kitchen because that's the kitchen window over the sink. I mean, it's ideal to have that relationship.

And the way you have the side lights, they're not, normally you would have the door and the side lights would be on the porch rather than have the side lights as if they're smaller windows off to the side. So they're not within, you know, inside the columns.

And there's already, it appears to be side lights on the door. So these are just additional windows, is that correct?

So are there side lights right up against the door and you have these other windows?

What's the thought process behind the extra windows there? The clothes?

To try to line up with the windows upstairs.

I didn't comment on that, but I agree.

Same treatment as you did on the other elevation as well?

They're somewhat mirror images.

So they're not really, it's not needed for light because you already have the side lights on the door. It just looks, they look misplaced. I would be okay if they were eliminated.

That increases his fenestration issue between the door and the windows.

Or move them out. I don't know. Something's not...

So you have shutters above and then obviously there's no room for shutters there, but it just doesn't jive to styling.

administration and totally step that whole entrance area with those windows.

I agree. Some windows in the back right fake. next to the door that would be by the stairway. Do you see what I'm saying? It looks, yeah. And I agree about removing those two. And maybe so, can we look further to see? So, So you could move two windows to the left so that you have the 12 feet.

You could do that. The only thing you would lose in plan is the closet right off the entryway.

And the main entryway would be a lot smaller.

It's pretty deep now.

I mean... think that you know overall i think you know it's it's the board is you know uh liking this this design it beats beats the code a little bit uh a little bit simpler uh i think you just have to work on that fenestration really is kind of what everybody's been saying is uh you know work on the fenestration a little bit uh you know however that ends up working out for you but uh I mean, we do generally, just as a board, we do generally keep pretty tight on the fenestration being aligned, it also being within the 12 feet. I mean, yes, there's a little bit of wiggle room there, but it's a new house, so we shouldn't have to make it a bunch of exceptions for a new house. I mean, you're designing it, so... You know, I think clean those things up, but it's it's, you know. In the right direction. It's just, yeah, kind of fine tuning some of those things. Anything from anybody else? Okay, so.

Thank you. Thank you.

Next is 8712, which is 2200 Middleton Road. And this is an addition.

Okay, this is for an addition of a living room, gym, bathroom, and additional garage space. You have the staff comments in front of you. Just a brief orientation to the home here. Currently, the home orients to Middleton Road, which you can see. Here, this proposal would be to change the orientation of the home to change the location of the front door to this facade here. Add these additional additions here that are highlighted and a detached garage. Staff notes that there is one conflict with the land development code, which would be the current proposed accessory structure in the side yard would just require a variance on this site plan. But notes that the proposed additions meet all applicable land development code requirements. Overall, staff noted some prominent massing issues with the forward garage mass in reorienting the home to face away from Middleton Road. The applicant is here this evening to answer any additional questions that the board may have. You have the staff comments in front of you.

Do you state your name? Sure, go ahead.

Joseph Calvert, Peninsula Architects.

Joseph Mataba from Peninsula Architects.

Walk us through what you're doing here.

Yeah, this is the first time that we've kind of come to this board in this way. We're going to cut right to it. There's a lot of things that we talk with staff about, massing and orientation and door location and things like that. And we really feel that this design, if it's going to move forward, we're here to see if we can move forward with it because it's a unique thing for a unique client. And this informal is our kind of test to see if there's legs with this design moving forward. So we're going to be requesting that this board look at this project under the exceptional exceptional design kind of exception and so when you look at the at the code it says that that the board may waive requirements and approve a project if it fulfills five core principles and meets one of the following two conditions exceptional exceptional design, the project is highly creative or designed as a direct response to a unique situation, very difficult site or unusual program. I'd like to just walk through the five principles that are referred to because I think when we walk through our design, we'll be able to highlight those principles and kind of bring to the board why we're looking for this exception. So the first principle is that there is a maintaining of the public realm that takes place over individual buildings. So we're seeing that as whatever we do is really not impacting the public realm. It's not seen from the street. And the building shall maintain a high level of architectural quality. Very subjective test, but something that we're going to talk about. Site plan and building shall respect the land environment in which they are placed. There shall be architectural variety within a defined framework. And new buildings and alterations shall respect the existing context and framework. So we're going to show you a very unique property for a very unique client, designed in a very specific way for this client. So if we can kind of start with the overall site plan, first sheet. The first thing to note about this property, if you can kind of scan a little bit to the left, is it's located off of Middleton Road, but it's internal. So it's 650 feet from Middleton Road. It's a nine acre parcel that's kind of like an island in the middle of a bunch of neighborhoods. So it's this beautiful wooded lot that you drive down a 650 foot driveway to, and then you arrive not in the neighborhood, but in the woods. And so it's a unique setting. That's the first thing that we wanna talk about. The next slide kind of shows you some photographs of the existing conditions. We'll kind of walk through this a little bit. These are just shots from around the house where you're looking out into the woods. We're 500 feet to the closest property on Middleton Road, all woods between us and them. Go to the next slide, thank you. So this slide shows you the overall footprint of the plan. And the first thing to note about this that I think that we're going to talk a little bit more about moving forward is that this home is for a young couple just having their fourth child. five to zero the kids are and alex is uh he is a world-class sculptor he's got a studio in cleveland and he does large format ceramic works and so this property to him is going to be a place that he can raise his kids he can do his work there and he wants to basically bring his sculpture home he wants to create a sculpture garden so this this nine acre parcel is is really a unique thing and that it's a place for him to express his art and to raise his family in that environment so we're we're really excited about the opportunity to create something like that in hudson for a young family that is looking to you know spend their years in town doing creative work and raising their family so We created additions around an existing structure, reoriented the entry, and kind of made a sculpture garden as the entry to the property. kind of go on to the next couple pages not this one but the next one yeah so this this is kind of showing as you come down this this this driveway you can see the original block home there right in front of you if you kind of keep on tracking through here Lauren thank you as you as you arrive you see the original home and then additions kind of to the left We've moved the front door over to the side on the gable end, kind of reoriented that so that when you arrive to the home, you are looking at the front door. Keep on track in there, Lauren. That's great. So this is the arrival point here, creating a bit of a courtyard sculpture garden that you enter into. The original block of the home is in the middle, addition to the back right, addition to the left, a garage addition coming forward, primary suite upstairs, and family space downstairs. This gives you a bit of an aerial sense of, as you come down the drive to the right, you arrive into a parking area with the outbuilding, which is a sculpture studio and a garage. And then you enter into the sculpture garden, and the front door is to the middle, side door is to the left. And then on the right side is a family room that comes out into the sculpture garden. That is kind of the mute wall kind of facing to the south. Existing garages are there now. We're just extending those a little further east with the red building. Back in there. As we move around to the back, there is an existing pool that is there right now that used to be covered. That roof has been removed. The existing structure is right on top of the pool, so we're removing that, keeping the pool. But this is the private part of the home that faces west along the long axis of the site. So we'll show you some images from inside that look out. None of this is visible from any neighbor. Again, we're living in this island of green in the middle of these neighborhoods. And we're creating an indoor-outdoor environment that is very unusual for Hudson. But we feel it fits all the criteria for So the original home is in the middle. To the left is a new family room that's added. And to the right is a new primary suite that's added in adjacency to the pool. The existing pool, existing home is right there to the left, the existing gable, but the new work is over to the right. And this is progressive design. This is modern design that's connected to an existing structure. We are excited about it because it expresses the desire of our client. It's a sculptural piece, it's isolated in and of itself, and it's unique. And again, to us, it meets the criteria that this board can use to say, hey, this is something that does not need to have a window every 12 feet, and it does not need to have mullions. It can be something that is a unique thing. Did you hear vendors in the back?

No, this is the older package. We had submitted a newer package earlier today. I think you guys received it, but I'm not sure if you can pull that up.

I do have it. I have it on a flash drive. It would just be up to the chair to agree to show documents.

We have some interior renders that just kind of show from the inside what this looks like and how it relates to the site.

Yeah, kind of on that note, like I'd like to say that, I mean, everything that we're doing is well within the setbacks. Like, we're not asking for any variances to extend beyond that. I mean, the original house is oriented kind of at an angle to the setbacks. So, like, we're working with that. We're working, like what Joe said, kind of with the existing, the way the garage works, the existing pool, the existing septic system. Like, We're not trying to totally blow this thing out of the water, even though the wings are somewhat far reaching. I think you can see in the renders, the focus is still on the original mass of the house, still speaking for itself. We're not trying to blow that away.

Yeah, we are dealing with the need for a family room off the back, but the septic system is in the middle of it. So we're sliding the addition over for the family room to avoid the septic system. These renders here, these are really interesting to us because this is in the main family room space. Kind of very interesting connection out into the landscape. Again, these are windows and views that no one else will see in the neighborhood. This is private to the home. This is in the existing family room looking out. very much a modern expression connected to a historic structure. We're connecting our new buildings to the existing with the actual siding. But the windows that are new are just large expanses of glass. And in our mind, it does meet that standard of high level of architectural quality. These are high level windows. We're using high level materials. This is a very extensive and not inexpensive addition. And again, that kind of just speaks to the owner's desire to create a unique place for him and his family. And the fact that he's a sculptor, an artist, and he wants to bring that art into his home. and uh it's the kind of spot i think in this town that you can do it because you're on a green island in the middle of of a neighborhood that no one even knows is there so we're asking this board to consider the exception that is out there the um exceptional design that lets you look at it like hey you know it's okay that the garage might come forward of the It's an exceptional design and we're, we don't feel like that puts you in a box in terms of precedent because of the uniqueness of all contextual components. So we're just here to listen now.

So Mr. Brown?

First question is, it's not historic. It's not a listed building. You used the term historic. I think you just meant the existing house. It's an old building. The existing house dates to land. Built in the 60s. Built in the 60s. But it's not a landmark. It is not a historic landmark, no. So there's no concern over that. There's no additional restrictions. I don't know, I mean, like the site plan, we, well, back to that. First is my understanding, and this is really a question maybe for Lauren or other board members, I would assume that the standard of an exception being granted based on exceptional design would be applied specifically to individual exceptions, meaning that it can't be a design is exceptional, therefore It's exceptionless. I mean, does that make sense? I mean, or is that not how it's generally interpreted?

There was one. It was right before I was on the board. Can you kind of wave? It's kind of interesting, and that's kind of what I have in my head here.

I think it was the one that, I think it was, was it Stone Road, right?

I go by it a lot, so I'm, yeah.

It was right before I was on the board.

Like holistically, I mean, can you?

It was kind of like.

How does it work? Yes, correct.

Yeah, so the whole exceptional design thing, I have to say, I'm not a fan of that because it is so arbitrary as to what is, in a lot of ways, what is an exceptional design. So the one in Stone Road, we did make a decent number of exceptions on that from the standpoint of how it sat. But the way that courtyard was done and, you know, I do think that it was a design that was well worth granting the exception. And it was a new home also. It's one of those things where when we say exceptional design, there's a lot of really great designs that are out there. You know, for the exceptions on this one, my personal opinion is that, I mean, it is a lot. I'm not saying that I would be completely against it, but it is a lot. And in some ways, you know, I almost go to, is this just not the right house for these folks if they have to, like, make this such a drastic change to an existing? I mean, at this point, tear the thing down and start over. I mean, they're almost rebuilding the whole house. I guess I don't, I don't know. I don't understand all the exceptions to save what ends up, what's going to end up being when you look at the overall. I mean, from this view, it looks like a third. You're, you know, it's the existing is a third of what's going to be there. Yeah.

I mean, in footprint, but that's still like a 4,000 square foot house.

It's not small. I mean, I don't know. So yeah, so exceptional design is, I mean, it's not really defined as to what is an exceptional design.

But in terms of us as a board considering whether something's an exceptional design, we could consider a building in its totality, not go through the laundry list of Yes, except we can do this window has to be an exceptional design. This porch is an exceptional design. We don't have to do it item by item.

You can do it in totality.

Okay. But yeah, I mean, and you kind of led into what I was going to say originally about the site plan. I mean, The land development code, in my opinion, is written for houses in the context of a neighborhood. I understand this house is in a neighborhood, but not part of the neighborhood. But it really does, for me, just looking at the site plan, it's like a compound more than a house. I mean, it doesn't, it kind of doesn't feel like, you know, the comment about the main mass remaining. It's kind of, I'm not sure what it is.

After this is done, that you could, I mean, I think part of any addition where we were saying, could you obviously see what was the original house? And I'm not sure.

I think you can because the main block is the main form. It's the tallest form. It's the entry form. It's what you see when you arrive. So it is historic form in the fact that it's been there and it's not being torn down and it's not really being added to in a way that changes its form. And so to us that's important, that we're not altering that form. And we're trying to connect to it in a way that is respectful to it. It also works within the site constraints and programmatic requirements. So I think if you go back to our renders. That becomes pretty obvious. That main form exists. That's it. We're adding a door in between existing windows. So that elevation exists. To the left of that, that low roof exists. So what you see as new is the garage form that's coming forward. There is a garage there, but we're demolishing that and extending forward and the wing to the right. So in our minds, it's like, yeah, the original form is there intact and has its original integrity. And really the exceptional design pieces that we're seeking to kind of bring to it are really two parts. These large expanses of glass. We're not doing punched openings. And then if this is the front door, yeah, the garage coming forward of the front is really the piece that we're asking for an exception. Other than that, this, according to the comments, meets the requirements of the Land Development Code. And the garage coming forward makes a lot of sense in a neighborhood. If you have a bunch of houses where it's a side low garage and the garage comes forward, which happens in a couple places in town, it's jarring, it's out of context. It happens on 303. It happens on Victoria Parkway. One house. For whatever reason, the garage comes forward. It doesn't make sense. This is very different. This is by itself. This is forming a courtyard in the woods. So to us, that idea of the garage coming forward as a rule, this is an exceptional design because of the site and the programmatic requirements of there's a pool back there that we can't push the garage back. I guess I feel like there's not a lot of other options for the garage program. And we are being respectful of the original home. And we are meeting five principles of the public realm is not impacted. There is a high level of architectural quality. The site plan respects the land. There is architectural variety with the framework. And the new buildings and alterations respect the existing context. We're not adding large forms onto that existing form. Everything we're doing is subservient to it. So I think this board has, according to the code, has leeway to say we can allow large expanses of glass and we can allow this garage to come forward of the main original floor. I don't see that as a risk from a precedent standpoint because of its location and the uniqueness of the situation and that unique design clause.

Can you speak to the- A little bit more background of this property and why it's so far back. Was it built after the front neighborhood and the shape of the site itself? It's like it was 1960, right? Yeah. So was it there?

So the neighborhood was close to the same time as the houses on Middleton Road. So it's not like it was built at a later date or originally earlier. So they were all built at around the same time. So what it looks like is that when they put the street into the south, Middleton Road was already there. And this piece of land just ended up being in the middle. And there was a flag lot easement road that went back to it. And they were following, it looks to me like they were following the strict code of the front door needs to face the street. when you come down that driveway now you never see the front door the front door is facing the street but it's facing the woods and the road brings you along to the side of the home um i think some of the renders might show it or existing conditions there's not a lot of pictures of the existing there's like just like this which i think would have been a little bit more helpful i mean we see the visual from the house but not the house itself

So you said you were taking down the existing garage? Yes. Why?

It is built about two feet from the pool. And there used to be a roof over the pool that has been torn off because it was literally falling apart. And so when we're considering the changes for a new primary suite on that side and the functionality of the pool, either we need to just tear the pool out and get rid of it, or we need to tear the garage out and rebuild it. And the fact that the garage small and needed to be expanded just led us to the decision process of like well if we take the garage out then we can move it away from the pool and then rebuild the new garage going forward and then at that same point put the primary suite above there because the house right now currently has four small bedrooms under the main block form the original block form And with four kids now, they're looking to find a primary suite. And so to build that attached to the main form would compromise that form. So the idea was, let's build the garage and build the primary suite over, story and a half over the garage, create a second staircase up to that, and let the four bedrooms live in the existing form as they do now.

Where is his studio?

So his studio, he has a studio in Cleveland, but he's going to put his studio in that front part of that red building, the outbuilding. It's like a family sculptural studio. This is a good shot. If you go back, Lauren, this is a good shot of the front of it. Right there. So you can see that's kind of where the front door is, but you pull in past it. So they face the front door towards the building road, but no one really goes there because you can't really even see.

So that's facing north.

That's facing Denver, yes. And when you pull down the driveway, you literally pull right past that. And so why the door moving to the east side makes sense is that you have a rival courtyard, you have the entry courtyard. It just, the house essentially gets re-entered

If you've ever grabbed the microphone, I'm sorry.

Well, the front door gets gets gets reoriented when you arrive down the driveway. There's a courtyard. If you go to this next third slide there, this is a great slide. this this shows it really well right here yeah it's lagging a bit yeah yeah so you drive down the driveway you can park in front of the outbuilding where the studio is and then you're right at the front door and then into the sculpture garden so we've created a garden entry facing east that is really oriented to you when you arrive and not you're not driving past it because currently the front doors would be along where that line is to the left running parallel with the main block, if that makes sense.

So what's the connection between the studio and the garage? You spoke about a sculpture garden, so I imagine pretty big pieces. Yes. So you need to move the materials from a garage. You bring it through the garage, right? And then how do you move it? To the studio.

No, ma'am. His large scale pieces are done at his studio in Cleveland, pictured on the left side of that image. The home space is for him and his kids. It's small, personal use.

It's not a studio.

I mean, it's a studio in the sense that him and his kids will do artwork there, but it is not a commercial studio.

Yeah, but if you zoom in, Lauren, this is just so interesting that this guy is doing this work and he lives in our town. Those pictures there on the left kind of show you a little bit about his work. If you can zoom in on those. So he built a kiln that you could put a car in up in Cleveland and he fires large-scale works and glazes them.

This is ceramic?

Yeah. So this is the kiln that he built in Cleveland in his studio. Yeah, it's like a big offset smoker where the chimney on the left lets the smoke out. It's a wood-fired kiln where they load it on the right and the works sit in the middle. If you scroll, yeah, this is Alex doing his thing. If you scroll back down again, you'll see this is an example of a piece that's in his yard. So this is a two-piece ceramic sculpture. And this is a very unique individual that's doing really cool work. And you can get a little bit of sense of the site there. You don't see anybody. It's like you're in the mountains in Pennsylvania. From an architectural standpoint, it's just really interesting to engage with a site and with an artist like this on a project and to create a garden, a sculpture garden and an entry. Again, I've said it way too many times, it feels like the poster child for an exceptional design opportunity.

They live in there now?

Yes, they are. They're having their fourth child on Sunday.

is really not related, but you showed those interior shots and you had an open fireplace. and the other kids they could just crawl in there and right into the fire yeah well they're not going to be there forever that's not something you're planning to they're realistic I mean there'll be doors there there'll be doors on that yeah it's elevated and it's three-sided it's not in a pit it's well it was elevated but it was it looked like just logs on a it's open on three sides you're right it's open on three sides and it's got glass it's got glass on it yeah

So, I mean, obviously, we're not making a decision. We're not making a decision tonight, but I guess, Mr. Brown, just so they have an idea about moving forward in that, I guess, would you lend to granting an exception in this instance?

Which exception? I mean, just overall.

You don't have to commit to that.

for me thinking about so for example i mean like the it in some sense this lot is like you have so much room to run in like every direction and it could be a lot of different things but then like there's a is it it says 50 foot rear yard setback is it a 50 foot it's a 50 foot setback here from those So, I mean, it's interesting. It's like this, like, long...

It's very long, but it actually backs up to the cul-de-sac behind. Like, those houses are... What is that, McHugh or something like that?