Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

I'd like to call the meeting to order. This is the meeting of the Architectural and Historic Board of Review for Wednesday, June 24th, 2026. Roll call, tonight we do barely have quorum. We have Ms. Marzullo, Mr. Workley, Ms. Kinney, and myself. So we do have the required four members to continue the meeting. We'd now like to open up to 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 will close public comment. Move on to consent applications tonight. We have 326 dash 72843 North Oviatt 26 dash 5332537 Norton Road and 26 dash 7011580 calendar drive motion to approve a submitted.

Second.

All in favor?

Aye.

We will now open up Old Business. First tonight on Old Business is 26-546-180 West Streetsboro Street. And this is a sign. Is the applicant here? Yeah, if you could just come and sit up at the table here in the front. Ms. Hoffman will introduce the application. Thank you.

Yeah, thanks.

Yes, I can. I'll give a brief project background.

Yeah, thanks.

Okay, this application is for a wall sign at 180 West Streetsboro Street. Staff notes that you have staff comments in front of you. The applicant has submitted an updated plan for the board to review tonight, if it is okay. I do have it on a flash drive. I can bring it up on the screen.

That'd be fine.

okay the applicant has submitted a revised design in response to the staff comments that were in front of you and the applicant is here this evening to answer any additional questions that the board may have

So we haven't seen the revised design. If you'd like to just go through what changes you made and if they relate to the staff comments. Oh, actually, please, if you'd state your name in relationship to the application first.

Yeah, sure. Thanks for hearing this. My name is Mark Schwartfeger. I'm actually the owner of Kids United. And the designer, the sign designer, was the one that worked together with um, with your group to revise the sign according to your, uh, requirements. So, you know, I honestly don't know what the previous dimensions were, but it's basically 206 inches by 40 inches. It's a carved wood sign, um, uh, polyurethane finish. Um, and it's, um,

basically gonna um it's in the building where the subway was so i don't know if you have any questions about or the business itself or anything so staff comment a was that the uh of a carved wood or polyurethane so the it's in carved wood now uh and we have the raised border is the do we have a raised border on this one now on the new yeah it's uh inch and a quarter raised border

It looks like it was reduced. It comes in a little bit more on the edges. It would be up to the board to decide if it, if you felt that this met the requirement, but as far as staff's review, it did, was reduced enough.

And then I see Matt finish. Yes. Okay. So, Ms. Marzullo, do you have questions or comments?

No, I think it's been adjusted to comply.

Okay. Mr. Workley? No additional comments.

No additional comments. Okay. Do approve as revised. Second.

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

All right. Thank you very much.

X under old business is 26 dash 644179 Elm Street and this is the demolition of a home in the historic district.

Yes, this is for the demolition of a single family home. Within the historic district, staff notes that this application was heard at the June 8th, 2026 board meeting. And a site visit took place on June 16th, 2026. You have the staff comments that were previously read into the record before you. The applicant is here this evening to answer any additional questions that the board may have.

Good evening, Nate Bailey, Haral Architects, 10 West Streetsboro, Hudson, Ohio. I would say, we've chatted about the project. I don't want to belabor what we've discussed with you guys. One addition though, a further request to the board, We did upload some images of the two houses on Elm that one we definitely know is new construction. The other one was discussed as a newer sort of addition, renovation, large scale sort of project. So sorry, it's going on now. But I'm happy to answer any questions that the board might have post site visit.

So do you have any questions for Mr. Bailey?

How would you describe the condition of the home?

Yeah, it's a good question. So our description on the condition of the home, I would say in 2011 when it was approved by the ARC board, based off, is this going in and out? Is it quirky or is it, you want me to continue on this or should I switch to this one?

Okay, it's in bad shape.

So 2011, it was approved by our board for demolition and based on the grounds that it was in bad shape back then. Once it was approved, it was never torn down, of course. And the owners had rented it out since then, and it just exchanged ownership maybe four months ago. So from 2011 till now, it's been a rental, and little to no investment has occurred in it. So even images from the current owners, from the tenants inside, where tiles coming off the wall, stuff like that. I would also ask the board to just review the letters from the neighbors, right? So they both were pretty specific in their descriptions of the house, exterior and interior, how it looked and felt. And in their opinion, it was not satisfactory to the neighborhood. Yeah, from the exterior, what the board did see, obviously misalignment of siding, delaminating paint, inconsistencies in trim, lack of architectural significance, oddities in the roof overhangs and some of the materials being used, a lot of disrepair.

Mr. Workley, do you have any questions?

I do not have any additional questions. Ms. Kinney?

So I have one. We have Appendix D, the architectural design standards, and in Section C, the site plan and building shall respect the land and the environment in which they're placed. buildings should should be cited to minimize regrading and to take advantage of natural features, including mature trees. And as you know, from the site visit, I have this concern that there's this probably it's 150 year old tree that will be cut. So I don't know if we would be running counter to the standards? Because of the tree? Because of the tree, because the mature tree, I mean, it is a mature tree, right?

I guess I have to say, I don't think we've ever based a decision solely on an item like that, like a tree. I THINK WE'VE ALWAYS LOOKED AT THAT AS MAYBE SOMETHING THAT'S CONTRIBUTING OR NOT CONTRIBUTING, BUT I DON'T KNOW IF THIS BOARD EVER BASED IN A DECISION ON SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

OKAY. SO IT'S A SECTION OF THE STANDARDS THAT WE'VE NOT CONSIDERED?

WE'VE CONSIDERED, BUT IT HASN'T BEEN THE BASIS OF DECISION. it's a contributing factor but if that were the only I think if that were the only call it objection to to the application I don't know that that has ever been used to

Regarding grading, I mean, I can speak to that. So it was minimize grading and site features, right, with the two sort of prompts. Obviously, from a grading standpoint, I would argue that on a condition like this, if we were to propose a walkout basement or something like that, that would introduce excessive grading. Of course, what we are proposing is actually a similar size footprint, albeit two-story. So from a grading standpoint, it won't be excessive. and then i would just i would argue from a site feature standpoint that that could be related to landscape certainly or trees but also could be related to like streams or you know conditions of a site that uh could be more prevalent so this one instance there is one mature tree that you know will be a casualty um But beyond that, certainly, I don't think we're.

It's just, it's a big casualty. That's all. I don't think there are many trees that age in the neighborhood. Right. Yeah. Understood. But that's my only objection.

I mean, there have been, and recently as well, to concern of disturbance for a tree that may not be exactly what . But I can think of one on Division Street where the driveway or the . So there's concern, and it's discussed, and I'm not sure what department actually protected that. If it can be OVA, obviously. than it's requested, but I don't think we've ever said that.

No, the, how should I say, the uniqueness of the tree in terms of its age is such, it was striking to me, that's all. Because we've looked at many, many proposals and trees have been taken down, but nothing of that, with that history, so to speak. So...

Your proposal, Mr. Bailey, would be that it would have to be removed in order to build what you're proposing?

Yeah.

Yeah. I mean, its adjacency, even its current adjacency to house, you know, I mean, the tricky thing with a tree is a decision on that, you know, that tree could, we don't know the condition, the health of it. Sure, it looks healthy now, but, you know.

uh but it's adjacency that to the current structure it's already quite close there's a lot of branches that are overhanging uh the house it would definitely need to come down for that size of the tree also you have to consider the root and it's probably the area of disturbance to it would probably you know detriment to it even if you left it standing because of the size but

Okay. It's appropriate to have some discussion on, it seems the board is generally in favor of the application. but the specifics as to why for this particular property for demolition, I think we should have some discussion around that. What are the factors when we look at, Ms. Coffin actually gave everybody one for the exceptions. I think it could fall under the exceptional and unique conditions item two, that creates a practical difficulty in complying. I don't know what you would do with this house without drastically changing it anyway. in its current condition i mean i was at the site visit uh it's it's kind of a mess uh and from an architectural standpoint when you look at the other traditional uh what they call traditional minimalist styles uh this one's an odd one even to those other five uh the front entryway the impediment i mean it's just But I think we should have some discussion around that prior to of what those items would be and why it would be appropriate for demolition.

Well, it has no architectural value, we can say, in that particular style because of all the different additions. The fact that the garage is front facing, that the boards are different sizes, that the back is in very, very bad shape. So these would be, it has no architectural significance. So I would say that would be one big reason, right? And it's in very bad shape.

Yeah, I would agree. I would say that, you know, compared to even the other houses of the same style in the neighborhood, this one has a dramatic lack of style, of architectural design. Uh-huh. I think the fact that it was already approved for demolition more than 10 years ago and no discernible improvements have been made since then, I think is a part of the deciding factor. Mr. Workleany?

I agree with those items. It's obvious the architectural character is different than the others. It highlights the front-facing garage, which is not what we would like it to do. It's very plain and all the rest of the components of it. The thing that I do like about this as well, though, is it's holistically being looked at for the demo and the replacement. It's not being... Done underhandedly or anything of that nature so that we can say that you know for a new building or alteration that it Would he respect the context so that what's being replaced would respect the context as well? Much more than the existing structure is at this point in time And I think that that value is something that also should be weighed in this decision I

And the fact like you're saying that 11 years ago, over 10 years ago, it was approved for demolition. Do you know what the reason was why they didn't follow through? Was it a dollar amount?

I don't know actually, no. The only information we received was minutes from the meeting which just said they approved it and they were looking forward to whatever they were proposing next.

And the same people that requested that and got their approval still owned it up until a few months ago right yeah it doesn't appear that they did anything further except fix a faucet or whatever they needed to do internally yeah not from our knowledge no

So a difference, however, it was approved 11 years ago before the street became part of the historic district. So that's something... That is why the lack of architectural value, so to speak, is important and that we can't consider that it adds to the other minimalist house group, right? Because it has been... ADDED TO OR REMOVED FROM IN SUCH A WAY THAT IT IS NOT AN EXAMPLE OF A MINIMALIST HOUSE THAT WE WOULD WANT TO HAVE REPRESENTED IN THE HISTORIC DISTRICT.

THE OTHER TWO HOUSES THAT YOU REFERRED TO, MR. BAILEY, WERE ONES THAT WERE CHANGED BEFORE THE 2022 DESIGNATION OF HISTORIC DISTRICT.

So, Mr. Workley, if you would do the motion. I think Ms. Kaufman actually has some verbiage for the motion. Ms. Kaufman, do you have some?

No.

Okay. I can pass the laptop down if that is okay with the board? That's fine.

Make a motion for case 26-644 for the property located at 179 Elm Street regarding the demolition of a single-family home and attached garage located within the historic district. The Architectural and Historic Board of Review finds that the request meets the section 11- and that the unique conditions that surround this property, making the difficulty for the compliance to the factors that we've discussed so far and making it a practical difficulty are for for our decision. Second.

Hold on a second. If you could do the following reasons.

Okay. And the additional following reasons that we've discussed is there's no architectural boundary by all the different additions. The boards are different in different sizes around the perimeter of the elevations. The back areas of the building are in extremely bad shape. The existing forward garage is the most architectural character and there's no other architectural significance to the rest of the building compared to the other houses on the district it's not a good architectural comparison of the style and it's not as lacking the style of architectural style and architectural character of the Minimal traditional style. It was already approved for demo. No improvements have been made since then.

Second. So now second.

We have a second for Ms. Marzullo. All in favor?

Aye.

Anybody opposed? All right. Thank you. Thank you. That is all for all the business. First on the new business is.

I'm sorry, Chair Caputo. Sorry, I just want to make a quick announcement. Just regarding the new business, I did just want to make it known to the board that case number 26-526, the last case on your docket this evening, it has been withdrawn from tonight's agenda at the request of the applicant. So we will not be discussing that case this evening. I just wanted to inform the board that that has been officially withdrawn, and we'll come back at a later date when the applicant reapplies for the board. That's it.

So first under new business is 26-714-2710 Ravenna Street. And this is demolition of a single family dwelling and detached garage.

Yes, I can give a brief project background here. This is for a demolition on Ravenna Street. Staff notes the proposed scope of work is to demo the existing house and one detached garage. Staff notes the house was built in 1939 while the detached garage was built around 1970. Staff did do some research on this. We didn't have permits necessarily for this, but it does show up in the overhead photography around 1970. So in between somewhere around there was when this portion of the garage was built. The applicant is proposing to demolish the existing residence in one detached garage while keeping the remaining detached accessory structure on the property. Staff just notes that A demolition permit for the existing residents wouldn't be issued until a new house permit was approved. But the application is here this evening to get the board's determination for this demolition. And then you have the language before you at letter D for your determination. The applicant is here this evening to answer any additional questions that the board may have about this case.

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

Fred Thaxton, live at 2710 Ravenna Street.

I'm the owner. SO THIS IS JUST A FINDING OF WHETHER OR NOT THIS HOME HAS HISTORIC SIGNIFICANCE. SO THAT'S THE WHOLE PURPOSE OF THIS. SO MISS MARZELLA, WILL YOU BE ABLE TO REVIEW AND DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS REGARDING THE HISTORICAL SIGNIFICANCE OF THIS HOME?

My opinion is that it's a nice home, but doesn't have really any historical significance, in my view, from the photos.

Mr. Workley?

I agree. It does not have historical significance. I agree, too.

So if somebody's willing to.

So the board finds that the street I have to read the whole thing. Okay. The architectural and historic board of review finds the structures at 2710 Ravenna Street does not have historic or architectural significance. Further, the board finds that the application for a permit to demolish these structures will not voluntarily consent to the retention of these buildings. Second.

All in favor? Aye. Anybody opposed? Okay, thank you. Thank you. Next is 26-519-7523 Stowe Road, and this is a fence at a historic landmark.

OK, this is for a proposal for a 4 foot aluminum and also a portion of 4 foot wood fencing at the historic landmark, which is located at 7523 Stowe Rd. Just a brief staff comment for you here. Section 3 of the architectural design standards state that fence heights and materials shall be compatible with their site and the surrounding development. Staff notes that the submitted elevations depict both aluminum and wood fencing materials. and staff suggesting revising the proposed plans to depict one consistent fencing material. Additionally, staff did get some additional elevations submitted that I can pull up on the screen if the board would like after the agenda did go out. The applicant is here this evening to answer any additional questions that the board may have.

Can you pull up the elevations, any ones?

No, those are the specs, but I'm Amory Thompson, the owner of the home. I understand the request for consistency, but I ask for for you to consider the two different materials. So the wood fencing that we're proposing is the only fencing you would see from the street. Um, three quarters of the fence are going around a pool, only that front driveway piece you would see from the street and we want the wood for privacy to the pool area. The rest of the entire backyard and fencing area is all wooded, so you would not see the aluminum and it also would make the backyard look more natural. and we'd be able to see the woods versus cutting it off with a wooden fence. And then the second piece where you see wood is just to enclose the pool equipment. So fence or not, we would want wood around the pool equipment to hide the equipment. So the only thing you'll see from the street is the wood that matches the wood of the house and the rest we're asking for aluminum just to preserve being able to see the wood in the natural landscape.

So I guess my only question was, instead of doing the wood block, what about putting a panel on the inside of the aluminum just to keep the consistent material? So I get you would obscure the view of the pool equipment in that. As opposed to changing materials, if you put a blank panel on the inside, just a black panel, even like a perforated one, they've done them on some of the screening for like across the street here. And I believe on yours truly also to kind of like hide the equipment.

up on the roof it just keeps the consistent then material but it does give you that you know that area blocked off that you you don't see the pool equipment and then the wood one along the driveway i think the wood preserves the historic look of the home and matches the wood of the home and that's the only thing you're seeing from the street

Except for this pool slide.

What?

Oh. Your thoughts on.

Yeah, this is a special house because it was moved from Connecticut and was Moses Cleveland's brother. This is. It was his house.

Most of it. There's an addition that was the neighbor's, guessing it was the brother's.

So it's a unique home, and you want it to have the feel that you expect from, I don't know, how old is it?

317 years old.

Older than Ohio. So even though it wasn't built here, it was brought here, and it's a special house, and you want to try to keep that. So I understand why you're doing this. And you do have a lot of trees, foliage in the front area that goes across that as well. I still see the slide. But she's trying to do.

Mr. Workley?

It's the depiction up there, if I hear this correctly, so wood along the driveway Street. Oh no.

See that 20 I I sent a a note back to I don't remember who I was emailing with that second piece that says would that 24 foot that's aluminum also that 16 foot would is the pool equipment. So that whole side will be aluminum except for the box around the pool equipment. So where it says I would write there that should be aluminum.

I apologize, that was a staff error on that, but this is proposed to be aluminum here. The only two wood sides are this wood portion here, which is where the pool equipment is located, and then the wood portion along the driveway here. Everything else is proposed to be aluminum.

I don't have any issue with that. Okay.

I don't either, it sounds like you have an exceptional, how should I say, context which warrants an exception to the rule that it should be just one material. So I move to approve the proposal.

Thank you.

Second.

All in favor? Aye. Anybody opposed? All right, thank you. All right, thank you. 26-747-248 North Main Street, and this is replacement of siding in the historic district.

Yes, this is for the replacement of shake siding, existing wood shake siding at 248 North Main Street. Some staff comments before you comment A. Staff notes that hardy board is proposed as a replacement material for the existing wood siding. And staff suggests changing to a wood replacement based on the high visibility. of the house it is on a corner lot. Staff also suggests that the board utilize this meeting for questions for the applicant and to set a time for the site visit. Comment C was administrative, just to provide a spec sheet for the proposed siting material. And the applicant is here this evening to answer any additional questions that the board may have.

All right. If you'd state your name in relationship to the application.

Good evening. Tom Bellish, owner of 248 North Main Street.

Probably I'll just start with questions. Miss Marzullo, do you have any questions? I would assume we would do a site visit on this one, so.

Yes, I would agree with that. Why are you proposing just doing one side?

um i'm not the uh not set on just just one side but it uh the other three sides are shaded and and hold up very well uh the paint adheres to those shakes pretty well on this south side i've had it painted three times and it just keeps peeling it's just too hot there's no shade at all during the day and there's a street right below so it just gets really hot And Hardy board. It's a baked on finish and it really holds to the material I have it on my own house and it holds up very well to the heat. But I'm not opposed to just doing the whole thing if if need be I guess that that's that could be an option. And that just the cost I guess.

You know along this shape has been on this structure.

No, I don't. No, I've owned it 23 years, and it was pretty bad 23 years ago. We've kind of replaced a couple here and there. It's just that it's so hot in the summer, it just peels off and is the issue. So that just the easiest way would be to just do the one side and have it painted the same as the rest of the house. They can custom paint, custom color the hardy board shakes before they print them up.

so how do you feel that the hardy board would compare you know since you're proposing just one side and the other the one to the right is the front elevation how that would you know, size up to what the existing.

Yeah, I think it would match up very well. So we are replacing shakes with shake. Um, so that's very similar. And then the size and the reveal is, is the same. Um, so it would line up if you looked at two sides at the same time, the, they would line up. Um, so I think it would look a lot better, uh, than what's there now. The other thing I was going to do was possibly some wooden shutters then, too, so you would have the wood over the hardy board in a lot of that surface area, and I think that would help blend it in as well.

Mr. Workley?

Are you doing anything with the trim around the windows or the corner?

Yes, yes. So that would be a hardy board as well. That would be the white because there's some deterioration there as well. So yes, that would be white hardy board.

Did we get an elevation kind of depicting what you're expecting to change that would be helpful versus just photos?

I'm not sure what you mean.

Something like this? Like replacing everything on the elevation? There's nothing going to stay existing except for the windows? Or how are you detailing the windows? Are they?

Yeah, the wood around the windows would come out and they would replace it with hardy board trim. Right. Okay.

Anything documenting that current profile that you can match that profile with Hardy Board?

There is some brochures and some information available, yes. I've seen that. I'm not sure I have it, but I can provide that.

Hardy Board's not very thick, and then you've got like a two-by-sill plate. We wouldn't want to lose that character by replacing it with a you know and not solid material.

I'm not sure how, the trim boards, whether they're thicker or not, that I'm not sure. I think it is, because the corner boards have to be so thick to cover the thin board. The trim would have to be thicker. So I think this is just the thickness of the shake.

I'd want some drawings and details showing what you're depicting versus just saying it's that.

Yeah, exactly.

I need a site visit to assess the level of deterioration.

Yes. Are there questions or information you need from the applicant other than what I mentioned?

Did you mention corner boards? Did you? Yeah.

in details, all the trim details. What motion for a site visit? Go ahead.

So I move that we have a site visit to assess the state of the current

condition of uh the site a second favor aye okay so uh staff will work with you to set up a site visit okay i was asked for some specifications too so i brought those should i hand those out i can i can take those yes as well as for the site visit too we typically do the tuesday after the meeting um but i can reach out to you uh tomorrow to get specific times that we work

So we will see you at a site visit. Thank you. All right. Next is 26-744-333 Boston Mills Road. And this is the repair of a gazebo, which is an historic landmark.

Yes, this is for the, as Chair Caputo stated, this is for a repair of a historic landmark, which is the gazebo repair. You do have the OHI form in front of you, as well as some additional photos. Staff notes the applicant is proposing to wrap the proposed four by four treated wood posts with Azek material. Staff's comment on that was just to question the proposed finish of the Azek material and how it would relate to the existing historic structure. Additionally, staff suggested the board utilize this meeting for questions for the applicant and to set a time for a site visit if the board would see fit. The applicant is here this evening to answer any additional questions that the board may have regarding this project.

You just state your name and relationship.

Hi, my name is Kurt Kroger. Oh, I'm sorry, in what?

In your relationship to the application. Oh, my wife and I are the owners of the home. Perfect. So, Mr. Barzula, questions?

Again, I'm assuming the site visit on this one also.

Yeah.

If I could clarify one thing, the characterization of wrapping the posts, the four by four posts with ASAC isn't really accurate. I THINK THERE'S SEVERAL PICTURES I THOUGHT I SUBMITTED THE LATTER ONES PROBABLY IN THE SET ARE OF THE FOOTERS OF THE OH YEAH THERE'S SOME OF THE BEAUTIFUL CONDITION THAT IT'S IN IT'S A BEAUTIFUL STRUCTURE IF YOU'RE LOOKING AT IT FROM ABOVE THE BOTTOM EIGHT INCHES OR SO OF IT If you can see this, the prior owner, I have no idea what condition it was in when it was declared a historic landmark 26 or so years ago. I've never seen any photos or anything like that, but obviously throughout whatever years, whether it was before it was declared a historic landmark or since, there were several DIY, apparently, repairs made in various materials of all different natures, from cement products to different types of wood pieces put in, hodgepodge. And now it's rotting away. And when we bought the house, we bought a lot more than we expected as far as repairs and everything like that. This one, because it was hidden by those things like the concrete around that, some of the things and other repairs, apparently, we couldn't tell how bad the damage was until we got bold enough and got to the point where we were at a point where we could get this be a top priority. uh when we started peeling it back we realized this is now almost an emergency situation i've put warning signs up around it because i'd almost should have anybody coming out to sign a release uh to go in it because it's just if we keep peeling back to find out the real full nature of the problem uh how many posts how many columns are impacted uh if the structure could come down it would be my fear so it's going to be a one column at a time project uh the goal for azac product is basically limited to just the areas you're seeing down low the bottom eight inches or so and that's because if we're going to put the investment into this and it's not going to be cheap then i don't want it to rot out in 15 or 20 years that's not going to be adequate it's not worth saving at that point in time if it's going to be some wood product because you're at a contact point where water comes onto it it sits there the snows build up around it insects are there i've got a couple woodpecker holes in the thing but we'd like to save it and that's where the azac i've had several contractors out and almost all of them recommended a product like azac and it's merely a facade over it over the bottom eight inches it's not wrapping because as you can see the four by fours are actually what we believe internal, there's two per column. So if you look at that column, there's a right and a left four by four that is actually the supporting part, but that's actually what's rotted out as well as the facade around the bottom. We're going to try and save all the facade and the gingerbread fencing around it, but we need a material that's going to be pressure treated spliced in four by fours up to the point where there's no rot and an inch or two past it. And that'll all be hidden behind the facade, which if it's ASAC, it'll look the same. It's going to get painted, the whole thing. You're not going to be able to see any difference. And ASAC isn't historic at all. But historic things are not necessarily the best in a scenario like this, I would submit.

No, azek and boral have been used as a substitute material. They can be an appropriate substitute material.

Okay.

That's good to hear. It's not that azek or boral, those are kind of the two most common. Right.

That's what my contractor I'm talking with is suggesting, both of those. Yeah.

As a...

so they can be very appropriate it's how they're used that's all yeah and i'd love to have you come out for a site visit and i love your recommendations on how best to handle it it's my first time dealing with anything like this so you're more than welcome all right uh

Yeah, I just want to make sure I'm understanding. So you're not planning to replace anything on the gingerbread that's around and all the detail that's going to be?

I really hope not. Believe me, for a lot of other reasons, more financially. So all of that fencing around, the goal is to save it. It's really right where you've got the cursor, the hand down there on the footers, and you can see it's the bottom eight inches or so, and we want to go... keep it as low as possible, but high enough, it's like gangrene or whatever, bad scenario, you gotta cut out till you get to something that's solid.

Because those posts even, they have a lot of detail on the posts themselves. So you're saying you're gonna try to maybe just do the base area?

Just the columns, of each of the columns there, and just clean up. To me, I don't think you can get an idea of what the original design was like. But the original design also was overly complicated with a number of seams, which to me, I'm not a carpenter or whatever, but the more seams, the greater likelihood you're going to get water seeping in and rot to the internals, again, like it's already rotted out this time. But we're open to suggestions. We want to get it done. We want it to look nice. The gazebo is 100 feet from Boston Mills Road. We don't even have a sidewalk in front of our house at this point in time. So the FedEx people and our friends that we invite over, about the only people that see it, we want to maintain 98% of it. if we can, especially the beautiful ceiling in it. But the bottom part's got to be shored up because it's only as solid as those footers are.

I don't have any extra questions. I'm good.

I don't either. Thank you.

I'll make a motion for a site visit at 333 Boston Mills Road. I'll second.

I'll just say on that note, if it's possible to avoid this between the 6th and the 10th of July when we're scheduling for my contractor, I definitely would like to have him attend. We'll figure it all out. We'll make it work. We're very flexible.

So we have a second from this Marzullo all in favor. Anybody post OK so you. Miss coffee will reach out to probably tomorrow and get a site visit so thank you very much for appreciate your time to spend on this. To 6 dash 6, 9, 7, 5, 2, 8, 1, Sullivan road and this is a shed.

Yes, this proposal is for a shed within the rear yard. Just some brief staff comments for you here. Section 3 of the architectural design standards state that the enclosed accessory building shall incorporate some elements similar to the main body. Staff notes to question the proposed rear elevation transom window and how it relates to the main house. I can bring up the rear elevation here. So just referencing this window here and also questioning if additional fenestration is needed on the rear elevation. The applicant is here this evening to answer any additional questions that the board may have.

If you could state your name and relationship to the application. Yeah, good evening. Tyler Duffy, owner 5281 Sullivan Road.

So looking at the staff comments, the window on the rear elevation.

Yeah, so as far as the design standards, I would say if you look at the image of the rear of our home, we have some transom windows. Uh, granted there, you know, our basement, but if you zoom in on that bottom, right. The two transom windows on the left side of the image. That was kind of the style that we were attempting to match.

Generally, on a 25-foot wall, that would not be enough fenestration. The idea behind that is so you don't have these vast expanses of blank wall. That's the intent of that section in the design standards.

That wall is 24, and I understand it's a foot away. Oh, I thought from the site plan it showed 25. Oh, that was the gravel pad. So the shed itself is 12 by 24.

So even at 24 feet, you really should have two full-size windows. Oh, okay. According to the standard. Yes. So it's supposed to be, you know, they should be about every 12 feet.

Okay.

Okay.

The reason I wanted to do the transom is just, it's the one functionality of the building to be able to have that long storage on the back wall. And the rear of our property, no one's gonna see that. The back, all the way to the back of our property is the wetlands. So no one's ever gonna build back there.

Ms. Marzullo, questions or comments?

There's always, never is sometimes something that, people build on wetlands, unfortunately. It's just so, it's so small and such a large span to at least, it needs some other fenestration.

um actually i would be fine if you just provided two train some windows because you're you know it's 500 feet for his distance at maybe a hundred foot so he's got three to four hundred feet behind him that's all his property i don't think anybody's gonna see it so

But the the rule about fenestration it doesn't depend on whether or not people are going to see it right. It's a general principle so.

But I think if he's providing the transom as the fenestration I think I feel that's acceptable.

Oh yeah I agree but the just one small transom for that expense for me is not acceptable because it does not follow the standards. Would you be able to put just two transom?

I could see if they can, yeah. So if it's over 12 feet long, she'll have at least one window or door opening.

Yeah.

So would that mean I'd have to put two separated or can I put two together? I would prefer two together if I had to do two.

together would mean it, because you would have a little less than 12 feet either direction.

Right, it would work. It would follow.

And then, well, there's the, it's supposed to have some items that relate to the home.

Both were about the transom window. Oh, okay. As far as like the other items related to the home, the colors that we selected, which I know there's not colors in that, but It's like the same color roof.

Okay, so you're matching the roof?

Yeah. Okay. And then we couldn't quite get the green. I mean, it's a pre-built shed, so we couldn't quite get the green. But we went like a, they call it buckskin. It's like a beige tan color and then dark brown for the trim and the windows to match the house.

Okay, so the windows, it's hard to see the windows in the photos, but the windows match the house?

Yep.

Okay. I'm fine with that, then, as far as relating to the house. Okay.

I'll make a motion to approve with providing an update to the transom window and back to either provide two separated or two together and coordinate that with staff.

Seconded.

All in favor? Aye. Anybody opposed? Okay, thank you. All right, thanks. 26-373-2580 Brunswick Lane, and this is in addition.

okay yes this is for an addition for a bedroom bathroom and office staff notes the staff comments are before you section four of the architectural design standards state that two-story wing type has a main body and subordinate wings the wings are smaller in size staff notes the proposed addition would be in line with the existing main mass and to and suggested in setting the proposed addition at the right side elevation to create a more prominent break in massing Comment B, Section 3 states that exposed foundations and tie courses shall be of a consistent material on all elevations. Just to verify, the proposed foundational material for the addition will match the existing. Comment 3, Section 3 of the Architectural Design Standards state that large expanses of blank wall are to be avoided. Staff questioned if additional fenestration would be needed on the left bump out elevation to better meet this requirement. Comment D, section three, the replacement of wall materials and roof materials will be blended across the facade. And just to verify that any new proposed siding material would be blended. And the last comment, section four states, the building shall have a typical window use for most windows. Question the addition of the transom windows on the left side elevation and how they relate to the double hung windows on 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.

My name is Kevin Kugel, and I'm with Kugel Design. I'm representing Mr. Nath and his wife.

Did you get a chance to look over the staff comments?

sorry did you get a chance to look over the staff comments yes and i uh talked with uh ms kaufman about that um yeah the the uh let's see here to go down through the staff comments um the first one uh i guess the overview of the project is the owners are proposing this addition on the first for a first floor master currently the house has bedrooms only on the second floor the new bedroom would be in an existing family room and then the addition footprint is to be a bathroom and a walk-in closet and an office the left side has a projection at the first opportunity, which is the walk-in closet. And it also has a reverse gable roof as it projects off to the left. Then as you continue back, the bathroom steps back to align with the existing wall. The right side continues in line with the existing wall so as not to conflict with the approach of the existing rear door nor of the deck, the existing deck. The addition interior has a faulted ceiling and the center line of that extends through the new addition forms to the rear wall. uh and the left side windows those are high operable awning windows above shoulder or head height and those are for privacy okay uh i think some of what i just said addresses the first the first uh note

It does, kind of. So generally, on an addition, we generally have a break. It's not in line with the existing home. So that was really where that comment came from, of having it step in, or in some cases, step out. But usually, stepping out creates other problems with the land development code.

The effort was to not go back any further than what is shown here and still get the amount of square feet to get their master suite and their office in there. Obviously, up on the right side, if we step in from the existing wall, then it would probably cause us to go back further to get the same amount of square feet in and also with the one of the things that the owners requested was that the existing roof over the garage and what's to be the master bedroom currently it's a family room but they wanted that those planes to continue to the back

Are you re-roofing the whole house?

And re-siding it.

And re-siding the whole house, okay. So you're not going to try to blend or anything like that? It's going to be all re-siding?

Correct. Okay. We'd prefer to wait five years for a new roof if we could, but we're going to re-side it when we build.

And then B should be an easy one, the exposed foundation.

that will match the existing concrete block. It's going to be painted. Okay.

Uh, and then on C, uh, the, the left elevation bump out. Uh, so again, you know, large expanses of blank wall.

The then the bump out that is shown there is comes at the first opportunity to to have a jog of any sort either going in or out.

It's the it's the blank wall said there's there's no fenestration that's the staff comment.

the of the closet yes um part of the uh you know they have the high windows the three sort of triangular shaped windows and then the high awning windows in the bathroom and in the bedroom are for privacy reasons they didn't want like full windows that came down to like three feet above the floor

Right, I understand that on the awning windows, but under the gable there, the windows in the gable are not really considered to be fenestration on that wall. That's where the staff comment comes from. It's a large blank wall. So really the first story, when you look at the layout of a house, right, the first story there, you really have no window on that. It's actually above.

okay so the gable part is not part of that wall requirement or it's it does not meet the wall requirement no because it's higher than the yes it's actually above the roofline okay so it would really be a second story window not a first story window okay if that's the way it's interpreted that's the way it's interpreted is that how staff interpreted it

That's how I would interpret it.

Yes, it is how staff interpreted it. Staff does note, I do believe this is 12 feet or less. I can scale it really quick. Just the intent of the staff comment was it is just, it is the bump out. Your eye does draw to it and just question if additional fenestration should be added there or if the board feels that it meets the requirement. But staff just felt that we should call that out on the overall fenestration design.

Our concern was privacy. It's going to be a closet changing area. We did discuss putting the awning windows that are in the existing family room proposed, repeating those at the bump out to be high enough to keep the privacy concern dealt with.

And privacy can be had with window treatments also. I mean, it's, you know, the idea behind that part of land development code is that we do not see a whole bunch of siding, right? So it's not siding all the way across. That's the intent of it. So we just have the rest of the board, but that's the idea behind it. So, you know, we get privacy, but that's what window treatments are for.

Does, in the 12 foot, that bump out is 11 feet front to back. The 12 foot dimension is... that over 12 feet, it requires some sort of treatment. If it was a four foot bump out, would it require some sort of treatment?

It's not the distance of the bump out, whether, you know, the depth of it has.

I mean, like front to back, where the elevation that you're looking at there on the screen, that's 11 feet wide.

Okay. Well, it's something the board will discuss. It's just that that was the staff comment. And then I just want to make sure we get through the comments that we can You already talked about D, which was the siding and the roof, the blending. So you're going to re-side. And then the typical window is the transom windows. So Ms. Marzullo, do you have questions or comments?

I think I'm okay with those transom windows as that, but it does make even more so the bump out look odd with that blank, even though it's 11, it would make more sense to me, but it doesn't have to since it's, is that the right scaling measurements?

That is correct.

I just scaled it on my, um, maybe it's because there's something, you know, the glazing in the, the gable, accentuates the fact that it has no windows below it. So it almost makes it look more outstanding, but it is within the measurements, so it's not required there, unfortunately. But it would be nice if you did put a transom in there or something, but it doesn't require it because of the width. I'm not a fan of the expanse without, in some of the other areas where it doesn't break with any kind of bump out or inset. I think it should be. I'm okay with the, say you're residing and re-roofing and your materials on the foundation is blocked so that it'll be matching.

Okay.

Mr. Workley?

I'm good with all the previous items except for the typical window. House has got really large windows and I think they're six over six or six over nine. Six, no. Eight. So I would prefer not to have a new proportion added. It doesn't relate to anything on the existing house from that standpoint. So just with the top half of the window and do eight. for the transom, I think that would be more in the line with the rest of the house. So it would be, you're just repeating the top half of your window around the rest. And on the inside, you only have the four over four, which still is the same proportion of glazing that you have consistency throughout.

You're saying like the top half of a double hung.

Yeah. So, so that that proportion becomes better rather than just be the teeny tiny little window. It has a relationship to the rest of the house.

The head of all those awning windows is at 6'8", like the rest of the house, same head height. So you're saying if, okay. So it would be just the, you want them to be, the heads stay the same and the sill come down about the same.

Just be a double window like the rest of the house. And maybe because you're going to four over four, maybe it's two windows then versus three threes.

In the bedroom.

Yeah. Well, on those awning-type windows.

Oh, you're saying the muttons and mullions.

Yeah.

Four, four. I got you. I got you.

Six openings right there now. Openings. Three, six, nine. Yeah. I think it would be more consistent with the rest of the house because you're already adding a new window over in the pedestal. Knowing that, I think I've been, that makes it more proportion, you have a lot more glazing on that wall, and then I don't think that such an issue.

So what dimension are we suggesting? That's a 36 by 18 window. Now are we talking about a 36 by 24, or? Oops.

Shows the existing windows, right?

The windows on the right side are 30 by 54. So you're saying, and those double homes are 30 by 54. And then the awnings on the left side are 36 inches wide by 18 high. Um, so you're saying on the left side that we're looking at there, you want to see at least half of the 54 to be 27 height.

That creates the relationship to the rest of the windows in the house and makes it consistent then.

Say that again, sorry.

That creates the relationship to the rest of the windows throughout the house. You're not introducing a new factor.

Right. I mean, that was my suggestion before.

That's an existing room. I mean, do we have to put windows on an existing room?

Maybe then you go to two and it's punched openings versus being, you know, a trimmed. That's even more.

So are we required to put windows on an existing wall then?

Yeah, where the three windows are, that's an existing wall. Above the house, you can see where there's an arrow that says new and existing, and that view, existing, goes to the right. They're taking an existing family room, turning that into the bedroom, and there's no windows there now.

Okay. Well, you're providing windows, and I'm just saying they need to be consistent to the rest of the house.

So Taylor, you wouldn't have to put windows in there, but if you do put windows in, there needs to be consistency.

I got you.

And same with then obviously the one to the left of that.

That sort of...

But if they go away, then that's going to make the pop-out be even more of an issue of not having any windows in it. So that's why I'm saying if you balance it a little bit better with windows on either side of it, it's more consistent with the rest of the house. Because this looks like a more modern, it doesn't relate to the house at all. Especially with the windows above and the pediment. So we need some relationship to the existing house.

The three new windows in the existing wall that is the bedroom, I guess to be the intermediary here, they've expressed to me that if they have to have bigger taller windows with less privacy they'd rather not have any windows in that wall at all and i suggested with skylights you know something to bring natural light in because the only glass in that room would be the door on the other side um and i you know my feeling was to have more light coming into that room. And I understand where you guys are coming from. If you're going to make windows, make them like this. And with what they've told me before, I'd hate to see those windows just go away because, well, that's what the board gave us as an option. And I'm just sort of thinking out loud here.

Well, but I mean, so honestly, the window to the left would be the same issue. And that way you can't remove. You have to have a window there.

Because it's a new wall.

Yes. I got you. And same thing with the other side, where the windows don't relate to the house also.

The other side, show me the other side.

They're already double hung.

Those are all double hung.

Double hung, they're not 8 over 8s.

There's two in the office and one in the bathroom.

Right, which are 4 over 4s, not 8 over 8s like the rest of the house.

Those are all double hung, right. Then the egress door to the...

It's a totally different double hung than the rest of the house. A different grid pattern. It's a four over four, not an eight over eight.

The reason for that is none of those needed to be egress windows. I'm just saying...

It's still a... It's introducing a new window to the house that doesn't... I mean, it's...

I hear what you're saying. I mean, they're double hung. It's the same type of window. They're a different size.

A different pattern, but we have a different pattern of the sun room. It's a different pattern than the rest of the House. The previous owners put on the studios have the photos that you can show them the.

The sunroom not that's the existing. The sun rooms there to the left. That. so that was an addition at one point and then where the proposed addition right now is being attached was also an addition to the house which is directly behind the garage that right there okay so so we have an eight over eight there we have six over six on the on the sun room and now we're adding four over four We have different sizes, yeah. The one, the window, the two windows you see on the rear wall right by the umbrella, the yellow umbrella, that goes into a bathroom, that's a different size than the one next to it, which is for at the kitchen sink. Then we have a different size on the sunroom to the left. So I mean, I hear what you're saying, but we have a lot of different, and I'm not saying those set a precedent, but... Do they make a six over six in that dimension? In which dimension? So is it just about the number of mullions and muttons? Because I can draw. Six over six.

It's having a typical window. You already have two different windows. Now we're going to basically a third window. Yeah, I mean we're it's.

Those windows will disappear and we've got no problem with matching the 6 over 6, 8 over 8.

We'll finish going through everybody.

Another thing that's happening too is the sliding glass door that is on the right addition now that's going away and that's becoming a single swing door uh... that goes and there should be a photo that you can see that it's a there you go that sliding glass door different type of door is going away and it's going to be a more traditional uh all glass with muttons and mullions swing door and that also acts as the egress out of the bathroom out of the bedroom all right mr workley do you have anything else

Yeah, I'm just saying that, you know, if you can make, whether it be the four over four or the six over six, instead of it being just a three, I would be more happy with in that wall. That's all I'm saying. And it becomes more consistent to the rest of the house. So whether it's four, four, four, eight or six, half of the double home size, then you have relationship to the rest of the house. I'm not so I have issue with just the three.

Okay, it's not a double hung window. It just represents the top half of. Exactly.

And it would operate probably as a casement or an awning, correct?

Okay, I mean, that's agreeable.

Yeah, it mimics the size of the existing house.

I see what you're saying. So 30 by 27, or yeah.

Yeah, I think, yeah.

you have a suggestion on where we have the three awning windows in the bedroom in the existing wall like the number of windows there on the other side of that wall is a bed i would just reduce it to two instead of three you'd end up with the same width and a little bit more height Some change of 3 on windows to get to as Mister work we suggested I think that so is the problem right yeah.

Yeah, we can sketch it up and see you see what that does would impact that has not as far as the closet goes. Required put windows in there too. We put the gable windows in for natural light and maintain privacy. If we need to put windows in there will probably

minimize the cable maybe from my perspective the the awning windows were just such a difference than the rest of the house if that matches then i'm happy with whatever you decide to do with the closet because it's it's small enough that you don't have to have the fenestration on those elevations okay all right yeah i agree with that so the bathroom awning window it needs to be the same yes okay What are we doing at the closet?

I'm sorry, I missed that.

The closet?

Yeah.

If you do the other windows, I'm fine with the closet.

Okay. The gable windows. That's all I have.

That's what I was saying, yeah. I don't want one of the closets.

Yeah, gable windows for now. Okay. Yeah. Squares. Squares, yeah. Yeah, we have a few things to sketch up to offer options.

Ms. Kinney, did you have anything?

No additional comments. I agree with Mr. Workley that because of the requirement that you need to have a typical window to have large windows, six by, over six or six or eight, that would meet the requirement

So where do we go from here? Resubmit or what?

No, what we'll do is I think we can draft a motion that allows staff to then administratively review. If they feel like it doesn't meet the discussion that we had here tonight, then maybe come back. But that way you wouldn't have to come back. You could make the changes on the drawings. Staff can look at it administratively from there. If they feel like it doesn't meet what we were talking about, then there'll be more discussion. But that way you don't have to come back. It'll make it easier.

I've got one question about the site plan. Is that acceptable that we submitted? Yes.

Yes, that's not under the purview of this board, but for staff, yes.

She doesn't want to charge me until it's been approved. Understood, yes.

Staff didn't know any additional questions. It does need to be reviewed by engineering. I do not have that engineering review back. If anything would need to be added from the engineering department, but we could discuss tomorrow. Okay. If helpful.

Yep, great.

all right thank you give us a moment here to get a motion through yeah i'll make a motion to approve with modifying the awning windows to um a six or an eight panel and the um the staff will coordinate with um the owners for the elevation update okay so that's all four or replacing those three plus this yeah this side this elevate the elevation there on top yeah we need a second

I'll second.

All in favor? Aye. Anybody opposed? Thank you. Thank you. Yep. 26-20943 Wellgate Drive, and this is an addition.

Yes, this is for an addition of office space, garage, and a sauna in the back is also included in this proposal. Staff notes this application did receive informal board review at the May 27, 2026 meeting. Staff notes that to question the proposed forward garage wing, the board has taken a look at this previously, just noting for the record that this garage does sit forward of the main mass. so just read that comment section into the record here section four of the architectural design standards state that wings must be attached at the rear or side however side of the building it may not extend forward of the main mass however staff notes that the existing garage is forward of the main mass as it sits currently additionally section four of the architectural design standards state that addition should be designed to be compatible with the main structure by incorporating materials in a foundation to match and to just verify that the proposed foundation material would match the existing house. The applicant is here this evening to answer any additional questions that the board may have.

I'm Rick Hawksley, if you don't remember me. I'm not Bridget, but I work with Bridget.

Very good. Did you have anything you wanted to add before we discuss?

No, not really. I mean, I don't ultimately like matching the roof because I'd rather have a simpler roof on it. But I know you guys like to see things match the existing house. So that's my only comment. So if you approve it with just a simple roof, that would be great. But otherwise, we'll just do it this way.

All right. Miss Merzullo, do you have any questions or comments regarding this?

Do what I had before.

Mr. Workley?

Yeah, I'm good with what's proposed and the sauna as well.

Okay. Mr. King?

No additional comments?

okay so we're making an exception here i just think that uh you know the the idea behind this exception is the fact that it's it's already uh a ford garage i know it is making it larger but i mean how do you do anything with this property uh otherwise uh and the way it's cited is i mean just makes it really difficult to do kind of much else with it uh you know when you look at how it sits on the on the uh lot It's actually not really going more towards the street. They're kind of moving sideways and backward from the street, not really towards it. So I think those, the difficulty there of just trying to do anything with this that wouldn't be more forward. Oh, yeah, is the foundation going to match?

Excuse me?

Is the foundation going to match?

Yes, it is. It's correct on the house, and we'll just match it, yes.

Make a motion to approve as submitted with the notation that the existing garage is forward, and this is expanding that, but it's the conditions of the site that require it to be at this location, and it matches the rest of the architectural character of the house.

Second. Second.

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

Thank you very much, appreciate it.

26-7386761, Pheasants Ridge, and this is an addition.

Yes, this is for an addition over an existing garage of an office, bathroom, and rec room. Section 4 of the architectural design standards state that the front face of the main body must sit forward at least 18 inches from the front face of the wings. Just wanted to bring up that staff notes that the existing wing does sit forward of the main mass approximately two feet. However, the second story addition would increase the degree of nonconformity and would not meet the intent of the requirement for the wings to be subordinate to the main mass. You can see in the elevation here. It's not expanding the existing footprint at all. It is building on the second story, but just wanted to note for the record and to the board that this is currently a forward mass within the garage wing. The applicant is here to answer any additional questions that the board may have.

Bill Gatz with WC Gatz, the builder. So you want to? Go through it. Yeah, sure. So obviously the client looking to do this 2 story addition, just having more space, big family. So, I think when they thought about whether building out or building up, the idea was to build up above the 2 car garage. um we've got the two smaller wings on the right and left and then the garage itself so being a two-story there it might help kind of center that or complement the center mass without expanding the existing footprint matching the brick what we rendered actually looked really good so yeah okay towards the questions or comments

I think it makes sense for what exists and it makes it better.

Mr. Workley?

Yeah.

It's about it being so forward in such a height. I understand that it's over a garage. cutting down the roof to maybe have, you know, pitches or to the head of the window so it's not as the same, as dominant as the main mass?

We did. We talked about, you know, possibly seven foot ceilings or angled ceilings. If we bring that soffit fascia down, It's going to be running into the ridge of the wing, which would then require us to bring it down below that, which now we've got just kind of useless space. So you've got the bridge going, obviously, between the main house and the garage. So we're just barely above that, just again, to get the gutters and soffit and fascia out of that ridge. I think that was the idea is using the same materials, the brick, the brick details to try to match the main part of the house or a continuation of the garage. So it did blend a little bit better.

I understand that, but it's just the proportions to the house and the windows and the amount of brick and its height are good proportions, whereas the windows just are small in this proportion. So that's why if it came down, I know you can't bring it in, and you can't make the windows larger, but... it just it feels too dominant especially with even being forward of the house it just makes it another dependency which i don't even think we can do requirements you know it should either be it's it's dominant not not supplementary to it I would think lowering it even if the windows had to be like dormers in that it would make a new vocabulary and not try to mimic the house as much because right now it's it's such a large plane of brick sticks out more than the consistency of the brick and windows in the rest of the house well the house does have dormers Yeah, not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about lowering it to the windows on the 2nd floor become dormers.

Yes, I mean, you really wouldn't be adding something new then you would be. It already does have dormers, right?

Or it could even be a single pitch dormer or something like that. You know. At those windows, but it's just to me, it's just over dominating and. Deterring from the front facade really.

Was one of your comments about the windows, the new windows in the addition?

Yeah, the lower windows are existing in the garage. Correct. Yeah, so you've just been making the ones above.

And did you say something about those being short or look too short?

It's just the proportions of them. Like if you look at the proportions to the house, you've got basically the same window that you have in the garage, but you've got the larger window above it. as well, whereas everything's spaced out more in this. So you have a bunch, you have a large facade of brick that just makes it that much more dominant, you know, on that facade. Did you look at maybe stepping it back some? So that it wasn't a shed roof that kind of not made it so dominant of the vertical brick facade?

We didn't look at stepping it back.

you probably have to step would you step it back on the front and the back and then are you stepping it back on the side as well i would think you stepped it back just in the front it just it i see what john's saying it would break it up i mean it is really prominent uh and and i do think it kind of takes away from the from the you know the main mass of the house it it

I mean, I don't disagree with his comments because even if you just stepped it back and it was just kind of like a shed Hipped a window through that wrapped around that kind of like as a corner Separate the two elevations, right? But then you don't have to have the brick coins on the corner, you know is dominant it's not the same as the house then and That would be my suggestion.

Okay. I was wondering if, because you have that middle area that kind of accentuates the dominance of the new, and you have dormers, would it help to bridge the two? I'm not disclaiming what Mr. Workley's saying, and I agree with some of that, but if you put a dormer in that middle, would it make it more of a bridge and bring, it wouldn't be as exaggerated by the height of the new center area?

It's almost like a false dormer on that wing that's between the main mass and the garage. Yeah.

That's all existing right now, right?

Correct. It's all existing.

Somehow.

Yeah, I think stepping it back a little bit is going to make a huge difference in the look of that and just that it doesn't look so dominant. A couple feet? Yeah, how far forward is it right now? The actual, the whole, how far forward is the actual garage?

I believe it was two feet. I can scale it quickly on my laptop to get that.

So it's roughly two feet. Yeah. So a couple feet. Yeah. I mean, if you had it back, maybe even with the house or, you know, just kind of play with those proportions a little bit. I mean, I don't know if that works to go back even with the house or if you have to be, you know, maybe six inches forward or six inches back of the house. You know, you have to play with that a little bit to kind of figure that out. But I think that would help considerably. Obviously, we'd have to see it again. It's a huge change. So I think it would make sense to table it and then you can make some revisions and bring it back.

Yeah, we'll get with the client, the architect, and resubmit.

Thank you. I'll make a motion to table this until future.

Second.

All in favor? Aye. Thank you. Thanks. 26-656-5248 Preserve Lane. And this is a new home.

Yes, this is for a proposal for a new house, a single family dwelling on preserve lane. Um, some general staff comments before you here, uh, just, um, a as administrative to revise the submitted site plan to depict the proposed impervious service calculations. Um, comment B here, section four of the architectural design standards say the materials used on any mess must be applied consistently on that mass and all sides of the structure. Uh, staff knows the applicant is proposing board and batten siding on the front elevation projection. that would not be applied around the entire mass and to revise the elevations to depict the proposed material ending on an inside corner. Comment C here, question the proposed rear gable roofs as the main mass does have a hip roof. Comment D was to suggest revising the rear elevation to incorporate additional architectural detail to be applied in the proposed rear gables to better meet this requirement. There was just a larger expanse on the rear elevation, which was the reasoning for that staff comment. COMMENT E HERE, SECTION 4 OF THE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN STANDARDS STATE THAT DETAILS IN THE MAIN BODY MUST BE CONSISTENTLY APPLIED THROUGHOUT ALL SIDES OF THE MAIN BODY. TO REVISE ELEVATIONS TO DEPICT A CONSISTENTLY APPLIED GRID PATTERN AROUND THE MAIN MASS, ADDITIONALLY TO REVISE THE ELEVATIONS TO DEPICT CONSISTENT FOUNDATIONAL HEIGHT AND A WATER TABLE ON THE FRONT ELEVATION. COMMENT G, REVISE THE FRONT ELEVATION TO DEPICT CONSISTENT WINDOW TRIM. AND H WAS TO SUBMIT PRODUCT SPEC SHEETS FOR ALL PROPOSED EXTERIOR MATERIALS. STAFF DID RECEIVE COMMENT H So we do have that on file. As well as we did receive updated house elevations. I do have those for you this evening if it is okay with the board to bring those up. I do have them on that flash drive. And the applicant is here this evening to answer any additional questions that the board may have.

Yes, Tony Leonardi with LDA Builders, general contractor.

Go ahead, bring those elevations up, the revised elevations. Hopefully they take care of most of the staff comments.

It'll take care of some of them, yeah. One of the batten board siding on the front, I forgot to show it on the returns on the sides going back into an inside corner, it had a horizontal siding there. So I did change that now, which shows on the left and the right side views. So it only projects a foot there, but right in there, I had horizontal siding in there by mistake, so I changed that to the batten board, so now it returns into the inside corners. And right below that, if we want, we can jump down to the, Water table seal that Lauren brought up so That stone veneer which is right below the verticals Batten board siding that also returns into the inside corner So when you're looking at the front elevation, it doesn't go all the way across the front. It's just on the projections So I don't know if that's what you were questioning and that I

Yeah, just the intent of, you know, the foundational material. It is the same material. So staff called out that it was at a different elevation. It would be up for the board to review and decide whether that meets the intent.

But it has the same material that will be on the foundation all the way around the whole house and up to the bottom of those windows there in that front section there. along with the little stone pillars where the columns are, so it's all the same material.

Was that all the ones that you had changed?

That and then on the rear elevation I added some louvers there up in the peaks just to break up that. That was one of Lauren's comments. I think there was a D. Yes, yeah, OK.

So D we got taken care of. So in B we got taken care of with it being shifted that inside corner.

So we have the the roof, so we have C. Yeah, see, I didn't do anything with that, so I think she was questioning that peak right there in the back of the garage that I put the louver in. I think you would question if that should be a hip roof to match the main body of the house.

That's something we can discuss.

Yeah.

Well, the grid patterns, E, the window grid patterns.

That one I didn't do anything with because I thought they were consistent all the way around, so I'm not sure which particular windows Lauren thought were different. I did, on the front elevation, I did change... The windows had went up into the freeze board a little bit, so I lowered them down so that they don't do that anymore. That one right above where her little cursor is there, there's a transom up there. There's a freeze board that goes under the overhang all the way across, and that window had gone up into the freeze board a little bit, so it made it look a little weird. So I I changed that so the way that is now the four inch wide trim that goes around the windows and those windows, it just goes from the freeze board down to that water table sill. So it's just like on the sides. So I think there's a question in that.

So yeah, it looks like most of your windows are 32 by 66 or 36 by 66 is the majority of them.

Yeah, that's the majority.

Other than the right side elevation, you've got a couple of smaller ones. But they all seem to be 6 over 6, except for the smaller windows.

Yeah, those are 6 over 6. The little ones are 4 over 4. Of course, the basement windows down below, they don't have any grids in them, but they never do. So.

That's on that staff comment was in just in relation to these just to call out for the boards. But for its review to make a determination on but just to call out for the staff purpose of they were different grid patterns in the detail.

So we just do want to have a thing to be easier. So and see. Any issue with the shape of those were able to support the law.

No, I don't see how you could do hip on that.

I think hip would be awkward, but yeah.

Shed doesn't relate, so I think that's the best.

Okay. Mr. Workley, any issue with the?

No, I don't have an issue with the rear ones. I have an issue with the front ones. Okay.

Well, then let's go through those since we're talking about gables.

Yeah, I don't understand that those front three gables in the valley between them. We've had an issue with when we make valleys between gables in the past, and now we've got two.

Yeah, they're not supposed to intersect.

They're not supposed to intersect, you're saying?

There's a hip roof, and then you've got shed coming forward, and then you've got three pitches on top of that. Because if you look at the roof plan, it's not even...

The center one comes out further over the front porch.

Look at the roof plan. They're all just... really forced to try and make that detail, which I don't even understand it. It should just be a large pitch in the background and then have a smaller pitch in the front. But is it higher than the roof? Is that what happened if you did that?

Well, actually, June here, the buyer, the homeowner, she'd seen that on a, she had a picture of another house that was built by somebody else that she really liked, and that's how it was, that's how theirs was built.

of like three dormers and you made them into like a roof off of a shed roof so that's what makes them like not there's no space between them that's what makes them like not yeah it's a little different yeah that's right you have nothing but problems at those those corner points you're gonna have big time rotting issues

I don't want problems. It's not going to shed water well.

You're going to have snow there all the time.

Yeah, it's not the best scenario. That's the best situation, that's for sure. So in between the peaks, yeah, all the water is going to drain right out between them.

I mean, that'll all be ice guarded and all that.

I mean, we're going to flash it so that hopefully she would never have any problems.

Make the two on the sides smaller and back farther so they're separated so it's kind of like not touching the center one.

I mean, think about the amount of surface area on that roof that you're bringing water down, and you're going to funnel it. It's literally a funnel. I mean, it's going to shoot six feet out from the front of the house.

I mean, I don't want that.

Yeah.

Well, if we change it, it's going to require quite a bit of changes. So, I mean, we'd have to... I don't know what we could do right off the top of my head without analyzing it and thinking about that.

I'm just saying the center pitch can be fine as a pitch coming off of the hip, but the two pitches on the side, if you can push them back and make them like dormers or something like that that are away from that pitch in the valley, that's going to give you kind of the same look that you've got, but then they won't touch. You've got the shed of the roof in front, it'll just make the shed of the roof in front deeper. There'll be more on each side versus the center. Because you only have like the six inches of roof that returns underneath on all three of them. So the sides would be two foot, three foot, depending on where you push those back to.

So you're saying, when you say the shed on the sides, you're talking about that little roof that goes across above the window?

Yeah.

So that comes out afoot. And then the projection itself, where the vertical siding is, that comes out afoot as well. So if we...

So I'm saying just like make those like hips and then make the detail of the pediment pushed back so it's smaller. Oh, well, it becomes like a dormer pushed back on the roof. And not not three shed roofs or pitched roofs. I would suggest you read, you know, take it and revise it and come back.

Yeah, I mean, you're gonna have to rework that I just, that's it's, it's gonna be nothing but problems. I mean, you know, the solution should not be we're going to license water shield the whole thing. Like, that's not a solution. I mean, the system should work.

I know. You know, apparently somebody's done this before. I might have an actual picture of it.

And maybe they didn't do it in Northeast Ohio. I mean, it would be fine in Phoenix.

Where did you see that house at?

I mean, honestly, it'd be fine in Phoenix. You wouldn't have this issue. But we don't live in Phoenix.

Here's an actual picture. Let me show you.

You're not going to convince me, but you can show me.

But it's still the same shad. I mean, I wish him luck.

That's going to be nothing but problems. I think that has to get reworked, but let's get through the other ones also so that we're not... Yeah, let's get through the other ones, I guess. So then, see, D we said, right? D everyone was okay with. And then E was... Oh, the grid pattern. Okay, so this is the windows. Any issue with those smaller windows on the right elevation? Ms. Marzullo?

No, it's in the balance, okay.

Well, I mean, it's a floor plan. It's a programming thing. All right, so we're okay on C. Oh, the foundation height water table. So... If we can go back to the front elevation, I do have to say that I do not recall having the two materials, like basically the foundation material. So normally we talk about ending on an inside corner. It's a material that's inset in. It's supposed to be an accent material. And here we're doing two materials. One of them is the same as the foundation. And I understand this return on an inside corner, but it doesn't appear that way. It appears that your foundation is coming up that high in that area. If that stone went all the way up, I think it'd be a different conversation. And if the board and baton goes all the way down, you know, but you're using two different materials and one of them is the foundation material. I agree with the staff comment there that it looks like you're jumping the foundation. That's the appearance that it gives, and the whole idea of the water table is to not have that appearance. But, Ms. Marzullo.

Yes, I agree with that. It's still varying and not consistent.

Mr. Workley? I do.

Yeah, I think if you drop that down to the foundation height and you left, I wouldn't have a problem with the stone of the columns coming up. That would make more sets.

Yeah, I would agree with that.

I do have some pictures of that, if that helps. Just to give you a little bit.

This is one that's actually

why did you do that

I guess we've missed that before. Because I don't recall that ever coming up before.

I think we talked about it.

Did we? Okay. I mean, I don't know.

I think that one was because it was balanced and it was a detailed element. We let it be.

Oh, on the projection.

On the projection.

Well, this is still on the projection, isn't it? This is a projection. Yeah, it's still on the projection. i'll hold on to them for the record just because they were entered all right i'm not gonna he's got enough to work on on that uh and then if okay i i guess we're all right with that we'll we'll

If we're going to change the front with those three peaks, there's a chance something that might have to change anyway. I don't know because I don't know if making that a hip rough on each side, I think that small peak just over the front porch is going to. not look that good because all you're gonna have you're gonna have all this roof and just one little tiny peak in the front it's up to you guys so we just criticize it and i and i know you guys are criticizing because of the ice and water and all that and i understand that as a builder because believe me when i when people want to do two peaks like that together i always try to discourage them from doing that But she showed me that picture and she really wanted that. So that's why I did it.

And I know you guys take on... We're not supposed to intersect roofs to create a valley, right? I mean, that's right in the land development code. Yeah, we do not intersect roofs to create... And that's what that's considered, huh? Yeah, it's two intersecting roofs. I mean, that's... That's it. All right.

I'm happy to revisit it because I don't want any. I think you should. I do not want those issues.

I would suggest that you do. Okay. And so then the window trim. Did you put a consistent window trim on the front? Is that changed in the new elevations, a consistent window trim in the front?

Well, it's got four-inch trim around all the windows. The ones where the freeze boards are there, you know, you have a freeze board going across the top, so there's no room for the four-inch trim, so it just goes on the sides.

Is that because of the busyness of the board in Batten?

It was the busyness of the board and batten as well as this transom window was up into the freeze.

Okay.

Yeah. So it was just a consistent trim. It was the only spot on the house that that happened.

Okay. Anybody have any other issues there? Okay. So when we revisit the front peaks and come back.

All right, so we're going to table it until the next meeting?

If we would. Okay. Make a motion to table for next presentation. Second.

All in favor? Aye. All right.

All right, thank you.

Just a note while you're here, just with the meeting next week, I would need those revised elevations by Wednesday, June 1st, to remain on that meeting, if that's too quick. July 1st. I apologize, July 1st. Would need those elevations by then, or it would be the following meeting.

That would be for which meeting?

The July 8th meeting. July 1st as a deadline.

When's the meeting after that?

Wednesday, July 22nd. I know that's kind of a quick turnaround, but with the 4th of July holiday, we do have a shortened agenda week, unfortunately, so.

Okay. All right. We'll see what we can do. All right. Thanks, Lauren.

All right. Thank you. Thank you.

All right, guys. Take care.

So the next is withdrawn. So we'll move on to other business. We have 8751, which is 1405 Hines Hill Road. And this is informal for an addition.

THIS IS FOR AN ADDITION. THIS IS AN INFORMAL REVIEW. STAFF NOTES THIS IS KIND OF A UNIQUE SITUATION. THIS HOUSE WAS BUILT IN 1845. HOWEVER, THE STRUCTURE IS NOT CURRENTLY CLASSIFIED AS A HISTORIC LANDMARK OR IT IS NOT PART OF THE HISTORIC DISTRICT. So just definitely just to call out that this this structure would not be reviewed to the secretary of interior standards. It would be reviewed to the type standards is kind of a unique situation with it being that old and it not. But I just wanted to bring that forward for the record. And the applicant is here this evening to answer any additional questions and give a brief orientation to the project.

Yeah, thank you. Yeah, I'm Joseph Matava, Peninsula Architects. Really interesting property, really interesting house that has been in neglect for a long time. There's a barn and outbuilding and then the original home, the Chapman Farm. The owner purchased the property and recently pretty much gutted it. It was a hoarder situation and mold and it was toxic. So they spent like two weeks in there and they pulled everything out. pulled all the plaster out yeah we don't have any pictures of the frame we were i was in there yesterday and uh just amazing i've never seen i've never seen a wood frame like this it was completely concealed um just really solid really level so the owner is is really uh very much interested in making it usable for a home uh he owns the property next door and he wants to make this a place for his son and a guest home and so um Some of the functional pieces that we wanted to add was a garage and then a ground floor primary suite. And so I think it'd be good just to kind of go to the drawings. Lauren, I think that that first set right there of kind of what is existing and what's being removed is just part of the discussion. I'll start top left, and we can probably go to the photographs after we walk through these drawings. Can I just stop you for a minute? Yes.

You said the new owner has already gutted the interior?

Yes. Yeah. And pulled a lot of the aluminum siding off. They covered the exterior with aluminum siding over top of the original siding. And they just pulled... They basically pulled all the furniture and all the debris... and all of the carpet and all of the plaster and all of the mold they just stripped it down to the studs inside yeah yeah it was pretty pretty wild to see people in hazmat suits in there yeah it's pretty pretty toxic environment um anyway it's it's it's a a typical kind of house with a um you know the main gable with the side gable coming off um when we look at the pictures you'll see that the porch on the left had been modified to kind of break pitch from the gable that's cross gable on the left our new design is going to be about kind of re-establishing the cross gable and lowering the porch ridge The chimney on the end was added for a furnace, so we're removing that and re-looking at that elevation. Can you pan to the right, Lauren? Thank you. This would be the west elevation that has that chimney and a funky bay window that's left of the chimney and a porch addition that's left of that. And we're basically stripping everything that's been added Off and kind of rebuilding to the right. You'll see what I'm talking about. I'm going to if you go back up, Lauren, I'm sorry that drawing we were just looking at the right. The would be the West elevation. That one right there. You can see the porch that's to the right there. Basically. At some point in time, they planed that porch roof with the reverse cable, as I was mentioning. We're gonna kinda bring that back to a more original form where that porch slides underneath the fascia of that cross cable. So you'll see that in the pictures and you'll see that in our drawings moving forward here. Okay, let's kinda keep it rolling. Thank you very much.

So here we're looking at what would be the north elevation.

The main block, north end, really interesting windows, double hung with the top sash larger than the lower sash. Very unique window, original windows in great condition. Kind of everything underneath those two windows has been added over time, an aluminum porch and some fixed windows. But that cross gable that you see there to the right of the main gable, Appears to be an original form with this foundation. It steps down 1. we're thinking it might have been like a summer kitchen or some sort of auxiliary structure. And to the right of that is a portion addition that we're removing and some windows that we're removing. But I guess the. the one thing about this elevation is that you know we are maintaining that gable form that you see in the middle there just to the right of the main form we're maintaining that form and our new addition basically butts right up to it um can we go to the next one lauren thank you Yeah, you can see here the main gable form that's to the left and then that low-pitched aluminum thing that we're tearing off. But to the right of the main form is that original.

I'm thinking it's a summer kitchen.

It's a lower elevation. It's got no real foundation to it. We're going to put one in there and make it conditioned space. But it looks like it was something that was added almost like a back porch that was like, In these in this era, they would just put the kitchen out there in the summer. So we're, we're playing off of that with our addition. Can we head to our photographs area? Thank you, Lauren. Just kind of show you some of the existing conditions we can walk through. Yeah, the front porch had become enclosed, and you can see on the left side of it, kind of from that picture, the gable end and the porch kind of become one plane. We're changing that. But the main form we're keeping, those windows, the detail of the entry, but we're pulling off all the aluminum siding and the very poorly cladded aluminum details on the fascia and the rake boards. So it's just basically... They covered up all the wood siding with just poorly detailed aluminum that we're just pulling off, and we're going to replace siding that needs replaced, but the majority of the siding is in good shape. The aluminum actually maintained it. What are we looking at here? Yeah. This is up in the middle there. You're looking at the east elevation and this is a modification that we're making to the elevation. If you were to see this kind of structure, traditionally, you would see a small rectal linear window above close, maybe even built into that rake board up there at the at the at the soffit. We're going to add that. Um, you know, I mean, we were curious as to what you think, you know, it wasn't there originally. The framing doesn't show it being there, but it would be there originally if you look at a lot of types of this period. Um, so that's one thing we're going to want to talk about. Um, to the right, you see the original kind of gable form of that summer kitchen, which was very poorly constructed. The roof is completely sagging. We're probably going to need to completely replace it. Um, and then that aluminum trellis thing is all coming off. um yeah that those those two windows up top are original or staying the door and the window below are not original we're reconfiguring we'll take a look at what we're doing with that as we move into the drawings um you can see there in the bottom left the original gable form with the windows but then this little porch form There to the right of that, or that we're removing, that's this funky plane. We're just, we're taking that all. We're taking that all off. That's going to be removed at that porch. That side porch piece has been added and then a little bay window that you see the right there is coming out as well. So it's really just a lot of taking it back to kind of what it was originally and trying to bring it back in that state with an addition. That's probably the best way to put it. But you can see in that right photo there, if you zoom in there, Lauren, thank you, that porch was never that way. I guarantee you that that porch pitch was lower. and it came underneath the the the soffit so we're we're bringing that back and we're making it an open porch and completely rebuilding that floor um so so what else we got here yeah So just to note, the barn is probably one of the coolest spaces I've been in in this town. It's a rough sawn timber from about 1910. And so it's a full volume. There's no cross beams in it. It's a finger jointed timber frame. And so you get in there on the second floor, and there's a basketball hoop in there. It's like you could shoot hoops in this place. Usually these barns are all tied across, but they're bolted connections, and the owner wants to basically have it as a spot that he could have as a party barn, have friends over. They used to have cows in the bottom and then store stuff up top, but it's very unusual because it's one big open space. You would never expect that. So it's kind of a neat connection. collection of buildings the barn this cool little outbuilding that we're just going to clean up and then what we're adding to this house I think we can probably go into our drawings.

Yeah, so top left, we're keeping all those windows originally. But on the porch, like I said, we're breaking the pitch lower.

We're going to do a metal roof there. But our plan is to change the openings on that porch. There's a window and a door right now, and we would like to do a double door and a double window in there. So that... i would say out of all of this that's probably the most significant change because it's front-facing but we feel like it's it's tucked into a porch and it's not in the historic district it's not subject to the standards and we feel like we've got that that latitude and um you know we would be using appellate reserve uh simulated divided light matching the proportion of the lights in the existing windows We did try to look into what it would take to match the existing windows with a taller sash on the top, and it's just not out there. It's either the opposite. Like the opposites out there were a shorter sash on top and a larger sash on the bottom. They call that a cottage or an even sash. But to have the larger sash on the bottom and the smaller sash on the top and the smaller sash on the bottom, it would be a custom-made window, and it's just not. Don't think it's that project, but curious what you guys think. So this is where it gets, you know, where we start to do things a bit, you know, where we start to do our ad. And I think it'd be better, Lauren, if we could look at one of the east or west elevations to kind of show that.

Yeah.

So what you're seeing is the original tall form on the right, the original cross-gable form lower. We remove the chimney, we remove the box bay window, and we're doing a bit of a symmetrical window opening on that west elevation. as you move to the left there's a new entry with a couple of windows that is built against the cross gable that like summer kitchen piece i was talking about that's going to the back and then the cross gable coming towards us with the garage door the one that's the gable aligns with the back of the existing gable that comes out the back so that's kind of the beginning that point where the right edge of that gable of the garage is is the transition from existing footprint to new to the left so we're essentially running a cross gable straight east to west that pretty much matches the cross gable to the right that's existing and then coming off the back of that with a shed if that makes sense um Those are those newer, smaller windows that you can see on the top left there. The cross gable that you see on the right, the lower one, is that new cross gable. The piece of roof in between the two is the existing summer kitchen roof. And then the shed is a new roof in the back. So we're just trying to kind of work off the gable form that exists on the west side that's existing with a new gable form that's pretty much the same proportion in size out to out that runs east-west that captures the north end of the existing house and allows us to land a shed on the north side. this is that north side elevation that faces back towards the woods that's the the cross cable that's running left right above and then the brake pitch shed that is uh kind of allowing us to get the garage and uh primary suite and do we have any renderings alone did we include those well we probably didn't we just uh kept it yeah we kept it simple we have a bunch of renderings but didn't want to confuse anybody so i in my mind you know it's like This owner's doing an awesome thing. They're going to the wall to save the structure and to restore it as much as possible, but also wanting to make it functional as a family home with a two-car garage. Their son is partially disabled, has limitations, and so they want to make this a place for him, potentially. So, like Lauren said, this is informal. You know, we I've just learned to come to you guys early and often instead of coming later. So, you know, if there's any any bear traps here, we're we're all ears.

I think you're. paying homage to the original plan of making it for today's living without kind of... I know you don't have to, and I appreciate what you've designed. I think it's on the right track. It's just sad because this... The story of this house and John Chapman was a war prisoner, came to Hudson very early on. The house that's on South Main Street, the brown one on the east side, that's like a Actually, I think it's red and green. It looks like a Christmas house. It's on the corner. It's off me. It sits a little high. Anyway, that's his son's house. So there's a lot of connections. And this was in a family for quite some time. But it was pretty...

But the frame is amazing.

Is there anything inside, like original timber?

Yeah, it's all going to be, a lot of it's going to be exposed. Like that cross gable on the left is, I think, do we have a floor plan? I think we do have the floor plan. Yeah, that cross cable on the left, if you look at the plan there, there's gonna be a kitchen and a dining area in there. And what's cool about that space is there's a real low flat ceiling in there and there's nothing above it. There's a very shallow attic. But there's a beam that runs north-south, a big hewn timber in there that's kind of holding the frame from spreading. But we're going to remove that framing that's up above, but leave the beam in place. So we're going to take this low ceiling and really kind of create this really cool vaulted space with this hand-hewn tie cutting right through. So it's like, to me, it's really kind of cool because that's something that no one ever saw, right? All of this frame was completely concealed. But now in the middle of that space, you're going to see this big hand-hewn timber that runs right through with air all around it and i wish i mean i i i'm just a fan of like showing things but there's all kinds of cool cross braces in these walls that you're never going to see that we never knew were there i've never seen a frame that small cross braced at every corner and in the middle of the long walls on the first and second floor And the other cool thing about this structure is in the basement, the joists are like triangular shaped locks. So there's bark on them, but they're all cut like in perfect triangles with the floor bearing on the top flat. So you walk in the basement, just a bunch of tips of framing members. and the and the and the stone is in really good shape and it's deep you know a lot of these basements they made deeper later but they made this one deep from the beginning so the whole house when you look at it from its construction and the foundation and the structure kind of shows you that now this is for people that were wealthy at that point in time and they really built a quality And it was just such a cool surprise with all the debris and all the fungus in there to tear it all out and to walk in and kind of discover this.

So, yeah, it...

I mean, originally never had a two-car garage or a first-floor master, right? But I think what's cool about it is all the original fabric, even though it's going to all be concealed again mostly, it's all going to be utilized. And so that's a good thing. It would have been very easy to walk into that place and say, we're just tearing this down because this is toxic in here. And the owner saw this as, you know, this is a cool project. I want to lean into it. So we're really, and the other cool part about it is Brian Wilmot is building it. Which, you know, I brought Brian in, you know, introduced him to the owner and like, this is the only guy I would recommend to do something like this. And, you know, as you guys know, he's got, I love working with him. Everything is, he's pushing anybody harder than anybody about like, let's keep this, let's do this, let's do that. So I think it's kind of like the perfect little storm of a

cool ad keeping the house reframing the function of it but the bones are there and they'll be there for a long time now you know i think you're completely on the right track i i think you're taking kind of a hodgepodge of of structure and like giving it some uniformity like making it it makes sense so i think you're completely on the right track

wordly yeah i'm good with everything too um my only suggestion would be um like on the front and south um it's the i understand wanting to respect the integrity of that um shed roof porch yep but maybe it becomes more of a flatter roof so you get your head height because it's going to be relatively heading that porch you know went up a little bit higher and maybe became some kind of detail that way. I don't think that would be a problem. That kind of mimics the door or something like that in that elevation. I don't think I'd have a problem with that being a lesser of a slope. Because it's not quite, when you go to the side elevation west, you're not mimicking the front and the back sheds. So I don't think you need to.

So you're saying maybe just kind of raise the bearing and lower the pitch. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah, I could see that because, you know, you don't want to look out that window.

Yeah. It's like 6'8".

It's like 6'8 from the inside, so it's not.

Yeah, but you're right. Yeah, you're right.

yeah it's it's i wish that reverse cable was six inches taller yeah and i do like you adding the the two windows above in that that uh completely makes sense yeah yeah maybe if they're down a little bit though because i think the freeze was is like 12 inches usually like they're like half in the freeze and half not sometimes so just depending on how you place those i'm not sure where the floor line is so it doesn't you know that's going to dictate

The pictures, did I notice a plaque, an HHA plaque?

There is a plaque there, right, yes.

So it means there is research that has been done on this house that can document the different stages or ages of the house. Have you looked at it?

You might want to.

Yeah, I think we should take pictures of the interior now because that frame is so unique.

Yeah, but probably the material you would find would not be from the inside. It would be pictures of the outside or a description of the outside. But I think it might be really interesting to see if there were certain things that have disappeared on the main structure that you might want to put back.

Details so typically that's kind of stuff you see in framing like openings, you know, and you're right. That would be interesting to see that. What will the to that point? The 1 thing that's interesting is when you we've ripped all the plaster off. You could see that the gable and the cross cable were built at the same time. That's not always the case, right? Usually the smaller ones built first and the bigger ones built 2nd, but they were built at the same time. I think the cross cable on the back, that summer kitchen piece, was added later. It's a lower step down. The stone's a little different. And it's got a dirt floor. Basically, it doesn't have a crawl space or a basement. It's just dirt, where the main block is full basement under the whole thing.

I'm just noticing in one of the pictures you have, is it a coal chute above the windows, or is that like a vent? I think it's a vent. Where the bay window is?

Next to the chimney.

Is that the kitchen where the bay window is? Yeah, I think there was a hood vent in there.

A hood vent? Okay, because, yeah, it does look a little rusty.

And then under that bay window, is that a, not that it really matters, but is there a storm cellar there? Is that what that? Yeah.

Yeah, that's the original, that's original. That stone is original. Like I said, it's really unusual because we've done so much work in town and they always made these basements too short. And so now people build in and get another two or three feet. This is full height all the way down. which is pretty rare. I mean, Baldwin Bus House isn't that. And that, coupled with the way the frame is built, really points to somebody who was paying attention and wanted to do it the best and the strongest and the very earliest.

What's the state of the siding? Is it in fairly good shape?

Yeah, like I mentioned earlier, we were hopeful. Brian is such a geek about this stuff in the best of ways. He was really hopeful that the aluminum would have preserved it, and when we pulled it off, that is the case, that the aluminum that they threw on there to avoid maintenance protected it. It protected the siding. so i'm sure you know we're going to be um you know placing in some places but um it it is remarkably in good shape all right well i mean i think everybody's in agreement i mean it's yeah it's on the right track good right thanks guys thank you good night

And then on other business, we have the approval of the minutes from June 10th.

It was just one thing that the window presentation was put

It actually happened last, right?

Yes. Yeah, it's in the beginning of other business. It's kind of reversed, and it really didn't have a title on it. It just claimed that it wasn't on the agenda, but for some reason it got placed as number one in other business.

So we have a motion to approve with the change.

I'm sorry, I would also like to note that Francoise mentioned there's another on the, what was it, the first?

Other business, I think it was A, I stepped out, did not vote.

But it was, I think it counted her vote on the first one, but she did step out. She did recuse herself from that case. So we will need that updated as well. So just wanted to note that for the record.

I did not catch that. Okay. And I probably should have announced that. I didn't really announce it in the meeting. She just went into the back. So Joe probably didn't notice.

That makes sense.

Yeah. So, yeah. So, yeah, if somebody reaccuses themselves, I'm going to have to say it out loud so that Joe understands that that's what's happening. I'm sure that's what happened.

Yeah, that's that makes sense. I can see that happening. But just want to note that for the record that that's another change. I will contact you in the morning and have him change those.

With those 2 changes.

To prove the June 10th minutes. Second.

I think.

YEAH, I KNOW IT'S GETTING LATE. I WON'T TAKE UP MUCH OF YOUR TIME. I DID JUST WANT TO NOTE THAT STAFF IS BEGINNING TO STUDY DOING AN UPDATE TO THE ADMIN RULES. I KNOW THAT WE HAVE HAD THIS CONVERSATION WITH THE CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR IN SOME OF OUR AGENDA MEETINGS SETTING THE CONSENT AGENDA FOR THE ADDITION OF INFORMAL REVIEW PARAMETERS WITHIN OUR ADMIN RULES. AS I'M SURE EVERYONE HAS NOTICED, THERE'S BEEN KIND OF AN UPTICK IN INFORMAL REVIEWS, BUT THAT IS LARGELY BASED UPON THE FACT THAT, YOU KNOW, THE CITY TIGHTENING UP THE REQUIREMENT OF THE NEED FOR THE ENGINEERED SURVEYED SITE PLAN AFTER A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF SQUARE FOOTAGE. SO WITH THAT, WE SEE THAT WE'RE GETTING KIND OF AN INFLUX OF REQUESTS FOR INFORMAL REVIEW BEFORE SPENDING THAT CAPITAL TO GET THE ENGINEERED REVIEWED SITE PLAN TO MAKE SURE THE PROJECT IS ON TRACK. JUST WANTED TO GET THE BOARD'S FEEL OR IF ANYBODY HAS ANY HIGH LEVEL COMMENTS ON THINGS THAT THEY WOULD LIKE TO HAVE STAFF REVIEW FOR THE INFORMAL PARAMETERS OR SOMETHING THAT SOMEONE WOULD LIKE IN THERE. AGAIN, I KNOW I'M JUST BRINGING THIS UP TONIGHT AS WELL. IF YOU HAVE ANY ADDITIONAL, IF YOU THINK OF SOMETHING ELSE AFTER WE LEAVE TONIGHT, PLEASE FEEL FREE TO SHOOT ME AN E-MAIL. staff is just going to start to begin to work on um looking at an update to that to kind of put something in writing because as of right now there are no informal parameters within the current admin rules does anyone have any do you have any high level thoughts or um just some of night no okay okay well just to be quick about it though sure i you know i i do think that informal should be limited based on the size of the agenda

because they do tend to take a lot of time. And I think that that's not unfair of us to do. I mean, it is an informal. And, you know, not getting too far into the details of, you know, like the fenestration review and things like that. It's more of the, you know, for massing and things like that. General massing issues, concerns. And like even this, you know, Mr. Tom I wanted to know you know kind of you know is this is this something that the board you know is there like a massive issue it's going to come for something like that. You know the kind of the finer details I just think it just takes too much time. But I do think we should limit like so we would not have agendas with 16 applications on it in 3 informals.

I know, that's why I'm bringing it up. Which is why staff is beginning to look, you know, with the comments. You know, we flagged that that was a new issue that has come up, so we're going to take a look at that.

I mentioned that to council when I had my interview.

Unless we can specifically have the informal focus on that they want us to look at. So like if there's a big exception, right? Yeah. Like if they're, they think they're okay with everything, but they have an issue with like the roof or something like that. So a focused element for the informal.