Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

So we'd like to call the meeting to order. This is the meeting of the Architectural and Historic Board of Review for Wednesday, August 12, 2026. We'll move on to roll call. Tonight, we do have a full board, so all members are present. Oh, I'll take that back. I'm sorry. Ms. Marzullo is missing tonight, so we have six out of the seven members. We'd now like to open this up to public comment. This is when anybody may address the board regarding anything that is or is not on the agenda. We'd ask that you keep your comments to five minutes or less. Is there any public comment tonight? Seeing none, we will close public comment and move on to consent applications. Tonight we have two, 26-1034258 North Main Street, and that is a fence, and 26-9397555 Huntington Road, and that's an accessory structure.

I'll make a motion to approve as submitted.

Second.

All in favor? Aye. Anybody opposed?

Aye.

We'll open up all the business. And on this one, I have to re-accused myself. So Mr. Workley will take over as the chair for this case.

Yes, I can give a brief project background. This is for an addition of a sunroom at 7400 Valerie Lane. Just a brief staff comment for you here. Section 4 of the architectural design standards state that additions should be compatible with the main structure by incorporating materials and a foundation to match. Staff question if the proposed foundation material will match the existing house. And of note, the current foundation reveal on the rear of the house, there currently is not any on the back of the house. I just wanted to note that for the record and for what you will see this evening. The applicant can go ahead and come up.

You jumped in too quick. Let me call the case number. This is for 2026-526-7400 Valerie Lane. Hello. Hello. Do you want to address the comments from? Yes.

State your name, yeah. Patricia Caputo. And the name? And the home is 7400 Valerie Lane. Okay. And I'm the homeowner. Perfect, thank you. Have you addressed the comments? All of the, you can tell on the plan, everything is going to match what's existing except the foundation on which the addition is going, or we're hoping to be put, um is a stamped concrete patio it's existing right now and we were hoping to get an exception to not put the concrete facade in front of it because the stamp concrete looks nicer and the concrete block does not meet anywhere on this slab so there is a picture on there where It shows where the slab is, and then it doesn't meet anywhere where the concrete veneer is because the rest of the house is a slab there as well. So there's no concrete block there.

What is the rest of the house's foundation?

The rest of the house is concrete.

Is concrete. Yeah. So the difference is just stamped versus concrete?

Yes, but where the patio is, it doesn't meet up with where cinder block is or the concrete block is. Any questions?

Sure. And you prefer the stamp because?

It looks ten times nicer than the concrete block. Yeah. And it's not visible from the south side at all. It would just be the back of the house and just like four inches to eight and a half inches, but where it meets the existing like separate stamped patio. So it would match the patio that it's up against. Okay. So it does match. It matches the patio that it's up against. Yeah. Okay. Thank you.

Mm-hmm.

Janie? Don't think I have any additional questions.

So, fine with it? So, I move to approve the application. Anybody second? Second.

All right, the motion passes. Thank you.

Thank you.

Yes. Everybody in favor? Aye. Anybody opposed? No. OK. Motion passes. There you go. I got to head it myself. I'll get to it.

So next is 2026-400258 North Main Street. And this is an addition in the historic district.

Yes, I can give a brief background. This is for an addition of an office and a two-car garage. Staff notes that the board did approve this proposal at the May 13, 2026 meeting. The applicant is here this evening requesting a modification of the approved plans, including the installation of two exterior doors and a window design change. THE APPLICANT HAS SUBMITTED REVISED ELEVATIONS FOR THE BOARD'S CONSIDERATION THAT ARE BEFORE YOU THIS EVENING AS WELL AS THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED PLANS FOR REFERENCE. SOME STAFF COMMENTS FOR YOU HERE. SECTION 3 OF THE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN STANDARDS STATE THAT EXPANSES LARGER THAN 12 FEET SHALL BE AVOIDED. REVISE THE SOUTH ELEVATION TO MEET THIS REQUIREMENT AND QUESTION THE PROPOSED BORROW PANELING ON THE SOUTH SIDE ELEVATION AND HOW IT RELATES TO THE MAIN MASS.

IF YOU WOULD STATE YOUR NAME AND RELATIONSHIP TO THE APPLICATION. Yep, Bill Gatz, WC Gatz Design, here for the architect. Do you want to address the staff comments? Sure. I guess we'll start with the window and the fenestration. So this is at basement level, and I'm not sure what the city requires at basement level. There was two windows there before. They removed the one where it starts to get closer to the grade as the elevation goes up. So at that level, what's the rules for fenestration?

So we would consider it because it's a full height. It's not like your typical basement where it's a partial height, that it would have to meet the fenestration requirement, the regular fenestration requirement.

Okay, yeah, and the architect or the client doesn't have any issues with adding that window if that's required. Okay.

And then I think the other... Oh, it was just changing the... Comment about the Boral. Oh, yes, the Boral.

Actually, in this, with this window change above that. Yeah, so we went from what was six windows down to three windows. I think you put the Boral. It could also be AZAC panels. We weren't sure what size requirements or limitations we had with those panels. In talking to the supplier, it looks like we can get AZAC panels for that to get around, to trim around those windows.

I think the concern more was that it's...

know should it be horizontal siding i think was more of the staff comment there uh that it's there's nowhere else that has these large blank panels and it could absolutely be it what he i think had before was this same panel it just was six windows versus three but it was the same panel system so he kept it the same but we could absolutely go back to lap siding okay uh and i think there was other there's a door right

Yeah, just the addition of the two exterior doors. Staff didn't note any fenestration change here. This just used to be a window, and it's being changed to a door as well as this elevation. This used to be a window, and it is now an entry door as well.

And was that a door previously?

Not on the final approved plans. It may have been informal, but for what they approved, it was a window.

I only remember one new, but yeah.

Ms. Kinney, your questions or comments?

The only comment is that if you're willing to add the window, the fenestration on the lower level, and to go back to lap siding, I have no further comments.

Mr. Workley? No additional comments?

Same. Mr. Rowe?

I agree with that.

Also agree. Okay. I move to approve the application with the understanding that there would be an added window by lap siding. Second.

All in favor? Aye. Anybody opposed? All right. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. 2026-878 263 north main street and this is uh front porch repair

Yes. This is for a front porch repair at 263 North Main Street. It is within the historic district. Staff knows this application was heard informally at the July 22nd, 2026 meeting. A site visit also took place on August 4th, 2026. The applicant has submitted additional documentation regarding the proposed porch renovation for the board's consideration, and the scope of work includes the replacement of the existing post wraps, handrails, and porch flooring. You have comment D there, just noting the Secretary of the Standards for the deterioration of historic fixtures and materials for replacement. You have photos of all of the details of the porch, as well as some call-outs on these photos of what's going to be replaced on each. The applicant is here this evening to answer any additional questions that the board may have.

You can state your name in relationship to the application.

Dave Schneer, Aristocraft Construction, the carpenter.

So, Mr. Worker, were you at the site visit?

I was not.

I was there. So if you can give a recap of the site visit.

I think the pictures are... We didn't discover a lot that isn't shown by the pictures. I mean, the... in need of repair, particularly at the base. And a lot of it is concealed. And so, I mean, discovering what the condition of inside of those columns or what's below the porch or whatever will be... ...to change, I think... I was in agreement that the material, you know, replacing it like for like seemed reasonable.

I would agree. I was at the site visit. I think that, you know, their plan is a pretty good plan. It's going to keep the look that it is now. So, Ms. Kinney, do you have any additional questions or comments?

No additional questions.

Mr. Workley? No additional. Ms. Sudinski? No. Ms. Puzier? No.

you have one one one quick comment on the uh sorry i didn't mention this before in the note of your installation it the last item is lightly sanded and one of the things we talked about was that the type of wood is not particularly critical because it's going to be fully painted and it doesn't mention this that here I know you're going to do it, but do we have to add that as a note? Because there's a note that says wrap the post in select material, most likely poplar. And we said, yeah, that's fine, because it's all fully painted.

Yes, I think that's...

I just want to make sure that that's...

Well, it's select. If I can get select cedar without knots, I'll get that.

Rather than us holding you to a particular type of wood, because it's painted, you're going to paint it like it is. Right.

And it's going to maintain the same profile. That's the importance. Okay. So if somebody's willing to make a motion.

I'll make a motion to approve as submitted, noting the wood material as discussed.

I'll second.

All in favor?

Aye.

Anybody opposed? All right, thank you. Thank you. 2026-20943 Wellgate Drive, and this is an accessory structure.

Yes, this proposal is for an accessory structure within the rear yard. It is proposed to be a sauna, exercise room, as well as space for a hot tub. Staff knows this application did receive board approval at the June 24th, 2026 meeting. The applicant is here this evening requesting a modification of the approved plans. that include the enlargement of the overall size of the proposed accessory structure and the addition of an exercise room. Just some brief staff comments for you here. Section 3 of the architectural design standard state that includes accessory building shall incorporate some elements similar to the main body. Staff just question how the proposed overall design was related to the main mass. Section 3 of the architectural design standards state that roofs of an enclosed accessory building shall be the same shape roof as the main structure. Staff notes that a flat roof is proposed while the main mass does have a hip roof and additionally to question if additional fenestration is needed on the front and rear elevations. Can bring them up here. This would be this side. And the additional side above, and just question if additional fenestration would be needed to meet that requirement or something, but to better meet that requirement. The applicant is here this evening to answer any additional questions that the board may have.

I'd like to state your name and relationship to the application.

Hi, Bridget Tipton, the architect for the owner. So we probably remember the quirkiness of this house with the double hip roof and that we're in that kind of cul-de-sac roundabout neighborhood where all the homes are pretty unique from each other. So the quirkiness of this is in continuation of some of those characteristics. So the first couple comments. So the siding... Here can match the house, the corner board. We can add corner boards to match the house. And the windows that are happening here are the identical ones to the ones being put in the addition to the garage that was approved separately. So all of those qualities can be the same. It's not shown here mostly for clarity for my structural Post layout and things but we will have vertical skirting that's identical to what's on the existing deck That's attached to the house. So those elements are all meant to be replicated pretty much exactly to the home The roof shape Obviously, we're going for a contemporary approach here. The hips are quirky, and so he didn't prefer to move forward with even more of them. Obviously, we're building a very large new hip roof over the enlarged garage and the other part of this project. But back here, that wasn't really something he was interested in. something that I if this if we can't kind of come to this being okay the back deck recently got a shed roof put on it and that is the side of the home where this is being situated so I think a shed roof could work here where we just have the single pitch so that's maybe something that we could consider to adjust this to mimic the home a little bit more but this is still definitely the preference And then fenestration. So on the front facade where we have the door, we could add another window there if you need to see one. That room has two already. And then the other kind of main point I guess I'd like to make about the fenestration in general is that the darker shaded area is not a wall. It's more like a fence. And so some of the purposes of fenestration obviously is to allow light air in. Um, and views through, and that is effectively happening through that space through very, very small openings, but many of them. Um, so the area that is dark shaded. is the fence part, and then obviously the white space beyond those is completely open to air. So it's not enclosed in the way that a solid wall would be enclosed. So it has some, I mean, a very broad definition of fenestration. It does not have a window or door, which is the typical meaning of fenestration, but it is not completely solid, which was kind of the attempt there. So that's the rationale for where we're at, but I'm obviously open to discussing what you would like to see done.

Okay. Miss Kinney, your thoughts?

Your explanation about the fenestration, I think, fulfills the requirements in the sense that you don't have a solid wall. So if you measure to the other side, you're fine. So I would be okay with it. Flat roof, I understand architecturally why it's needed. And I...

On the skirting, it would be at the elevation of the stairs all the way around all four sides? Yeah. Okay, matching the house.

Yeah, and it, I mean, we're doing obviously a lot of horizontals here, but the house is the same. It's all horizontal siding to the floor level, and then the skirting flips vertical, so we would kind of do the same. We just, there's a lot of post-structural activity happening, so I had to leave that visible for them, but...

in deciding in the corner boards is gonna be okay to match the house. I would prefer it to be the shed roof and have that be more of a, is it feeling like there's no.

What about the fenestration?

The fenestration I'm okay with. Okay. Mr. Insky.

I agree with those last comments where I'm okay with the fenestration, but I would like to see the roofing matching the shed roof that's on the other part of the home.

Mr. Brown?

But putting a punched opening in what's effectively a screen seems crazy, so it doesn't need a window. I'm probably the opposite. I think I prefer the existing shed with the shed roof on the end. Given that the front of this building is partial, like the opening to where the hot tub goes is in plane with the wall adjacent to it, I feel like getting a shed on there that somehow relates to the shed that's on the house with the post and beam and everything would require a lot more additional architecture. make it make sense rather than just putting like a larger record i'm okay with the way it is now particularly given how it's a houses you know i mean usually we're requiring something to match we're requiring it to match a gable or bed or something pretty standard so i think this is for me i i don't see a huge difference

What you're kind of talking about here where it's recessed or it's a different material, we do have that cap on two sides, three sides, or two and a half sides, like the way that the band continues around. So it has a little bit more of like a lid or an enclosure. Of course, it does not match the house, but it isn't just to the sky. It has a little bit of a top.

I imagine if you had shown it to us with a shed, I probably wouldn't. Yeah. Yeah.

And the shed was an addition very recently too, so it's a little bit newer add to the home anyway, but.

Switch it. I'm fine with it as is. I think this roof makes sense even given the placement of the building on the lot.

I'm fine with it as is. I think from the fenestration standpoint, putting the break in it, I mean, if you put windows in there and then put a fence around it, what's the difference? So I'm fine with it, and I'm fine with the roof as is. I don't have any issue with the... I think it's far enough back. This house sits back off of the street pretty far, and this is...

As far back where 15 from the property line on both sides because it's as far back as it can be and that's all vegetation.

Yeah, it's pretty deep. I don't you know public visibility will be. See probably 0, yes, 0, if any. So I'm fine with it as is. Is it with it's honestly objects to the OK.

Motion to approve with knowing that the siding matches the house, corner boards, and windows all match, as well as the vertical skirting around the perimeter.

Second.

All in favor? Aye. Anybody opposed? All right. Thank you. two six dash one zero oh i'm sorry uh we are moving on to new business now and first is two six dash one zero two five six three zero six stone road and this is the demolition of a single family house

yes i can give a brief orientation here um staff notes the proposed scope of work is to demolish the existing house and that the existing house was built in 1972. staff also has the comment in here to verify that the existing drive on the property would also be removed staff knows that the applicant did respond to that comment and noted that the the existing drive actually is a fully shared drive so that drive would be remaining um but staff would just question if the the the portion that comes on to the current property would be removed or that would be staying um and then you have the the determination as as comet d for you tonight um additionally staff just wanted to note for the record that it is atypical that we would approve a demolition without at least a concept plan of a new house or what was going there but in this case this is a unique situation as to where the neighboring property owners are actually going to split this lot and they're going to be absorbed into the existing lot so there would not be a new house proposal on this as the lot will not exist as it currently is after the house is is removed when it's all said and done so just wanted to note that for the record that that is why you will not see a new house concept plan this evening for that. The applicant is here this evening to answer any additional questions that the board may have.

Could you state your name and relationship to the application?

I'm Tara Brown, I'm the applicant.

And so is the driveway portion that cuts over to the house being proposed for demolition

It's gravel. Generally, grass grows underneath most of the time anyway. We are not planning to demolish it. There may come a time in the future where we apply for a building of such on that site. So our plan is to not touch it at this point. It's not very long.

It's really just more of an administrative thing, right?

Yeah.

Okay. So really the board now is just coming to a determination as to whether or not this home has historic significance. So Ms. Kinney.

It does not. It does not. All right.

To read the statement, okay. So the Architectural and Historic Board of Review finds the structure at 6306 Stone Road 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. I'll second.

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

Thank you.

26-7915365 Duffield Drive, and this is an alteration.

Yes, I can give a brief orientation here. Staff notes that section four of the architectural design standards state that materials used in any mass must be applied consistently on that mass on all sides of the structure. Staff notes the application is proposing shake siding that would not be applied around the entire mass. Staff's comment was to revise the elevations to depict the shake siding consistently applied around that entire mass. The proposal is for the front projection. Just a note for the record. And comment B is to verify the material proposed within the front gable would be horizontal to match the existing gables.

Is the applicant here?

Okay.

So we will move on to 26-1032-2595 Barlow Road. And this is an accessory structure. It's actually an agricultural barn.

okay yes i can give a brief orientation this proposal is for a 2 000 square foot agricultural barn stat comment a staff notes the proposed scope of work is to demolish the existing barn and construct a 2 000 square foot agricultural pole barn the land development codes limits accessory structures to a maximum footprint of 1200 square feet in district 2 which is where this house is. However, if the applicant is intending to use the structure for agricultural purposes, the structure has a maximum footprint allowance of 10,000 square feet. Staff notes the applicant does intend to use the new barn to house the livestock that is currently located on the property. Therefore, the 2,000 square foot proposal would be allowed per the code. JUST SOME BRIEF STAFF COMMENTS FOR YOU HERE WOULD BE TO QUESTION IF THE ADDITIONAL FENESTRATION IS NEEDED ON THE REAR ELEVATION ABOVE THE DOOR TO MEET THE OVERALL FENESTRATION REQUIREMENT AS WELL AS NOTING THAT THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING A METAL SIDING MATERIAL. ADDITIONALLY TO QUESTION IF WATER TRIM COULD POSSIBLY BE INCORPORATED AROUND THE PROPOSED WINDOW AND MAN DOOR ON THE FRONT AND SIDE ELEVATIONS AND TO SUBMIT SOME ADDITIONAL PHOTOS OF ALL FOUR SIDES OF THE EXISTING BARN TO BE DEMOLISHED. Staff did a little bit of research and found that that barn actually doesn't, it might not be as old as we thought it was originally. It looked like it showed up on our GIS around 2017. There was an existing barn in its place currently, but the current footprint looked like it showed up in 2017. Staff was wondering if the applicant could confirm that or if you knew the date of that barn, but

Sorry, there was a barn there previously and it looks like we found in the basement We don't know the previous owners, but it looks like they added an addition in 2015. Was that right?

Okay, that would yeah We were only homeowners since 2020.

Yeah, but like you can see that they added an addition in

um and it was frankly very very poorly done um and it's falling apart okay that makes sense and that's probably what staff saw on the gis from just trying to go back that the structure was significantly enlarged and changed then in 2015 and the applicants are here this evening to answer any additional questions that the board may have you just state your name relationship to the application sure i'm braden cost i'm the applicant and homeowner i'm natalie cost also the homeowner uh

So I think really all the comments from staff except for the trim are really more about board discussion as to the metal siding in that which on agriculture we have generally been in favor of but the trim are you can use

we can add trim around the door. I mean, this is like a very rough rendering of it, honestly.

Um, so that would, yeah, just don't think it showed up very, you will put trim around the windows and the doors just like there's existing today.

Currently there's trim. So, and with the metal siding in regards to, I mean, um, like you said, it was built in 2015. It's wood. Now the whole thing is falling apart. It's super unsafe for our animals. It's just unusable. And I would hate to have to be back here in five more years to redo it. Um, just for the safety and well-being of our animals. And it looks exactly like our current barn. It's just a sturdier material. And we're keeping the shingle roof, so we're not putting a metal roof on it. So it will match the roofing of our house now and just look a little bit better than a metal roof. So the only thing that's metal is the siding, just purely for the safety of our animals.

Ms. Kinney, any comments, issues?

feel about the addition of the window on the... On the rear elevation to meet the usual requirements.

I mean, those doors will probably be open at all times. The front and the back doors will probably just for airflow, but I mean, I wouldn't be opposed to a window.

Yeah, so the existing barn today has just a window in the back and no door, and so we opted for a bigger door just for wider airflow. I don't necessarily have an objection to putting a window there. Outside of just it will be an additional cost for us to incur.

One thing I might suggest is maybe do the trim pattern that is on your doors or, you know, on the three smaller doors or that. Just do one of those. Just trim it out and put kind of the cross in the top there. It can kind of call it a faux hay.

Sure.

Yeah. But it just breaks up that large peak siding there. Anything else, Ms. Kinney?

No.

Mr. Berkeley, I agree with that. No, no additional comments.

I'm good with that change as well. And I don't have anything else.

Right. You said in the past, metal sidings for.

It's so for true agricultural use, which they're housing animals in it. Not only do they get the larger. building, but we have generally for in it is it just it's for agriculturally, it's it's a better product than trying to put up a wood barn.

I have no I have no issue that I just want to know if we need if it's a thing that we need to note an exception, but I guess the.

But it's a it's a special purpose so there is technically an exception you're correct. And it would it would fall under the programming that is is in response to a very specific programming for the building.

I also agree.

approve this application with the understanding that a trim will be added around the... And some sort of trim piece in that...

Absolutely.

I'll second. All in favor?

All right.

Anybody opposed? Okay. Thank you.

Thank you very much. We appreciate it.

26 dash 8135740 Nottingham Gate Blvd and this is an addition.

yes this is for an addition of a primary bedroom and a basement as well as a master bath just some brief staff comments for you here section four of the architectural design standards state that the front face of the main body must sit forward at least 18 inches from the front face of the wings staff notes the proposed wing addition would sit forward of the main mass and staff's comment was to revise the elevations to meet this requirement you can see here on the submitted site plan that this portion of the addition would sit forward of the main mass. So just the staff comment was to revise that. Section 4 of the Architectural Design Standards state that materials used in any mass must be applied consistently on that mass on all sides of the structure. Staff's comment was to revise the elevations to depict a consistent wall material applied around all sides of the proposed wing addition. Additionally, to suggest additional fenestration on the west side elevation to meet that requirement. Go down to the page here. you can see here on this side elevation staff's comment was in reference to this expansive blank wall here additionally section 3 of the architectural design standards state that exposed foundations and tie courses shall be consistent on all elevations staff's comment was to revise the elevation to depict consistent foundation height and water table to meet this requirement staff just noted that on the submitted elevations there is a slight discrepancy within THE HEIGHT OF THE FOUNDATION ON THE MAIN MASS HERE TO WHERE IT WOULD NEED TO MEET ON THE PROPOSED EDITION. AND THEN JUST TO SUBMIT AN EAST SIDE ELEVATION FOR THE PROPOSED WING EDITION, IT WAS JUST MISSING FROM THE PACKET. THE APPLICANT IS HERE THIS EVENING TO ANSWER ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS THAT THE BOARD MAY HAVE.

YOU CAN STATE YOUR NAME IN RELATIONSHIP TO THE APPLICATION.

YES. MY NAME IS MICHAEL LANGELIER. I WORK WITH OVERHOUSE STUDIO, THE ARCHITECTURE FIRM FOR THE CLIENT.

WOULD YOU LIKE TO ADDRESS THE STAFF COMMENTS?

Sure.

We'll start with the first comment in reference to the setback of the addition to the main house. It was meant to be in line with the main body of the house. At one point we had added the brick to the facade and we had popped that forward and simply just needs to pop back to be back in line with the main body of the house, if I understand that correctly.

It looks like the way it's shown on the site plan is different than the way it's shown on the floor plans. That will be... And the floor plan is correct?

Correct.

It actually has to be 18 inches back from the... From the main body.

Okay, that's what I was curious about. So... In order to meet that requirement, in terms of the architecture for the house, it would create, at least we feel, an unusual geometry. With the house, if you look at the front elevation, in order to complete this first floor addition, it would have to, up one page, please. We'd either have to extend the mass of that gable straight out, which would be, it would look, the house would look very lopsided. So try and balance the architecture. We're hoping to turn the roof, make it a front-facing gable, and have it be a separate architectural component instead of just continuing on the existing house, if that makes sense. And to set it back, would the roof would get very, would be very, we'd have a very strange corner if that was set back from the corner, if that makes sense.

It's point of discussion, so. Yeah, of course. Okay. What's the other... The consistently applied material.

Yes. That was partially driven in order to break up the mass a little bit. Throughout the existing neighborhood, there are a number of examples of this same condition. Part of that was to be in keeping with the architecture of the existing development. I went through and documented properties that have this similar condition, if you'd like to see that. And in regards to the foundation, the water table, I'm not sure I fully understand that. You're talking about the bottom of the, or the top of the foundation, relative to the top of the foundation of the existing house?

I just want us to raise that yes, they should be so it should be like a water table all the way around the gotcha okay, the foundation is a consistent height. All the way around we can bring that's just the grade tapered off that way.

So we thought we'd bring it out yet.

That's one of those things. It's in our land development code of it doesn't matter what the grade does it. The foundation stays the same height all the way around.

Absolutely. We can we can meet that and then as for the east elevation, I have We've drawn that. It just wasn't on these drawings. I do have it here if you'd like to see it. It does have a window on it. Oh, okay. Just the small return on the other side, on the back side of the house.

Can I jump in? Sure. Am I allowed?

Yeah, just state your name in relationship to the applications for the minutes. Andrew Schultz. I'm a contractor.

Schultz Design and Construction.

So I think in that condition specifically, the floor is dropped in the room next to the addition. So that's why the foundation is lower in that area specifically. That's why the water table is lower in that spot. Is that brick veneers covering the foundation and the foundation is lower in that spot.

We would require that you bring the veneer up a little bit. I mean, it's a veneer, so you should be able to bring it up and And meet the same elevation as the rest of the house.

I was, I believe that was the.

The C, though, was the, if you can go to that.

Oh, of course.

Yes. It's over there, yes. The west.

Right. So that, the space on the floor plan inside there is a closet. And part of it was to increase the actual hanging space within the walk-in closet there. But also, since it's directly above air conditioners, that window would never likely be opened.

I understand.

It's actually on a shower wall.

We just had somebody put what looks like fenestration on a barn on the second floor.

We anticipated this. We have a couple ideas that we're thinking through and we'd like to propose. One of them would be similar to the barn to essentially create a faux window, do a full trim and casing and then have closed shutters over it. There are shutters on the front of the home. That's one proposal. The other one would be to put in an actual window unit, but then seal it from the inside in order to meet that requirement.

Both of those have been proposed previously for the same situation.

Cost-wise, we would obviously prefer to do the faux window. However, we can do the other option as well.

i think that actually covers all the staff comments you have the east elevation i think you had a yes okay uh if you just pass that around so that everybody can see it before we start discussing

There's, I mean, I understand you can draw it. There's a tiny return in the front. It looks like the whatever sidings.

I mean, well, it would match the corner. Yeah, basically, I know what you're talking about. Yes, yes.

So, Ms. Kinney, comments, thoughts about the positioning?

Yeah. There's the matter of A, which is that the addition needs to be back 18 feet and I don't see. What could constitute an exception?

So I actually well, Mr. We're going.

So that's what I'd like to talk about.

Yeah, I would agree. I don't see any constraints on the site that would make us accept an exception where it's farther forward than it should be.

Okay, the being even as they proposed. I just think that pushing it back you do create in a very odd front roof detail.

Well, it's not even proposed the it's still 8 inches out more because of that front. Dormer.

It's even with the main mass of the House not with the wing or part of South it, but it should be even that's for.

You're back it up even more just have the brick. Great.

through the inside of the walls, the same. We just built out the middle section for the brick. Also, by bringing it out, it kind of lets us transition materials on inside corners more so than outside corners with the brick that's existing on the outside corner already. So it lends for a little bit better transition of materials when trying to find new brick and things to match.

That's why you did that to try and make it element that details. But it's clunky, like how understanding how the the ridge part of it's going to work with one being a is out further than the other. I would think if you just took and brought the brick down and actually let dormer like it wants to be with its own roof and have the siding go up around it, it would make the proportions feel much better because it's just so much massive brick above those windows. And then you have a double roof there. That's what you're trying to reflect and then be more proportions of what the existing house is versus it feeling clunky right now. To have the and you know that it feels large it feels like it's the whole mass and you just put these siding corners on it rather than actually trying to portray the front entrance that's an element. In 8 inches doesn't really give you that feel it's an element.

My concern with those if they pushed it back 18 inches the full thing back 18 inches, how does it tie in with the other roof. Because then you would extend the existing roof there, would come out almost, was it a 12-inch overhang, 20-inch overhang?

About a 12-inch overhang.

12-inch overhang. So you'd come out, you'd be almost 30 inches in front of that sidewall. So that sidewall would be pushed into that roofing, the existing roofing, 30 inches. That's a really bad detail.

The right end of the gable would be snubbed off by the roof next to it.

Where if it was in line, you could actually just tie them together as a valley. That would be, to me, the difficulty of pushing this one back. Right. And you don't want them to turn the roof because that just creates this terrible expanse of roof going across from right to left. Right.

Right, that's why I was focused on the mass of the brick above, because it's just out of proportion, and it causes you too much focus there. And there's even more of a focus with the siding going up on both sides. It's just, it doesn't feel right. That would be fine if you could modify that elevation and pull it back flush, but yeah, with the proportions right now, I'm not acceptable.

A window?

Yeah, that blank space.

Right.

Could do that. Oh, similar to the front entrance. Right.

Yes, exactly.

There's not one on the existing, that's part of why.

I understand, because we don't really see it usually where it's peaking and then coming down like that. So is that technically to code right now? Because the sides go into inside corner, but the peak is what's throwing me off.

I can take a look at that.

And I think that was staff's comment of having consistently applied the material going around.

yeah because that it would be like if you had that as a separate dormer detail and then just had the brick underneath that went then it i think meets code because normally when it's being pulled out eight inches the top the top should be pulled out eight inches and it's not it just covered it just goes straight past it and that's that's what's making it feel not consistent because it should be just like the front entrance and have the same return and gutter up there for that eight inches Or be pulled down and have the higher element behind it.

To the examples of the other houses in the neighborhood, yeah.

And just add that is that was the intent of the staff comment as well. Currently how it's sitting. It's not that it's not meeting code, it's just a more atypical design than what you would see in a traditional projection where it would have an additional gable or an additional feature where that that material returns into the inside corner. It's just not currently.

So some of these examples were for the discerner materials and some were for the, guess, correct.

land some of these were built prior to our current land development that was a we were curious as to when these problems even in these examples it does what i'm talking about yeah that element has its own roof impediment and gather versus it being tucked under a larger element

and create eaves for the siding areas and bring the gable into just over top of the brick to make a sub gable i would suggest you study it maybe come back the other question would be if it's just siding instead of the brick

If you change the material, that pediment at the top still is the issue.

Well, I think you're saying turn the whole thing to siding, right?

Yeah, well, if it's not brick anymore, you still have the issue of the pitch at the top because you're going to have a dissimilar overhang of 8 inches at one location.

So we're still bringing it out, but it's just siding?

We would pull that in.

It would just be a flush front with siding is what you're saying?

It's a possibility, yes.

So there's a flush front with siding and it was brought back even with the house. That would be.

Without the break in transition from the wing coming out, it wouldn't be a good transition point from siding to masonry or from masonry to siding rather.

window in that dude just so we can get through the comments um i'd be fine with the window um covered over on the inside then it's more consistent than having just the closed shutters that that doesn't match anything else so they don't they don't have shutters on the rest of that side so the window makes sense yeah okay um i'd like to see something revised yeah i i don't disagree with that but

Hopefully we can get to one revision and not have to have the same comments on another one. So, Mr. Dinsky, do you have anything else?

I don't think anything beyond what we discussed.

Okay. Mr. Brown?

Nothing further.

Ms. Puzzi? Okay. So I would recommend is is it's such a substantial change that we wouldn't approve that type of change at this meeting that we would need to see revised elevations. So I would recommend that we table it. You can revise elevations and come back at the next meeting with those revisions. Okay, make a motion to table 2nd. All right. Thank you. 26 dash 2252880 Blakely Drive. And this is an addition.

I guess this is for a sunroom addition. Just some brief staff comments for you here while this packet pulls up. Section 3 of the architectural design standards state that large expanses of blank wall are to be avoided and to revise the east side elevation to better meet this requirement. Here. Staff's comment was in reference to this large expansive blank wall here. Additionally, to question the proposed shed roof, as the main mass does have a gable roof, as you can see in the elevations, a shed roof is being proposed. Staff does note that there is an existing sunroof there that does currently have a shed roof, but just needed to note for the record that a shed roof is being proposed while the main mass is gable. Additionally, staff notes that casement windows are proposed while the main mass has double hung windows. And the comment there is section four of the architectural design standards state that Building shall have a typical window used for most windows. Additionally, and then 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.

You just state your name in relationship to the application.

I'm Jane Martin. I'm the homeowner. I agree with the window. We will make sure we add a window there. It was originally going to be built in shelving. It really didn't lend itself to having a window there, but I like more light than less. so that we will fix. As far as the shed roof, the existing sunroom is a shed roof with skylights and casement windows that let in a lot of light. Right, that is it. What we wanted was basically the same thing but more. And that's why we wanted to maintain a shed roof and really maintain the feel of the house, maintain how we access the patio in the backyard. So that's why we wanted to continue to use a shed roof where it was already a shed roof. It is obviously wider, so there's some detail with the roof, and sorry, my architect couldn't be here, but I don't think that we had any, I think we were able to come up with a roof plan. I can't speak to details on how that intersects.

Oh, don't worry about that. That's just part of the code that's written into there. Your roof does not intersect. It doesn't create a valley at the wall. You're fine with that.

Oh, good. Okay. I didn't, wasn't sure. Like I said, it's not my, this is not my...

The code section is written...

as it's stated in the code and that's just part of that section perfect okay so that's not an issue so really i guess it's just the shed roof and the casement windows and like i said we really just wanted to maintain as much as possible that original sunroom that was built with the house it is different it's a sunroom you know it but it was the original plan and um we really tried to just get the same thing but more of it any questions or comments

Foundation material, can you address that? Is it going to be catching?

Well, right now it's what you see, like if you approach that elevation where we're going to add the window, for example. It is cinder block. The foundation that's exposed is cinder block. I would love to see that covered with something So it will be a, won't have a basement underneath it. So that little sunroom as it is is on a slab. So the slab, yeah, I mean we, there won't be cinder block underneath it. I'm not sure if I understand the question.

Okay, so the existing room is on a slab.

Yeah.

And so they're just extending the slab is what it looks like if you go to the building section.

And we don't intend to change. Let me see if I get this right. Yeah, the new bigger room will be also on a slab. But if there's any foundation, so I guess your concern is if there's anything that is.

Slide down just a little bit more. That shows the detail there. So you're extending, what it shows is that you're extending an existing slab.

Yeah.

I mean, I don't have an issue with the extension of an existing slab.

But if something, I would want it to match too, you know what I'm saying? Like if, yes, I mean.

But it appears to be on grade.

No.

Okay.

And regarding the shed roof, I understand that it will, you already have one in the sub room, so it makes sense to me to have a shed roof. I don't have an issue with it.

I kind of disagree there. What's the front facade? So this is a side elevation?

What's the front elevation right there? The existing north elevation is the front, and the shed is on the back. The sunroom is on the south.

This thing, south elevation, the shed there is very steep because you're going from the bottom of the window at the upper story to below the transom of your first story. Whereas what you're doing now, you're doing a very shallow roof. Yeah, because of that transom now, which I think is the problem.

When you say above the transom, are you talking about the windows? Yes.

From your new design, you have the windows that align with your current window has a window and then has like an arch transom above it. You'll see your current gutter line of your new is above that window versus being down at... at the top of your current window and doors. So you've got a bunch of siding above there that's raising that roof elevation and making this almost a flat roof rather than being a shed roof. You lost two feet of shed roof that you could have

Yeah, I understand that the slope is much flatter, but it's still, I guess it's still a shed roof.

If it was going to match the other one, I would say it needs to come down that two or three feet to that point and then make an actual match the existing shed roof.

So to match the existing shed roof, to match the angle of the shed roof, we would lose the windows. We would, this is one of the.

No, I'm not saying lose the windows. No, no, the second story window. We would lose the siding above the windows. Back to the elevation picture. So see where your current windows align with your window and then there's the arch transom above and you see your current siding and gutter is above that window transom. Now go to your elevation that shows your existing, I mean the photo that shows the existing. To see how much where the skylights are and everything, that bears at the top of your windows. There's no siding above that. There's no two or three feet of siding like you're currently showing.

I'm sorry, I'm not following you.

I'm not an architect. What my colleague is suggesting is that the way that your shed roof It's not with the same kind of angle as your current one. In order to match that angle more, you could achieve that by removing the siding above the window. Have your window and then your shed roof coming right.

So that the roof there at that point would be as big as your seat, like the door, like you're saying the door, whatever a standard door that. I'm trying to follow. I'd love to have it to have a little more angle.

So it would attach to the house the same. It would be a steeper slope and come down to just above the door beam right there. So that siding above would be gone. So you're changing the pitch to be a larger pitch.

Okay, and so I'm not familiar, but so that would be a pretty low ceiling at that entrance then is what you're suggesting, right? That's just what you have.

Uh, actually, no, they're raising the floor. I'm not sure I don't know what that is there, but they're raising the floor slightly. I get what you're saying and I don't completely disagree. I think it can't come all the way down. It could come down slightly because what? So your door is 68. You're going to have, you're going to need another 24 inches, basically, after the 6'8". Between roof framing and, you know, to get a standard ceiling height. So you're going to, you know, I mean, you basically need 8'10", almost 9'.

But I'm just saying if the premise is that it's on the existing and that's what you like and you're going to match that, this doesn't match that is what I'm saying.

There would be no way for us to match the existing, the slope of the existing roof to get the additional square footage without, like if you go back to.

I'm not saying match the existing slope. I'm saying matching the existing bearing. Sorry, okay.

So the bearing is the area above the door. So when you go to the elevation, it's showing that there is a lot of area between the door and the edge of the roof, top to bottom, right from the top of the door to the roof line. There's a lot of space there. If you look at your existing photo and you look from the door to the roof line to the edge of, you know, to where the roof is, there's almost no space there.

Right, because the angle on that roof is so steep that it vaults, right? But when you're on a flatter roof, I would just think that would be strange. You would feel like a short roof there.

It would have less of a pitch, but it wouldn't sit as high on the end.

Right now, in this section, the ceiling, the top of the plate is at nine feet three. It says above.

So you're 9 foot 3 above finished floor, which is...

The top of the door opening is 7 feet, so if you went up to 8, you would have a standard 8-foot ceiling, essentially, there, and it would continue up. I mean, you'd lose a few inches.

I see what you're saying, though, that like a low ceiling... Yeah, well, that's part of the reason we want... I mean, this is the only part of our house that doesn't have 8-foot ceilings, that sort of has that nice... We certainly wanted to continue that flavor that we had, that there was, yeah. I'm not looking to build an addition with eight foot ceilings. So, yeah.

It would only be eight foot at that door, at that end, and then it would ramp up, right? Because you're not doing, it doesn't show a flat ceiling. It shows that your ceiling line is following the roof line. So you would start at eight feet and you would end up at whatever your current height is where it meets the house. And honestly that brings it down 15 inches. So that lowers that end roof 15 inches.

Because the issue is that most of the additions that we ask people to do is to match their existing roof. You would have to do a very high pitch on this in order to match your existing roof. So if we're going to allow it to be the shed roof, I think it has to match the current conditions that you have on your shed roof.

So it has to match the current angle of the shed?

The ending height. The look of it. Yeah. It's the ending height, where it hits the door, the wall with the door.

So the angle will be lower because the distance front to back is longer, right? The distance, the depth of your addition is longer. It's out past the house. So that won't change. I mean, you can't accomplish the same roof pitch that you have now because of the distance, but it's kind of somewhere in between. Because right now you're double... reducing that pitch. First, by making it longer, and second, by raising the spring line out, you know, where the...

I think the bearing point's the same, the line where the original, the existing roof is, is the same.

It's higher here. It's the same at the backside? Yeah, at the backside. No, I was talking about the backside. Yeah, but where it bears on that wall. I think that's John's only concern is that it's...

Right, and I don't disagree with it. I mean, you're coming out further, but then you're raising it. So coming out further, you're going to lower the pitch, and then you're raising it, which even lowers it more. So it's kind of splitting the difference is what is being asked, is to split the difference between the two. So you're going to get taller than you have today, but shorter than what you have drawn.

Okay, and it's because how it would look from that view? it's it's to get it more closely aligned with the house it's really how it looks right i mean yes we're the architectural review board i know of course yeah so so the only thing behind there is um the water retention the pond for the neighborhood like nobody is back there there's the creek and then there's the water retention but it's still visible from the side mean it's there's still a side visible it's coming out past the house so so there's that just one side where the window would be right that's so we'll fix that view okay so so just because again i apologize but my architect wasn't able to be here so very specifically so the the bearing can you zoom in on the the elevation where it has the elevation lines

Zoom in on those cross-member, yeah, zoom in on that text. Section, because it doesn't show it there.

Yeah, I think it was A400.

To the left, and then zoom on where you can see those black and white circular ticks. That's where the dimensions are.

Yeah.

So right there, you have nine foot three and a half as your bearing.

Under where it says T slash wall? Mm-hmm. Okay.

So what we're asking for is right now you have your door opening at seven feet. So with the header of that door, we want it at that bearing at that elevation and not the vertical siding above.

So you want...

So where it says nine, three and a half, that would... Be seven? No, no, no. It would be like probably eight, four, because you'd have a top plate on the bean. So it's probably be like eight, four-ish, about there. In that, you know, give or take. I don't know what size that exact bean is. I don't know if it shows on there.

Two by four...

Just as box center.

Yeah. So yeah.

So then, and that's what we're calling your concern is that that space above the door. So that has to look, that has to come down, which would effectively change, slightly change the slope of the shed. Yes. And that would meet your.

Yes. Yes.

Now the side elevation. Is this aligning with the face of the house on the addition or is it offset four inches?

I think there's an offset because we're going to it's going to be tough for us to match. We're going to have to. Yeah, and I'm pretty sure there's an offset. I don't know how there could be not an offset.

It appears that there is an elevation.

Sorry.

The south elevation, it does appear that it's about four to six inches in.

Yeah, because it's wood trim. Like that corner is trimmed out with wood.

I'm fine with the south elevation then. Okay.

Yeah, if you blow up the south elevation on the right there, it appears that the elevation shows right there where the kind of the line is with five. No, five.

So behind it's the existing corner board.

Yeah, because if you look at the roofline above, that would match.

Perfect. Okay. We typically don't allow the new addition and the existing to be aligned straight across. It has to be offset.

Yeah, I can imagine trying to make it match and make it look good.

That's the issue.

That's all I have. Yeah, it'd be terrible.

All right. Mr. Dinsky.

Is everyone okay with the non-typical windows because they're already there? We haven't really talked about that.

And a sunroom, I'm fine.

I just want to make sure we haven't been discussed yet. So I'm okay with everything else that's been already discussed.

I have a question about the chimney. I mean, there's no chimney, but the fireplace, it looks in the plan like it's expressed on the outside, like the wall makes a jog if you look at the enlargement. It's just two lines on the elevation.

I'm sorry, are you talking about the existing chimney?

the drawer there's a dirt so i i should not have used the word chimney but if you go to the plan there's it's on sheet the second sheet east elevation on a3 800. no not the elevation the elevation just shows two lines and doesn't kind of do it shows a vent it shows the vent it's it's got a little vent but that's not my concern oh okay but if you go to the plan which is up on the enlarged plant it shows that it's bumped out as if to show it as a chimney keep going up another one up to the plan there was talk at the original of doing a chimney i don't want we have a nut we have a chimney right so in the kind of bottom right of the screen right there there's a little section marker to the right i guess so in

We did originally talk about putting a wood-burning fireplace, but I don't want it.

It is going to go straight across and just beside it. You will perceive that. Like the elevation, I'm asking if the elevation is correct or if that's correct. And you know what I'm saying? Do you see on that little spot there, it shows that the wall kind of bumps out almost like, even though it doesn't require a chimney, like there's the shape of a chimney or something?

Oh, so this was where it was discussed to add a window. On this section, right? To the right of the... I just wondered where the window would go. Right, exactly.

And if there was an expression of a chimney, then I don't think you need a window, because I would say the distance is to that change in...

Right, you have a change in plane.

Right, right, right, I see what you're saying. So I just wanted to... Yeah, I just wanted to understand what your intention is there.

So our intention on the inside was to have a gas-burning fireplace, and I know that there's... rules with how you vent that and I think Ryan was looking into getting a variance to put a vent there but if you look at the well our existing chimney is a work of art and to put a second chimney up like that would be I don't have those resources to do it. And so even though we were hoping to have a gas fireplace there, I don't know what the requirement is for venting that. I don't think we need to have a bump out there, right? I don't think that's part of it.

But my only question is because it's shown in the plan, if you wanted to, for aesthetic reasons, bump it out as if there's... Well, actually, I don't think a window can go there with the vent.

You're going to be too close. The exhaust is going to be too close to the window. It's going to be a code issue.

It's going to be two feet or four feet from the window.

Yeah, right. You won't be able to put a window there and have a gas vent.

So I guess the condition would be if they're doing the gas vent, then elevation has to stay as is? Or if they're going to put a, if they're putting a window and not a gas vent, then there needs to be a window and it can be straight across.

Or can the window move to the right a bit to meet?

There's not enough space there to move the window?

Well, the current plan shows that fenestration break by the corners. So it doesn't have to have windows.

you can't put a window between really what the the window that's shown on the elevation and the where it meets the house not with a gas fireplace you can't vent it that close to a window how many feet oh geez i'd have to look it up but i think it's like i think it'd be four when i think it's at the same elevation i believe it to be four feet away

that you don't so you don't because if the window's open it could draft into the house yeah i i forget though that i'd have to look up the ifgc of exactly what it is but i guess because we don't do building code yeah but we don't want but you can't put a window in if it's going to need to put a window out and then summit county's not going to approve it yeah and if it's and then i so if we need to discuss like what happens i mean if it's just flat and there's a vent It won't meet the fenestration requirement.

So you're saying this one could not shift? That way I just move just a little bit to get closer to the 12 feet.

uh it could probably shift a little because what are you you're eight 17.

17 here a little over 17 here to here so i'm saying could that go more this direction still be far enough from that and then basically yes you probably could you could probably get it we'll have to then they wouldn't have the room for the television i mean i know this is an interior thing sorry

But no, that's all part of the right part of the it's all part of the plan, right? When it's not why we're going to go through this process.

So Jane, is that the reason why the fireplace is off to the right instead of in the center of the room?

Yeah. And my husband cannot stand a television above a fireplace. He he just cannot stand it. And I'm I can go either way, but he's very has a very strong opinion about it because So that was the idea.

So the easiest solution is to actually do what's shown in the floor plan, bump it out slightly, and create almost like a... Right.

A faux chimney. Correct. A bump out. So the issue is it's a flat. The issue is not that there's no window. The issue is just a big, long, flat piece of wall. So if we put a bump out there, then we don't need a window. And if we need to scooch the window that's there, depending where the vent's going to be. Okay. Okay. Okay.

i think that's a simpler solution to it than trying to figure out the exact like where i don't know how you put a window in there so i think that's and he does show that there's two lines that are shown there i'm not sure but there's two lines that are shown and in floor plan it does show that that bumps out i mean slightly it's maybe four inches

It shows that inside, right? Or you're saying it shows that on the exterior?

Which is on the outside. If you look at the floor plan.

Yeah, I prefer that too.

Yeah.

Okay, so we'll put the chimney, I'll say bump out. No, and we won't need to add a window in that case. And that will also allow us to have a vent that doesn't suck noxious gas into the house.

Kill us all. Don't do that. Don't do that, yeah.

Okay, so I'll have him revise the drawings to show the new distance from the top of the, from where the shed roof meets. I'm not sure what the word is, but that dimension that you showed me. So we'll revise that. And you said you're okay with the windows. And is that it? Should I have him redo the drawings and come back or how does that work?

No, I think these exceptions we can, or exceptions, these changes we can have staff administratively review.

Okay.

And Ms. Coffman could actually speak with your architect if necessary, just to make sure it all gets correct.

Okay, so everything that you've said, if he can put that into the plan and he can work with you and then we can move forward, I don't need to come back next month.

It was showing it as concrete on slab because it's because they're extending the existing slab Definitely be a slab

Okay, so who wants to make this motion?

I'll do it.

I'll make a motion to approve with modifications for staff to coordinate the bearing point of the end of the gable roof, of the shed roof, and that's it, right? Yes. Okay. Oh in in the the boat out where the fireplaces on the the fireplace bump out to remain as is we want corner boards on that.

It's it's final.

So it's not buying I was a vital to limit him. Okay, well, but it's I would love to have corner boards, I'd be like a white would detail trim.

On the bump out, usually on the corners, we'd have corner boards that would match the house.

Is a corner board, yeah, it means.

No, that's what she was just saying, the house doesn't.

Then corner boards are not required.

Oh, actually, the house does have corner boards. It has white corner boards, yeah.

Yeah, there's white, yeah.

Yeah, so the corner pop out will need the same detailing.

That's excellent. That's what I would want, yeah.

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

Thank you.

26-578-5606 Sunset Drive and this is an addition.

Yes, okay, while this loads here. This is an addition for a rear covered patio. Just two quick staff comments for you here is question how the proposed covered porch connects to the house at the left side elevation. would be a question the connection here as well as question if the lvl trim or six by six post would be wrapped in additional material so question if this lvl trim here would be wrapped in anything or if these posts um are to be wrapped or to remain uh the applicant is here this evening to answer any additional questions that the board may have if you just state your name relationship to the application uh bob kohler and it's my house so the staff comments here uh

As far as wrapping the posts, that's not up to me. That's up to my wife. But the posts are going to be treated, obviously, and the LVLs are going to be treated LVLs. So depending on... How it looks after it's built is more or less depending on how my wife is going to, if she's going to want it stained or if she's going to want it wrapped in aluminum to, you know, like a white, I would think, because the house is blue. So I would think she would want me to stain it all, but... That's my guess right now.

So an LVL you normally wouldn't stain?

Right, right, yeah.

And if you're doing a triple?

If I did, yeah, I'm doing the triple LVL on the top just because it's taking so much weight, obviously. Yeah, if she does want to stain, it would be wrapped in cedar, would probably be the cedar stain, you know, the rough cut on the outside, the cedar stain. And then as far as attaching it to the house on the left side, you see where the rafter comes down and there's like a two foot overhang right there where there's gonna be a ledge, there's a ledger board. So we'll run the ledger board across there and it's more or less gonna sit on top of the LVL that's sitting there. So it's gonna come out and like the roof line kind of pitches back. So it's just gonna, there's going to be a little small section of roof line that bumps back to match the foot pad of the existing patio.

Does that make sense? It makes sense. I understand what you're doing. Yeah.

No further questions.

Okay. Mr. Workley.

Yeah, so they were talking about is just because the second floor cantilever's out. Okay.

Yeah. Yeah, there was a two-foot cantilever off the second floor. And then that's actually why the 6x6 is bumped out, that two-foot right there. Because I can't... because it is a bump out it is an overhang you know if you do national code you can't i can't actually attach the addition to the to the overhang you have to have it self-supporting it's going to be attached to the house there with the ledger board but there is also self-supports right there so the house isn't actually doing any supporting it drawing this condition it's a larger overhang on that side than the front edge correct okay correct i'm good yeah mr anything mr brown

Same, looks good.

Thanks. A motion to approve as submitted.

Second.

All in favor?

Aye.

Anybody opposed? All right, thank you. All right, thank you. Thanks, Warren. 26-435-1465 Norton Road, and this is a commercial building.

Yes, this proposal is for a new commercial building. It would be for a dentist office. You have the packet before you. Just some brief staff comments here. Section 4 of the architectural design standards state that roofs on projection should match the roofing material. Staff notes that gable and shed roof projections are proposed while the main mass does have a hip roof. Additionally, that metal roofing material is proposed on those projections. Section 3 of the architectural design standards state that large expanses of blank wall are to be avoided. Fenestration placement should be a maximum of approximately every 12 feet. Staff just question if the additional fenestration is needed on the rear elevation by that door to better meet this requirement. Additionally, to question if the proposed roof massing and if roof should be lowered, the proposed mass would result in a 35 foot one story building. Additionally, to suggest reducing the amount of the proposed stone and incorporate additional horizontal lap siding to be more compatible with the surrounding neighborhood and the Darrylville corridor. Staff did include the excerpt from the comp plan in your packet that spoke to the Darrylville corridor for the city. The applicant is here this evening to answer any additional questions that the board may have.

state your name relationship to the application dr anthony caruso leon sampat ls architects so if you want to go through the staff comments uh so the staff comments uh you know as far as the you know material of the roof you know we just felt that the change up of the material would would give it a little bit more interest um i think we did all shingles through there especially with that the pitch changing you know we just felt it was nice architectural feature um and then as far as the the fenestration uh if you go to the floor plan you know we're pretty close to the 12 foot i mean it might be like 12 and a half feet it's and they're looking at the back wall um but unfortunately the areas that were looking at are right at the back there on each end. So the mechanical room's one. We definitely don't want to put a window in there. You know, we do need a lot of wall space for all the equipment and then all the panels. And then the other one's the operatory where we do have equipment on the wall and we have cabinetry. The operatory's 12 foot deep, so the backside of that wall is 12 foot, so it might be, you know, 12 foot eight to the corner. So it's pretty close. That mechanical room wall's only about 10 foot. and then it jogs back so it's not longer than a 12-foot run. So I don't believe that we are required to do additional fenestration there. The massing of the roof, It is a large roof, you know, part of what, you know, we do these buildings quite a bit often. But we'd like to make a little bit of a statement with them as far as, you know, not just having, we don't want it to feel like a one-story building because it just gets too low. So part of it, it does feel like a two-story structure, especially with the dormers in the front. You know, in the back elevation, you know, it is going away from you. It's not going to feel like a 35-foot tall wall. Um, so we just felt that, you know, if we change it to a 10, 12 pitch, you know, we're going to pick up, um, it's going to go from a 23 foot tall roof to a 20 foot tall roof. Uh, so we'll pick up three foot of, you know, we could drop it down by three feet. I don't think we'd want to go to anything less than a 10, 12. We just feel that the 10, 12, you know, this is a 12, 12, uh, we, we prefer the 12, 12, um, as far as the height, our first floor bears at 12 foot, and part of that is due to duct work. We don't want to put anything above in the attic space. we're actually putting all the duct work within that too. Usually we go between, usually in the waiting rooms we'll do 11 foot ceilings. So that still gives us a foot of area to put duct work and other mechanicals in. As far as the stone, we felt it was it felt better the way we drew it up um i think part of the planning commission felt the same thing they were hoping that we weren't going to take away the stone but i guess that we'll have to hear your comments on that but our preference is to have that stone uh i had one quick question though so in the mechanical area there i don't see any louvers or anything are you guys going to have any louvers on the wall or uh there will be some There are going to be some pipes. We have to get some outdoor air pipes, vents. Okay. So there will be some louvers, yes. Okay.

Any questions or comments?

Well, a comment has to do with the variety of the roof shapes. There are three, shed, hip. Is it appropriate considering the requirements of the standards?

You tell us what you think?

I think it's a lot of roof shapes.

I mean, going to gables to me at the three gables, all those gables across the front to me would not look correct. I don't know. To me, I felt it was a very good composition of roofs.

I don't disagree. I think that as large as the building is that trying to do just a couple gables. And then if you try to fit a gable in where you have the sheds, I think that would just be really awkward. So I don't, I think because of the size of it, you do need to have some variation in those roofs, but that's my opinion.

I agree the same, you know, the proportions that you did to have that one large gable at the end would have been a little too much. I question though, there's a lot of business on the front and it's kind of lacking on the back. So I was wondering if with you know the the three dorms in front don't necessarily line up the one lines up with the one window so could you take one of the dormers from here and align the second dormer on the front and have two dormers on the back and then that way you've got some extra detail breaking up that large roof span so i guess what i was thinking of maybe to help break that up a little bit would be maybe doing some reverse gables at the doors instead of those dropping those sheds down um

and that would help break that up a little bit. I thought about putting dormers on the back. I don't know.

we have five windows so if you did the two dormers over two of those three yeah and i think in the front maybe you know exact proportions across there that's what i was thinking yeah i mean in the front i don't think i think the three it could go to two dormers i don't disagree with that i think the shed over the the entrance is fine i don't know that you want to highlight that with a door with a pitch i think that just adding the simple dormers on there would make it just that easy And then the windows can just go into the attic space. It doesn't have to be.

Yeah, that's what these are already doing. Okay. You know, I guess I could look at, I would be just concerned that it would almost look like two almost pimples on the back of a building. It's just, it's almost too small.

In this part, you could probably lower them a little bit. They're really not that high on the other side as well.

Yeah. I mean, I'll definitely, definitely could look at it.

Not much of a, you know. Because if you keep them above the three windows, you know, you have the center window and then put them across the two windows and then you have the...

I think we do have some renderings of it. I mean, when I was looking at the renderings, I just felt it didn't seem... Did you get the renderings?

Yeah, they're included in the package. What would be the adjacent property to this view?

So it's on a corner lot. I think in the rear...

It was a baseball field.

Yeah, the baseball field's in behind there.

So just a little south, and I think it would be a little, what, east is the, it's the round. Oh, the round.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. Because even I think the next rendering, I don't know that I would like it more with two dormers in the front. I guess that's the other.

There are two dormers.

Yeah, I think it's the angle of the rendering, yeah. Good angle. Yeah, and then this one doesn't show it either, of course. Yeah. Yeah, I don't know. Yeah, so that was the back, but...

It's just a large span of roof there, so if you could appease this by doing those dormers, I think that would solve everybody's problems.

Okay.

We're only going to an additional dormer. We're taking off one off the front, so... Trying to make it a little more for you.

So how many dormers on the front and how many on the back? Two in the front and two in the back. Two?

Yeah. There's five window settings, so if we just did them above the suit to center of the five, that would kind of be proportioned, and then they'd be spaced out proportionally on that back.

Yeah.

It has to pop out of the doors on each end, too, that kind of add additional detail.

That's my opinion. Ms. Strudinsky.

I think the one thing I don't know if we touch on so far was the comment about the stone versus the siding I I'm okay with how it looks like everything stone-wise is meeting code, right? Is it just that it's just more stone than...

yeah the intent of comment d is just um it is part of the darryl corridor which is a a focus point of the comp plan um to where uh the intent was to have them be more harmonious with the existing buildings that were there a majority of the buildings that are there are horizontal siding um houses that have been turned into businesses of things of that nature so just calling out that staff comment as to remove some of that stone and add an additional siding to kind of be more harmonious with the current area and the vision for that area, but that would be a discussion point for the board, but staff just needed to call that out.

Can you pull up the GIS on it just so we can see that neighborhood?

Yeah, there's no buildings around there right now, so.

Very close, that's for sure.

I did myself here. Operating. It's not. Here we go. This is the parcel here.

The building that's there currently comes down, correct? That's correct. Yeah. Okay.

I don't have a problem with how it's I think due to it's where it's situated.

I.

You know, it's not it's not in that line of where I mean on Darrow. So the statement. So I'm okay with that.

And the lot doesn't go all the way to Darrell. That doesn't just another lot. You said it was on the corner, but it's on the corner of lawnmower.

Correct. Yeah, they think there's one other lot.

Mr. Brown?

No, I agree with what's been said. I don't know that we addressed it directly, but I don't think there's any problem with the standing seam.

No, that's just the land development where standing seam is nowhere in the land development code.

But to just respond, I mean, it's not an issue.

Just to confirm, did the board have an opinion on the comment C? I was just making some notes here. I didn't know if I missed that.

Well, my opinion would be.

The dormers, adding the dormers.

Yeah, adding the dormers. Understood, okay. We're breaking up that mess without lowering the roof, without lowering the structure.

And I think if, because you already have 12 on 12 and you have 14 on 12. Yeah. In the front, I think. Correct. Even lower would be.

Well, just programmatically, it makes more sense. They need the taller height. You need to be able to get, you need a little space there.

Like mechanically?

Yeah. Yeah. I don't know what goes in the attic. There's never enough room.

But I think from the outside, I think because of the steepness of the gables, it's fine.

And lowering it three feet is no, it's not going to make a difference from. And I think 912 just starts getting very awkward with it, especially with the dormers.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Anything else for me?

Just otherwise, I know we've talked about maybe removing one of the dormers in the front. I like the three dormers. I like the odd number. There's five windows in the back. To me, I think it would make more sense to have three dormers in the back if we're going to do dormers. But I would love to see what you mean by the reverse gable as well above the doors and see if that breaks it up enough. Just for me in the rendering, with everything else that's going on there, your eye is drawn down to all the windows. So I'm kind of questioning whether the roof is really going to even be the focal point or if you need those gables in the back or dormers in the back or if we can just, I don't know, you've got all those windows and even, I know it's extraneous, but the landscaping and everything, to me it seems to be enough, but I could be in the minority there.

in the landscaping, but we're trying to like, there's a large mass of roof up there that we're trying to break up. I think that's what we're looking for. And that was what the point was about, trying to lower the roof to reduce that massing. So I think if we add proportion to it, that's going to help versus reducing it.

any proportion we're going to make it look right in the back so if we've got to make the dormers a little bit bigger we're going to do that i don't want them to look unproportional to the roof structure right i just got a picture of two front teeth yeah correct yeah great

All right. Um, is that the only thing that is? Yeah, I think that was it. I think everything else that anybody to approve as submitted with, um, working with staff on the dormers for the back to reduce the massing of the roof.

Second, all in favor. Anybody opposed? All right. Thank you. All right. Thank you. 26-796-328 West Streetsboro Street, and this is an addition.

Yes, while this loads here, this is for an addition of a front porch, a family room, laundry room, mud room, and a rear pergola. Just some brief staff comments for you here. Section 4 of the architectural design standards state that roofs and all the wings shall be the same shape as the main body. Staff notes a shed roof is proposed while the main mass has a gable roof. Comment B is to question the proposed shed roof on the front porch addition as the main mass has a gable roof. Question C is question the proposed front porch column size and if the post would be wrapped in any additional material. Comment D, section four of the architectural design standards state that the building shall have a typical window used for most windows. Question the proposed awning windows on the west and south elevations as the main mass has double hung windows. Staff notes that the windows on the rear elevation are currently double hung and are proposed to be changed to what you see before you. Additionally, just to submit additional photos of both sides of the existing house, the applicant is here this evening to answer any additional questions that the board may have.

To state your name and relationship to the application. Jonathan Paul Fleming. I'm the architect for this one. So going through the staff comments. Yes, it's a shed roof additions. It's a farmer's porch to the front side of the colonial. Farmer's porch kind of shed roof kind of off the back as well, although it's not a farmer's porch in that addition. So it's. consistent, I think, with other projects of its type to have a shed roof off of a mass that's a gabled mass. And, yeah, I think with respect to the windows, what we've done is in the back, in order to have a reasonable pitch on the rear addition, we've sort of sliced the upper half of the double-hungs, and it was operable as awnings instead of double-hungs in those relatively small openings. We didn't want to change the horizontal of the openings. We were changing sort of the vertical of it, and sort of the idea is to sort of carry around the upper half. condition gets us a reasonable slope you know three and a half twelve off the back with you know so that we can use a shape asphalt shingle on it without worrying too much slope and then we're kind of carrying that motif into this sort of central part of the lower addition and then also around I think at the That would be the east elevation in the laundry. That window type carries around the back and generally is found on the addition. On the east side of the addition is two more double hungs. Match what's on the east side of the existing condition. What else was there on that list? Sorry. the front porch column size yeah columns i've got some studies i i was intending to wrap those in in like an azek The idea would be to double, just have a double simple post without much detail. The scheme has some other options, or that sketch has some other options as to how we could do that. These two of the, each of those pairs of posts on a block and have a block at the top, sort of a cap and a base, or whether we do some detailing, you know, we... things i kind of like how simple a simple post is on on my end i think the comment really goes to more of of we just want to make sure that it doesn't look like there's toothpicks holding this thing up yeah and it's it's so it's a four by four wrap with uh one by six azac so it's a six inch or five and a half inch wide column each of those so they're they're they've got some weight to them and doubled so that it really did feel like there was some mass

I think that was it. So, Miss Kinney, do you have questions, comments, issues with?

No, the shed roof seems to be appropriate considering the type of so I would find it acceptable.

Mr. Workley?

Yeah, no additional comments. I think it works okay. The double columns in front may be a little tighter together if you're Yeah. Maybe too much space is maybe what people are alerting to on the elevator.

Yeah, I think we'd like to kind of look at that in the field and sort of say, yeah, this is right, and kind of use some precedent to make sure we're not doing anything too stupid.

I don't think I have anything else.

Mr. Brown. The 27 by 30, the awning windows, is that the... That's the size of the existing.

It's the size of the upper half of the existing.

Is that it. So Mike Mike so the 2 on windows downstairs or their own sizes and I'm just wondering why oh why those aren't 27 is that still weird size or something and or they can't be.

So it's a we can we can I just I think in those locations, it's a little awkward to have a much larger.

The one in the closet on the end. Yeah, that's... Narrow. Yeah. I just... What stands out to me is the 27 by 27 that's so close, but not quite. I'm just curious why that...

It's a TV space. And so we... It doesn't go in front of it. It's adjacent to it. And with the sort of exposure and the amount of glare potential for that little spot, I'm... The owner would rather not have that window, I have a feeling, but I was a little concerned about my 12-foot rule. We could make it a blank, but yeah. If we expand it, I just would prefer not to expand it to the size of the uppers.

It just seems so close. Yeah, no, it's close.

You're right.

I don't find it. It's not horribly. I'm almost more curious why it just wouldn't match that.

The 12 right now.

It also looks like the head is higher than the doors. Is that intentional or just that the head of that window is set higher than the doors?

It's just normative seven foot for windows and six eight for the doors. And the doors are at least in part are reused from from the existing back wall of the house.

That's fine.

Yeah, I have to say, I'd almost rather not see that window on the first floor. If it's 12 foot 3 or whatever, I'd rather just not see it than have that kind of odd window. And if we're talking about a couple of inches off of, you know, the 12 feet, I'm okay with that.

So that's from door to door about 12 feet?

I think it was just a hint. About 12 feet, yeah.

I agree. Yeah, I would get rid of that.

Yeah.

Functionally, it'd be better for the homeowner. Win-win.

Well, it's just because of it being an odd size, and it's so close that, you know, again, the 12-foot is a should, it's not a shall, so, you know, there is some discretion there. I just think it makes more sense to, I mean, if you could shift one side of the door, you know, like the one side of the doors over a couple inches, even better, but...

I agree. It does feel a little bit awkward.

Yeah, it does.

So we could move this window to the row. It seems, speaking of symmetry, right, you have three windows and a much bigger space. So that window that is... first floor to put it on the second level and to uh make sure that the space between windows is the same it's the bathrooms right there yeah that's the yeah it's the bathroom oh it's the shower yeah

That's the current layout. I wish we could do something like that and make it so precise. And the other two is that lower window doesn't align with, you don't get the vertical alignment that you normally want to see with windows. Those are also existing heads. Right. So we're trying to match up.

I think I'd rather see that window not there. Okay.

at all and and you know it's just in in defense of that little window if you do look at the sort of existing condition in the back there's this sort of odd kitchen window size that sits roughly in that spot so i was doing less change uh in that in that sequence you're building the addition off and there's not a kitchen there so i don't know that that's a requirement yeah

And I'm okay with a little over 12 feet, like a little over in this instance.

Yeah. Yeah. Probably with the trim. I was doing the door opening. So probably with the trim, he's probably under 12. Yeah.

It's really close.

Yeah.

So, okay. Does anybody have anything else? Okay.

Any other changes? I don't think there were any changes other than allowing the window to be removed.

Okay, so I'll make a motion to approve as submitted with... 7 by 27 window on the south elevation.

Second.

All in favor? Aye. Anybody opposed? All right. Thank you. That concludes new business and moving into other business. We do have a couple of informals tonight. The first is 8800, which is 31 Church Street, and this is considered an addition covered parking.

I'll just keep it for the record because it was entered in. Thank you. Okay, this proposal is for covered parking space. This house is within the historic district. You have some general renderings before you regarding the proposed project. Staff notes the proposed scope of work would be to remove the existing porch. there is an existing side porch that porch would need to be removed to construct this structure to construct that covered parking area and also additionally the proposed covered parking addition would require a variance through the bcba which is why the applicant is here before you this evening just to get some general feedback before they would move to to that step to go to bcba Additionally, to just question the appropriateness of the proposed covered parking addition and its overall compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood, as well as citing Appendix 1.2 of the Secretary of Interior Standards that state the historic character of a property shall be retained and preserved. And speaking to the removal of historic materials, staff just noted that there is a historic porch that is proposed to be removed to accommodate this parking area. The applicant is here this evening to answer any additional questions that the board may have.

Just state your name. Kirk Hartung. I'm the draftsman for the contractor that would be building the project.

So kind of walk us through, usually on these informal, so obviously there's no decision made. Just kind of walk us through what you guys were thinking, why you would consider it appropriate, that kind of thing.

Yeah, so there's one additional portion of this which I'll get to as well, but primarily the covered parking area. This home does not have a garage or any sort of covered parking. So the homeowner would like to get some protection from weather when she's parking. And it's a very small lot. There's no access to get any vehicle around the house to the backyard. It only sits about 18 feet off of the sidewalk. So the only place that we have for working in parking for this property is where she currently parks, which is next to the porch that we're talking about basically taking the existing porch roof and widening that over where the parking space currently is. We know that there would be a variance required and that would be our next step depending on the conversation today. Our goal is to keep this very preservation minded. So in working up the designs with the homeowner, we've really striven to maintain all the historical details of the posts and the style of the arch of all the beams around that roof structure. There are some photos of the current porch roof that's there, which has all those same elements just in a five foot wide scale rather than 12 or 13 foot wide scale. So the other aspect of this, which isn't listed on the staff notes, but the existing front porch is not covered. And it's in need of repair or replacement. So we'd like to also add some weather protection at the front of the house for guests arriving there. Again, trying to pull in the same detail elements of the existing porch posts. same elements of the existing beams on that side porch or the covered roof structure, and then picking up existing roof slope of the decorative trim that's around the front door.

Miss Kinney, your thoughts?

Do you know the date of the porch when it was built?

I don't. I know the home was built in 1853, but I don't know when the porch was built, if it was original. Based on the architecture, I wouldn't think so, but I don't know for sure.

I think it's later. It's different. Now, the... standards, you can't have right the street.

It was not stat, we didn't flag that as an issue on this one per se, as it's a covered freestanding structure, it's not an enclosed.