Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

So we'll call the meeting to order this is the meeting of the architectural in historic order review for Wednesday August twenty six two thousand twenty six. Roll call tonight we have miss put a Mister Brown and certain ski Miss Marzullo Mister work we miss me and myself so we do have the required minimum four for quorum. We'd like to move on to public comment now. This is when anybody may address the board regarding anything that is or is not on the agenda. We ask that you keep your comments to five minutes or less. Is there any public comment? Seeing none, we will close public comment and move on to consent applications. Tonight we have two. First is 2026-943-180 Aurora Street, and this is a front door replacement in the historic district, and 26-1056-89 First Street, and this is a sign hanging and wall sign. Do we have?

To approve this consent applications.

I think we have a second from Miss Kinney. All in favor?

Aye.

Moving on to old business. First is 26-7915365 Duffield Drive.

Yes, I can give an update on this one. The applicant did reach out to staff this morning and indicated that they formally withdrew this application. They are going to install the siding to meet the design standards and reinstall the existing horizontal siding.

Okay, so then we'll move to 2026-541436, Plantation Drive, and this is an addition.

Yeah, we have the podium tonight, we came in. Throwing everybody off.

okay i can give a brief orientation to this um this is an addition for a master bedroom bathroom and laundry room staff notes this application did receive approval at the february 11 2026 meeting the applicant is here this evening requesting a modification to the approved plans including the installation of a standing seam metal roof and board and batten siding to be applied on the front elevation only the applicant has submitted revised elevations for the board's consideration this evening Staff just noted that the current proposal does not meet the design standards for the materials. And the applicant is here this evening to answer any additional questions that the board may have.

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

My name is Ryan McNutt. I was the architect for the applicant.

So I guess why are we changing it to something that isn't within the design standards?

One, they're changing it because they're trying to make it a little more upscale with the board and batten on the front elevation. There are other homes in that neighborhood that have board and batten on the front elevation and then siding on the sides. I did prepare responses for the four items that you had. And I looked in through the design standards. It looks like it would be acceptable if it was just the main body and maybe not the wings. like the board of baton is an accent and they feel it's a higher level and they're trying to like i said improve the entire home by redoing the entire roof as well as all the siding not only on the addition but the entire house

I mean, honestly, we generally have not granted an exception for a partial, you know, it has to go around the whole mass. But we can see what the rest of the board thinks.

Can I at least hand out my responses? Sure. Because they include some of the design standards that you have where it notes that... I'm using that section of the design standards with The main house or just underneath the the porch area And in the neighborhood, I put three examples in the neighborhood that have the board and batten on the front elevation, and it terminates to the siding on the sides. The siding material, it's going to be the same material all around, and it's the exact same color all around, so it's not going to look like it clashes. It's really just the vertical one-inch board and batten versus the lap siding on the sides. Sorry, the photos aren't better, but I did give the address. I try to show as the alternate where I believe it would meet the design standards if it was just the main body, and I kind of outlined that. And the two wings would be the siding. I personally think the board and batten would look good on the front elevation, but if the board decides that doesn't look as good or it's not the design standard, like I said, the client wants to work with the board. We worked with the board the first time around. We're trying to make it an upscale home.

Ms. Kinney, your thoughts?

So the standards that is quoted must be one material or an additional material may be used to call attention to the composition. For example, so the second material, to emphasize projections, gable ends, which this does not, entrance recesses, which this does not, or to emphasize the horizontal or vertical divisions of the building. I don't think it does any of that. So it's not emphasizing the composition, right?

So the entrance recess, that was one of the options I noted. That would be underneath the roof area. Can I point to the screen here?

So this area here would be the entry recess.

All in line with one of those options that you just read up.

So you have to, well, if we have to get you a microphone, you have to speak. Oh, I'm sorry. Okay. Okay.

So the recess is at the porch area at the front entry and where you can see the railing. So that would meet the one design standard where you said the recess entry. Well, they're in different planes. So you said a recess entry as one of the options. We're willing to accept that, but we don't think that would look as good if we did the full elevation or even the recess plus the upper floor. That's above that. And that's what we've seen in the other homes in that neighborhood. So we're not trying to go against what's already there. We're trying to match it.

Anything else, Ms. King? Mr. Workley?

with what miss kenny's saying it's i would be okay for just the back wall of the recessed porch to be a different material because it can end in the inside corner but the upper area there's no inside corner for it to end on that's why i typically talk about entrances and recesses so you can highlight that component of it trying to highlight the other elevations is just covering the whole facade. So it's not really highlighting an element, it's just recovering it with a different material. So it doesn't make sense because now you're gonna turn the corner and there's a different material element. I know it's the same siding, but it's vertical versus horizontal. So it's not with our standards from that standpoint. So the only thing that I would be okay with is just the plane where the door is on the back wall only, not the sides.

I would agree with that. Ms. Kinney? I'm sorry, Ms. Marzullo. That's okay.

I'm going to repeat what I said. Kinney and Kinney, I agree with what's been said. It really is just for an accent, and it has to be in the inside corner. And it really doesn't matter what has been done or not done.

I don't think they were. I would be highly unlikely. I mean, we've been pretty consistent on the material. Yeah, we've been pretty consistent on the, you know, it either goes all the way around or, again, an accent terminating on an inside corner.

It's only the base. I don't think the top is.

I mean, it doesn't mean people don't do it and they don't get caught, but we appreciate that you're not doing it on Saturday and you're coming to the board for it, but I don't think we've really approved that. Mr. Brown?

I agree. I mean, there is an outside corner on the right, but I guess I don't know how you can I really don't have a problem with that. I just want to call attention to that. It's not a recess like we've seen where there's an inside corner on both sides. It is just around the front door. It's kind of the full first floor plane. yep so but i guess that's a good point i mean the addition the addition's back though yeah so there's still going to be a corner there on the right right where it's it's 18 inches that was something that the board required us to do so there still will be an outside corner where the siding ends or deciding changes um but that said i mean if i think it's a reasonable compromise i mean i understand what they're doing i mean nobody's mentioned the roof but i think the roof is less an issue um Yeah, that's all I have. I agree with what John said.

Ms. Puzzi?

I also agree.

Okay. Does anybody have an objection to the roof? I'm fine with the roof.

could meet the um intent of the it would emphasize the horizontal divisions of the mass as that roof even though it's in not at recessed you have the the roof line in the above the first floor uh creating a horizontal division in that mass the main mass at that right corner yeah yeah i'm saying it would emphasize this horizontal division

Yeah, I think everybody's fine with the vertical on the first floor, call it door recess. I'm just saying you could tie it to the code. Yeah.

yes and that it would be would be an accent then you'd be you'd be accenting that front entryway ah well and the other way that we've accommodated it inside corners is if you could add a post at that corner it looks like you just have a post on the front facade if you added a post in the back corner then that would be an inside corner where it would be ending determine yes to terminate the board and baton on that on that front face since it does turn an outside corner yes

that's great excuse me that's a great idea we'll add that so and then what the standing scene right that was the other i i don't i didn't understand the comment we're putting standing scene throughout there's not going to be any roof projections or anything that is other than the same material same standing seam throughout and they don't have like

bay windows or other projections that come out it's just those gables that you see the issue with the staining seam is it's not specifically it's turn coated steel copper can be substituted it's just one of these things that we grant the exception honestly most of the time on the standing seam it's it's just because in the code it doesn't it doesn't have it in there okay so does anybody have any objection to the staining scene okay I think we're all good if we do the first floor door area with a column on the outside corner there.

Make a motion to approve with allowing the vertical siding on the front door area under the porch, only that facade, and adding a column at that end to make it an inside corner.

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

One question. If the homeowner decided to do the vertical board and bat throughout, would that be acceptable? Like the entire, all four sides? I don't think they will, but... Yes, and that could be administratively approved. Okay, all right. Thank you very much. Appreciate the time and everyone's community service.

So if you can revise these elevations and send them to Lauren, we can finalize the approval.

Certainly will it'll take me it might take me a week or a few days, but I certainly will thank you very much.

Thank you So that is all for all the business moving on to new business first is two six dash one zero six seven seven six zero four Hudson Park Drive and this is an addition My name is Tim Dombrowski on behalf of brand new wine construction I

I can just give a brief orientation here. This is for an addition for a screen porch in the rear. The screen porch is being built over the existing deck, so there's no additional impervious surface being proposed here. They're just building the screen porch over the existing deck and patio. Some staff comments were just to question the proposed ASEC paneling and how it relates to the main mass. Additionally, to question the proposed roof connection on the west elevation and just to verify the proposed roofing material to match the existing. Comment D, the applicant did submit an additional north side elevation to depict that wall span. I do have it on drive here if the board would like to see that on the screen.

Okay, yeah, if we could pull that up, that'd be great. So if you'd like to address the staff comments.

First one was the proposed AZAC paneling. So basically like the half walls on the back and sides. The customer wanted basically like a picture frame kind of a thing. So the whole backing would be half inch AZAC. And then we would use three quarter inch AZAC to kind of do picture frames on each section. So like every section between the post, roughly except for where the screen door's at, you'd have two basically. So- And I have, I don't know if you have the old drawings with that because I have drawings with the paneling and then yeah, right there. So it would look like that. So very similar to what we did over at the Johnson's on Blackberry with Hara Architects. It's the same thing. We're just doing a download for an accent and that's what the customer wanted. the roof connection at the west elevation yes so basically you're gonna have like the new roof is gonna be roughly 412 pitch and i think the pre-existing above that is either 5 or 6 12 pitch so again there's going to be basically a break in the pitches right here and the reason why is because if we like uh 512 or 612 to match the existing to bring it all to here we would lose that window so there's a slight break there in the roof just a change in slope if you will i think the question is more on the triangular spot there and how that's gonna yeah where it says wall to be built up to meet new valley it's it's uh

We're the existing home there.

Oh, okay.

That was a little confusing as to what exactly that is. And it doesn't really, to me, I couldn't on the roof plan. It didn't really make sense. Yeah. That makes two of us. So I don't know.

I don't, I don't even understand. Like when I saw the same thing, I'm just like, I don't know what John's trying to get at there, but yeah. Wall to be built up to meet new valleys, siding to replace, to match others.

Because it seems like if if that's the case, you're you're you know, the code says that you you're not supposed to, you know, create that valley like that type of valley where you have this side wall and then a valley running into it.

What is it? So the part above that wall is shedding straight for same as their other side. So it's keeping the valley where it is. It's actually making it a longer valley coming out to this outside point. And then it's horizontally. So if the gutter line across the bottom is going to be a gutter line across that top horizontal area. So it's just shedding straight down to it. So because that's up so high, they're going to infill that triangular piece of this.

That makes more sense.

OK. The way he drew it doesn't look right to me, but I get what he's getting at.

So in that area, you won't be adding new siding in there, or you would be removing and filling it in? Yes. So it's woven in?

So it doesn't look like it wasn't pre-existing, basically. So like, yeah, it was always there, basically. And shingle materials, we're supposed to just do the same as what's on the house. Okay.

so the roof is going to match the yes okay yes if you go to the roof plan it shows a little bit better um yeah with the red outline on the roof plan bird's eye view yes so that left one so yeah so you see the shed going down and then that horizontal piece so that the ridge line or the the valley actually kicks out at that point

Can you do any questions or comments?

Just about the first question. How does it relate to the main mass? Is there any...

Not that I'm aware of, but again, it's what the customer wanted. They want that as an accent. The reason why they're only doing the half walls for the screen porch is because I guess they have two bigger Irish setters that if they don't do half walls, the dogs are going to go through them. They're just trying to add a little accent on the back of this porch.

Dworkly?

Do you know what the front entrance is? It looks like it's a big pediment and columns on the side. Do you know if that's Azak that we could tie it to that?

I do not know off the top of my head.

It looks like two side lights and I can't tell if there's siding or infill in there.

It looks like it's... It looks... You've got the side lights on the door, and then, like, you're saying, like, the faux columns, basically.

Yeah. I would guess so.

But again, I don't know. I do have to say, to me, I'm fine with the ASEC paneling. To do horizontal siding for that, what is it, 30 inches or whatever, the ASEC actually looks nice. I don't know if we necessarily have to tie every single detail to the house. It is a screened porch. It's not a full addition. I don't have any other comments. Okay. Ms. Marzullo?

Yeah, I'm fine with the panels and panels. Mr. Brown um, I have a question about how the roof works.

Yeah, I'm just don't understand it is the At the change in so the existing rafters are gonna remain and the portion of the new shed roof over the interior is going to be overbuilt. Is that correct? Yes, sir. Okay, so there's, because I'm just wondering how you move the skylight up. I mean, you're creating like a really thick, wet space.

Yeah, so I think basically we're going to, that'll end up being framed in on the inside because we're stick framing everything. Like a well? Yes. Under the skylight?

Yes. Okay. So you've, yeah, so it will look, I just wanted to, it sounds like you have thought through all this, so it will look. Yeah. Okay, that's all.

Okay. This would say,

Good with it.

Okay.

Second.

All in favor?

Aye.

Anybody opposed? Okay. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Have a good night.

26-1150 1050 Barlow Road. And this is an addition.

Yes, this is for an addition of a great room. Just some brief staff comments for you here. Just to question the new roof connection at the rear elevation, how the proposed addition connects to the existing house, and to verify if the proposed foundation material will match the existing. The applicant is here this evening to answer any additional questions that the board may have.

Good evening. Nate Bailey, Haraha Architects, 10 West Streetsboro, here in Hudson. This is new. We're no longer sitting. All right. Yeah, to respond to Steph's comments, easy one. B, the foundation material will match existing. It's hard to see it, but there's some existing photos that it's certainly brick, so it will be brick. And to clarify, you know, if you go to like our proposed elevations, there's a portion of deck, that portion of deck that sits adjacent to a little lower right there. Yeah. This is adjacent to the, the primary mass.

So the,

That's correct. And then obviously the porch next to it would be horizontal sort of porch enclosure. Is this thing by going in and out? is it okay it's okay okay cool it's red so it should be all right great uh and then um the new roof connection at the re-elevation right so uh what we are proposing is uh a single gable uh i think we're yeah we're matching the existing roof pitches over the garage it's a single story And then this gable tucks back up and into the crease of the existing house. There's maybe the photos of the house might tell the story. So on the roof plan, we're showing a cricket that would come towards us. You can see it here on the top portion. So water would be pushed towards the backyard, basically. And then the other cricket would be on the rear of this that pushes water to the front of the house here. uh so if you wanted to miss kaufman go a few more images up to the existing photos um so i don't have the mobile like yeah the mobile mic but like right there the bottom left corner so yeah the proposed edition slides right into that That whole that's being created between the garage form on the left and the 2 story mass on the residents on the right. I'm not sure if I'm answering the staff's questions or from giving us the clarity you're seeking to the pitch towards the already exists. It does yeah, I mean like yeah so yes. That subpar condition already exists, correct?

Cricket on both sides, you're just going to make a cricket goal.

We're going to make it go one way, yeah. Yeah, that's correct. And then the red and black vinyl and aluminum is what we're matching on the proposed, on the addition. It's available. So it's, yeah, black windows, black trim, black roof, and red windows.

Ms. Kinney, any questions or comments?

No.

Mr. Workley?

At this point, I don't have any.

Ms. Marzullo? I'm fine. Mr. Dynski? No. Mr. Brown?

Can you go back to the roof plan?

I don't, and maybe I'm just not understanding. Well, I know I'm not understanding. Away from the crickets where the existing gable on the right meets the It's like the, it looks like the ridge of the, there's like a jog in the ridge where the new gable comes in. But that gable's under it at that point.

But I believe in, sorry, I'm just coughing. You're like dancing around here, so I'll go by my phone. But if I pull up our elevations... Yeah, we have our bearing bearing is higher on our roof condition. So you can see on the, on the extra elevations, if you go one more sheet down a little right there. Yeah. So that condition is, um, here.

That's what you're talking about, right?

Yeah, but that far left gable there is, yeah, it looks like a single, yeah, if you go up to the peak, that's like a single plane, like that peak. But on the roof plan, it looks like there's a step back. Maybe I'm just misunderstanding.

Yeah, perhaps there's an inaccuracy on the roof plan.

Well, I think, oh, so you're seeing this, like right there? Yeah.

Yeah, I think we're showing like the intersection or collision of the two forms and the two roofs. Yeah. So there'd be a little bit of selective demo on the existing roof to allow the new roof form to slide up and in. Is that?

Yeah, I mean, I guess I just don't fully understand how it works.

Okay.

I don't have an objection. I just wanted to understand to make sure that there's not something that's not shown that would be, you know. But.

That I would just say, like, that's not the case based on, I mean, the way we operate, we build 3D digital models. So the extra elevations you're seeing on page two is the exact situation that would occur between the two roof planes coming together. Yeah.

Because in the elevation, it looks like.

Looks like it's sloping further, doesn't it? Yeah, I see what you're saying. I'm looking at the ridge line on the existing garage that we're showing here on the roof plan relative to what we're seeing in 3D. I will tell you this. The exterior elevations are the 3D model. The roof plan is a 2D overlay of what we do. So we... We can move faster that way to say, you know, honestly. So what you're seeing in 3D is accurate. What you're seeing in the 2D, the ridge line could be slightly askew because this shows like the ridge of the garage aligning to a different point, whereas in the 3D or the elevations we're seeing, it's a lower point than the ridge.

At that point, at that corner, on that roof point, the ridge is actually eight feet above the addition. And so your cricket, I'm just not sure what happens when that gable comes down and meets the addition. I mean, maybe that cricket has to be extended.

right so uh and this is where if you want to go back to the existing photo as it currently stands that garage gable is coming down and meeting the side of the house right and so there's crickets that are built up that push the water to the to the rear of the house into the front of the house uh you can see it right there in that bottom left image that that condition already occurs right here So all we're proposing to do, because we've taken off one access, right, with our new addition, we're now just going to build a cricket that pushes all that water to the front of the house instead of allowing it to come to the back in the front.

I understand that, Cricket.

Oh, okay.

Sorry. I guess I'm just not... I don't know. It feels like there's a little, there's a little.

Yeah.

You can go to the roof plan. I think what the issue is, is that it goes to the ridge, the ridges align and they don't. So it's actually an X. So it's at the midpoint that the, that you'll have new and old.

So, um, the midpoint of the two gables.

those two planes those two planes at the midpoint and it shows at the ridge line so the white at the ridge line of the shade to the left it should be closer to the point of the cricket as where the the new roof from the right it should be white and then there'll be gray roof from the left and you're right that may extend the cricket right there yeah when you look at the elevation it's kind of an x at that midpoint between the the top of the pitch and the bottom of the pitch

just a little jog there that will be between the two roofs yeah so it'll be a little valley there you have to deal with a cricket or something between those two i don't fully understand but i trust him i i i think it i think it's the kind of thing that gets worked out in construction i'm just trying to because something just looked off to me and i just want to make sure there's not something that you know, is significant. And I don't know.

There will be a vertical piece of wall there at the cricket. Yeah. That's part of that triangular piece that's going to be above the white roof. Yeah, that'll be above that cricket area. Yeah.

Yeah, there will be wall on the backside because we'll be raising higher than the valley. Yeah. That's all.

I got nothing. I'm good. All right.

Motion.

So I move to approve. Second.

All in favor?

Aye.

Anybody opposed? Okay. Thank you. Thank you. 26-94586 Owen Brown Street, and this is Townhomes.

If I can give some background. This case was previously before the HBR for an informal review. So this application is for informal. The applicant has also been continually discussing this project with the Planning Commission. We were last at the Planning Commission on Monday. There was discussion. We honestly ran out of time in that meeting. So that was tabled to the next meeting, just based on timing with the board and what was on the agenda. So you have seen the project to some extent in an informal, and we have the site plan up here. Staff did prepare a memo noting some of what we see as the creative design characteristics of the project, and I'll just note a few that we highlighted. One is the arrangement of the townhomes, so they read as smaller blocks. Two would be the internal green space. So this is a good map to show that just how much green space the applicant was able to integrate within the site, which is very unique for a downtown townhome development. It would also connect to a multi-purpose trail, the Veterans Trail, that would be built along the east side of the project and run along the northern property line. So you essentially have a multipurpose trail amenity being integrated into this site. You can see the north, south, east, west internal green space, which is a great feature of the project. And the materials proposed are of quality materials, hardy board, siding, and brick. There is also integration of a mixture of first floor bedrooms and for the rest of the units, the ability to install elevators, which is a unique feature of these townhomes. I did want to note the board mentioned concern over precedent. The memo did note some of the recent text changes to our land development code that substantially reduced the allowances for townhomes. They are only permitted in District 5, the downtown, now. And obviously this development would continue the character of the existing development to the east, which has been very well received in town since its inception. So while we staff, I'm speaking on staff's behalf, while we believe there are additional details to be studied further, we believe the overall design is appropriate and creative. And just to help lead the discussion tonight, it may benefit the board to take this meeting to discuss these broader items and then kind of then dive into the details. We had additional comments on the final page of some of the details of the review. But with that, the applicant's here to introduce the project, follow up my introduction, and yes. Just so, we're not voting on this tonight then? That's up to you. It is a formal application.

Okay, okay, okay.

Yeah, so if that helps.

Because I thought it had to be approved by planning before it could be a formal application.

Not necessarily, but as far as the site plan would not change, but it's up to you. You could approve tonight if you so see fit.

Could you just state your name and relationship to the application? Good evening. I'm Adam Fishman. 200 Park Avenue, Orange Village, Ohio. I am one of the co-principals of Fairmont Properties. And the last time I was before this board, I was getting the final pieces of first domain approved in 2002. Mayor Crum was mayor back then. So it's good to be back. And I'm so sorry I missed your last meeting where we had an informal presentation. I was celebrating my 40th anniversary with my wife out of the country, and that seems just slightly more important. So thank you for seeing me tonight. I really appreciate it. We are honored to be here and so appreciate what you all do to protect the aesthetic and architectural quality at Hudson. I'm joined tonight by Bryce Hamill, our Vice President of Design and Construction, who you've seen last time. Suzanne Meltzer, I'm gonna say it wrong, who's... who's got a dislocated shoulder, but is here anyway. And I have a brief presentation that I can burn through quickly, if it so pleases the chair. Sure. Great, thank you.

Nick, do you have the presentation? The one from Planning Commission?

No, the one for tonight. I don't know.

Yeah, if it was the additional submittal, it's what's up on the screen. They also have it printed out in front of them.

It was a presentation we sent over this afternoon.

this afternoon oh i i sorry i didn't see anything i can i can load it up jump drive if it's easier sure thank you i'm sorry for the delay just to make it easier

Where would you like me to stand?

Just if you want to point to something on the screen in that for the minutes, it's better. Just make sure you tap it and make sure the thing is actually, yeah.

Good, good. Thank you. So actually, Yeah, when you could, there's a lot of slides, so I'm going to go through this fairly quickly. Feel free to interrupt me, stop me, ask questions along the way. This is the existing condition, first in Maine and then looking down Clinton Street towards Heinen's. The site on the upper slide, the site would be sort of foreground and to your left, you can keep clicking along. You can see the site is just west of the existing townhomes that we built as part of First in Maine on the other side of the creek and fronting Clinton Street, Morris Road, and Owen Brown. It's a site that's just a little over an acre. Thank you. The current site conditions are inconsistent with what we would consider to be the architectural quality of what we all hope to aspire to achieve in downtown Hudson. We hope to make it a lot better. Thank you. Click along. Again, existing conditions. It was the Planning Commission the other night asked what the original use of the building was, and I think it was actually part of the original Morse Controls building. It's way back when, but these buildings were built in the early 50s, and I think it's time for change. Thank you. Here's the existing conditions. My guess, this was architecturally designed to look like a townhome way back when, but not certainly what we want to accomplish today at all, right? Thank you. You can keep going. Okay, so Planning Commission, we were conceptually approved by Planning Commission in July of 26. After a lot of back and forth and a lot of iterations, they had a lot of feedback on our original submission, which was rejected. We came back and... got preliminary approval they had some further suggestions we presented some additional modifications on Monday night and it was actually going quite well I thought and then we timed out wasn't on us the guys before us took an hour and a half we only got 45 minutes so we timed out so we didn't we weren't able to achieve final approval but I think we're heading towards a good path thank you we can keep going The original site plan had 22 units. With Planning Commission's suggestion, we tried to break these masses into smaller units. We had, for example, a mass of six units going along Owen Brown. They suggested it was too much density and not enough green space. So we broke it into 18 units, a series of buildings that had nine units or six and three combinations. And the Planning Commission had further suggested we break down the masses. So what we submitted and what we have in your submission package now is a series of six pods of three each building is three units each building the benefit of that is because there's all these breaks in the spaces each building only has two facades that that that front a particular street so this really will while they'll be townhomes there will be a tremendous amount of variation and interest and differentiation in the facades both in terms of the materiality and and sort of the change in depth, which we think will add to the architectural character. We're going to show you some renderings, which we haven't shown publicly yet. So we're excited about that. So this is just sort of the iterations of the site plan. Thank you. We can keep going. We've been to BZBA twice for two series of variances, both received. Two curb cuts onto the site, one on Clinton Street, one on Owen Brown. We were allowed to exceed the maximum curb width. We got a variance for stream setback and a variance for the stream disturbance. And I think the project was well received at BCBA. Thank you. The landscape plan, I think, is extensive. Some feedback from staff is maybe too extensive. It is also expensive. And we're continuing to work through that. But it is our goal to create a very luxury living environment with what we hope to be world-class landscaping. Thank you. So I'm going to come back here and just sort of talk about this for a few minutes.

Can I just go back to this for two, or what? Okay, thank you.

Sort of the design notion here is rather than replicating any single architectural style or precedent, we're trying to synthesize a few things that are going on in this portion of Hudson, right? We're trying to take a cohesive and make it into a cohesive architectural expression. We want to show respect for the multiple streetscapes, the materiality, proportion, and rhythm, while also recognizing the future characteristics of Clinton Crossings because we think that's coming, right? So we're trying to do something that integrates the townhomes we built that have been well received the very important aesthetic and architecture of Owen Brown and the downtown core. The downtown core really is now a tapestry of related design notions. When we built first in Maine, it was very important for us to take the context that was the beautiful Hudson of 1804 and David Hudson laid out and to continue it, and the notion was, When someone came along 20 years later, it's low, it's now 24 years later, that they wouldn't necessarily be able to tell where the original downtown started and stopped and where first in Maine where the new development sort of started. It's not quite as good as we hoped it would be, but it's pretty close, right? So it feels integrated. The goal here is to take that integration further and to continue to extend it from the townhomes around the corner and hopefully towards Clinton Crossings. Thank you. So here you begin to see how this contextually fits in to the community. Above you see the homes on Owen Brown. Below at the bottom you see our existing townhomes on Clinton. And in the middle you begin to see the rendered views of our elevations for what we're calling for now the Clinton Street townhomes. There's a name coming, we just don't have it yet. So you can begin to see some of the aesthetics and we'll show you more images coming forward. Thank you. So here you begin to see some of these elevations from all three sides without coloration on them. Thank you. And an additional look. Thank you. So specifically the last time we were here, and again I'm so sorry I couldn't be with you, your feedback was clear on window design should be consistent. The design's been amended so now that each building shall have the typical window used for most windows. And the details should be consistent. So the design has also been amended to reflect your comments detailing each window dwelling unit must be consistently applied throughout all sides of the dwelling unit. So thank you. Next slide. So we think of taking that into consideration and additional height to a single story connection. Oh, and then the next comment was CONSIDERATION OF ADDITIONAL HEIGHT TO THE SINGLE STORY CONNECTION BETWEEN THE BUILDINGS. SO IF YOU CAN GO TO THE NEXT IMAGE. SO ON THE TOP, YOU BEGIN TO SEE WE'VE STUDIED THIS, RIGHT? AND BY THE WAY, WE APPRECIATE THIS IDIOTIC PROCESS. WE LOOK FORWARD TO THE FEEDBACK AND COMMENTS, HOPEFULLY LEADING TOWARDS AN APPROVAL. THE UPPER IMAGE SHOWS YOU THE Shows you this condition. bryce you're going to jump in when i get something wrong here it's because it's happening soon i'm sure uh shows you this condition of of of the flat roof um and the which creates a deck space uh and there was commentary regarding sort of the nature of that design as it relates to the massings on either side of it uh so we studied it and uh can can create a pitched roof instead unfortunately though it makes the space much less functional and usable we we lose that Essentially, that deck. I think the next slide has it in plan. So, Bryce, you want to sort of pick this up because you're better explaining this one than I am?

Bryce Hamill, 200 Park Avenue, Suite 220, Orange Village. Yeah, so essentially what we took a look at was just sort of understanding, you know, first what that massing did to the overall form, and we thought it looked fine. I think what we then took a look at was what does it actually do to the function of the interior space, the value of the space to the future homeowner. And so what you can see here is essentially what we suggested in plan, which is a partial, half of this would be the pitched roof. We would turn that into a storage element, and then you would get the back deck, which in the original option, this whole area is a private deck that flows out from sort of an office lobby area. If you go one more plan, You can start to see, so essentially, that's the condition that we have here, is that when you come upstairs, you've got bedroom, bedroom, bedroom, and then this is sort of a playroom lobby office area here that projects out onto a roof deck. Whether this roof deck would have a pergola, something like that, or just a rail, that's sort of still up for consideration. But essentially, this red line starts to show you the amount of roof deck that would be lost, the amount of window space, particularly in the smaller bedroom and this lobby area here that would be lost, and then some of the function and opportunity for living space that would be reduced. So we'd be eliminating about 50% of the window treatments on this facade. We'd be reducing, we think, degrading outdoor deck amenity space, particularly in a townhome environment where that's at a premium. and then just detracting a little bit from the functionality of the interior program. But we certainly wanted to demonstrate that we took a hard look at this and anticipated what some of the results would be.

So again, we think this solution, while maybe more closely adhering to what the code stipulates, we think this is an inferior solution, but we would do it. I just wanted you guys to understand there's a trade-off, and a lot of design is about trade-off, as you know better than I do, probably.

Thank you.

So... Yeah. Design responses to ABR's comments regarding type standards. So option one, direct interpretation of city townhome type standards. This gets to the sort of two-story, three-story issue. This is the beginning of the introduction of sort of talking about this concept because we know how seriously you take this. So this is reading directly from your code. The type has a single mass main body and no subordinate wings except for small wings that extend from the rear of the main body or the size of the dwelling units of the main body. The main body is two stories tall and divided into at least three structural bays by vertical common firewall resistance. Each dwelling has its own front and rear access to the outside and no unit is located over another. In most cases, there are no significant recesses in the mass of the main body, but there can be projections. So let's keep going. So the impact of that is you lose a lot of functional interior space and the third floor value to the homeowner. The front facing facade aesthetic is negatively impacted by the loss of window and the need to turn interior function toward the side, lessening engagement with the street. The negative impact is sophistication and architectural expression. I don't think, the way we read the code, the portion of the code that talks about two stories is also the portion of the code that sort of wants you to build a very common facade townhome with not a lot of architectural interaction, not a lot of architectural change. It wants you to build a townhome the way we all used to think about building townhomes, where they all looked alike, and it was a series of townhomes that just marched along. The direction we got from staff, planning commission, and frankly, what we think is going to be better received is what we're proposing, which is a series of really architecturally significant homes that happen to be attached with innovative design. And we think extraordinary architecture that's consistent with that which you would expect to have in Hudson. So Bryce, you want to talk about this slide at all?

Yeah, I think what we wanted to show here was, again, just a collaboration between ourselves and staff in looking at different architectural solutions that, to be perfectly honest, this was sort of a way to design ourselves around the code and to be able to sort of propose a solution that works within the standards of a townhome. But when we sort of looked at and you see an inspiration image there to the right as to what sort of happens to that architecture and what happens to the facade that pronounces itself to the streetscape is that you really turn that top level into unusable space on the front facade. And so it forces you to turn what is a street-facing activation architecture to the sides. We just didn't think that that ended up presenting itself how we really wanted the streetscape to feel, how Hudson's streetscape already feels. But we also wanted to show that we took a long, hard look at it. We collaborated with staff and just looked to understand what some of the impacts would be.

So there was concern. So the code allows 35 foot height maximum and allows us to seek a waiver from AHBR for allowing an occupiable third floor, which obviously is consistent with what we did on Clinton Street. Now, Clinton was a different set of approvals. It was, I think, either a PUD or a master plan. I started to look at the entitlements, but it was too long ago. But it is a precedent. It is in place. It has been well received. We think the community enjoys those units. Certainly they've been well received by those who've lived there and resold them. They've held their value and improved their value. We think they're a real addition to the downtown. And it allows us to create density. I think we all want density in the central core. So thank you. So, Bryce, you want to pick up this one?

Sure. I think one of the benefits that we have is that we also are able to understand what's happening with the municipal process with Clinton Crossings. And we look, like Adam said earlier, we look at this as sort of a project that synthesizes a number of different projects, both existing and emerging. So we wanted to, and because our architect is RDL and your architect is RDL, We, we had them sort of insert our town homes and our former phase of town homes into these and just start to take a look at what the, what the, um, the continuity between design and scale and mass and architectural expression is. Um, and also taking a look at some of the inspiration images that are going to guide Clinton crossings. Um, and obviously, you know, on the right side there, there's a three-story town home that looks like an occupiable three-story town home. So as we sort of step down, and we've gone from, I think it was, I want to say it was like 12 three stories down to 10 or more, I think it was maybe more in the first, do you remember? We've started to minimize the three stories, and I think that starts to play into sort of stepping down that mass, and then as it enters Clinton Crossings, I think for the most part, they're two story with some three story peppered in there. Thank you.

So here you begin to see some of the elevations. Owen Brown, so this would be heading eastbound on Owen Brown or westbound, so the creek. The last home on Owen Brown is across the street, sort of here. Two-story unit here that's connected to other units along the creek. Drive aisle, and then a three-story and a two-story, and then you turn onto Morris, and the The design continues to pick up with a two-story unit, a three-story unit, and then sort of the opposite. Again, green space is in a very formal green space between each of these, but the notion here is each mass only reads as two dwellings from every facade, and I think that's really well done by the design team, and we're actually quite pleased with, I think, what the final aesthetic will be. Thank you. So here you begin to see this rendered up. And again, this is now Clinton looking towards Morris Road that way. Am I saying that right? Yeah, great. So again, two-story dwelling, but again, This is one dwelling here, but it's got a front door, but it's also got a second expression that looks like potentially the front of a house along what would be Clinton. This is Morse here. And you begin to see some very consistent design, but if you put it in the context of what's around it, we think it's modern, we think it's aesthetically pleasing, but we also think it's really Hudson. And we're trying to appeal to Hudsonites because we think most of our buyers are already living in Hudson and they live, you know, at Chad's Ford or Canterbury and they want to downsize and they want to live in a downtown environment. But they chose Hudson for a reason. And we think this looks, hopefully you do too, starting to look a lot like Hudson. And we think this has really been really well done. So thank you. Next. You begin to see some color and brick studies here. Keep clipping along. So this is important. So last time I heard you all struggling with sort of how you could approve this and what your authority is. And we recognize that you guys are the stewards of what looks great in this community. And I think that's really important. We take that deadly seriously because We have a huge investment in downtown Hudson. We own and operate first in Maine and have since it opened. So maintaining the aesthetics of this community and the quality of this community is very important to our company. So we appreciate that. But we do ask that you consider the waiver as it relates to the three-story units within the 35-foot height limitation. And we think you have that authority. Dick, if you can click along. Per your code, Appendix 2, the AHRB may waive any requirement of these standards in order to approve a proposed project. if AHRB finds a project that fills five principles enumerated in Sections 1 and 2 and meets one of the following conditions. The project is an exceptional design, meaning that it is either especially creative or is designed in response to a unique situation, such as a very difficult or unusual program requirement, or two, Exceptional and unique conditions exist that create a practical difficulty in complying with the requirements of these standards. The AHRB should consider the factors enumerated as defined in the Land Development Code in determining practical difficulty. We think we meet both these standards. Thank you, Nick. As it relates to exceptional design, Look, some of this is a matter of opinion, and I get it. You all are empowered to have the opinion, and we take that seriously. But the proposed solution is not a request for additional height because it's desired. The code allows for 35 feet. The overall building remains within the 35-foot envelope. Instead, the proposal responds to an unusual combination of site constraints, program requirements, municipal requests, and architectural objectives. Create an appropriate architectural relationship to Owen Brown. We think we've done that. Maintain a residential scale compatible with Hudson. Provide a viable number of homes to meet the city request for additional density in the downtown core. The site's only 1.3 acres. I'm trying to manage density at the same time create great design. It's a lot. Avoid excessive building footprint by breaking up the masses. Create meaningful architectural variation. We think we've done that. Provide functional residential floor plans. And I will tell you, since we built the first townhomes 25 years ago, we've put almost $2.5 billion of real estate in the ground throughout the country. We've learned a lot about how to design and build an interior of a townhome. Those units are great. These units will be so much better from a livability standpoint. We've really learned a lot over those years in the many units we've built. And remain within the overall height limitation, which I think is the real sort of imprimatur of not building something that's inconsistent with the community. That height restriction, I think, is sacrosanct than we think it should be.

Thank you.

So the practical difficulty is, you know, the unique site. I mean, the program is not an unconstrained development parcel on which we could just sort of move things around. The available area, building, envelope, aesthetics, and site circulation establish a finite development framework. The difficulty is not self-created. Per Hudson City comment and staff report, Planning Commission requested the applicant pursue innovative design for compliance with the following purpose statement of 1201.03. Encourage individual residential development so that the growing demand for housing may be met by a greater variety, type, design, layer of dwellings, and by community. conservation and more efficient use of open space ancillary to such dwellings. So we were somewhat directed to the point we find ourselves at now. And the net result of that is some two stories and some three stories, and I think a really great design. I hope you agree. Thank you. The practical difficulty, I'm going to try and pick up the pace here. Strict compliance creates a disproportionate burden. In response to city comment, we reduced the proposed density from the allowable 21 units. We're entitled to build 21 on the site. to 18 and explored a more contextual and varied massing solution. If an occupied third floor is not allowed, we risk losing two to four additional units, and it makes the project, frankly, very difficult to move forward with. With construction costs and interest rates, this is already becoming a very hard project. Thankfully, we think there's great demand for this kind of product, and I think you all know that there's people who want to live in these kinds of things. But we are having a hard time making the math work, and one thing I won't do is I won't sacrifice quality just to make it work. We're not going to build something that's inconsistent with First and Main. We're not going to build something that's inconsistent with Fairmount Properties' commitment to quality. So if we can't make the math work, we just won't build it, and that's sort of a bummer for us because we actually already own the real estate. And we don't think there's an adverse impact to the neighborhood. We're not modifying the 35-foot limitation, and the proposed solution avoids presenting a three-story multi-unit wall. So the original design was that giant wall I showed you along Morse, so we've broken up those masses. So thank you. The project satisfies all five guidelines in Appendix D. I'm not gonna go through all of this, but I will leave you a hard copy of this, but it does create and maintain a public loan precedent over individual buildings. It maintains a high level of architectural quality. Nick, you can go ahead along. There's an architectural variety within a defined framework. The new buildings and alterations will respect the existing context and framework. Thank you. So I'm just going to make a couple points here, and then I'm going to allow you. I'm going to sit down and shut up, hopefully. Direct interpretation of townhome style results in uniform massing unlike Which you know I don't think anybody wants the waiver is narrowly tailored to specific design condition presented to the property It should not be interpreted as a general request to disregard the townhome design standards. This is very specific to this site The requested waiver does not increase the city's overall 35-foot requirement the waiver will not adversely affect the essential character of the neighborhood and the proposed design better accomplishes the underlying purpose in Appendix D than the literal application of a two-story limitation would in this circumstance. I think picking out that two-story, if you're going to lean into the two-story, I think you have to build what that two-story wants, which is a series of very consistent units. I don't think anybody wants that. Thank you. Okay. Sorry that took so long.

All right, so I guess I'll start with this since I was probably the most adamant against the three-story at the last meeting. Especially on the Owen Brown side, I'm still completely opposed to it. When you walk down Owen Brown and you look at those houses, you don't even see a three-story house till you get almost to Old First. Most of those houses are one and a half story. And to put, especially on the Owen Brown side, when we talk about public realm, I think it's completely out of context for that corner. And as Clinton Crossing in general, I could see three story development back in, as you move back into it, kind of a progression. when you look at like smith's curated on the other side going to the south of this development right that's it's you know not even a really a true full two story and and owen brown is very similar to that where you go down and i think 40 owen brown is probably the first house that has an actual third story to it a discernible third story which really comes down into the second story it's it's really just kind of an attic space with a couple windows on the gable end So I don't think it fits in the context on that section of it. Going more to the south, the three story makes a little more sense. But when I look at the ones that were previously built and you go to like 58 Owen Brown, Due to the topography, when you look at the front of that house and you look back at those townhomes, they look like a four-story mass above that house. And I know the topography goes up there, but it kind of overwhelms. If you live in that house, it overwhelms that house. I don't want to see that continue down Owen Brown. So that's my major opposition to it. The massing and not being one mass, I can get past that. But the three-story on the Owen Brown side, I can't.

Help me think through that, because we're pretty far at the end of Owen Brown. We're across the creek. There's not a house particularly close to it. There's one house across the street and east where we're having a two-story massive cross right from it. So it's pretty far removed from what we all know of and love as Owen Brown. And the code allows for 35 feet, so I don't... I mean, I don't want to build a 35-foot two-story unit because it looks, that'll be sort of, it's not very functional.

I would disagree with that also. I mean, I don't think it fits in that neighborhood. Now, as you come around the corner, yes, it does. As you move south, yes, it does. But on Owen Brown, I don't think three-story is appropriate, especially a full three-story. You pretty much don't even have full two-story on Owen Brown. I mean, most of those are a story and a half. They're not really a full two. I mean, the roofline comes down below the header of the second floor windows.

When we built Heinen's, you can imagine we spent a lot of time with the Owen Brown residents because we're building a giant grocery store in their backyard. And ultimately, we built the eave height of the first and second floor of Heinen's because it's a two-story mass. to match the Eve Heights on Owen Brown. And we sort of made the piece. And I think they have a giant box behind their homes, but they have a functional grocery store that serves all of downtown. So there are design trade-offs. I'm not suggesting there are not. That was a design trade-off that that ARB and the residents of Owen Brown, all of us working together, got through because it was a good solution for the community. I think this is, in the overall, a good solution for the community. But I also hear you and I don't, you know, my father used to say a man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still. So I'm not gonna try and convince you other than I think the overall composition is really well done and in a way that I think if we are allowed to build it, I think will ultimately work really well with Owen Brown, which again starts a little ways farther east, you know, the sort of the part that we're also concerned about protecting. Me too, by the way. I share your view on how important that street is. Ms. Kinney?

So I wasn't at the other meeting, but when I looked at the pictures you'd selected from Owen Brown, you selected the biggest houses in the street, and there are a lot of much smaller houses. So I wonder if there would be a creative way to ease into the... but in a way that would seem more natural with what is actually happening in Owen Brown. Because, I mean, if you walk down there, you see most of the houses are much smaller than the ones you selected. So that's a concern I would have. And I wonder if... there would be a way to do that. So Clinton Street or the corner have more of the three stories and start lower on Owen Brown. And I don't know if it's, I mean, financially, if it would make sense for you, but I think I hear what you're saying, right? There's a sense in which The code allows you to go 35 feet, right? So the question is, since the code allows it, you could actually do it on Owen Brown. And what I'm saying is that if you go 35 feet, you might as well go three stories. But my suggestion would be not to go 35 feet when you start on Owen Brown.

Do you understand what I'm trying to do?

If we could pull up the Owen Brown elevation, because I think you're right, by the way. Sorry. No, you're good. I'm needy. So Owen Brown heading westbound. The creek across the street is the last home. And then again, as we all know, Owen Brown sort of gets a little more... sparsely occupied as you head towards the west, right? There's just fewer and fewer homes, right? So there's a decent break. Is it as big a break as sort of across Morris where Clinton crosses? No, it's not. I get it. But there's a decent break. And then we started with what we thought was appropriate, which is a two-story mass. So to sort of step into it and to sort of gracefully integrate the neighborhood, the Owen Brown neighborhood, which again is quite a ways up. And then we get to just the one three-story unit. And again, we're trying to create a differentiation here and a series and a design notion that's got a lot of variation to it because, well, for two, one, that was the direction that we certainly got from Planning Commission, not necessarily to put a three-story unit there. They didn't say that. But to create a lot of different variation, And the economics of this site, and you shouldn't make a decision based on economics. I have to make a decision based on economics. The economics of the site are very difficult. It's 1.3 acres. We spent a lot of money for the site. You know, this is a huge investment. And if the math doesn't work, I mean, part of me feels like I hear you, but They've lived for the last 75 years with a big mass commercial building that this is so much, we're improving this, it's gonna be so much better. It's gonna be a bunch of other Hudsonites as opposed to a large mass commercial building and a sea of asphalt. So the change from the existing built condition to what we're trying to accomplish, if we can accomplish it, is just such a marked improvement that we're hoping you could see fit to allow this to occur as well.

so if i can jump in for one second one of the things that we don't see in this elevation though is the three-story mass directly behind the two-story so so when you're looking at this so you're just seeing that front but when you go to the site plan right directly behind that two-story is a three-story no it's two-story again uh i'm sorry it's actually off to the side so it's more visible because it's kind of between those two between the two stories it's all the way out it's all the way on No, right? No, just to the left of that right there. That right. That's a three story.

This is the three story. This is a three story. Yeah. Yeah, 1234. We're doing that right.

Isn't isn't the one where the yellow box is right now? The the one just there's a two story on the right and then the three story to the left.

This one's a two-story. Right. This one's a two-story.

Directly to the left of that.

This? Is that not a three-story? That's a three-story, yes.

Okay. That's what I'm talking about. So that sight line, it doesn't show in that elevation, but that's going to be right between those two structures.

Yeah, if you go to the more three-dimensional drawing, actually, I think I might show it better. I understand what you're saying. Is this my package or your package? I don't know.

Yeah, they're towards the end, I think.

Yeah, there you go. Kind of bogging down. So... So three-story, and then you're talking about the fact that, yeah, back, now you're back behind this unit. There's another one and another one and another one all the way to Clinton. Right, but this is now, now you're inside the middle of the condo development. So yeah, but yeah, I mean, they are there. Yeah, I mean, they've...

It'd be nice to see an elevation that actually showed that.

Do we have that?

Cause like that's not even a straight on.

If you go, if you go one up, there's a view in the next there. That's almost elevation. Yeah. Yeah.

That's actually great. Right.

So to me, the three story in the back there reads really well. when you're staying on Owen Brown, because it's back far enough and you have the two-story, but the three-story that's directly up on Owen Brown is what I would have an issue with.

So what about if you switched it, if the three-story moved back and the two-story that's behind the three-story is moved to the front on Owen Brown?

All three stories behind.

the in the middle those four in the middle so behind the three story is another three story because the core right those core four middle buildings are all three stories so there's not a two-story to pull forward part of the design trade-off here was to try to minimize the amount of asphalt that's noticeable as well um and to hide as many of the garages as we can and all that activity that takes place on the internal courts of the two the two pods of nine The other aspect here is that one of the challenges that we were presented and that we attempted to do was to really have a more efficient use of the ground plane and to produce a lot more open space. And you can see from the plan, the size differential in terms of floor plate of the two story versus the three story. So taking the three story down to a two story, essentially it eliminates that unit. There's just not enough space to get in particular ground floor primary, which is what we'd like to do with all the two stories. but that building floor plate becomes large enough such that it actually moves the entire plan into redesign.

If we move the entire plan into redesign, Planning Commission is going to tell us we don't have enough open space. So then we just don't know how to manage that, right? Which is part of why early on I asked for a Joint Planning Commission AHRB process to do this as one, but we were told that it's not possible.

I have a question about the two, when you put up the slide that had, near the beginning of the presentation, that had the two X'd out plans. Were either of those, were those all two stories? Is the three-story, are the three-story buildings here a response to their requirement that you reduce the number of footprints?

We could have built the 22, 21, 22, 21 that we're entitled to, then we could have made the arithmetic work with all two-story, yeah.

So those were two story plans. They were just a plan at that point.

They were just a plan at that point.

They didn't have primary on the first floor, if it would be that way?

And Planning Commission clearly encouraged us to do more primary, first floor primaries.

Because it seems like there's some tension between planning goals and HR.

The Planning Commission did request in the concept plan review that the number of units be reduced, which they did address. That was a conversation.

So the unit, the third unit on the right, it's at the corner, right? Yes. And it's two-story, right? Yes. What would prevent you from moving this unit where the three-story is and moving the three-story to the corner? Because that would address, I think, the issue of the disconnect between the existing houses on Owen Street. Because it's a corner, right?

So you're able to move into another mode.

That's actually, as you said that I was like, yeah, why didn't we do that? Um, no, I think one of the things that happens is from the interior court and we can probably take a look at the plan. Um, one more time, I apologize for jumping all over. Um, is that. Is that essentially when this shifts, this guy comes over here, the garage is in the rear. So the position would require extra road. which would push all of this. It's worth an exploration, but it's not quite as simple as just a reverse because we've got to actually access this garage and this garage on the interior. The other issue is that we actually stacked the two stories on the corners because, as Adam said earlier, it did allow us with a two-story because there's a lot more livable area on that ground floor. to project a front facade on both sides in terms of adding porches and entrances that give a little bit more of that residential character. Here, where half the ground floor in a three-story is the garage, we don't have that same opportunity. So kind of edging ourselves around becomes a little bit more difficult.

What unit number is that, the middle one? So I guess you have some of these coded unit A1, B1. Is that a B1?

Miss Kinney, did you have anything else?

I had a comment about the green space. Are you going to try to work with the fact that you have a creek, a wild creek, or is it going to be very kind of formal? Yeah, because it is a resource, right, to have a little creek?

No, we totally agree with you on that. That's one of the reasons why all of the creek is sort of layered with the three-story units, which also then... getting better at this which also then allow us these garages for the two stories that we've done that outdoor private deck we think that's an excellent feature for these townhome owners to be able to overlook this we're also working with staff and with the city on how our interior court here potentially connects to the extension of the multi-purpose path which will sort of invite the community in but we agree that's it's a huge amenity

A lot of that asphalt is going to go away that's in that stream corridor, which is great. And we're going to go back to more natural.

Mr. Workley?

I seem to be okay with the layout and the proportions. The only proportions that give me issue are on the long buildings with the front facades pretty well, but the sides in some cases just seem to be siding for the full length of the stories or two stories like building four and And then like on the inside of building three where you were talking about that roof change.

Are you talking about sort of that sidewall? No, to the right.

That side wall? Yeah, that side wall. There's nothing other than windows and siding. It goes clear back to the garage. So on the left side, you have a bunch of decorative elements for the living room spaces and bay windows on the right. If we could go to A11.

It's just exciting. Yeah, A11 shows it.

So... Yes, so that's that long stretch of no, you know, fenestration dealing with from that standpoint. And then also on the other side where we were talking about that roof earlier, it's kind of the same situation. Sometimes you'll have a chimney that breaks that up, gives some portion to it. But a lot of the times it's just a three-story facade going all the way back to that garage element.

I think that's a really good point.

There could be some additional fenestration on those, because those are right in plain view from the street, in all cases. Thank you. The other one, if you go to the 3D rendering, you can see.

I think it's 821.

Yeah, so zoom in on the one on the right. So that was what I'm talking about, where you changed that roof. issue, that whole three-story facade back is no decorative element on that at all. Other than you change the plane from underneath the second-story window sill to the siding across that whole three-story element to the back. So just taking the amount of character that you've done for the straight street facades into some areas on this side. I don't think you need to weigh back in the thing, but more of that breaking up of those large elements. Mr. Zuluff?

um during one of our informals um and we were talking about the owen brown and the third story um i think you had i had asked about trying to be creative with the roofline some sort of a drawing of a mash between a gable and a hip or something did it i never saw anything On that, I'm talking to the woman with the pulled shoulder. I don't know if it was a dormer, but you were going to do something. You had a name for a combo roof.

I think that's what she...

Yes. A hickable. I never saw a pickleball. God bless you.

Yeah. So I'm Suzanne Meltzer with RDL Architects, 2111 Chagrin Boulevard, Beachwood, Ohio. I think you're talking about there is an elevation that has them. That's kind of that HIPCA bowl that we were talking about that maybe you liked on that three-story. I'm trying to think if there's a better. There's one. So that's one where the roof comes across. There we go. Some of those have it here. Those are what I call the hip cables. So those are like where you have a hip portion of the roof that cuts through the gable. So that helps to break down the scale. So I know that there was a question about, yeah. I know there was a question about on Owen Brown specifically, could we explore that kind of roof type that might work better to help break down the scale of the height? So I don't know if we can go to the Owen Brown. Yeah, we can do that on three stories. So like if you see that right here. that's that's that's the Clinton elevation right now we could do that same thing on Owen Brown so that the gable doesn't the gable being open like that sort of emphasizes the height by doing that kind of HIPCA bowl that we're doing on Clinton we could copy that and do the same thing on Owen Brown which helps to break down the scale yeah I don't know if you want to zoom that out a little bit, because it'll show the whole street. Yeah, so those are the two. So there's Clinton above, and then the Owen Brown is below. So that maybe helps break the scale down a little bit.

Why don't we do that on Owen Brown?

Because there were more gables on Owen Brown, so we thought that it was maybe complementing the architecture on Owen Brown a little more.

I see.

thinking of it being more like a clipped it does look less pronounced i mean we could even take it and hip it all the way back like some of the ones are on clinton on at least maybe on that three story if you think that might help break the scale down further we have an example of that that No, we did. We moved away from the hips just because we were only finding those on in the Main Street area. So we were trying to move more into the residential kind of the same vocabulary that we were seeing in the area. But it was done on Clinton. I mean, we could certainly do it here, too.

Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.

The existing picture of the existing townhomes. We actually had the ones in the presentation too, but that's okay. So here you see these, we would probably move away from the heavy overhang because that does have a very Main Street look about it, but we could do the same hips, which, so this is a hip group here. So you don't really see much of the roof, so it really stops the elevation right at the eave line. Yes, you can see how those hit back. There is that option as well, and maybe we only do it on the three-story. It provides some differentiation between them, maybe really emphasizes more of a single-family look. so do those three stories does that feel like those are not quite as tall because it has a hip roof i know it has that really heavy overhang which the other one

The hippable or whatever you call it.

Hippable? What's the first letter? I call it a hippable. Like hip, gable? Hippable.

At my... Actually, more residential. I don't know. It's a fix a little bit. And the other thing was where things are at right now with the last presentation of Clinton Crossing, the residential that would be catty corner to the Owen Brown would be, I think they were just all single family.

There were some townhouses that were angled, coming toward the angle. So, you know, that was part of our thought was by, you know, we were sort of doing that transition from the Clinton town homes into that area. I was part of that team too. So kind of understood a little bit of that, but was those town homes were kind of on an angle leading into the center where they were as well. And it was, the idea was to kind of tie these town homes into that development.

When I was there, what was that last Saturday? It seemed like it was all single family as a loop around.

Yeah, all the way around except that centerpiece and then a little section that will angle toward the corner of Owen Brown and Morse Road. The ones directly on Owen Brown and Morse Road were, yeah, two-story.

So at what point did it end with planning? I mean, had you finished your presentation, or did they ask any questions before you got the lights out?

It was unusual. We had finished our presentation. They had started to ask questions. I don't wanna characterize their view, but they seem positively inclined to the most of the changes we made. I felt like we were heading in a good direction. Mr. Sugar, was that a fair characterization of how that went?

Yeah, I didn't get the sense that they were looking for drastic changes to the site plan. There was some initial round of questioning that focused on phasing of the development and how the construction would be carried out. There was some discussion on the trail, but I don't see the site plan being asked to be changed drastically by the Planning Commission. Question about, I went back and watched it, about the entry from Owen Brown or something about, there was something- There was one public comment from someone who lived on Owen Brown regarding the entry on Owen Brown. But it wasn't discussed in detail at that meeting by the commission.

And that curb cut and the additional width for that curb cut was actually approved by BCA, prior approved by BCA.

That was the trade off where the first iteration where Adam had the three iterations, the first one that was X out, it had the wall of town homes on Owen Brown. So, you know, our feedback was to reduce the number of town homes. So they broke that up and the drive was integrated into. Owen Brown which I think in our in our opinion was a good trade-off because it's it's only serving a smaller number of units You know, you don't see it as a traffic impact, but that was the concern of the Owen Brown resident Comment is

They're nicely designed architecturally. I don't know about exceptional. Maybe it's exceptional because of what you had to maneuver for site and the stream and the small property, but I'm having a hard time with exceptional design. That's all I have right now.

I agree with a lot of what has been touched on so far. Some of my questions actually were a little less on the massing and sizing, but I noticed some of the questions I had were on material placement on some of this, and I don't think I noticed that on... Maybe there was some... comments from staff but i was not sure on some of them where we had the kind of a break in the brick and things like that if that's meeting code because there's like some sort of trim there that's breaking some of it up but i didn't know if that needed to be readdressed or looked at in more detail

we had that note on number nine revised townhomes have consistent wall materials throughout each mass we noted the east elevation of building six east of elevation building four where some of that is broken up with different materials yes

I guess back to the Owen Brown three-story, is there any design that would work as just a two-story with that leaving the garage placement where it is? and the one thing i did note is while it does have a first floor master it's just really that or not sorry first it has a first floor bedroom probably not a primary bedroom um because it's a smaller bedroom and then most of the living space is on the next floor up um so While there is a first floor, it's probably not going to be used as the primary bedroom. So I didn't know if there was any, like, okay, could this be done? That particular unit might be a bit smaller than the rest, but is that a consideration without having to redesign everything just to bring that one a little bit lower? Sure.

Yeah, we actually discussed that in-house as well. And one of the interesting components of the townhome and the idea behind the benefit of a first floor primary is that your first floor primary is on your living level. And so in a townhome where you're, if we were to extend a little bit and get more of a grand bedroom on the ground floor, that individual would still have to walk upstairs to get food and all of that jazz. So it's sort of, it defeats the purpose of the ground floor primary, but we did take a look at that. We did consider if there was a possibility to make this a unique unit. I think just the site constraints and the floor plate itself and the amount of that space that's taken up by garage, it really just trends towards, I actually live in a townhome, it's an office. There are some people that attempt to convert it to a bedroom, but it lives better as an office.

Is there any ability to shave a foot off each floor with the floor height? I recall they were pretty tall floor heights. Was it nine?

I think we're a typical nine feet. So that's typical. I think we're a 10 feet for the living floor.

Oh, okay. Yeah.

Okay.

Mr. Brown?

I share your concerns about three stories. I think there's a lot of smaller issues created by the attempt to not have it. Not having a, you know, uniform wall, as you described, you know, with like unit, unit, unit, unit. So there's a lot of kind of minor stuff that we're not really focusing on today, because really it's just about the big, the massive and the stories. But I guess fundamentally, I kind of, I feel, I disagree with what it seems Planning Commission's direction was. I mean, I don't think that... that breaking them up and then going higher makes i don't think it makes it feel like um nothing about this in my opinion will feel like single family homes i mean i appreciate the kind of the extent of the effort to try and accomplish that but at the end of the day i think it will always feel um and I think in terms of experiencing them as a pedestrian or Cross the street once putting crossing happens. I think the height is a bigger To me the the the height of the building and the third story makes them more imposing than the... I don't think that's... I'm having a hard time addressing myself here. I think that's more important in terms of how you experience the building as a person than varying the depth of the facade from the sidewalk. I don't think that goes far enough to create something. And maybe this gets back to what I said before about exceptional design. I just don't know that it goes far enough to make three stories you know, I understand the constraints in terms of finances. I understand that, you know, the constraints in terms of density. Um, but I don't know that, I mean, it is in terms of like a site, it's just, it's a flat rectangle starting from scratch. So, um, it seems to me that the, the biggest reason that pushed it in this direction was the direction from planning, um, which, um, I mean, frankly, I disagree with. If their direction to reduce the number of units then required for the project to move forward, that the height gets higher, I think that's, to me, that, which is what it felt like was implied. I just don't, I don't agree with that.

Let me try and choose my words carefully here. The 35 feet allowed is your code, not mine. Yeah. It's your code.

It's the story. It's the face of it.

No, I know. So I could build 35 feet two-story units within your code, which would be unacceptable because it would look ridiculous. Yes.

Well, and you not necessarily could because it has to meet the environment. It has to meet the neighborhood.

And we would say that the 35 feet doesn't meet the neighborhood. I get it. So let's get back to the real world. The real world where I live is I've bought some real estate. And if I can't make this work, then I just lease the existing buildings to the best rent payers I can. And you have what's there. So that's my current plan. And I can't, as a developer, I've been to... 11 meetings so far i've invested a million dollars in this land i've spent hundreds of thousands of dollars of design and only in hudson does the planning commission and the architectural review board sort of leave me in the middle so the plan now is just to put up some leasing signs at least the existing building. And then when you all decide what you want, maybe you let us know, because this is no way to actually achieve development. And if you really want to get Clinton crossings going, I can assure you the entire development community is watching whether or not we can get this one acre project going. And we're a developer that has spent 30 years investing in your community. We're a developer that has kept every bad tenant out of first in Maine. We're a developer that has done everything we possibly could for the good of this community. And we're a developer trying to build something outstanding. And if I'm getting a little frustrated, I hope you understand, I don't know how to move this forward at this point. I can't just keep coming to meetings and sort of talking about this. We are losing time, losing money, spending money, and you get to a point where it just doesn't make sense anymore. So I hope you understand in the real world. My takeaway from this is Hudson doesn't want to see this project move forward because I don't know how to move it forward and navigate between all these varying desires. So maybe Planning Commission and ARB should get together and decide what you want and tell us and we'll see if we can build it. If not, I'm just going to go lease the existing buildings. It's all I can really do. And it's not... I'm not... I'm not...

trying to be sort of ultimatumish i just i literally don't know what else to do at this point i don't i really don't know what to do so i'm just being very candid with you all all right uh anything else mr brown no this puts you wow meeting number two yeah meeting number two hi i'm new um i just had a question about precedence standards and what

why there are some three-story townhomes on clinton street currently i don't know i requested the minutes from that meeting and never got them understood we we did research the record we were we weren't able to find specific discussion on the um 35 making a three-story those are those are three-story units correct obviously pretty close by to this development correct the irrigation to this development yes but do we think an ex like some sort of like exceptional design standard was taken in during we couldn't find a direct discussion i think it was just missed i just don't think it ever got noted and nobody said anything it was a planned development as adam mentioned individually looked at as much as correct there was more of a holistic look on on the development

So that includes the ones kind of behind the brew kettle, the more modern looking ones as well that are also three stories. Were those built at the same time?

Those were built at different times.

Those were built at different times. But those are, please correct me if I'm wrong. Those are three stories as well. Are those also three stories?

Yes. At the risk of showing my age, I was here. I developed that project. It wasn't missed. It was embraced as thoughtful urban design in a downtown district. And it was thought as something that the community would receive well and love. And the community has received it well and loved it. And other than hearing about this from this committee, I haven't found anyone who said to us, oh, my gosh, why are those three-story units there? The community loves them. And how you know that is they have increased in price at every resale. And when one goes on the market, it sells immediately. The community loves those units. And it was thought about. And Mike Morton was the city manager then, and we sat here. This room was laid out differently back then, but we sat at a giant table in this room and we went through it piece by piece, building by building painstakingly and brought it to AHRB and brought it to the planning commissioner and it got approved. At the same time the library got approved and now that was an interesting process, but it was a long time ago.

From my perspective, it seems like there's a lot of precedent for that, so. Not trying to agree or disagree with anyone, it just historically just seems like there is. Is there precedent for, I'm seeing a couple of front facing garage doors. I know we're trying to minimize those, but is there precedent for that anywhere else in these Hudson town home communities where you can actually see the garage doors. They're technically not in the front. They're kind of behind, but you can see them from, I know, but it is technically against the rules. So I wasn't sure if there's any precedent for that anywhere.

They're not front facing. They're not front facing.

OK, great. Good. Good to know. And then there are a lot of material choices going on. We're not really discussing that, but we'll probably have to pare those down a little bit just because of the code. But otherwise, that was my main thought.

i have another question the ones that exist now on on clinton do they have elevators some of them were we didn't install elevators in the beginning but some of them are elevated yes so that's not an option on these oh yeah no i'm sorry if i if i miss that the all all the units that are don't have a primary masters on the first floor will be shafted with the option to install elevators each and every one

So on massing in three-story, I mean, because that's kind of the, you know, I guess, I mean, I don't think we're going to vote tonight. I would assume we're not. There's a lot of changes to be made on the, just with fenestration and materials and that. But I guess, what is your...

So what I think is that considering the history of this project, that they were asked to limit the number of units, that they're very respectful of the environment around the creek, that there's a lot of greenery, to have one three-story visible at the end of Owen Brown is fine. And it is within the code to have something 35 feet. All we are really discussing is whether those 35 feet should include two levels or three. And I'm fine with it.

Thank you. I still have an issue with it. I think 35 feet is too high. So.

Any issue with. On the issue to just the Owen Brown, is that right?

If you have any issue, I guess, with medicine or height. Because it's dead if we can't get past that.

The only way you can make Owen Brown two-story looking would be if the three-story bedroom on the third floor went to two, and they got rid of that, and the stair could remain. That could reduce it slightly down. It's still going to look high.

That would have to have the same... living room height like could that particular unit just come down a bit and that would the other stay said that was a 10 foot floor but a foot or so i mean yeah i mean it's only it would only be one foot yeah yeah so and a foot doesn't wouldn't solve it for me and it would be and that would be a big different for difference for the resident yeah frankly

saying that a different truth we could do the hip cabal because we're looking we're thinking in terms of appearance right

but I still have concerns about that one on Owen Brown and that story. I understand what your situation is.

So we're speaking about appearance, right? At the moment, the buildings at the end of Owen Brown, they don't look good, right? They... It's almost like an abandoned area. So I have friends who live on Owen Brown, and I know they would prefer, I would say, fairly sophisticated-looking buildings rather than those, what do you call them? Semi-abandoned warehouses, right? You see what I'm saying? So we can't have it both ways, right? So I'm not wanting it to stay as is either.

And I do think with and crossing coming up, just kind of watching what we're considering exceptional design, and as you continue to develop in that area, that we don't get ourselves in a hole of like, oh, this is exceptional design, and we're never following the intention of the code. So that's my kind of concern. But I don't disagree with this is a better design than what's there now. I just, I do kind of watch that.

But it is within the code. That's what I'm trying to say. They could build something 35 feet. It is totally within the code.

We're still making an exception on the massing, though, because of having the connectors, basically, right? So that's still an exception. Like, we still have to make an exception here.

Okay, because of the massing.

Yeah, so this is not, you know, checkmark as it is. There is some exceptions we have to make. So I'm cautious knowing what's coming on... what we as a board consider an exceptional design. So that's, again, not saying that the design isn't nice and it's an improvement from what's there, it's just also not setting up the incorrect precedent.

So but it's conditional, you know, it's we're not saying that it's only based upon unique design. It's based upon unique conditions to get to that design as well, which is the key here.

Right. And there's the site absolutely has unique conditions. So I'm not discounting that either. It's just kind of weighing everything.

If it pleases the chair, I'd like to get through the board discussion, though.

I mean, it's just so we can get a feel for where people are at.

John, just to close, Ms. Marzullo's comment. So I had a lot of comments from you on the roof design. If they were to look at that, is that something you want to see?

I would want to see.

On Owen Brown. You were focused on Owen Brown in your comments. Okay. I'm just going back to my notes. Okay.

I'm looking at the comparing. Sorry. I have something here that is not up there. that looking at, on Clinton, the existing three-story and two-story kind of mix. And when you look at those on the street view, and then you look at them, I'm also looking at the Clinton Crossing plan. In plan, it looks somewhat symmetrical. But the elevations are not, I mean, see the symmetry of the site plan, I think, but not in the elevations, and I think that is more successful, in my opinion, than... I think one of the things that kind of turns me off a little bit, especially like Morse Road, I mean, I agree with what John was saying about Owen Brown, but when you turn the corner, if there could be more... I know you're... This again goes to the constraints of fitting the mix of two- and three-story and the narrow footprints and the large footprints. But I guess when I see the site plan of the Clinton Crossing buildings, that site plan does not... Immediately present itself on the elevations because the way the elevations are treated each, you know the elevations change They're not symmetrical about like a you know central point like there's they're not mirrored the way they are on on Morse and I think that contributes for me the that it feels massive, that it is essentially almost exactly symmetrical. There's some differences in the fenestration, but the roof lines and the, and I don't know, I don't really have a, there's not an easy solution to that other than design. But if I were to come around, you know, I kind of, I do appreciate kind of the constraints some of the constraints that are just of the site and some of the constraints that the planning commission process has placed on you. I just fear I guess that there's a distinct difference between how something looks in flat elevation and how something's experienced as a pedestrian. And I think that John's one of the chair's initial comments that in the elevations, you don't see the buildings behind. It concerns me that the overall like the density of the... I think the elevations don't accurately depict how the... They accurately depict the elevations as they're intended to architecturally, but when you look at the perspectives, they give you a better sense for how they will be experienced especially once Clinton crossing and people are walking past them and right now, you know, very few people go back there. Um, and I'm, I'm concerned. That's where my concern with the massing is. I think they're, they're much, I wish there was a little more variation.

Um, Are you talking about these ones on Clinton?

Yeah, so if you look at them if you look at the site plan the site plan looks like there's a it's mirror almost about a on a central axis, but then that's not reflective in the in the In the elevations, but it goes it goes to story to three and three story to two Kind of similar the way that this one goes, but it's like that. They're almost but the architectural elements of the buildings are There's more variation there, I guess.

Well, not based upon the facade. It's a variation from the three-story to the two-story. I think there's more variation in what's being proposed than that existing. Because there's vertical three-story elements on a two-story element facade. I mean, there's variation on the three-story element of a vertical three-story element. It's not just one three-story element mass like in the other one. So we're looking at the above and the below. So if you just take the two on the right, you've got a two-story and a three-story adjacent to each other, and you've got three elements there, whereas below it's just two elements. You could argue that the third element in the middle is separating them, but there's still a three-story large mass and a two-story large mass, whereas here they've broken it down with a bunch of different vocabulary.

I guess the question, though, is are you agreeable to the exception of both massing and, I guess, the three-story?

As it is now, the three stories I do have a problem with. I mean, I could... I think there's a convincing argument that Owen Brown, if Owen Brown were treated differently, I think it's a much bigger exception to make them. And kind of, I don't know, it feels like a much larger exception to me to make it, to allow three story. developments here with the development of Clinton Crossing in the future, establishing that three-story, because all of, as I understand it, all of Clinton Crossing is potentially zoned the same way that this core is, correct?

I mean, zoned the same way, yeah. Okay.

I don't think I'm comfortable with... I don't think that there is an argument that the design is exceptional, that we could... I don't see what's exceptional about this design in terms of any specific constraints or aesthetically that would allow a third story.

So it's here.

On another note, I think there's a lot of precedent for the three stories. And again, the code does say we're able to build up to 35 feet. The one on Owen Brown, it would be great if it looked smaller visually somehow, adding the hip cabal, doing the hip roof, whatever, make it look smaller. Smaller maybe make it just a little less This is more in the color perspective, but there are ways to make the homes feel smaller You know through the pallets and through the materials chosen Perhaps we could go that route with this one just to make sure that it wasn't you know a giant pink thing that's sticking out and you know looking really obvious not that we choose pink but But as to like the exception for the the massing I i i do agree again if you look at 820 the designs for the middle two town homes and then the end one i know that they're going to be different colors but they're very very similar however i think that that's an easy you know little design changes here and there you have a lot of knowledge i'm sure we could just change it up a little bit to make them not look almost like mirror images although i'm sure the colors would be different but still there does seem to be more variety there on clinton street so i'd like to see that and that's it good if there's something in there just a couple comments um and thank you for your time i do appreciate the

Exceptional design doesn't go just to architecture. It goes to the creative use of the land in a way that meets the needs of the community. This community's clearly set forth that they want this kind of product, and the site layout, the green space, the reaction to the creek, dealing with a three-sided site that's only 1.3 acres, I would tell you the site plan. maybe not in your view, but in our view, is exceptional. The architecture is designed to look like Hudson, whether you think Hudson look is exceptional or not is a matter of taste. But it was designed to feel like it belongs. The other piece of this is you have to either identify exceptional design or practical difficulties of the site. The site has got a lot of practical difficulties, I think, that we've articulated. That's what the code allows you to opine upon. to make this exception. But I hear you. I don't know how to move forward. So in the meantime, I can't afford to continue to carry this real estate without a plan to build on it. So I will, until we can get some clear direction, I will, I guess, just lease the existing building and hopefully something works out but i don't i don't know what else to do other than just sort of try and generate some cash flow from the existing property and put some tenants in there because that's that's what happens in the world when you can't build what you want when you what you need to build to make the math work so um i don't i don't know what i really don't know what else to do so um but i appreciate appreciate your feedback

I mean, from my notes, I'm seeing direction. I'm seeing on the Owen Brown unit to reduce the presence of that three-story to add more variation in some of the exterior portions of the units and make the materials more consistent around the masses. look at how they're mirrored and and how to add variation on the mirroring um that was just from the last round of of the summary comments that was the majority of the board that's what that i mean that's what i'm seeing but i don't know if i'm wrong but that's what i've can i ask you so you're still so now that you're you're not finished with planning but is there

Is it possible that something of the outcome with planning would change and give you more of options to be able to develop and reach your goal, financial goal? I mean, I don't want to skew anything wrong, but... That might be a better question for staff.

Say that again, please.

Will any of our notes go back to them as they're still considering this? I guess that's my question.

I guess it depends on the timing. So the next planning commission meeting is September 14th, when they're due back. But there is an architectural review board meeting on the 9th, depending on their ability or schedule to present any updates to this board.

Or maybe we vote, and if an applicant can always appeal, we'll vote.

think we're in a place to vote based on like a lot of the i wouldn't recommend it because we have to we're asking for some even at the very minimum even if we all get on the same board with owen and brown owen brown we're still looking at materials need updated and a lot of the spots here you need the fenestration registration you need um maybe the rework on the mirroring on, what street is that, Morris? So, I mean, there's things like that I think we need to see again. Or you just mean we vote to see if we could say exceptional design.

If we ask an applicant to work on fenestration material, et cetera, but in fact we do not intend to approve, That was the whole point of me asking kind of every group. Yeah, we're not doing that. Did you do an informal vote saying no?

We could poll.

I mean, we could poll that as a vote. Because I think if I was an applicant, I would want to know, should I put a lot more work on those details? or say forget it because they're going to say no anyway. I think out of fairness, that could be, yeah.

Can I ask the chair or staff, could you vote on the, could you actually vote just on the massing and the buildings and not on the other portions of it that you want additional information?

I don't think we could do a partial. I don't think so. Yeah. Yeah. but i understand why you're i mean we could approve with conditions but there'd be so many like it it wouldn't there'd be too many conditions to to yeah yeah too many for who but i mean we could pull and see i mean so go ahead you should start so i i would vote yes okay mr with the updates we talked about yes okay i would be a no saying yes or no to massing and basically the exceptions the exceptions the two exceptions so there's an exception for massing and and really exception for the call it the third story okay i can get there if i think we fix the owen brown side um Well, I would be the same on that. Owen Brown's side is my biggest issue. I think the rest of it, you could get continuity to go to three story beyond. Right. It would be, I wouldn't say no matter what, but it's, it's, it would be tough.

Mr. Brown? I would be a no, as it is now.

I guess it would fail. I was thinking it was more of a no. So the aye would be 4-3.

What I said before, Mr. Sugar, was what would it... 4-3 the other way.

Yes.

I could get there.

Yeah. Right, but are you there? Okay, I took you as a no. Okay. Yeah, you'd have to see it.

Yeah, I'd have to see it. But yeah, I think I would take it as a yes. Mr. Schiller?

Yes. You asked me to repeat what I asked, what I said before about planning commission and what can change. And I don't want to, you know, skew planning commission. Is there something that could become the outcome of planning commission that would allow you to make some changes in order to be more financially in line with

Like you're saying, for example, move, like somehow get a lower unit going around, but somehow replace that unit somewhere else in terms of density.

If it pleases the chair. Okay. I think... The only way to get more water out of this rock is to add units and shrink green space. I don't want to speak for Planning Commission, but that seems like a non-starter based on the progress we've made so far, which has not been easy.

I think that would be difficult if that's the...

Really the big issue for those of you who voted no is the one on Owen Brown being three stories. That it's not matching up with the neighborhood. That we must bring that one unit down to two stories. What about the other ones? The ones behind?

I would be fine with the rest.

Is that financially feasible?

I don't know. It's a fair question. I don't know. If we Making this up from whole cloth as I stand here on television. If we moved the Owen Brown unit to Clinton or more so I didn't lose a three-story unit and got it off Owen Brown,

Again, making this up.

I don't know how this works because it probably doesn't.

But then my guess is we're not. We could figure out a way to make that work. I just don't know how to do it architecturally at all.

My concern is on is having any of the story.

He's speaking to the microphone. Yeah.

My concern is having any of the three-story face the street that I'm not sure that you would be very happy with Yeah the side of it the side of a three-story would end up facing the street If we put any of those on the corner, which is kind of what the suggestion is You were talking about taking building one into three stories instead of two I Just building one. The one adjacent to the existing.

Oh, the one towards the creek. Kind of the south end towards the creek.

Bottom right one. Building one is already two-story.

But I thought you were talking about that one to three and swapping the two to the other side.

Oh, it needs to be in the same block because you can't, you can only, if you're going to make that one two-story, it's a bigger footprint. So you've got to swap it with something else in order to get to the garages.

I was talking about maybe you could make those two unique and make it work. concept's been having the two stories on the corners to some extent right right because of the two facades street facing right so that would make the 33 story adjacent to the other two story three story existing in the more dense area versus over on the other area where it's less dense

I guess I'm not sure I understand. So you're talking about adding, putting 10 units in one and eight in the other? Is that the thought?

I'm not sure of the unit number. I'm just looking at the plans of how the buildings work. In the corner unit, you've got the two-story with the three-story splanking it. And on the building one, it looks like you've got two two-stories and a three-story in the back. So I was just saying you could have the two-story in the middle with three stories flanking it again, but the ones on the street basing the street of the three-story vertical. I don't know how your plan works to make it work. No, I see what you're saying.

I gather that you also really understand the nuances of this stuff. So, you know, I think after our last HRB, both Suzanne and I went into, like, global meltdown, redesigned the master plan 18 different ways. What does it do? And, you know, sometimes you've got to take something apart to put it back together again. And I think what you're talking about is this one becomes a three-story. Is there a way – and I think what happens is the three-story – one of the problems is we're gonna need to get another three story somewhere back in here if we're gonna reduce the other one. And then you start to get a little bit of like pinch point to get into this garage. And one of the reasons why, and this was a planning commission thing as well, is that we removed three private guest parking stalls from in here because once we ran turn studies into all these garages, it really wasn't able to maneuver without a three, four point turn, which we felt was pretty devalued for this product. So there's a lot of maneuver. Some of these people will still have to make the one point long turn to get in, but we certainly can take a look at it.

So what you're saying, I'm sorry, so on the corner, the rectangular unit is the two-story with the parking garage. Yeah, this is the two-story. And then the three-story is only two squares.

Right. Yep. Okay. Yeah. Three, two, two, three.

I mean, the other thing that's going to make staff unhappy, but I'll suggest it anyway, is

have contributed land for street parking on morse that's our land um we could potentially take that land back um eliminate the street parking um which is i think a city priority um and widen the site and that's a full redesign i mean i'm not even sure i want to i retract that actually sorry i don't want to do that i'm tired um late for the one unit that's three stories

i'm i'm going to go a little interior but it relates to the exterior i promise on the third floor there are now three bedrooms or four bedrooms right three up there plus there's one on the main level on the first floor level like The sort of bonus from office office, but it's was an office but technically has a closet and a full bath and it's better down there is there a way to change the roof line to drop this down to a 3 bedroom total unit just have to up there so that it's still livable space, but to drop it significantly. I don't know if that's again financially feasible, but just. Do you know what I'm talking about? Yeah. Make it more like a bungalow style, just for that one unit to bring it down.

We'll look at it. I think, I don't know, I got to get back with my partners tomorrow morning and try and figure out what to do next. I'm just one voice here.

It just seems like we're closer than you might think. It's just the Owen Brown priority of keeping things small. So... Right. Maybe something like that wouldn't...

I get it. I also think the Owen Brown priority of removing the existing blight should sort of be maybe more heavily weighted, but that's just my view.

Is this a formal application? No, this is a formal... Yeah, this is a formal submission.

Do we have to continue it or vote? Yeah. Are we continuing?

That'd be nice.

sense, but it's, I mean, it's technically up to the applicant.

What are my choices?

If, if we continue, we would continue to a meeting that took place prior to the next planning board meeting. Correct. So, so, so we'd have no, no additional kind of feedback or clerk.

We're happy to go through all the facade issues as we sit here tonight and call for a vote. I mean, I mean, I need to sort of know what we're doing here.

I have to say, I don't think we can get through all the facade issues tonight, though. I mean, that's a considerable amount. I mean, when you look at the amount of, call it missing fenestration and material, I mean, we would be here.

We would normally ask for updated drawings.

Yeah, and we would ask for updated drawings. It's a considerable change.

And we'd still usually ask for it to come back in front of us and not have approvals without any changes.

Can we give specific instruction for what needs to be changed on the fenestration, like which ones and stuff like that, so that they can make those changes?

I think most of them were. Or frankly, simply deny us and we'll go to BZA. I mean, I don't know what else to do. I mean, what am I supposed to do? I'm literally at a loss. I'm completely at a loss, honestly.

and they're finished with planning commission.

Because I think his point is that planning commission isn't, I mean, what's he going to change?

I don't know.

Between now and planning, well, it would be a, from what I'm gathering, it would be a redesign and you're not really willing to do that.

So how does this work? I go to planning commission and say, architecture review board has suggested we add more units so we could go to three, two, no, it's just not going to work. I'm sorry. It's great. I appreciate the thought, but I don't know how that works.

So what are you waiting for from them? Because they never gave you a final yet?

They timed out. They lost their quorum. Someone had to leave at 10 o'clock. It's our fourth visit with them, and it was submitted for final approval, and they just, at 10 o'clock, somebody left and the meeting ended.

So it can't be a special meeting because you have to have a 30-day public? Is that what... Planning Commission could pick a special date.

They suggested doing a private or non-public

It'll come back on the 14th that's that's the date that this this will come back.

It doesn't really planning Commission at this point doesn't really change anything might correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't you're not going to redesign for planning commission you you are submitted to.

I'm not resign anything at this point. I'm I'm I'm I'm I'm leading a whole totally different direction, unfortunately.

So are you saying you're not able to study the Owen Brown unit further? Because that's what I'm hearing for the direction of the board.

I'm confused. So sorry, this is confusing. So I'm not sure what you're asking us to... Because I don't know what other changes are coming. So you're asking me to go. Redesign that 1 unit. And then other than the facade issues that we have to work through on where we're all generally feeling. Okay.

I would say, yes, yes, yes, the messy and I can grab the exception on that. I don't I don't. particularly have issue with the massing. While it doesn't follow the design standard, I get it, and I'm okay with that.

So I don't think there's a holdup on that.

Okay.

So I think it's just kind of some slight redesigning if we can get the Owen Brown where it needs to be, like from the other pieces.

Okay, so... Right. So we have an application. We have to vote. We don't have to vote tonight. We don't have to vote tonight.

Those are our choices. We don't have to vote. Not immediately.

Well, actually, regardless, let's say that the... height, massing, whether those weren't issues at all, we would still ask for resubmitted drawings because of the amount of facade that would have to be manipulated. It's just there's too much here to go through facade by facade and say, well, add a window here or some other fenestration or change this material. There's... To try to do all of those conditions. That's we don't do that. We haven't done that. That's always been resubmit so that everybody can see what we know.

We've asked, but how are they going to know what they want changed? How do we know what to resubmit? I don't mean to be stupid. I feel stupid.

So on the facade side, I mean, there's fenestration machine that was in the staff comments. There's material that is not appropriately applied that's in the staff comments. So those can all be, I mean, it's written down.

No, no, I understand that.

They can all be addressed.

Just addressing the staff comments?

Yes. From my review of it, yeah. As far as that stuff, the staff comments with the facades were on point.

But I think we need to review the updates. There are going to be quite a few changes. Absolutely.

So I'm trying to understand the process. So. we would be asking the applicant to withdraw? No.

No, it would just be continued. Like a regular application, like any other application you heard this evening, you would just continue it to the next meeting. Then we would place it on the next meeting under old business.

And an applicant would continue if,

that there would be a good chance that the continuation would lead to a positive result.

Am I correct? Yes, I don't know why they would continue if they didn't think, I mean, yeah.

So what I'm getting at is, are we saying, seriously saying that if the facade, fenestration, materials, questions are addressed, and if somehow there's a way in which that one three-story unit on Owen Brown is either reduced in height or in appearance, that the vote,

I mean, and that was number two on the staff comments. It was reduce the heights for the three-story building facing Owen Brown Street and Clinton Street. Staff notes this could be addressed with a mix of reduced floor heights and or incorporation of upper floor with dormers. So that's kind of within the staff comments, too. So it's really kind of going back to the staff comments and really addressing what's here.

I'm taking the place of the applicant. I want to know, are they playing with me? Or am I into this? Or am I walking away?

We're saying that the comments, if we work out through all the comments, and that they address them, the answer is no.

Yeah.

So we have to give them time to address them. Yes.

I'm sorry, I didn't hear that part. I just heard the word no, and then I started. I didn't like that.

So the question is, what you submitted to us, does that meet the comments? They don't.

Staff comments.

We just got the staff comments two days ago.

So in order for you to address the staff comments and present those to us, we need to delay you to the next meeting. That's what we're saying. to give you time to those comments will come back to us.

So next meeting, we show up with address staff comments and additional study consideration of the one Owen Brown unit to either make it look so fabulous that we all fall in love with it. Seems unlikely, Mr. Brown, I'm aware. Or somehow find a way to shrink it to make it more compatible. Is that really where we are?

That's good. Yeah.

Thank you for your time. I have a 7 AM flight tomorrow morning, so I'm going to go home. All right.

So we're going to continue with then?

I guess so.

OK. I'll make a motion to continue this to the next meeting. Second.

OK. OK. All right. Aye. Oh, all in favor? Aye. OK. Sorry.

Thank you. Thank you.

Oh, do you need the flash drive back?

Oh, sure.

You had the green one?

Yeah, I did need that. Thanks.

So, other business. We have the approval of the minutes from August 12th.

Should I comment about that?

Yeah, sure. We can take a look at it. I just don't know if that's going to be...

because the agenda was issued so no just the fact that i'm not listed that i was absent yeah absolutely we would make that okay yeah i mean i can't approve them because i wasn't here but it should be noted that i wasn't do we have a motion to approve the minutes with the yeah okay uh do we have a second second all right all in favor

We didn't have the design review on the agenda.

I have to apologize for that. So I was covering for Lauren, and there was miscommunication, and I thought, oh, we didn't make any changes, so let's kick it a meeting. And she said, well, when she got back, she said, well, actually, they needed to look at them. Those will be on the next week. And then we're going to take a stab at the exception language. I know we wanted to look at that from the previous workshop. So that'll be an update on the next meeting. I think we have another week to work on that.

Yeah.

Okay. One of the things to consider, though, with the design review was, so there was a couple of things where some of the changes were like on the two-story wing and on the L. And we were talking about, like, roof shape. And the language was added that it must match, you know, that the roof shape must match. I think it's a little too strong. I think that should be switched to a... Especially on, like, those style, because there's a lot of times where on, like, the two-story wing or the L, where it doesn't make sense to match the roof. And so... allowing more permissive language as opposed to that strong of language on it, I think makes more sense.

Like where it's applicable or something like that.

Well, if you just use should, it gives some direction but allows discretion. I just thought it was maybe a little too strongly. And then there's a couple other ones I'll just email over. That'd be great.

That's perfect.

And then we can put them in a different color or something. So you can at least read it and say, okay, these changed from the last time I saw it. Yeah. Okay. Is there anything from anyone else? Oh, and we're getting really close on the landmark designation. We are, yes. HHA is down the last handful of homes.

I think there was like four or five.

To submit the OHI forms to the state. Oh, perfect. Yeah, those should be coming to you in the next few meetings. Nice. Yep.

Really good. Okay. If nobody has anything else, we're ready for a motion to adjourn.

All right, I'll move to adjourn at 10.01. Second.

We are adjourned.