Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

So I'd like to call the meeting to order. This is the meeting of the Architectural and Historic Board of Review for Wednesday, September 9th, 2026. We will start with roll call. Tonight we do have quorum. We have Ms. Puzier, Mr. Brown, Ms. Marzulla, Mr. Workley, and myself. So we do have more than four members for quorum. We will now open it to public comment. 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 tonight? Seeing none, we will close public comment. We will move on to consent applications. Tonight we have two. First is 26-1217-290 North Main Street. This is a fence in the Historic District. And 26-1079-134 Aurora Street. And this is a new window in the Historic District.

Make a motion to approve as submitted.

I'll second.

All in favor?

Aye.

That is all for consent, opening all the business. First is 2026-94586 Owen Brown Street, and these are town homes.

Yes, I can give a staff update. This application was continued from the August 26th HBR meeting, and the site plan will be reviewed by the Planning Commission next Monday at the September 14th meeting. It was continued from the previous meeting. and the applicant has submitted additional documentation. Since the overall massing and height in the Owen Brown Street unit were such a critical item, the applicant has looked at that and asked that the board consider the updates that we're about to show you. We understand that there's additional documentation, updates that would need to be submitted, and the board would likely want to see those however the board could consider a motion tonight to approve the building height and massing if they're comfortable with with the updates with that the applicants here and they have an updated presentation that i'd like to walk through

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

Good evening, I'm Adam Fishman, Fairmount Properties, 200 Park Avenue, Orange Village, Ohio. I'm with Fairmount Properties. We are the proposed, we're the property owner and proposed developer.

Bryce Hamill with Fairmount Properties, 200 Park Avenue, Suite 220, Orange Village, with the developer.

Also, if it pleases the chair, I'm joined by Suzanne Meltzer of RDL Architects and Danielle Easton of Tucker LSR Council. Thank you for seeing us again. Good to be with you all. We've made some, we think we've put a lot of thought into our last conversation. We're gonna run through a much briefer slideshow tonight and hopefully get to some resolution. Nick, are you driving? Thank you. Just to remind everybody, this is adjacent to our first domain development. We started in 2001, opened in 2004. The site, you can keep going. The site itself is immediately across the creek and west of the existing two- and three-story townhomes that we developed in conjunction with the first and main development. Again, a little less than 25 years ago. Thank you. to remind everybody the current use of the site uh is a uh large sort of industrialish building i tried to do some research i couldn't quite figure out if this was built as part of the original morse controls factories we all remember maybe you guys don't but i do morse controls was a giant factory that was right where the first domain development was When we first came along, and Morse Controls was bought by the city and torn down to make way for 1st and Main. So for 50, 65 years, there was a giant manufacturing building behind the residence of Owen Brown. And I couldn't quite figure out if this was built as an original outbuilding, but I did a fairly deep dive, but I couldn't quite ascertain. So I don't know. But the current use, of course, is a Farinacci and a defunct music school, and the building's in some state of disrepair. Thanks, Nick. You can keep going on. This is additional looks at that building, both from the parking lot to the northwest and the view from Owen Brown. Not particularly ideal. Keep going. And then the view from Morris Road looking east. Thank you. So, as you know, we've been to Planning Commission several times. Hopefully, we'll be successful. They timed out the last time we were with them. They have not had a meeting since we were with you, so we haven't been before them yet. But this is the site plan that we finally arrived at and presented partially. Well, we presented it completely to Planning Commission. They didn't have time to act before they had to disband a meeting. It shows 18 town homes in six pods of three, separated by some green space, parking area, curb cuts on both Clinton and Owen Brown. The Owen Brown curb cut was submitted and received and approved by BZA. And we hope to receive final approval. We saw it, I should say, in the meeting, as Mr. Schroeder indicated, on Monday night. Thank you. Just to remind you, we originally showed up with 22 townhomes, which the site is entitled for. 21? Sorry, 21 townhomes, which the site is entitled for. And then we made some modifications to reduce the density of Planning Commission's direction, which led us to where we are now, which is 18 townhomes in six pods of three. Thank you. There was a request to provide a more colored site plan to make it easier to identify units by unit number and unit configuration, so this plan is being presented to you today at your request. Thank you. And again, the architectural basis for design was We're trying to not replicate any specific single architectural precedent, but we're trying to integrate a tapestry of design that ranges from the existing first in Maine, the library, the town homes, the Owen Brown residence, and the environment that surrounds it, and creating something that is both consistent with your code, which is a challenge, but also consistent with the neighborhood. And the design we've come up with both, we think, takes all those things into consideration. Thank you, Mr. Sugar. And here you can begin to see, I'm not sure if you could bump that up a little bit, but you guys could probably see it good enough. It's fine, actually. You can see the Owen Brown homes on the top of the page. Our Morse Road and elevations both north and south in the middle of the page. and some of the existing vernacular in the existing town homes of First and Main that have been, I think, enjoyed by the community for the last 20 odd years. The bottom of the page, we like to think that this slide actually does a really good job of depicting sort of how these all sort of work together in, we believe, a harmonious way. Thank you. Okay, now, sort of the crux of the issue, right? Let's get down to it. We were asked specifically to look at, and is there a, can I go Phil Donahue here? By the way, for the record, I didn't get sworn in tonight. Do I need to be? It's not a hearing. Oh, okay. Thank you. I thought I got sworn in last time.

No.

It must be planning commission. Yeah. Ah, planning and BCBA.

My bad. Sorry.

Thank you.

Thank you. Hi. Yeah. Yeah. Good? Okay, thanks. So of course the crux of the issue was predominantly the home on Owen Brown. Just to sort of reset the table, it's critically important for us for that to remain three stories of living space so it's economically viable. I probably didn't talk about this enough last time, but the economics of these kinds of developments are 100% of your profits, and the reason I'm doing this, the reason my investor is investing capital alongside my partner and I, 100% of your profits are tied up in your last 15 to 20% of your units, sometimes last 10% of your units. When we went from 21 units to 18 units, it put incredible pressure on the pro forma. So every unit and the viability of it is so critically important to us now. That's why I just don't want people to think we're being obstinate. It is incredibly difficult to make a pro forma work when we're utilizing the land less efficiently than we could be otherwise. It's fine, we're okay with it, but this unit becomes of critical economic importance to us. And what we won't do, as I've said time and time again, is we won't sacrifice quality. If I can't build a product that is commensurate with the quality of First Domain, commensurate with the townhomes we've already built, commensurate with virtually every other Fairmount Properties project, commensurate with what the Murdos set forth for us to do when we first developed First to Main, we would just not build, right? So that's just sort of our ethos. So we looked at two things really here on this unit, which is the unit in question, the three-story unit, to try and break the mass and make it more palatable and more harmonious with the Owen Brown neighborhood. On the top you see the unit that has the Suzanne hip-a-ga-bull, which is a term my architect coined because she was not an English major, which means it's a gable roof and a hip roof combined. And you can see it sort of breaks the mass at the top, but still sort of has a three-story element. But then below, we actually, I think, took some of the advice and conversation we had from this board and we've actually sort of reconfigured the insides of the third story, the bedroom spaces, and we've created this massing, which we think actually reads much more like a two-story, maybe with a small attic, But by turning the rooms, we can show you the interior gives us adequate living space. We've also reduced the height of that building. So we've modified the Owen Brown elevation to identify visually with a two-story architectural expression here. And we've reduced the overall measured building height. The building is now two feet below the codes allowable 35-foot measured building height. And again, trying to figure out a way to We're trying to put a lot of stuff into a package that's just not quite big enough, right? Now, we submitted both these to staff. Staff's preference was certainly for this choice, but we did continue to study both of them, and I'll show you architecturally if we can go to the next image. By the way, kick me when I need to just jump in if I left something out. So here you begin to see the unit that's three stories with the hip roof, and part of what this hip roof does, and you can see it better here, is it takes a significant portion of the presentation and pushes it. Suzanne, how many feet back off of the, the second facade is behind the first facade by how far? Yeah. Yeah. So you get some relief here and you get sort of a broken mass at the top. Still reads like a three-story unit, but reads, we think, much more harmoniously and consistently with the balance of the community. At the same time, by the way, we've gone back and we've studied this and showed you this last time, But we've gone back to just showing the flat roof and the outdoor space here. If you recall, last time we had some conversations on that lower piece about maybe putting a, what was that called, an angled, well.

We were going to have a pitched roof over a portion of that deck.

So, but that's an aside to the primary point I'm making here. Let's keep going to the next image. So the next image you begin to see what the staff preferred, which is by turning some of the livable space on the third floor It's sub-optimal, honestly, in terms of marketability and standpoint, but we're trying to compromise and we're trying to sort of get to a place where we all can be better. We've moved the primary windows to the side and created more of a peaked roof and then a broken mast behind. So it reads, we think, in a way that hopefully pleases your eye. Because staff had preferred that one of the two choices we provided, we did a further architectural study of that in concept. Can you go to the next image? And Bryce, you want to talk through this a little bit?

Sure, yeah, I think Adam did a great job of just sort of orienting us to what the modifications are. I think part of what we wanted to show in the next image is just sort of the variety and the complexity of how each of these facades works together. That tends to sort of draw your eye to how we utilize some of the adjacent architectures and implemented this site as sort of the collector of multiple forms of architecture. I think in general when, maybe move that down a little bit since, yeah. I think one of the things that's interesting when we saw the two renderings, one of the hippable option and one of the dormered option here, is that the dormered option read fatter and it is because it is reading shorter. And so losing that two feet, which I think we had a good back and forth with staff on pushing that overall height down, It does read more two stories. It does read a little shorter, a little flatter, and it does sort of integrate better with the adjacent two-story units. I think one of the reasons why, as Mr. Sugar noted, that we understand we need to come back again for some of the facade articulation and those items is that approval of this unit and its sort of massing and its form will allow us to sort of use that and integrate into adjacent, call it roof forms, and modify things so that we get that integration from the adjacent units. One of the other things that we like to point out is that one of our primary reasons for doing the connections that we did between the three units combined as townhomes was so that in any one view, you really only read this as two units combined with each other, not three, not four, not a wall, not a presence that reads something other than more single family articulation, but a little bit more porous and a little bit more gentle to the streetscape.

Sure. Thank you. Could you walk through this?

Yeah, we talked about this drawing last time. I think just because we are coming back and presenting with the single story roof deck option as the connector between what you see here is unit A1 and B3. That red line is essentially where that pitched roof went. And we just wanted to make sure as conversation continued, we remembered what the negative impacts to doing that to the livable space on the interior were.

So quickly, the code states that you can waive any requirement of the standards in order to achieve a proposed project. If AHB finds it fulfills the five principles, we're not going to review those principles again because it will... for you to death, because it probably did last time. But the two criteria are exceptional design and practical difficulty. And I spent probably way too much time last time talking about the fact that this is exceptional design. I do think, given the constraints of the site, the fact that we're bringing urban living to downtown, whether you like the architecture or not, and the architecture in many ways is driven by your code and the fabric of downtown, the design itself, the site plan, the creativity, the broken masses, the open spaces, um the fact that we've got these units that only read two units at a time in a downtown environment that we've got a small site where we're creating density which we were we were certainly led to believe that something the community wants on this particular site we do think that is exceptional but more importantly there is greater practical difficulty so nick if you want someone yeah so the exceptional design i just talked about this but um you know create appropriate architectural relationship to owen brown maintain residential scale that's compatible with Hudson, provide a viable number of homes to meet the city requirement for density, and create meaningful architectural variance. So we think it does do that. Whether you actually like it or not, I think that's a matter of taste. We think they're fabulous. Of course we do. That should come as no surprise to anybody. But we do think more importantly we've got a lot of practical challenges. Nick, if you can go to the next slide. This is a unique site. It's got incredibly difficult program characteristics. The site is not an unconstrained development parcel on which the program can simply be shifted laterally. The available area, building, envelopes, setbacks, Street relationships and site circulation establish a finite development framework. The difficulty is not self-created. Planning Commission directed us to modify the site plan to have open spaces to encourage innovative design with the residential development so that the growing demand for housing may be met with a greater variety type design and layout of dwellings and by conservative and more efficient use of open space ancillary to the dwelling. So we got here in a collaborative way with this community, but it has presented some practical difficulties. Thank you. Thank you. So our request, Nick, just because I'm blind, could you make it a little bigger? So specifically, we are requesting that the AHBR waive the two-story townhome type requirement of Section 4-11A and B, the City of Hudson Design Code, to allow for occupied third level within the 33 to 35 foot maximum allowable building height limitation. In addition, the applicant requests approval of the proposed overall project massing and building composition as presented. and with the condition that the individual building elevations require continued refinement and further submission to AHBR. So we are not coming here for everything tonight. We're coming for direction on these two primary issues so that we can make a decision if we should continue to invest time and treasure in moving this project forward. Before I relinquish the floor, anything to add?

Councillor, architect, anything to add?

Laura thinks I did good. Thank you.

Great. Ms. Puzzi, questions, comments, thoughts?

It's about, you're making me start tonight, cool. Just about the two different options. Or in general. The two different options, I definitely agree with staff. I like the second one, the one that's up on the screen right now. Even though it's such an optical illusion, I mean, it's still three-story, but it really looks smaller to me. I like the fact that you've got the roof in the front a little bit here. It's still a pleasant design. To me, it looks much better.

Rob?

Regarding your two requests, I mean, the second, I understand that the second request, the request to waive the math, I guess the math thing, you know, the arrangement, the plan arrangement, you know, I think working with, I understand where that comes from, working from the feedback from planning commission. I just don't see any constraints on this site or anything in the design to allow here and not elsewhere. I mean, the fact that the site is finite, I mean, all sites are finite. This is a level rectangular lot. I think the code is clear in its requirements. not, you know, an obscure reference. I think it's a big request. And I think this is a, you know, substantial development with mostly three-story townhomes. So I just, I really don't see a reason in the code or, you know, I don't see a justification for waiving that. And I think Frankly, personally, I mean, it's also out of scale with the joining of the Brown and the development you've already done, which is all two-story. The commercial, the bulk of the first and main area and the bulk of the historic downtown. I just, I don't know, I don't see a path to justify me. Sort of. I don't have a problem with the design. I don't think it's fair to you for me to get into what I'd like and don't like about different numbers and stuff. I think it looks like a nice project. I just don't understand why this lot versus another lot, why this project would be worthy of a waiver and the next one won't be. It just seems like we'd be essentially ruling against the code.

I agree that the design that's on the with the dormers on the side is better than what was there before. You're still going to have that row behind it with a few couple feet higher and three store obvious three stories. And I do The exceptional design request, it really has to do with more of the site and what planning is it, more so than the architectural design. So as Mr. Brown said, I don't agree with that request as equaling into exceptional design.

All right. Well, I'm kind of to the contrary. I think the layout, the location, and what's been done to blend in with the neighboring single-family homes as well as the existing townhomes that are there, I think it makes a great compromise for future development from that standpoint and understanding of what's happened here. So the five principles that we're talking about is Does it maintain or create the maintenance of the public realm, which I think it does, over other individual buildings? Does it have a high level of architectural quality? It does. does it respect the land and environment which they are placed it does on all sides we just discussed about owen brown and the height of this particular option which i like as well this option and it has a variety of of defined framework obviously throughout every elevation and with respects the existing context and framework with what they're proposing. So I think it meets all five points to some point. That's why I'm thinking that with that, it allows us to look at the exception for the proposed height and overall mass.

So year and O, year and O. I'm in the same spot that I was last time. I think that the three story, you really don't find it in Hudson. There's just not much three story. You know, the town is one and a half, two stories, is the vast majority of the entire community, whether it was historic district or even what has been built since. So I'm in the same spot on that. I mean, I do think it's better, but I still think it's too tall. I think 35 feet is too tall for this. I mean, that's... It's your code. Well, but the code also allows us to take it in context with the neighborhood. And to say that it doesn't fit the neighborhood. And I look at it the same way. It doesn't fit Owen Brown.

So I hear you, and before you deny me, which clearly is the path you're going based on my counting of noses, I would tell you a few things. The project immediately adjacent to it is two and three-story. Works beautifully and harmoniously in this community, in my opinion at least, but it's a precedent and it's right there. Everything this community has shown for Clinton Crossings, which has not been approved by you, has been contemplated to be three-story. This project is in the fulcrum of those two-story and three-story products. already existing and it is what you're planning in your own community. So I get it. You will deny me. That will leave me the options of taking this to BZA or just leaving the existing property the way it is and leasing it to the available use as I can, which you should check your code. is a list of things that nobody really likes. So that's where we are. And that's just the economic reality of it. I've put leasing and sale signs up on the property because my investor simply does not understand how this community who wants density, who wants this kind of product, who doesn't want what's there, and has a developer that's successfully developed in this community for the last 25 years, can't get through a planning commission and an architectural review board that are giving us varying directions. And if you are trying, If you are trying to promote development in the future, I can assure you future developers will continue to watch this process. So you go ahead and deny me. I understand. That is within your right. And we will decide to either leave the property the way it stands for as long as... We need to until the next board comes along, I guess, or take it to BZA and try our luck there. But it's not a choice of just do something different. It's a choice of doing the project or not doing the project. And I guess you'd rather see the existing, what's there now, stay there as opposed to what we've designed. That is 100% within your purview, and I understand that.

Well, that's not what we're saying. What we're saying is that the project that you're putting in front of us doesn't meet the code. We're not saying keep it as it is.

But you clearly have the authority to pass it legally should you choose. You have that power. You're choosing to not exercise that power, but you clearly have that power.

And I would say you're premature on an application anyway because PC hasn't approved it and we don't have elevations to approve.

so i wouldn't even if i agreed with it i wouldn't vote tonight on it anyway and please deny it i respectfully request you deny it because i don't want to come back here that would be a motion but a denial and we're not going to do a motion

Just to note, you do have the ability to make a motion. So section, I looked at this, I know this came up before. Section 1203.09 in the land development code that walks through the site plan review process. And it walks through each step of the review process. Step six is design, review, and action. So at the applicant's option, an application for architecture and design review of development may be filed for concurrent review with the application for site plan approval. So you can have these two reviews going on at the same time. And then I guess just... Yes. They can be concurrent, the reviews. And just for...

Reviews, but not necessarily in motion. I mean, we can review it, but it doesn't say we're moving on it.

My interpretation of that is you can make motions on architecture while planning commission review is going on for the site plan. And then just for just for my clarity, I from my notes from the board from the last meeting I was tracking aside from Mr Brown. Other members were were comfortable with the three story. If the Owen Brown St massing in height was resolved and I I guess I'm just asking if that if if if that has not been resolved and that's the opinion or if something had changed from. From my notes or the opinion. Of the members.

i think the only opinion of that one was mr inski who isn't here tonight i mean you're honestly you're missing two people that probably would have or could have been i should say probably but could have been in favor yeah that's a bummer by the way for the record

So the proposal could be continued to give the applicant the courtesy of a full board. That's an option.

I prefer denial, actually, at this point. I'd rather tell my investor we're not moving forward and either decide to go to BZA, potentially file suit, or just lease the building and leave it there, and we can all look at it for a few years and think about it. I mean, it's just this is – I'm – I'm trying to, I'm literally trying my hardest to invest tens of millions of dollars more in this community where we've already invested tens of millions of dollars and done something.

Okay, so then somebody's willing to make a motion.

I don't want to do it.

That's fine. Somebody make a motion then.

Does the motion need to, having never made a motion to deny, does the motion need to spell out the denial?

Yes. you would give high-level findings at this time and request staff prepare the formal findings to be reviewed at the next meeting?

Simply based on the applicant's desire to have three-story units when the code restricts town-owned development to two stories.

All in favor? Or actually, why don't we call a roll on it?

Sure. Ms. Whitsier? No. Mr. Brown?

Yes. Are you saying no?

Yeah. Are you saying no to his denial?

Yes. I don't agree.

Sorry.

Ms. Marzullo? Yes. Mr. Caputo? No. Mr. Workley?

No. Wait.

You're voting yes to his denial. You're voting in the positive for his... Oh, for the denial. Yes.

Apologize. Yes.

Ms. Merkley?

No.

Motion passed.

So motion passes 3-2. That is all for old business, new business. First is 26-1201 530 Acres Lane and this is a demolition of a detached garage.

yes i can give a brief orientation here this is for the demolition of a three-car detached garage staff notes that the previous building demolition items were approved as part of the previous application that the board saw in may of 2026 and staff knows the detached garage was built in approximately 1950 as far as staff could tell that was as far as it showed up on our overhead view and i didn't have many other documents on it to go but it's at least was built before 1950. The applicant is here this evening to answer any additional questions that the board may have.

Can you just stick your name and relationship to the application?

Sure. Matt Plesnik, architect from Cleveland Draw Architecture. The owner's architect. Not here tonight.

So this is just a finding of whether or not this structure has historic significance or architectural significance. Ms. Puzia, do you have any opinion on whether it has historic or architectural significance?

I do not believe it does have historic or architectural significance.

Mr. Brown?

I agree.

Ms. Marzula?

I agree that it doesn't, but I did want to ask, are there any thoughts or... I know you already have garages attached or broken up the house or new plans. Are you planning to do anything as a detached?

If you take this one down and do... No, the structure... We're not erecting another structure in its place, so we would just level the ground and grade the area. It would be grass, so...

It does not have a story. Okay.

Read the finding.

As this property is outside the historic district and is not an individual historic landmark, the Architectural and Historic Board of Review makes the following recommendation. The Architectural and Historic Board of Review finds the structure at 530 Acres Lane does not have historic or architectural significance. Further, the board finds that the application for a permit to demolish the structure will not voluntarily consent to the retention of the building.

Second.

All in favor? Aye. Anybody opposed? Okay, thank you. 26-10525 Baldwin Street, and this is siding windows and an awning in the historic district.

yes this is within the historic district as chair caputo stated this is for siding windows and an awning to be added to the structure the west side of the structure specifically for that awning you have just some brief staff comments before you here staff suggests the applicant take this meeting to discuss the proposed project with the board and verify the scope of work additionally staff suggests the board utilize this meeting for questions for the applicant and to set a time for the site visit up note the applicant is proposing geldwin sightline series windows for the replacement of historic materials. Staff just notes that this window is not currently on the approved list for the replacement of historic materials on historic structures. And additionally, just to question the appropriateness of the proposed transom windows on the historic carriage house. The applicant is here this evening to answer any additional questions that the board may have.

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

Good evening. My name is Nathan Zampelli, owner at 5 Baldwin.

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

I did. Okay. I did. And Lauren actually passed off to me today what windows have been approved within the historical district. We are not set on a particular manufacturer. We did come up with the gelled windows because they were all wood and they were the closest resemblance to the historical with the true divided light. But I would not be opposed to looking at any of the other manufacturers.

And then I guess if you can just kind of go over the scope of work.

And I did bring some of the siding with regards to residing. I did bring the two options. I don't know if you'd like me to pass them on board.

I feel like we need to.

No, we could. You can.

I don't think you need to pass them. Yeah. Yeah.

um what we would like to do uh the detached barn is in uh desperate need of some tlc we are new owners to the property within the last two years we're trying to clean up the barn itself there are two different style sidings on that barn When you're in the barn, you can see daylight outside. and we'd like to close up those gaps and replace that damaged siding, make it a more universal to where the siding matches all the way around the structure. I did include pictures of the four existing windows in the structure. Two would be on the west elevation, one on the north, which you can't see from any direction. I tried to take a picture as close as I could, but it's overgrown vegetation. And on the other two sides, which would be the east side and the north side Those windows are in desperate need of replacement Cracked panes inoperable They're literally falling apart And I would invite the staff to come out for a site visit to see that we did that when we did our home renovation On the home itself when we did the porch addition to the existing home As far as the awning goes, the awning would match what we most recently did on the existing home, which they are within visible sight of each other. We're keeping all window sizes the same on the replacement of the existing four windows. And we would like to add the three transoms, which we feel fit within scale of the structure itself. We're trying to add some natural light into that second floor loft area. And that is the side that faces our home.

So I would recommend a site visit on this. We normally do a site visit for this type of work. But Ms. Puzzi, do you have questions or comments and what are your thoughts on a site visit?

I'd like to see it in person.

I grant a site visit. I mean, is it worth discussing details?

I guess if you have exception to certain details, it's probably good to bring it up just so the applicant has a chance to...

Well, no, I mean, without knowing, kind of, there's a loft. Yes. And, like, I understand the elevation, but, like, where the loft is, like, the loft floor. The loft. I mean, it would be nice if they related to the windows below. Like, if there were two, like, above, you know. If three and kind of one is almost over the door and then one is between the two.

Well, if you'll notice the two doors. do not match front to back. They're offset to begin with. The two existing windows.

Yeah, and the door is also not. We're already starting with the countertops.

We actually put this into an AI and said, what is the best layout if we were to add three windows or two windows above the existing? And this is what it came out with. And I think the colored rendering shows that. The loft floor is at not that the second floor is at nine foot. The sill of the window would would be at almost. Oh, it would be 10 foot 8.

I mean, I don't have a. kind of solution. I mean, there's just something. I mean, those windows are so different than the windows below.

Well, we're restricted on height.

I think I just would like to see a person kind of understand where the loft is and what the light is.

There's a lot of mullions going on. in those top windows and I'm sure that was just AI doing that but I mean maybe even just getting rid of just having I was under the assumption that we needed to add maybe not those three okay maybe just one I don't know um but maybe just one would settle it a little bit so it's not so choppy but yeah it's a long it's wonky it's yeah it's off center as it is so it's going to be tough but I'd love to see a design with the two instead of the three just to kind of see the difference.

Would you take those two and put them directly above the existing two?

Probably. Maybe stretch them wider.

Stretch them wider.

Maybe. I mean, it's just, again, it's a quirky building, right? I mean, it's not your main house, so we have to take that into account, too. It's not going to be perfect, per se, because the existing building's not perfect, and you're not going to be perfect. Absolutely.

I know we would love to, we openly invite the staff over to take a look at it, because I think a visual will give you a better understanding of what we're looking to do here. Trying to save the structure before it goes beyond the point.

Is the framing in good shape? It's just the siding that needs to be replaced?

The framing, interior framing, we've done some work on to shore it up. Yes.

Ms. Marzullo?

I just want to, there is a square window in, is that the north side that we're looking at it in the interior?

Yes.

And I guess, I don't know, a smaller version of a square. Sometimes you do see a square window on some of the barns, you know, rather than a transom, but I don't know if that works as far.

It doesn't work height-wise because those transoms right now, what you're seeing in elevation, are only one foot eight inches off the second floor floor. So we had such minimum height to work with. That's why we came up and making them. I mean, we're open to suggestions, but we are restricted height wise on where those windows could be. 18 inches would be the max.

Like opportunities.

There's two other windows on the second floor, one that faces north and then a small window that faces east. And I think those pictures are in. What was attached in my application it did show those windows.

I think we should go to one site and check it out. The issue I have with the side elevation with the three long windows is, again, it doesn't feel like it relates. It feels like it's a more modern or something that we would allow when someone's trying to put in a Big huge bed and they don't want a window. Um, they'll propose these. Um, if you want, if you're looking for something, that's more of a transom, I would rather have them be aligned with the existing windows and only 2. And be the 36 inches wide only so that only be 36 inches.

Yeah.

Because if you look at most of the houses that are of this era, which have a small sliver window up in that loft area, it matches the width of the window below. It's kind of like a transom situation. So I think that's what we're balking to the width and the four bays of it. If it's two bays, like the two bays below, you've got a two over two, and then if the transom above is two, that would create a better relationship and a little more harmonious. And I don't see that it's that far off of being Even like this, the white space. If there was a door on the backside in the white space, it would almost balance it out. So with having just the two windows above, I don't see that that would be anything less unbalanced other than the door. And I'm fine with the, you know, the canopy over the door to matching the rest of the place is fine.

And I'm not against I'm not against adding two windows, you know, to 36 inch wide transoms. That's

I think if we get a look, if it would show you something like that.

And I can quickly, you know, I can have that drawn up and submitted for everyone's. Yeah, that's all I have.

Okay, so I think we'll get it set up for a site visit. Staff will reach out to you and we will probably see you sometime next week.

Great, make a motion.

Yeah, we do have to do a motion for a site visit. To continue. Yeah. Well, for the site visit. Mm-hmm.

make a motion to have a site visit to take a look at the windows in the building second all in favor aye okay so would you like me to draw this up with the comments taking them in consideration of uh taking the three making it two lining it up with the existing windows and keeping in the width i think it would make sense okay Yeah, and I'll submit that. I'll download that on our application. I'll have that tomorrow. Right. Thank you.

Thank you. 26-643-2200 Middleton Road. And this is an addition.

Yes, this is for an addition of a living room and a primary suite. You have the staff comments before you. Just some brief orientation to the project here. The boards did see this project informally early in the spring this year. Just a brief orientation on the site plan. Right now, the house orients to Middleton Road. It is a very unique lot. You can see this here. So right now the front door orients to Middleton wrote it as part of this elevation here the proposal before you tonight is proposing to relocate the front door to the side elevation which would make this now the front elevation here with the masses and this would be an LFA addition to the now the rear of the home. Also, additionally, staff just called out a few things within the staff comments. Staff notes the applicant is proposing a brick siding on the left and rear elevations that would not be applied around the entire mass and to just revise the elevations to correct that. Additionally, staff notes that a mix of fixed encasement windows are proposed while the main mass has double hung. Additionally, staff noted call out for the exposed foundation as well as the fenestration requirement. Um, the applicant is here this evening to answer any additional questions that the board may have.

State your name in relationship to the application.

Yeah, just color with pencil architects on 1 of the applicants.

I'm Joseph with pencil architects. If you want to go through the staff comments.

Yeah, so big changes since last time we were here. Really shrunk down the addition to just be the living room and new primary bedroom. The client had their fourth child and their priorities kind of changed and they really wanted this smaller scheme of the addition to go forward as quickly as possible just to help service their needs. As far as the brick versus the block, whether it's on the foundation or on the wall above, our goal was to tie into the existing black brick chimney mass on the top center of the existing house there. The existing foundation is just exposed concrete block and is not attractive and is honestly barely visible on most of the house. So we were thinking that it would be better to tie into the black brick, which is much more attractive and historically correct, honestly, rather than the CMU block. As far as the brick being exposed on different elevations, I mean, we've got it on three of the elevations. We think it really helps to break up just the siding. I think the house has plenty of horizontal lap siding. I'm not sure we need the entire house to just be that continuously around it from a design standpoint. So our goal is just to break that up, introduce the new material. or not really new, but more of the existing material around the house and try and tie it together. Let's see. The one comment that I did not understand was comment D. It said that we didn't have a window every 12 foot on the left side elevation, but yet when you look at that elevation, which is the one on the bottom of the screen right now, we have a window within 12 foot, and the ones on the first floor are almost continuous across that entire elevation, so I just wasn't sure what you guys were looking to see there.

think staff's comment there was more of is it's it's the kind of called linear glass on top isn't quite enough fenestration we can discuss it but i i think that's where staff's comment would come from okay so what would be enough then well we it's something we'll discuss okay

Otherwise, the double hungs versus casements, I mean, I think there's plenty of historical precedent for casement windows. But if that's a, if the double hungs are a total deal breaker, I think we're willing to discuss that. I think the punched openings, we would be okay with switching to double hungs. The solid glass windows on the first floor, We're not so willing. We think the overall effect from the interior tying into the site, the landscape, the views are just absolutely critical to us and our client.

What did you say the client was?

The solid glass windows on the bottom, on the first floor.

I think maybe if we look at our actual renderings.

The left side of that or the right?

If we could pull the renderings up, that might be helpful.

All of it?

Both sides?

So what we're saying is that this project is really a mix of like punched openings, which are typical, but it also has this mix of kind of floor to ceiling glass in a couple places that are really kind of a dramatic thing where we can kind of connect inside to out. And we see those punched openings as we could transition those into a double hung unit and make that all kind of jive with the rest of the house. We we really feel like the strength of this design for this client is something that is really connected to the site and those those those 2 areas there where we've got the walls of glass are are really why the why the owner wants to do the project. I think we've got some interior renders of those looking out as well. I think what those are really the.

Yeah.

So, you know, when you're inside the existing living space, you're not looking through little punched openings to this awesome landscape. You've got these great views. And so, you know, in our mind, it's like, it's okay to kind of mix those together because these are kind of, not public views, not public elevations. The public elevations, even though we're 600 feet from the street, would all be punched openings that could be double-hungs. We're showing them as casements now, but they could be double-hungs. But this is an important part of our client's goals on this project is to really kind of connect the house to the landscape. So we feel like we're doing it in a real discreet way.

Uh-huh. I guess the only thing I would say is that as far as the brick and how it's applied around the mass, that is something that we've been pretty consistent on, that it needs to be applied in the whole water table and it needs to be applied around the entire mass. So that's an exception that we really, I can't think of when we have granted an exception on that material change.

You're talking about that one area?

I think it's there. And I thought I thought there was one other one, but I'm not.

Yeah. Yeah, that's where it turns the corner. I think our renders really kind of are a good way to explain why we did that. Because first of all, you know, it is a it is a brick that's on the house, right? This this break, you go to the

Look at that corner.

Yeah, that's a good example right there in terms of that's an existing brick that's on the house, right? And so our idea is that if you're going to kind of have these large windows that are going to have dark frames... Why not make it blend to the brick and make it all kind of uniform so it's just not like this flash of siding. The brick kind of helps it blend in and kind of breaks up all that siding. And then it ties in with the existing brick on the house. And again, not a public elevation, right? It's more of a private elevation from the owners looking at this from their pool and from their backyard. And so, you know, if we look at that as siding, which we could do as siding. Certainly, you know, we could do it. It's not going to be cheaper, but it would jump out as this chunk of siding in the middle of all this other glass. So we're trying to just from a design standpoint, kind of make it a little quieter.

We can run through the. So let's put it here.

I totally understand where you're coming from, but it isn't. In the code, which makes it a little more difficult. As far as I'd like to talk about the fenestration, the reason why you have the tiny windows on that wall with the brick. Is there a design?

It's a stairwell, isn't it?

Yeah, it's a stairwell. It's really kind of the thing that we've got a really cool artist client who's looking for wall space for large format art and looking for cool ways to bring light in. So it's just kind of more like we're treating this space. And if you look at some of the interior renders, it's more like, you know, it's a space you live in, but it's kind of an art museum. And this guy's got incredible art that he makes and that he has bought. And so we're trying to kind of bring that vibe into his house, which is why we're making some of those choices. You know, wall space is important. And light is important. So that's... It's a really unique opportunity for us, for a client that's really dialed into architecture and wants cool things. And we're like, yeah, man, you're living in Hudson. And he's like, I know. I like the schools. So we're trying to kind of find that little, you know, trying to get him to a spot that he can be happy about being here for the rest. You know, because his kids are young, he wants to make this his forever home. So that's really a lot of the thought process there.

So the rules of fenestration, is there a specific height that they need to be to count as fenestration?

Because I mean, it's subjective in a lot of ways. And on fenestration, especially on the rear elevation, we have generally been more lenient, especially on the rear elevation. Right. Because that's generally out of public view. Now, this is a unique property. And you were at the one? No. Okay. So bringing up the site would probably help orient. It's a really unique lot.

I did see the site that is kind of almost landlocked with a long driveway. It is other than a driveway. Yeah.

Yeah. So it sits back considerably. It's literally behind all the rest. It's seven acres-ish? Nine? Okay. So it's a big property.

So none of this is going to be viewed from the street?

It's odd. I think the closest person that could view it is actually on the cul-de-sac to the south.

Okay.

Yeah, which is the other side of the swimming pool. So this is actually on the opposite side of the house from the closest, I mean, if you call it public view, it's somebody else's backyard.

Okay.

Yeah.

And these large openings are kind of set up to view dead west, kind of down the bowling alley.

And they are changing the orientation of the house. Technically, right now, it technically faces Middleton. Now, which is north, it would actually face east. Correct?

Okay. Which is kind of how you arrive now. If you can see where that driveway comes in from the north, you really can't find the front door because you've kind of already passed it once you got to the house. And so they really use the side doors, the front door, And so we're just basically reappropriate. That's considered, that's the door they use as their front door. And if you look at the rest of the pictures, let's see if we get, yeah. You never really see this elevation. You're past it by the time you get through the woods. So it's kind of, yeah, a strange one.

Can I see the front of the house again, please? I just want to look at the windows.

No grills on the left side.

There's already no girls in there.

Okay. Right. That's interesting. Wow. Yeah.

Two oddball windows.

They might've popped out.

I don't know. They gotta be the snap in ones.

Gotta have to be right. You can't just pull out the window.

It's such a cool house. I mean, and the fact that it's the wood siding, we're keeping that same wood siding hard to find these days.

There are all the windows on all the other sides also double hung right now.

If you look around, there's a large already a mixture. Let's keep looking around. There we go. We got a large fixed unit there. That's in the kitchen.

Okay.

And a real small double hung in the corner of the kitchen there as well. So yeah, that kitchen. What's really cool in the kitchen is you get that great view. You're looking right down that escape zone.

Okay. Sorry, let me look at my notes here.

Like we said, we're happy to do all the punched openings in our proposal in a double hung window. You see it when you come down the driveway, you see the east and the north elevations that will all look like the rest of the house. Right there, yep, on the top right, we can make those double hungs on both floors and on the bottom. and we can modify the windows in that bay upstairs. It's just that when we go to that west and south elevation is where we really feel strongly that this is a unique design that's really taking advantage of the site and its owner's kind of private domain.

You can't tell I'm new. I don't know all the precedents yet. So I would like to ask the board what the precedent is for having this.

I would consider this the rear of the home, which we have allowed to have more of this style on the rear. There's there's. been i think numerous applications where you know on that back side getting more especially when you have a property like this right right it's if this isn't in a tight development uh that we have allowed that that it's call it more informal rear windows

Right. Okay. I mean, I'm, I'm all for the informal rear windows as long as there was precedent. And as long as we do that kind of thing here, I think it's a great idea. Um, it definitely takes advantage of nature as well. And I do like switching to the double hungs on the front just to keep the consistency and to, to be more per code. Uh, let's see. I think that was it, right? Oh, the, the, the brick maybe can handle that. Um, i'm good with the small windows too those those small windows again it's not the front elevation it makes sense from a functional standpoint so that's all i have mr brown um i have a kind of a technical question um just moving and i'm i totally i agree with you in terms of like the approach to the

But does moving the entry move what's considered by the code the front of the building? Because I assume the issue would be that the addition would be forward of the front of the building. So not only does moving the door to the side make the entry more gracious, but it also removes the exception for having an addition to the side. So I just want to be kind of sure that means that how the code works. Like if you put the door on the other side of the building, now that's the front?

And they're allowed because they're more than 130 feet back.

Okay, so it already is.

The setback allows for the transition of the door. The house then does not have to face the street.

Okay. Oh, so that's... Correct?

Did I say that right? That's true. And then there's a collective... definition of what's the front and that's also includes the orientation of the massing so you take all these things into consideration not just the door it's not just where you solely where you place the door that's part of it but it's not solely where you place the door of the on the house as it's constituted in your proposed design that looks like the front to me

I would agree. So, yeah, I mean, regarding the brick, I mean, I understand what you're saying. I mean, I think there's kind of two issues there, right? One is that the existing house and the new house won't have matching foundations, right? Which, I mean... Even though the chimney's not, because the chimney's in the center of the house, so the chimney, the new brick that matches the old brick is never going to come into contact with the old brick, but it still is technically from the house, and I guess it's nicer.

The chimney is supposed to technically match the foundation.

Yeah, so I mean, I don't have a huge... It's kind of the reverse, right? I'm okay with the brick. I do think, though, that there's a lot going on, not just with that back area kind of facing the pool and the patio, but like kind of in terms of the water table. I mean, on the, how it's labeled. Right side elevation, which, yeah, there's like, the brick's at three different levels there. There's like kind of where it matches the house and then it kind of comes down where the gable comes out.

Which is a change in floor elevation.

So it's articulating the floor level inside the house?

That's pretty typical where, you know, you bring brick up to the bottom of the wood floor structure. That's kind of typical construction where they build the block wall and they build the brick to the top of it and they put the wood framing on top of it, which is how the house is, and which is how this is built. Just the fact that that step is there is because the floor drops. So to make it match would be kind of building it in a very different way. That's all new. So I guess I don't understand why the floor is... The floor steps down because we wanted to keep the second floor close to where it is now and have a taller first floor ceiling.

We didn't want the new addition to be taller than the existing house. So that was part of our solution.

We pushed it down. So we dropped the floor foot, but then raised the floor foot on the second floor, kept the bearing the same. So we're doing some tricks here to get to take an 8-foot ceiling in the existing space and make a 10-foot ceiling in the new space.

I just want to jump, just, you know, how, so the, I'm sorry?

Cut me off if I'm going down there.

No, no, no, because it's the correct rabbit hole, though. So the water table, having that foundation water table, we have been very consistent on that brick needs to be the same height all the way around. That is something, and same thing with how it's applied on the mass. It's something we've just been really consistent on. And I don't, to me, I don't think we should start making that exception now.

Well, that's something we can do. I mean, it's going to be a little bit of a challenge technically, but we can make that happen. It's just how we change, how we do our framing and how we do our veneer. Yeah, that's doable.

And I get that. Yeah, bring the veneer up a little higher. I know it's a little goofy when you're, you know, your carpenter's going to shake his head and be like, what the heck? But it is something that, especially on a new, that we have been really consistent on.

Very doable.

If we could, oh, I'm sorry. Mr. Brown, did you have anything else?

Well, and then, so... And then understanding the code does allow for the brick in the accent area, but it looks like it's partially on the reverse gable and partially on the main gable, I guess you call it, of the new. That's just kind of how it is graphically. I think if you look at it. On the right, or above. Sorry, go up. One more. Yeah. Over there, is that brick to the right? That's brick. And that's like the side of the reverse gable and around the corner are those big picture windows. Correct?

Not ending on an inside.

But then when we look at it this way, it's not the reverse gable, it's part of the end gable that has brick on the face, but not on the other side. And it just, it kind of feels like there's different areas that have the brick and not kind of like we're treating this area with brick. Right. And I would be okay with it if it was kind of like this is a special moment and this is here because it's a brick from here, but it would have to be more kind of defined.

So would we feel better about that if we were to take that brick on that top right there and make it siding to that outside corner and turn the corner with the side? I see what you're saying. You're saying the brick kind of comes out and it ends, and when it turns a corner, it's not brick anymore. And it starts again.

It's kind of like either the reverse gable wants to have some brick on it, or the... I don't know. I mean, I guess I don't want to solve it for you, but it just seems now kind of like we put some brick here, and then we put some brick there.

Right. It needs to be consistently applied.

And if it's not going to go all the way around, then where it is should have like a... make sense.

and yeah like so you could use it on as an accent on the projection right that's allowed but but it has to be then you know it has to be applied to all sides of that mass so like this section here i would call this a projection right coming out so you could do it i mean i know the windows are there but just hypothetical you could do it around that and it would end on those two inside corners and it would be an accent to that projection But like where you have it now, technically then you'd have to take it to the other side on the left because that would be that mass, right? And then take it all the way around. It might make more sense to do it with color rather than material. Did...

I think what we'll probably end up doing, Joseph, is we're siding on the side of that cable down to our brick ledge, and then it will be all siding, and then the only brick feature we'll have will be that outer corner that's to the right. Sure. That ends on inside corners and is that feature that just kind of ties it all together. But I see what you're saying. That piece of brick floating there, not turning the corner, I mean, how does that terminate? It's not really well delineated.

It's not clear. It's some kind of trim. like something around the big picture windows?

Yeah, it's just like solid siding material that will be painted the same color as the windows to kind of just make it feel like one window. And so what would happen, I believe, is we'll have to study it, but we're going to have that on that left corner, and then there'll just be wood siding budding into that, which will be in the same plane as the siding coming down. So I feel like when we tweak it, we'll address what you're talking about.

The sill difference between those two different gangs of four windows.

It's a floor height difference. Yep. We're not going to get away from that, but we are going to raise the brick up so it's the same elevation all the way around. Same width? The windows? The two sets of four? I don't mind those four windows. I think these are really good comments because they're really down to the little subtle details of how that material transitions and how it reads as a form, not an applied surface.

There's definitely a different trim detail. The big window has big trim and the medium window... Small window has small, you know what I mean? Like, there's a lot kind of going on. It would, I don't know how to, it would, I think, work better. Or work better for us. I mean, I don't know. Work better is subjective. But for me, there's a little more uniformity in the punched openings, like how they work.

I think that's going to play into how we turn some of these into actual dwellings. Yeah.

That's all.

Mr. Zula?

um i agree with what's been said prior and i don't really have i do have a question on on the rear elevation that stone that's uh is that a wall that's between that two sections we're kind of extending some of the existing retaining wall and then there's also a planter there

So those are really landscape walls that are dry laid. It shows in the rendering. Yeah.

Landscape walls. If you go to the rendering, it'll...

But they're out in front of that. They're not against that.

So we really can't build those out of brick because they're dry laid. And so they're built out of dry laid stone just to kind of...

And then the fence to the right of that, is that existing?

Yes, that's the existing pool fence.

Is that what you're talking about, maybe just the brick area, just that kind of gable?

Yeah, that'll be the only brick that really extends up above the water table level.

to take that brick out that you noticed on the on the front elevation and make it signing and i see i feel like that that would meet with the with with the way they have it broken there on the between the first and second floor and it's determining on the inside corner basically on that one projection it's it's really an accent material at that point at least that's how i would consider it that's all i have okay mr workley

Yeah, I'm good with everything discussed. I would just say that that plane that we're talking about, if that was a full window like the rest of them at the end of the stair, then you're just dealing with a panel of brick and enclosed around on each side of it, and it doesn't turn the corner then. look at your plan you already show you know you're wrapping like the corners in brick and a panel you know you're playing it out black or brown whatever dark brown on the four windows here on the end if that transom window just became a full panel now you're just framing it out with the same oh at the top so you come to the top of the stairs it'd be a full glass panel there yeah Well, it's as you're going to, because the stair goes down the basement. Yeah. So it would be what you're facing. Instead of facing, you do this little, so then you only have the window, the wall to the right or to the left of the stair. So you're suggesting taking that one transom and dropping it down.

Doing glass all the way down, I think is what he's saying.

Yeah. And then that wall is just a detail wall from the pediment of that end. Like, if you go to that one rendering that we were showing, the other one that showed the stone, it was up a little bit. I'm not sure which video it was.

See, for us, it kind of is nice to have that brick be a form, right? Where it turns to 100 degrees, dies inside, and as soon as you bring that window all the way down, now it's like a wall of thickness. because we're focusing the view on those other two walls. So to us, it's kind of a real important relief form to kind of separate those two.

I understand, but I think what we're grappling with is it's not, if it was pulled away from the four glass panel corridor on this side, and it was an element where you returned it back on all three sides, Then it's a form. Right now it's an L shape. That's not really a form. It's kind of like tacked on is what it feels like. So what I'm saying is like remove the one shape, have the same form that you're using the full height glass as a separator. And then this wall is just a panel in between all that. my suggestion from that same point of view. Because you were talking about making it siding instead?

Not there. Not there. We're talking about if you rotate around a little bit, you probably... We have one.

You just got to keep going.

There it is. What we're talking about is bringing that siding down and eliminating that brick.

That brick was like, kind of floating nowhere.

Yeah, this that's that's kind of. I think that's what you're suggesting for the other wall.

It's just that one doesn't have any window in it at all.

If I want that too, yeah, I would say I'm fine with it. I, you know, the double hung in the punch, especially on the, the north in the. East elevations. know those i mean it makes sense it kind of fits with the rest of the house much different yeah uh double homes volumes yeah and if we can get the water table and this elevation here where where we remove that brick uh i'm good with it as is

some work to do yeah i think we just got to come back to you guys yeah that makes sense i mean it's a lot of changes yep it's kind of hard to make a motion that many changes that's a long wordy motion we don't want to make you do that thank you very much we appreciate it yeah thanks uh if we have a motion to table this one

all right so we'll table this one until you bring it back oh all in favor okay

26-1143-6000 Pine Ridge Trail, and this is a new home.

Yes, just some brief staff comments for you here. Comment A is to verify that the grade line is accurately depicted on the submitted elevations. Additionally, staff just noted some comments on to suggest that the proposed stone be reduced to depict a consistent water table around the structure. Additionally, to revise elevations to depict a more consistent window style around the structure. Additionally, to just staff comment here on the details, just to revise the elevations to depict the proposed shutters and grid pattern that would be consistently applied around the entire mass. Staff noted some fenestration requirements Fenestration is needed on the question of fenestration is needed on the left side elevation to better meet the requirement as well as Staff notes a metal roofing material is proposed and to question if the proposed shed roof and dormer on the front Elevation should also be meddled to match the proposed awning The applicant is here this evening to answer any additional questions that the board may have You state your name in relationship to the application, please And I'm the builder

and it's a spec home.

Want to address the staff comments?

Well, yeah, I do. So staff comments are when you talk about the water table, I'm not sure what you're talking about. We have the stone to the sill height and it goes all the way around except for where it's all stone, okay? So when you take those to the bottom of the windows, go to the other elevations, it's all the way around, okay? I'm not sure what you're referring to. The other thing is when you look at, when we wrap the brick around the one side and we take it back, we're breaking it at an inside corner there, and that's been long accepted within the board, so we're not gonna carry it around the back. It's been, you know, it comes into an inside corner if you look at the floor plan, so.

It's not just an inside corner, it's how it's applied around the mass. It has to end on an inside corner, like if it's a projection.

It ends on an inside corner, there. We've done it before where we've wrapped the corner, taken it back, dyed it into a fireplace, dyed it into an extension out, and the foundation comes out there and we dyed it into that and picked up the board of patent, you know.

Discuss it.

That's wrong.

I think you are on the how it's applied around the mass, but that's the portal. Go over.

Okay. I mean, I'm looking at it on mine and it comes around. If I look at the floor plan, there's a jut out there and that's where it dies into. And that's what we've done. You know, as far as the windows are,

You know, we've got windows with transoms.

Some of them, when you go to the side, we don't have enough room to put shutters there. I mean, if the shutters are a problem, take them off the front. I don't mind taking the shutters off the front of the house. I sit here, and I look at all these things coming up, and I think this is a pretty good-looking house, and it's like, what are we dealing with here? I mean, this is what the house looks like. Oh, that looks like a house that belongs in Hudson. This is the back of the house. When I sit here and look at all this oddball stuff and we bring in something like this and it's like, what? I don't get it. I'm not drunk or anything.

I'm just trying to calm you down.

Well, I know you've been sitting through this. The reality of it is the water table, the sill height is consistent all the way around. The stone for the massing, we dyed it in an inside corner. We've done that forever.

We've done it forever. I've never had it be questioned.

As far as consistent windows, on the side, we can't put shutters. We have transoms. I wouldn't want to put shutters on windows with transoms. Sometimes it's like you're the architectural view board. You know, here's the rules, but does it look nice or does it not, you know?

I don't see anything except the transom.

Well, I did get excited there, didn't I? You did. I know, you were... Well, I mean, seriously, it's late. So... What do you want to do? So maybe... It's metal roof on the front. You know, I mean, that's on a bay. I mean, do you want to put the metal? It's not going to be angled in like that. Do you want to put the metal on the dormer? Do you want to put shingles on the little bay?

What's going to look best?

Maybe I can take a short keyboard. What looks best?

Let's all discuss it. Do you want to...

We can circle through them. I thought he would want to, but okay. All right, Ms. Puziedi, do you have questions or comments?

I mean, I don't think that the question was anything to do with the shutters, right? It was... If I can depict proposed shutters and grid pattern consistently around the entire mass. No, that's not going to, that's the shutters.

They won't fit.

They won't fit. So I mean, in my view, I would just remove them from the front, maybe extend the windows, make them wider if you can, but they're obviously not going to fit all the way around. Um, kind of fenestration for the left side. Can we see the left side? Just there? Okay, that's on the side and there is a little tiny window up above, right?

That is correct. The staff is calling out the question if this is enough to meet the requirement. Enough. Which would be up to the board.

What's inside? Closet. Closet, okay. So we want wall space in the closet, that makes sense.

It is in the past, and I think I don't recognize you here, We've had libraries on the front of the house. As we've come around the corner, we've had walls that size where we put transoms in there.

No, it makes sense for me from a practical standpoint as well because it's not on the front of the house. It's on the garage. And you actually have even a little bit of fenestration in the garage doors.

Not a lot of blank wall there.

No.

Thank you.

No. So to me, that fenestration requirement is met. Um, let's see roofs. I mean, the metal roof is a nice accent. I've seen that before around town.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I see no problem has to get called out because standing scene is not actually in the code, right?

But it makes sense given the style of the home. That's all I have.

Mr Brown.

So I guess maybe some of the confusion is the grade slopes from front to back. Correct? Yeah. The grade, it's like a walkout.

And the grade on the drawing is accurate.

I had a look at it. Because it looks, so if you look at, can we zoom out a little bit so we can see the front and the rear in the same? You're saying that line, the water table essentially, under those three windows on the front with the shutters there? Right. Is at the same level as that line of stone in the back? Right. Okay.

That line, if you look, that line goes all around the house at the same level in height. In the back, that's the walkout basement.

So that is... Effectively consistent. I mean, and it's the same material. And sides, I can, okay, I see now on the left side. So, I mean, I think the issue, but on the right, it's not. Like on the left side, you can see the water table and you can see the gray dropping away and the water table continues. But there, on the right side elevation, the stone continues above. And, I mean, I think you're right. That's on the, I'm using the words right to mean both correct and the right side elevation. But on the right side elevation there, the stone goes all the way to the eave.

We need the microphone, John.

Yeah, good. I can see where the water table is there at the sill of those windows. Yeah. But then to your left, nope, back down. The stone goes all the way to the eave. Yeah. So what you're saying is part of the rule that it has to end on an inside corner. Right. That's not kind of the complete rule. I mean, the material has to be call out part of the composition of the building. Like it's a gable end or it's a reverse gable or it's some kind of expression of the building shape. not just anywhere we want that as long as it ends on the inside corner is my understanding of how that works.

Okay, it's a new thing, but we've done this for the last 20 years or more. So, you know, is it a moving target or what? I mean, we've done that, you know, time and time again, you know.

And I can't speak to it. 20 years ago.

I can. Okay. There's a precedent that's been set. I mean, every time I come in here, it's like something. I went to chat and looked up, is it illegal when precedents have been set? Where does that go? In an Ohio court. It doesn't matter if it's a new board and new people.

As far as I understand it, I mean, the code hasn't changed. The land development code hasn't changed. Okay.

So you're saying this has to go all the way around then. It has to be an all stone house. Is that what you're saying?

No, it doesn't have to be all stone. So either the water table, you know, would have to continue there and have the siding above that water table so that stone is consistent. Okay. That level. Or you can take that stone up someplace where it is articulating the shape of the building, like a projection, a reverse gable.

You know, the entry, a lot of times people do it at the entry, but kind of... That's how I would treat this, though, because when you look at the front elevation, it's that lower peak.

Yeah.

it's coming around so if you go to the front elevation it's it's the continuation of that right hand side of where that gable it's running all the way up into the gable and then coming around which to me that's more of a projection there that's the main mass actually sits back from that with the board and batten and the two little shed roofs from the side that gable just kind of becomes the big hip right yeah i mean yeah so it it kind of it lose

I mean, visually, when you only look at the right elevation. I understand what you're saying. I understand. It is. There's no place to end it because that gable projection isn't.

On the left, it's its own projection. On the right, it's not.

Because it's in plane with the roof. And the exterior wall is in plane.

I move here, prove it as is, and get out of here.

I think that's what everybody wants. It's over there. But yeah, I mean, I think that's, can we see the front again? I understand.

I mean, it makes sense. Architecturally cracked by most standards.

We were right, because that would be another projection, because that comes out from the front door there. It's a projection.

It's where it turns the corner because that smaller inset gable isn't offset from the corner. From the side, it doesn't. It just kind of gets consumed by the full roof.

So if what you're saying, you want me to continue that down the back, then I run all the way around the back, all the way around, and it ends up being an all-stone house.

which which is not I mean, but there's not a place. I agree with what you've done. It makes sense to me what you've done in the front to take the stone up around the entry and around that front gable. But because that gable is those gables are nested, those two gables are kind of part of the hip. When when you come around the corner, it loses that sense that it's its own thing. But I mean, but you do need to keep going with it. Yeah, you have to. Yeah. So I'm kind of, it's kind of a little bit of a gray area for me, I guess.

And I would say that that's where I think Mr. Russell is correct, where, you know, from a precedent standpoint, we have allowed that because it's, because, yeah, it's, it's, it's not like it's one form, right? You kind of almost have three forms there.

Can we go to the side again? Go to the right. Go to the other side.

Yeah, the right.

I mean... Would it be better if we took the stone around and ended it in that inside corner? Right there?

I think where you've ended it on this side makes sense. I mean, it's just... It doesn't... Yeah, it's a little...

From the wall space standpoint, you know, that kind of is the projection, right? It comes around and it goes back in. It's the roof line that throws your eye off from it, that makes it feel like it's not, but I would still call it a projection. And that he's wrapping that projection, not the main mass. It's not really the main mass.

And the bottom part of that, right, is the water line. Yes. So it just happens to be all the way down.

Yep. That's how I would interpret it.

I think that's reasonable.

I guess as to the windows, there are a lot of different windows going on on the rear of the house. But as we just discussed in another project, we do allow the rear of the house to have more window types to allow interior windows.

these are all in the lower level yeah those are stationary windows yeah so those are basically the basement yeah um which you're not going to be able to have a typical basement window on a house like this because you know when you get around to the sides it's it's you don't have the space and it's it's not you know it's they're they're in stone they're not inside If we can get through the discussion, I would appreciate it.

And then the only other issue that I remember discussing, I mean, in terms of the roof, I mean, obviously the metal's not an issue. I mean, I think I would, I don't know that I would require, I mean, I could have an opinion about whether the metal should be elsewhere, maybe on the dormer, probably not on the shed. it's i think it's fine where it is and i think it makes sense too because that's also where the stone is keep roof with the roof and yeah yeah anyway that's all it would look like so you have no real objections to it overall no okay okay well i think we've solved the right side stone issue in the wrap um

as far as the shutters are concerned i don't think there's really any they're appropriate on the front for those three windows the other the rest of the front windows don't apply and then on the um which side nothing on the left side is appropriate for shutters and then the right side It would get too cluttered with those.

Yeah, the transoms.

Yeah, the transoms above it. So I think really the only ones that are appropriate are the ones on the front. I don't see a need to eliminate them, so I would keep them. And as far as the metal roof, I'm fine with the way it is. If you wanted to go and do it on the door,

was just going to ask you as a curveball if we decided that we wanted to put it on the dormer and on the the shed do we have to come back in or can i just send it over to nick i'm not saying that we're going to but if we decide we want to we can make it part of our motion i think i mean you know if you wanted to do all low slope in the same standing seam we've allowed that before i don't see any issue with it uh

I mean, personally, I have no issue with it either way. So I mean, we can make it part of the motion if you wanted to do it as long as everyone agrees. I mean, that's fine. Whereas I should say a majority agree.

We're just looking at our costs. This thing is getting expensive, but If we decide to do that, I'll just send it in. I wouldn't be opposed to it. Okay. Thank you.

Did you have anything else? I'm sorry. No. Mr. Workley.

I'm good. The only clarification I need is on the right side elevation, it looks like in plan there's windows there, but it doesn't look like it's in the elevation.

You're down on the right side.

So on the balcony area, it looks like it's just all siding, but there's windows in that, correct?

It's the primary bedroom. No.

That's because it's the bed wall.

That's primarily why we didn't do that.

Sorry.

Sorry.

Oh, I don't see it in the primary bedroom.

Next. There you go. Yeah. That would be the only wall that the bed could go on. That's why we left the windows out.

It's only 10 feet, so we don't need to do the 12-foot thing.

Okay.

Because it's broken with the columns. Is it 8 foot and then the 10 foot?

Yeah.

Okay. Okay. It's all ahead.

Okay. I think everyone is generally in agreement with as is. Okay.

Uh, somebody is willing to make a motion, make a motion to approve. And, um, if the low slope siding or low slope, uh, roof coverage changes to coordinate that with staff.

Second.

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

Thank you. Thank you. That was your entertainment for the evening.

Thanks for keeping your cool. Relax.

Was that made before or after you talked?

So that is all for new business. Other business, tonight we do have a historic window proposal from Lincoln Windows.

yes just some brief orientation here um staff notes that lincoln windows are proposed this evening the applicant is requesting that they be considered for inclusion on the board's list of approved window products for the replacement of historic materials within the historic district the applicant has submitted documentation regarding the proposed windows for the board's consideration as well as he has brought a window with him this evening and is here to answer any additional questions that the board may have if you just state your name logan jacobs okay

And I guess we would just kind of briefly go through why you think the Lincoln windows would be appropriate for the historic district.

So we're an aluminum clad wood or all wood manufacturer. So, I mean, with that being said, I mean, we have the opportunities to do all wood if it needs be. For the exterior cladding, it's 2605 paints. That's going to be the best paint you can have in the industry. It's all going to be extruded aluminum, so we don't roll form anything. We have all the possibilities for SDL, all different types of thicknesses in the mutton bars. We've had product approved by SHPO, the National Park Service, for projects we've done in downtown Cleveland. Was asked specifically to come today because of my one dealer they do Starting to do a lot of work in the area and they'd like to be able to price our products We don't do like a good better best program so essentially we don't have like a double hung 100 200 We just have our best possible product, you know for the best price so that gets into you know having the paint and extruded aluminum all being our standard standard product and A little bit of history just on the company. We've been in business since 1947. It's all made in Merrill, Wisconsin, so it's U.S. made. It started out as Lincoln Wood Products, so we made wooden trains, toothpicks, things of that, and then got into just windows and doors. So been around for a while. It's right around 600,000 square feet of manufacturing and like 200 employees or so. So, I mean, it's not a mom-and-pop shop. We have seven wood grains that we offer for the interior. For the exterior, we will do pine, if you want all wood, fir or mahogany. And interior options, we can pre-finish it white or black, prime it. So there's options there as well. Outside of double hungs, I mean, we get into all different types of casements, you know, fixed units, things of that nature. For sizings, we can do a double hung 46 by 93 for our standard double hung. It's all five quarter inch jams. So that means it's all one solid piece of wood on the interior. We don't split it and then maul them together. So it's a thick, solid piece of wood on the interior. It's real brief on us if you have any questions.

Ms. Putz, do you have any questions or comments? I know it's kind of the first you've seen one of these go through. It's great to start with you, right?

Thank you so much. Could you set that on the other end of the table there? Just so we can see.

I can start with Mr. Worker. We can go the opposite direction if you want.

I've never been involved in a decision like this, so I'm not sure what the criteria is.

So it's the idea behind it. And I guess what we're looking for it. So currently we have there's the Marvin ultimate that is so it's generally accepted that that is a good replacement for historic window. The Pella Reserve. And then now I forget the name of the one that we just the sierra pacific sierra pacific uh and so all of those have generally been accepted with certain lines obviously you have one line but the pell reserve it being reserved is kind of the key in like marvin ultimate uh because they all have different grades of and different styles so uh And most of them, we generally look to the National Park Service as to. So, Pella Reserve, I think, was the very first one that we had said, okay, this one works. They literally did it in the Cuyahoga Valley on the restoration of the buildings down there.

I think this was the one where you had in the packet some other historic areas where these windows have been used, right? In Ohio?

Yeah, we're currently doing a job in Cleveland now that was approved by Landmark. So that would be, if you scroll down a little, it's a warehouse building.

The third floor? Yep. All those are 20 units.

Yep. And then at the very bottom of all of this, you'll have some shop drawings of a double hung and a raised unit. Keep going all the way down.

Submitted a lot of drawings That were approved for this project or your other ship Your stock windows or were they custom for those?

So they were stock for this SHPO specifically, which is this project right here, Visible Voice. It was in Lakewood. They were all wood. It was approved aluminum clad, but we had trouble bending the radius at that type of a radius. So the dealer re-approved it for all wood and it was approved as well. yeah it was so for i guess a little in depth we have a narrow rail and a wide rail double hung all it is is just the the middle check rail right there is going to be thinner so the narrow rails for contemporary the wide rails what was right here in front of you is what was approved by shippo But in terms of comparison to like Marvin Ultimate, your Pella Reserve, it's all going to be where we're comparable. It's all extruded aluminum, matches them. It's all going to be 2605 paint and it's cardinal insulated glass. So essentially the exterior, which is the weather bearings, it's all the exact same product.

If I can just add as to the purpose of why we have a list of approved windows is anything within the historic district is reviewed per the Secretary of Interior standards, so that's separate from our base standards. Those standards state if you replace anything historic, the new material or design would meet the general composition and materials of what you're replacing. So the goal is to replicate the historic wood windows, the look texture feel of them. So that's why we have a list of approved windows that that that that do that.

Okay, but we're not keeping wood on the outside.

So generally, we've permitted aluminum clad wood windows. The extruded aluminum? Extruded aluminum clad, yes. Okay.

As a historic material, right? Like this one is a full wood window would be approved because what is obviously going to be the, you know, but realistically, yeah, it's right now, like the gel when one that I think somebody had brought earlier to for the site visit. That is one that we have generally not approved. And part of that is, is because when you look at this, how it has the thicker mutton in. The gentleman doesn't and it's going to be there's he's going to have a thinner, especially like the cross rail at the bottom is going to be thinner. It's it's not quite historically accurate, right? Where this one appears to be more historically accurate than like the gentleman, right?

I mean, just looking at that I I couldn't tell you when that was made, which is a compliment to your product. I mean, if the if it's like for like in the standards that have been approved, if it has been approved by the Park Service, if it is being used in other historic areas. I would love to hear any reasons why it shouldn't be included. But in my opinion, it seems like it would make sense to also include a like for like product.

Mr. Brown?

I agree. And we don't. I mean, we don't have a list of like, I mean, people are free to propose other windows that aren't honored. They're just kind of suggestions. But I think it's...

But then they have to go through all of this to kind of show that it would be appropriate.

It's useful for homeowners to go to you guys and say, where do I start? And having more windows on that list that meet our criteria is helpful.

Right. Hopefully they can do a little bit of price shopping then. It's not like one window that everybody has to put in.

i mean i don't yeah i mean i look through the specs that you sent me i think i don't have any other questions um this what is it 2605 paint number is that powder coated

No, it's a wet coat. It's 70% Kynar, so it's like a 20-year fade warranty, fade resistant. So in the industry, there's 2603, 2604, and 2605. Lincoln only offers 2605. Only way we offer 2604 would be spray-on anodized, which I've never had to run into or anything like that.

somebody present and he was toting that it was powder coated which is especially now with a lot of people wanting the black and then it fades so quickly into the black trim you know window it's a question um and what you see you were talking about the wood grains that you pine what was the so ash for the exterior if you were going to go all all wood we could do pine fur mahogany

For just interiors, if you're gonna do aluminum exterior, wood interior, we can do pine, alder, cherry, fir, mahogany, red oak, or white oak.

I'm going to come over in a minute after we're finished and take a couple pictures and look at the millions closer. So you're saying that the profile that you're showing us that would be installed would match if they were doing just a Front elevation or whatever on you know that it would be the same profile when it's installed as Existing.

Yes. Yep. This sample right here just shows like if the top sash it has a thicker SDL or thinner I can't from here for the bottom so it shows the different options that you know, you can choose seven eights five eights SDL, whatever and it also has uh in between the glass their spacer bar to mimic as close as possible to a true divided light window it's workly all right so this when the the mullions top and bottom are showing you your different sizes of ones you can provide yes okay

And the problem I always have with replacement windows is everybody think that that's the approved window for the historic district, and they forget the picture window goes around the window. And the framing and the detailing of that is part of it. It's not just the replacement window. So as long as you guys are dealing with the trim as well, we get a lot of people that just replace the window and it's out flush and we've lost the picture window frame and the depth of where the glass was. That's the problem I have with people thinking that, oh, we just buy the window and plop it in like a replacement window flush with the face. um so but with the window this you know the window replacement as long as it matches the profile to what was installed on the house i would be okay with it but is there any um is it just the uh aluminum clad window that we're looking at or all the line of the series from lincoln that we're looking at well it's just right that you only have the aluminum clad or the all wood

Yeah, so we can only offer aluminum clad wood or wood. Yeah.

So they don't have like, it's not like Pella, correct me if I'm not stating this, but you don't have like a lifestyle reserve, like these different series like Pella does. That is your series.

Yeah, so you get a double hung from us, narrow rail or wide rail. You could get a casement, push out casement, you know, picture windows, things like that. But it's either for everything's going to be wood or clad. That is, that's your wide rail double hung right there.

The rails and everything's consistent on all those windows types. Yes. They don't change. Okay. All right. I'm good.

Uh, yeah. And I'm fine with it. Uh, thank you for giving the, uh, where it met, you know, somebody else gave the national park service and that it meets the, the department interior standards just makes it easier for us instead of sitting here with going through and checking measurements from one window to another it's so much simpler so uh all right I think everybody's pretty well in agreement uh so I guess we have a motion to add the Lincoln window to the uh to the generally approved list

After detailed review, the board has decided to add the Lincoln window in all of its either double hung or as the model shows and as discussed to be approved as one of the offerings or recommendations.

Do we have a second?

Second.

All in favor? Aye. Anybody opposed? OK. So Steph will add linking to the, I don't know what we actually call it, but to the.

Material guidelines. Yeah.

Thank you, guys. The generally accepted historic materials. Also we have a discussion next on the draft for the design standards update.

Yes, just a brief orientation here. The board did see this iteration once before. The iteration that is before you tonight does have an update to the exceptions category. I know that was something that the board had targeted at your yearly workshop to kind of discuss the parameters for which this board grants exceptions and the way that you do so. That language is here before you tonight. Looking for any feedback that you have, any additional things that you would like staff to add, any things that you... found issue with, or just some general feedback for the board, and then we can move forward to get this closer to a final red line.

We can just start with Ms. Poitier again.

I read this so long ago now. I'm sorry. I didn't realize this. I didn't see this last page. Do you have the red parts in here? Yeah. They're within it. It's just when you scroll to it. There were sections that were going to add metal, right, as a material? Yes. That's wonderful. I strongly agree with that. Let's see. And the only other thing, I think I brought this up when we met, was about signs, actually. That it would be lovely if we could perhaps strongly encourage them to be readable from the street. Sometimes, even if the signs are correct, the font makes it... completely unreadable from the roadway or even from walking. So it might be nice to have something in there about, you gotta make the sign actually be able to be read by a normal person with normal vision.

I do remember that conversation. You also discussed, did you have a suggestion on the, I think there's a section in the code right now that it's 10 items or less On a sign, was there any thought on or suggestion?

Well, I think that's plenty.

Items or less?

I mean, items, not words, right? Like line items? Or how is that defined?

Is that a website, a phone number, an address? Yeah, that's kind of like how you've seen it.

It's of information, so 10 items of information.

Okay.

We could, that's probably an appropriate place to add additional language on readability and clutter.

I mean, I know that's subjective, but.

Too much to, yeah.

I mean, there could be, I know in some graphic design courses, you have to have an amount of white space. like a ratio of white space to text, that might be able to help. I don't know if we have any graphic designers on staff. Is there a limitation of color anywhere, too? I think so.

We had a sign come through recently that had multiple colors that we didn't have anything to back up or weigh heavily on multiple colors.

So it was tacky, but it wasn't against the rules.

Yeah, we didn't quite say that word.

Well, exactly right. No, you're not allowed to say that word in the meeting, but it was interesting, as Midwesterns would say.

A Greek revival look for this.

I mean, yeah, we don't have any limits on how many colors can be on the signs. That's a good point.

Yep, that is a good point. So the code reads, generally 10 items or less of information per sign are a typical amount of information the average person can comprehend while driving. This is based upon the principle that the more readable the typeface and the better the contrast between the letter and the background, the more readable and comprehensible the sign. I might disagree with that like 10 items is a lot to discern when you're driving so maybe we just look at that if there's any updated studies or we just remove the 10 items or less and it is yeah it's too specific it's just should be the typical amount of information average person comprehend while driving maybe is is how it should read because it depends on how big the sign is right there's a lot of factors correct yeah Color can be integrated there. I know multiple colors and also we've had sign text like colored really dark where you can't read it. And yeah, so let's do on that a little bit. Come back. We'll come back with something.

Just kind of point to readable, readable, readable. That's

Or color sign, color verb, each box or something. Trying to get away from every letter being a different color.

Yeah.

I mean, whose logo is like that, right? Not a whole lot. Not a whole lot. Unless you're talking about, exactly, that's what I was thinking. Toys R Us. Right. In which case, that would be more appropriate.

Oh, wait.

like bubbles the elephants and all sorts of stuff they haven't submitted their formal signage thing we talked about it at the they changed it to so the the text is one is white now all the text but the character is still there but a lot that was really my main thing and i'm very excited to see the metal will be added

So we don't have to do the whole exception thing every time.

Right. We're staff. Staff now.

Yes. Mr. Brown, did you have any?

No.

OK.

We talked about the synthetic materials to say specifically.

I didn't actually read through the entire this last one, but was synthetic switched? Did that change or is it still the same?

It was not. It's still the same on this one.

Okay. I thought synthetic was a little too vague when we're talking about materials. So we probably should be a little more specific than just synthetic.

It showed up a couple times. This one I'm looking at is an accessory building's large insect.

Oh, is that under the prefab?

Yeah. So more or less targeting the resin.

Technically, vinyl is hiding the synthetic, and so is Boral, EZAC. They're all synthetic materials. I think it's too vague was the thought process behind that. like plastic we're getting away from right like a plastic plastic and the resin yeah i've gotten multiple applications for yeah but you know synthetic could actually right hardy would be appropriate then i get it yeah okay good point can you just change it to you know exclude those materials But I get it, you don't want the blow-molded shed popping up.

Yeah.

Right. Like, right. That has happened, yeah. Yeah.

Yeah, there's one in there.

Okay, we can... So it was just something like, I just thought synthetic was too vague. Right. We can look at that. But I do agree with the point of it, the overall thought process. Mm-hmm. anything else i need specific notes i just well yeah so for the when we talk about like roof types a lot of it had to do with additions on on different uh house styles And it was saying that the roof shapes must match. I think must. Well, one is I don't think must is actually defined in the code. I think it should be shall if you were going to use that. Because I think shall is what's defined. But I would soften it to a should just because I think about like the one we had with the gambrel roof where requiring it is really not the best way to go. So I think they should match in shape, but I don't know if they must match in shape. So I just thought that that should be softened a little bit. It's in like six different times or four different times.

Right. All roofs and all wings must be the same kind.

Yeah. I don't think must is actually a defined term. It would be shall.

Or should be the same kind. Okay.

And I think should it's just like the fenestration. It should be every 12 feet, but it allows discretion.

I see. Yep.

On that note on fenestration, I think it says fenestration placement should be at a maximum of approximately every 12 feet. And I think it should say on all sides.

On all elevations. I'm finding that you have

on that is it 12 feet for yeah for like every floor as well okay but it is also a should term which is right you know it's if it makes sense and it's it's permissible it's not really an exception to allow 14 feet no because it's a should term not a shall

So this is under just the general standards for all buildings. Large expanses of blank wall are to be avoided. Fenestration placement should be at a maximum of approximately 12 feet. applied to each elevation or something like...

So does it, like, if you correct that, will it show you where else that would show up? Because that shows up in accessory buildings as well, under... Yeah, so in D8. Don't swear, but...

It's different for accessory buildings. All facades over 12 feet shall have at least one window or door opening. Fenestration placement on the accessory structure shall be proportional to the house. So then we kind of infer that it should be every 12 feet of the house.

That was redlined on the...

Did we rely on that sorry.

It was red line to be more of the House language okay to consider the show.

I was really I was reading the current so I'm not looking back and forth.

It was red lined except for the last I don't know if this was and it says fenestration placement should be at a maximum of approximately 12 feet and then that's where I think you guys aligned it more we lined up the House.

How that is yes.

Which makes sense. So we don't have to make that jump to infer that it should be 12 feet. Yeah. So you'd like to see language added to the, to refer to all elevations for the fenestration placement?

So how would it not, because it says, it doesn't say it's a small shed. It just says accessory buildings.

I'm going back to the for all. Yeah, that was your comment. Yeah.

Okay. Okay. So say, oh, it's the back just faces some trees or something, or there's no neighbor back there.

Okay. Berkeley, do you have anything?

I'm just trying to find where we specify windows and replace them. Is it in the section just under openings or?

For the typical window comment?

Yeah.

Yeah, it's typically each section, each housing type has a typical window section in the opening section.

Right. So what I'm getting at is like when we talk about The windows, it's typically windows, it shows a window like the one we were just seeing, and the form, and sometimes they'll have the shutters on each side, but it doesn't talk about the trim and the depth matching for historical integrity. Maybe that's what we're missing in our code, is that we're just taught, because they're just giving us what looks like here is a window replacement and nothing about how it's in the existing opening and the trim around it.

So I thought that was actually in the preservation brief. Because you're talking about historic, right? You're not talking about just general windows. You're talking about historic.

Yeah, we wouldn't... We can look at what...

I thought that was actually... I don't disagree with you, but I thought that that was actually in the preservation brief. So it wasn't specifically stated in the Hudson Code.

Okay. Correct.

Correct.

Is there any way we could highlight that so people are understanding what we're expecting of them in the preservation brief? Because that seems to be what's missed. Everybody just comes in with, well, this is the replacement window we're using. All we see is the window, and we have issues every single time.

So my understanding is there's only a preservation brief on repair of windows, not replacement. But we do have, let's look at the general...

because the general secretary of interior standards there's the right of how the composition and i mean it would fall in it would it should fall in with the you know when you're replacing again it's it's like siding you use the same reveal you don't change the reveal when you're replacing the siding so you you're doing it more in kind

So that my fault is deteriorate historic features shall be repaired rather than replaced where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature. The new feature shall match the old and design color, texture, other visual qualities and where possible materials. As in the secretary of interior standards for rehabilitation, those are like our general Was it brief 14 or whatever? There's 10. There's no, it's not a brief. The briefs are separate. This is the base 10 requirements for historic properties in our code. We refer to the adopted Secretary of Interior standards for rehabilitation.

I saw that somewhere. Where is that again?

Index one.

It's organized a little goofy. It's under like part five. If you're in the code. There's one other place where historic requirements are noted. So under section I guess it's IIIII-2, alterations to his existing properties. Then B, standards for historic properties. Historic properties which are contributing to historic districts and buildings which are designated historic landmarks. Historic landmarks within the historic district greater than 50 years old will not be reviewed according to the standards in part four. Such buildings are reviewed according to the Secretary of Interior Standards for Rehabilitation, those are the 10 criteria we just referred to, and the National Park Service preservation briefs, specifically number 14 and 16. And then if you alter historic properties, you're advised to review the publications uniform architectural criteria by Chambers and Chambers, Hudson Historic, the Survey of Historic Buildings in Ohio by Lois Newkirk, and Square Dealers by Pat Eldridge and Graham. Kind of rehashes some of the, I wonder if it could live in here. Kind of rehashes some of the Secretary of Interior standards. Use of substitute materials. HBR shall review detailed documentation of existing site conditions. HBR shall request the patching and repair of existing materials. I think we could put something in this section. III-2B3.

And just make it clear to what they're going to just have replacement window. We've generally accepted be the end all of all they have to worry about with their placement in the opening matters. Right. And in the framing of it, you know.

Mm hmm.

it's kind of just the stoke in that, well, it's just Trent, you know, it's just part of the siding component when it's not, it's part of the window opening. Okay.

We can look at that. Yep.

At the time that there's a sill plate and then we'll just come back with this flat trend, you know,

It's like when a replacement window is proposed, um, all components of the window opening, um, shall be, yeah, I'm getting there. Match. Yeah.

Retain the same dimensions. Yeah.

Yeah. All components of the opening shall be retained. I like the word retain. Okay, we can try to find a spot for that.

Did we address how some part? There's no page numbers. So I don't know. And I'd only had trying to look over here. materials and the main let's say So we're adjusting where you can finish with metals. I'm trying to get, like, we only had one added material to accent, like in the gable or something. But then we're talking about, you could have a couple different materials, like on a projection and do a stone or whatever, like we were talking about tonight. But then the third material might be shaking a gable or something.

We didn't change that. So we currently reads the walls of the main body must be all one material or an additional material may be used to call attention to the composition. For example, a second material may be used on building projections, gable ends, entrance recesses, or to emphasize the historic horizontal or vertical divisions of the building. So we were hesitant to add more allowances for additional materials. I think we're

And it's capped at three materials total.

Yeah, there's another section, right, yeah.

Okay, because, for example, a second material, so we're only talking about two materials, so are we saying, yeah. Well, also the main body must all be one material, or an additional material may be used to call attention to a comment. For example, a second material, so we're only saying two materials, aren't we? Reads?

the main body right for the walls the third material i in correct me if i'm wrong here on this but the third material would be like because your foundation is another material right so you kind of have foundation and then two wall materials we've interpreted it as allowing a consistent wall material something in the gable and then i found it a separate foundation material that's how we've always interpreted that

because it speaks to only the walls of the main body.

Like on the one that Prestige had tonight, their foundation and the accent material were really the same material.

Right, yeah. And then we added emphasis on the material, we talked about this tonight, material used in any mass must be applied consistently on that mass on all sides of the structure and terminate at an inside corner. So we're retaining the requirement for the mask to have consistent materials, but also to terminate it inside corner.

And that's what tonight was. It was kind of, the mask wasn't, it was just capped. It wasn't clearly a mask. On the front it was, but on the sides it lost it.

We also added the language for, I guess, let me get there. We modified the exception language, if you saw. We took out the practical difficulty requirement and instead referenced I'll state it specific characteristics of the property building a surrounding development makes strict compliance with the requirements of these standards and practical. Or where an alternative design would better achieve the intent of these standards. Hbr shall determine that the exception would not adversely impact affect the architectural character of the building site or surrounding neighborhood. So we probably want our. Please solicitor to take a review of that just to. But Lauren did some research and found that not a lot of cities are using that practical difficulty standard, which is a border zoning appeal standard, so it makes it clunky for our board to review as we've come to in the past.