Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

So we're gonna call the meeting to order. This is the meeting of the architectural and historic board of review for Wednesday, 04/22/2026. Roll call, we do have quorum tonight. We have mister Brown, miss Cerdinski, miss Marzula, mister Workley, miss Kinney, and myself. So we do have quorum tonight. Now we would like to open for public comment. This is a time when anybody may address the board regarding anything that is or is not on the agenda. We ask that you keep your comments to five minutes or less. Is there any public comment? Seeing none, we will close public comment, move on to consent applications.

Tonight, we have two, 26 Dash 23467 Division Street and 26 Dash 26330 Ravenna Street.

Motion to approve as submitted.

Second. All in favor? Aye. Old business, we do have one. 2025 Dash 147888 North Main Street. This is door replacement in the historic district.

Yes. I can give a brief background on this. Staff notes that this application was continued from the 04/08/2026 meeting. The board requested the applicant add additional detail to the proposed front entry door to better align with the surrounding historic district. Staff notes that the applicant has submitted a letter in response to the previous comments, you do have that in front of you this evening, it was attached to the agenda and 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.

Yes my name is Joseph Kernan, counsel for the applicant.

I saw the letter.

Yep, so we just wanted to come forward and indicate that looking at letter B requesting the applicant add additional detail to the proposed front entry door to better align, so we did take a look at the other doors up and down Main Street. The vast majority of the doors that I took pictures of, took a look at are the metal doors with glass. Most of them are that way. A number of them, especially Hudson's on the one side and Farmers Rail on the other side, are the exact same door with their logo etched on the door itself. And so what we are proposing is that the door remain as it is and we will etch the logo on the front of the door to match the other doors on the other sides.

Mr. Brown?

I understood from the letter and the proposed, you sent a bunch of proposed door pictures that were wood doors.

Right.

So you're not, you don't are withdrawing that. Yeah. I I don't think that, I mean I think that the board was pretty unanimous and clear that the historic standards are

Only for us.

Except the places that don't.

So I guess what I would say is that I'm wondering why Kepner's is being treated differently from Hudson's and Farmers Rail who have the exact same doors, and I took pictures of them and I can share those with the board, except that they have their logo etched on the door. And actually, I got here early because I thought the meeting was at 07:00, so I walked down the road and took pictures of if I may. Hudson's 134 and 136 is the exact same door with nothing on it. Sal's Barbershop is the exact same door except it doesn't have the historic handle it just has the regular handle with their logo on it. There's another one here, 164, which has nothing on it except a glass door, aluminum it looks like with a handle on it.

Lucia's, exact same door, nothing different except their logo on it. So I'm just wondering why Kepner's would be treated differently by this board than a number of other businesses on the road.

Lauren do we have history on any of those as being approved, like the

board has approved? I would need time to research that. That is the first that the board is hearing of, or I'm sorry, that staff is hearing of this tonight. We don't have research on that prepared.

My response would be I've not, the board's been consistent as long as I've been on the board, I've been on the board for less than a year but I mean the standard, there are lots of cases that buildings had doors prior to the standards being issued or they replaced in kind. Don't know what the history of each of those are, but nobody's come before the boards in the, I don't know, I've been on the board and the boards had any different response.

I would just say that I've been coming to Hudson for twenty five, thirty years. I remember when the Gap was next door where the Farmers Rail is now, they completely changed the front and I get that they probably came before the board and got approval for that and I get that. I'm just wondering why they're allowed to have a door exactly like Kepner's door with just their logo on it, but Kepner's is treated differently. I think it's a problem when you treat a business differently than other businesses.

So I would say I don't think they're being treated I've been on the board for eight, nine years. We have never approved a door like that since I've been on the board. Doesn't mean people haven't put them in just like Hepner's that did not get approval and just put a door in. I can't solve that. Farmers Rail I believe that was approved. That was approved when it was the Gap almost thirty years ago. Completely different scenario. I mean you know Historic District isn't the same, mean it's expanded, it includes different materials, mean it's you know why that was done, I don't know, was what nearly thirty years ago.

And it was a post office before that. So.

Yeah. So you know just because one place has a door that that may or may not have been approved doesn't require us to approve a door that is not meeting the Secretary of Interior standards.

Well, and and I get what you're saying except that when if you're looking visually and and that's what we're concerned about is what it looks like down Main Street, correct? How

No, we're concerned about preserving the historic character of Main Street.

But a character is what it

looks not that just looks good, it's preserving the historic character.

And the character is what it looks like. I mean let's be fair, that's what the character is, what it looks like as you go down Main Street.

Historic so I'm character, not

Got it. Got it. I have a question.

So your letter was that you're gonna replace the doors with wood, you're withdrawing that now? Correct.

So what got us here?

Your threat of lawsuit.

Well what got us here was the fact that we took another look at all of the other doors on Main Street and thought why is Kepner's being treated differently?

Why is this a door replacement if you're saying

We're not, the door has been replaced, all we're all we're looking to do is etch the door pursuant to letter B under your agenda, additional detail to the proposed front door to better align with the surrounding historic district which if we etch the logo on the door it would align with the rest of the historic district.

What's the issue that we're trying to resolve? The issue we're trying to resolve is you got a non compliance because you replaced a door.

Correct. So the door replacement

is still the issue. Correct. And compliance to our requirements for historical accuracy is still the issue.

Correct.

Okay. So there's no argument about other people, it's your situation.

Well, there's an argument against other people because there is an equal protection argument as far as why is this business being treated differently than other businesses up and down the road? That is the argument. Well then let's take your neighbor, your neighbor is a brick, plain brick building with

no architectural decoration to it at all and the windows match the doors.

Would you like to see the door for Hudson's? Hudson's is architectural woodwork residential looking and it's got a commercial door on it. The exact same door.

I understand it's the exact same door, but you're not understanding what I'm saying. The architectural character of the building, it does not match. That's the issue.

Do you know when

We're not talking about anybody else. We're talking

when about that work was done on the building? The front of my building, when was that done?

When that

when was that work done?

I not arguing about it, we're talking about the door and does the door that you've placed it with, that's a commercial looking door, reflect the character of your building that's wood? It has to be a commercial door for safety and because it is a commercial business and insurance.

The reason that we replaced the door was because a Pansmith family member tore it off the hinges. So and the reason it was torn off the hinges is because it was a residential door, it was a 125 Home Depot residential door that was sitting there for twenty years that no one at this board did anything about and my predecessor put up. So what are we talking about right now? I needed to put a door up so that I could lock my business. Put a door up and now you're arguing because you're threatening

to sue

me first.

Let's bear

in mind.

I didn't do anything.

Someone at this board,

and I understand that you guys are This very board doesn't threaten anybody with lawsuits. This board is about approving the materials that are used. Okay? Anything with code enforcement is that is not this board. Okay. So we can threaten anybody with anything. What are they talking about?

So I just I just wanna make sure that is it the material that the door is made of, the metal door because over 50% of the doors on Main Street are metal doors. It's not your building.

Pardon me? I'm sorry. Who's building is it? No. It's my building.

It's his building. The doors that you're talking about that are metal are not your building. I understand that, but problem is is that you are treating this business differently than otherwise. We

are not.

Guess I you'd have to show me where this board approved that. As far as I know, we've never If approved

this board didn't approve it, then I expect that a number of businesses on Main Street are gonna get citations.

And as Steph said, they can they can look at what I mean, we're we're not the police of Okay. No. This board is not. This board takes applications, reviews them for appropriateness.

So what we are what we are proposing is that we etch the door with the logo, the door that is there, that looks like 50% of the other doors, etch the logo on and we move on from there.

I will say that I was on the board when we refused the music shop from changing to a different door and they had the wood door and that

was And

they get five customers a day.

That was the time.

Are is this a real are are you actually asking that conversation? Well, We're not

gonna do this. No. We're not. The issue is is you've presented something into us that you now pulled back. Correct?

Correct. Because we looked at the rest of the doors.

Table this till they have something that we can roll on because we're not gonna round

But we

can't table it again. It's the times that that it's been continuing too many times.

Well, then we need something in writing what they're going to do.

Etch. Yeah. I mean, we don't actually have an application then because we you're gonna say we're gonna etch the door. What does that mean? I mean, that So why don't we go to executive session to discuss the the, with counsel? Because we're kind of at a standstill here. We're gonna end up. Right?

That would be up to

Yeah. I I think we

should adjourn to executive session. Let's go in the back here.

Do we have? Yeah. Hold us.

Do we have to move to do that?

Yes, if we have a motion.

I move to executive to move to executive session to discuss this matter.

Second. Alright.

When this goes to court, the court's going go, what's the precedent? So yes, precedent matters. Step down and you said?

Historic door on caps. Could you imagine? Do they want to put if they want us to have a historic door, that's fine. But they can pay for it every time.

A person who kicks

the door.

Mean, that's the problem. This is a bar. This isn't The Owl. No.

It's No. Not a coffee shop.

It's a freaking bar. Even a

coffee shop.

Know because Look.

Look. It's gone back over to

the bar. I told her.

Yeah. McKenzie.

I think McKenzie is gone.

She will be.

Would you like it on the screen or would you just like me to pass this down?

And the screen is fine. Mr. Brown, do have any other questions or comments? Mr. Dinsky?

No.

We have additional comments?

Increase the size of the text. All of

our old eyes can't read the screen.

Staff would make a motion to recommend the board make a motion to return from executive session in regular session.

I'm I'm moved to return from executive session to regular board session. Alright.

I'll make a motion based on the previous component of this submittal was for us included signage. The board is expecting to remain with approving that signage based upon including the comments from the February 11 meeting about that. And on the second part for the door, we're making motion to deny under the section two dash one approval and discretion of the AHBR for to meet exceptional design for having a variance to be creative or it's designed as responsive to unique situation, varied difficulty of the site or unusual program requirement, or is an exceptional or unique condition that will create practical difficulty in complying with the requirements of our standards. Factors are considered as the, as enumerated in the defined, and development code determining practical difficulty.

Second. All in favor? Aye. Anybody opposed?

May I just make a statement for the record?

We've already voted.

I understand you have, but I would like to make a statement if I can. We appreciate the board's time. We believe that we have been treated differently and that there has not been equal protection under the law and we will go from here. Thank you.

That is all for old business, new business. First is 26 Dash 1976492 Elmcrest Drive, and this is an alteration of applied stone inciting.

Yes. I can give a brief orientation. This is for an alteration for applied stone and siding at 6492 Elmcrest Drive. The staff comments are before you. Section four of the architectural design standards state that the materials used in the main body must be applied consistently on that mass and all sides of the structure.

Additionally, section three of the architectural design standards state that exposed foundation and tie courses shall be of a consistent material on all elevations. Staff notes that the applicant is proposing applied stone that would not be applied around the entire mass. Additionally, staff notes the proposed stone on the front elevation terminates on an outside corner. However, staff just wanted to note that the existing brick material on the front elevation is currently nonconforming and terminates on an outside corner. Staff comments were to suggest the exposed foundation be continued along the rear elevation and terminate at the three seasons room to meet the above mentioned requirement, additionally to verify if the stone placement was correctly depicted on the side elevation, as well as verify that horizontal siding is being proposed on the garage front elevation.

The applicant is here this evening to answer any additional questions that the board may have.

You just state your name and relationship to the application.

My name is Bob Zikafous, I'm operations manager for Hometown Roofing and Construction representing Jeff Geisinger, the homeowner and

My name is Dominic Anders, I'm the project manager and also representing Mr. Geisinger.

Did you get a chance to review the staff comments?

Yes. I actually printed up our response. I have a few copies if you guys would like them. Know was a submission window, so

Yeah. Yeah.

You just pass those out. That's fine. Sure.

A couple copies of my comments plus some additional I can provide that via email to the council later if you guys need it.

Just give folks a moment to review that. Sure. Or if you can just kind of walk us through it.

If you'd like.

Just walk us through it.

So comment on section a, okay cool. B, suggest exposed foundation be continued along rear elevation and terminated the three seasons room to meet this requirement, which was the all the way around all four sides. So our comment is that the rear elevation cannot really be seen from the street, and additionally it is fairly obscured from the neighbor's view on both sides by a hedge wall. Additionally, the customer is working on getting permitting, he may already have the permit for installing a privacy fence around the back of the structure. And then our last comment is the contractor if he was to if we were required to put the stone on the back of the house, that would

be an

additional 5 to $6,000 of cost to him for the project for something that really only he can see. C, verify stone placement on-site elevation. So our intent is to apply the on the front elevation of the garage and along both the left and right elevations. Approximately a three foot high band using the front elevation of the garage as the benchmark for the level and height of the stone put down the left and right sides of the structure. Let's see.

D, verify horizontal siding is proposed on garage front elevation. Yes. The front elevation of the garage currently is that gray brick. The affinity stone will be placed as a three foot band at the bottom with four and a half inch clapboard white vinyl siding on the rest of the face. And e, verified proposed stone material on columns would match proposed stone foundation material. Yes, Affinity Stone makes column based kits. The color, style, and cut of the stone at the base of the three columns that hit the ground will be of the same color, like, and kind as the material we're proposing to put on the rest of structure.

And then on current conditions, so on the right hand side there of the front elevation, currently that's brick where like it's in yellow?

So all the on the the pockets on the left and right there, the front door and the large window, that is currently that gray brick. The very center is still vinyl. All of the brick on the front of the house, not the garage, we'll be replacing with stone and then bringing that band across the middle section with vinyl where vinyl is now.

Then the brick on the right hand that right hand portion does not wrap around Kern?

No, so it would be like the wall and then the band.

Well, in this instance we have allowed to not wrap all the way. So the code says it has to end on an inside corner when you change materials that you can't change on an outside corner. Historically in this situation when it's already non conforming like that we've granted some leniency there. That's why I want to make sure that that's how it was it actually ends on the outside corner.

It does end on the outside corner. The way the product is designed it would basically dead end into a vinyl corner or we'd run J channel across the side of it because it effectively hangs and interacts with vinyl siding as the way it's designed.

So there's a vinyl termination bar? Yes. If

the council would not be happy with that we could roll it over the corner and terminate it like one or two courses over, does that make sense to bring it around the corner?

It actually fits in the channel of whether it's an outside corner or a J channel, actually fits in that side

of the Should fit in the corner, Mr.

Brown do you have any questions or comments?

On the left side of the building to the left of the man door by the garage, the chimney is the same brick

The chimney is front gray brick currently.

And it looks like you're proposing to wrap the

stone around So going the base to of the wrap that three foot course around the outside edge of yes. We will not be siding that, but we'll be painting it, the customer plans to paint that white to match the vinyl siding.

And it's hard to tell and then on that side.

Let me look at my pictures here.

Sorry the 3 Seasons Porch I guess, flush, is is that in the same plane? Looks like it is.

The 3 Seasons Room is on the same plane but just due to the structure of what that 3 Seasons Room is made out of we cannot hang that Infinity Stone continuously on that Seasons room?

I think I know

what you're asking.

Believe it is in the same plane, it might be like in three inches just due to thickness of material.

This, because staff had a, is it the other side that was the concern?

The rear elevation of the house, yes.

Yeah, but,

let's see, you could end at the, oh I see. I that the chimney could provide a stopping point.

No because there's like this much.

And just not wrap the chimney and just dye into the face of the brick and then paint the brick. Otherwise, mean I kind of it makes sense what you're saying about the board granting leniency, I mean that's already a non conforming and I don't think it's more non conforming proposed. I don't have it.

Mr. Ginsky?

So I don't have a problem with where it's replacing the non conforming, but I know we're usually pretty stringent about basically kind of the wrap around the house. So I could live with it in the front right where you're basically just replacing brick for stone but I do think as a board we're pretty consistent about the stone wrapping the entire structure when it's kind of the wrap part. So

then that side where you're coming around to the rear on the left side of the rear, we're not showing that there, is that, okay. This is the side where it's ending in the front and then so you are proposing to do a three foot high and then and then stop at the as you come around to the rear, that right picture there.

Right picture, yes that's the right elevation of the house, that yellow My Horrible MS Paint Art is where the stone would be about three foot high leveled with the front of the garage but yes on the right hand side of that picture, that is where the stone would terminate.

I feel that it should go ahead and go right up to where the sunroom is and continue to wrap around the rear. So you're saying you would rather not wrap it around the rear because of the expense and because there's a privacy fence.

Yes,

the privacy fence that he has approved will be touching the sunroom and the back right elevation corner of the home so it'll be encased in a privacy fence going around.

Up close to the sunroom you mean, the fence?

I'm sorry, so the fence is on the right hand side the fence goes up to the sunroom, on the left hand side it's the left corner rear of the house?

If you're looking at it street facing, the back right elevation of the home, that fence will be running into and terminating into where that corner is, where we're stopping the stone.

And then

on the

left side there?

That's the left side. He said from the Oh, front of the so the double windows are? Yeah. The fence is basically gonna terminate at that corner.

Oh and then on the other side it would terminate by the sunroom?

I believe so yes.

I mean I understand why you can't apply it to the sunroom area because of the structure that you'd be trying to attach it to, but

it

should wrap around that backside. Defense or not.

Mr. Workley?

Yep. So this is a siding material.

Yes. We actually have a sample of it in the truck if you would like to see it.

I'm just wondering, does it make a corner or is it all j channels around

the front? So there are two methods of installation for the product. You end up cutting it with a cut off wheel if you need to shape it, but it either either cut flush and set it square like this, one end dying into the other, or the pieces themselves kind of look like Tetris blocks and so they will mesh into each other. So if you build a corner correctly which is what our intent is to do on a corner they mesh in kind of like this on top of each other.

Kind of like a dovetail drawer?

Yes yes yes. Unless you ended in a corner or j channel because it's designed to interface with regular vinyl siding.

And so that would happen at the columns then too?

And the column actually is its own little kit that they make of shorter sections that are designed to go around.

And that's concrete there already that's wrapping?

Yes, I think it

might actually be that gray brick.

It is brick. So encasing that with the column basis.

So on the front elevation, I am fine with adding the band in between the two brick panels and since this is already out of compliance with it ending on outside corner, I would prefer it stopping there and not having the drop down to the wainscot on that side, keep that whole side siding as is. So there's no change in condition as the way it is right now.

Which elevation are you talking about? I'm sorry.

Would be the right hand side?

Right hand side.

Opposite the garage, that side. There? Yes.

That side, yeah. You're recommending don't put a band on it?

Yeah. Because right now you're out of compliance with the ending on an outside corner so you really don't have a condition that's gonna make it compliant by adding that band, you're adding another non compliant band ending at the outside corner.

So you're suggesting both the left and the right not have a band or just one?

I'm just suggesting that they take the brick that they're covering and cover it and leave it at the front.

Only the front and nothing

and not wrap it around the side and make another non compliant condition with a new situation because there's no precedence for that new situation. On the other side where the garage is, I would suggest not wrapping it around the chimney because that does those materials are already brick and you're not covering if you're covering the whole thing I'd be fine, but you're only it doesn't make sense to have the brick and then you're covering a wainscot on the brick that just doesn't seem to make sense. So if you ended at the corner there inside that brick, that would be your inside corner and I would be fine with it stopping there and not having the piece in the back.

A little bit garage door, little bit man door, little bit dies.

Yes, in the inside corner. And then you're kind of all compliant with what existing conditions were and new install all inside corners.

Okay, so then if going with that concept and not applying it to the right elevation of the house, then we would not need to track it across the rear elevation of the house.

For the

front and the little decorative bits on the side of the garage.

That's where I'm going to.

So you'll be replacing the existing brick that is already not compliant but not extending that non compliance around another side.

Miss

Kinney?

So you're suggesting that we ignore the standard about the wraparound, same material.

Only because this is an already existing non compliant situation.

But isn't it a contradiction when you think about what we discussed in the previous case?

They already

had another non conditioned house that we did the same thing Yeah,

so when they're already, when they have not been, because this house was built, it probably still Tautja at the time, it was before the land development code existed in its current state. So it has been kind of the view of the board that to make a homeowner bring the house completely into compliance with like the outside corner. To do that, they would have to lower that, do the water table all the way around, they would have to side all the areas that were brick now. That's a true burden on a homeowner to do. So the board has in general said, hey it's a like for like replacement, the view that's been taken, that it's a like for like replacement that we're not expanding it being non conforming which is why the going down the other side, that's been the kind of viewpoint, at least in the last decade.

But the staff comments had to do with the fact that one side would, so to speak, the wraparound would not include one side. One question I have is, could that new wraparound be lower so that because we're speaking about a question of price, right? So if you put if you may if you replace the material on three sides, but instead of doing it three feet, you do it less.

You're still creating a new nonconforming condition.

Do you add to the new comply to the noncompliance? That's the question I'm asking.

Yeah. You basically do because you don't keep the water table then. Remember, we have the water table going around of foundation material.

So, it's an unusual situation. So, it meets one of the three criteria for making an exception to the standards?

Yes, it's a unique existing condition.

Okay, a unique, okay.

Question on existing condition because the brick is currently on the whole face of the garage only, right? It does not wrap around. So if you're looking at the garage, it's just the face right?

It's not

just from the

So should we only be able to prove stone on the whole face of the garage and not the band that wraps around since it's like for like

feel like

if it was siding on the garage in the first place. I didn't realize it was staying

They're going to siding. Right? You're going to siding above the Yeah.

So it

would be the band and then siding

over the brick.

Currently you

won't see the brick

at all. You won't see the brick.

No but I'm saying if we're making an exception for the band to go only, I mean it does technically end at the chimney however but it's a band and not a full mass wrapping so I'm just trying to understand if we're making the right exception here.

If we're not doing the right, why are we doing the left, is that what you're

I'm just more trying to make sure that we're being consistent with our how we're I rolling on think we've all figured out the right hand side, yes, that's like for like so we're good there, it's the garage side that is changing in a way that I just wanna make sure that we're looking at.

I guess the other

things that we looked at before where it would end an inside corner, it's still another material on that elevation.

I'm just trying to figure out is this considered like a water table band then? That's where I'm no. It's just

It would be an additional material.

It's a second material that we're allowing to wrap but because it stops at the chimney it's inside.

It's the requirement. Okay.

That's why I would be with it. Okay.

I just wanna make sure.

Sure. I will make a motion to approve with of it meeting the what was it? Unique requirements to grant an exception for this being an existing condition and matching the brick material on the right side and ending at that point and having the new condition wraparound ending at an inside corner. Second?

At the chimney. At the chimney. Okay and we have a second for miss Kinney. Yes. All in favor?

Aye.

Anybody opposed? Okay, thank you.

What would be next steps that I should be aware of?

Staff will reach out to you.

Awesome. Well, thank you for your time.

Sure. Thank you.

262-6285 and this is a pergola in the historic district.

Yes. This is for the within the historic district at 85 Division Street. Just one staff comment for you here. Just to question the appropriateness appropriateness of the proposed aluminum material, staff notes that an aluminum pergola is proposed and suggested revising to propose material to wood or a previously approved wood substitute material for greater compatibility within the surrounding historic district. The applicant is here this evening to answer any additional questions that the board may have.

Good evening, Perry Deming at 85 Division Street. I have a representative from the manufacturer and I guess install company for this particular pergola that we chose, a simple accessory structure and to address the appropriateness of the aluminum structure, we I think came up with a solution that would hopefully please the board. We propose wrapping the entire aluminum structure in an Azac material that looks exactly like wood, you won't even be able to tell that it's aluminum behind this particular material. We chose aluminum for its durability and its longevity, but I do appreciate the Board's concern, and I think if we wrap that pergola, we have pictures to show in this wood material, it's not wood, it's called Azac, it would be the question from the

city.

So it's a simple 12 by 12 straight pergola for the backyard, keep us out of the sun. Nothing crazy about it, what's unique about it is it does have with that aluminum roof, have the ability to move it so we can let sun in, and then block the sun at certain times, so it's really kind of a cool unique structure that we really hopefully this would address that concern for the historic district. And I have Ryan here if he's wanna introduce yourself.

Yeah, I'm Ryan Kaufman, like he said, with Kaufman Lawn Furniture where we install these pergolas and yeah I think the benefit of not doing actual wood is clearly the maintenance of it and you have this aluminum pergola that never needs any maintenance So if we wrap it with this maintenance free AZEK it'll still appear like wood but Perry will never have to maintain it so

that's my goal. Low maintenance.

Mr. Brown, any questions or comments?

I know that there are other materials that we have approved for use in the historic district, has the board ever approved?

Yes, Azek and Boral have also in lieu of wood, yes, that's been approved before.

Now I guess my question looking at the mechanism on the ceiling and the fan and whatever else, I would want to see details of how and where the AZEK goes and what exactly is concealed and what's not.

We have photos of that, you pretty much can't even tell that there's any aluminum on the structure at all. It is completely wrapped in material and it looks like what?

Should I bring it up there?

You can Yeah.

If you would.

So this one is actual wood. We'd be doing the same thing with the AZAC. These are just custom posts that were used for that one.

When you say the same thing,

you mean like the rafter tails? Like the I mean, the you would No.

We would just be doing the straight beam.

Okay.

Just keeping

kinda So so the profile would I mean, the liquid

would just be wrapped.

I'm sorry, real quick. Just can you speak into the microphone just for a minute? Thank you.

So yeah, we're taking this AZIC and wrapping all the flat surfaces on the outside that can be seen. So the post will be wrapped on all four sides with AZEK that looks like wood. And then, but yeah we're not, Perry you're not doing the pergola cuts.

I'd rather not, but the beam, the cross border beams would be wrapped in that as well.

So this one is I believe wrapped in AZEK. It'd be very similar to this on the post and

the So if

the top of the structure then still What's the ceiling?

So yeah, the ceiling when you're under it looking up is aluminum. And if you were above it looking down is aluminum. Everything that you would see from the side is the wood grain AZEK.

Is it a silver colored like red or is it black or?

We have about a dozen different colors that the wood grain AZEK comes in. I think Perry you

kind of Oh not the

AZEK, I'm talking about the roof.

Oh the aluminum.

The roof yeah.

So there's six colors which are white, black, there's a dark bronze which I don't know, did you have a selection there?

I didn't, know, that'd be open. It doesn't matter, you really can't see it unless you're

sitting there. I don't know

what your neighbors are like looking down. Might be better for it to blend into the whatever exact Yeah

I have colors here.

But it's kind of in the rear of the yard, no neighbor can see and go oh there's aluminum inside that little area there where the roof is. Don't think that would be a concern.

What's the aluminum finish? Is gloss? Is it matte?

Matte. Yeah.

It's a matte finish? Okay.

Maybe Judy would look

out her

bathroom window way over, take

a look at it. There it's in

this picture

Very dark.

Hovering in three d model space. But on the hand drawn, it looks like there's some kind of tile pattern or slate stone, what does it sit on? How do the posts land?

Oh they would land directly onto the patio and then Azac would be flushed with the patio and just wrapped on all sides, so it just kinda ends on the patio.

So it's not secured?

It has footers, there's a footer below that it rests on, but the grade, this material would go all the way up grade, which would be the patio.

So that pergola itself would be footed and built first and then this would be wrapped just down to the grade.

Is there like a half it looks like there's a half wall kind of down one side, is that it doesn't sit on that, does it? I'm just trying to understand the site plan like how it

It's just posted, I don't know what you're looking at, are you looking at this

No,

the first drawing. What is the first image? That one. Just to understand how it sits in the Yeah, it's

four posts sitting on that patio basically as you saw on the second drawing.

Is that a walkway that you're seeing on the

A walkway on yeah, to the north and toward the garage is a walkway leading into that pergola area.

We're still on mute, I don't have any further questions.

Mr. Inski?

I have

any other questions?

Miss Marzula? I

think it's a good, it's a but I still would like to see a color that would either be that

rather than a silver looking yeah, understand.

Because it's gonna be a contrast to Could

it match the downspouts on the what are the downspouts on the existing house?

Downspouts are integral into the posts.

No, I'm just saying on the existing house you have are they black or

Copper.

They're they're copper?

Copper half six inch half round copper on the existing house. What

about the windows or or like the trim? Is anything else close to The

trim is black. We could we I think black would would probably be appropriate here to match the trim on the the home. I think it would look good. Again, you're not really gonna see it unless you're in a helicopter hovering above it or sitting underneath the actual structure

looking looking up.

Mr. Workley?

I I guess I have a few issues. Most of the time when we have either a garage or a structure, we're asking for it to have representation of the character of the house with it. Is Azak anywhere on the house aluminum?

It's an old, very old home as you know.

This is a very modern and very industrial kind of look?

No I think it's a very simple clean I get that that's

a simple clean but that's modern. Not

what Could be an interpretation.

Understand, there's a picture yours is the Blue House, right?

Correct, yes.

So there's a picture of the neighbors that has a very detailed gazebo on the back. The last picture I guess it is.

That's Judith Moppen's of Pergola area that's So that I would

say is more representation of the residential neighborhood and look of that area, I'm having a hard time going from that to a very modern square simple Pervilla.

Well if you took the roof off of that it would look the exact same, would look We roof didn't want back there to obstruct any views, we wanted it just very clean. You So put a flat roof on Judy's pergola it would it would look very similar I think.

It would be of wood and of the character of their house. We'd have to look to see if they had a wood roof because we asked you to have the roof match the house and have the same characteristics. This doesn't have any characteristics of your house. The neighborhood. Per glove

we haven't because it's not really a roof.

It's an accessory structure. Well

it doesn't really have a roof right? Actually slats going across there's right? There's not a trim No, roof on no. It's solid

It's on the slats. It's actually about the whole thing is about eight inches so that's one of the really the benefits of these is that they don't obstruct views and they don't really they don't change a lot to the house or the backyard, they kinda just exist and really just kinda blend in. They're not, I mean a roof like that actually takes over a lot more of backyard and changes the look of the house a lot more than this does because it's only you're only taking eight inches away from eye space, eye level.

When you go underneath this and you look up, you're not looking at a solid, right? It's actually slapped.

The louver is actually moving.

Right, it's louvered. Yes. Right. Okay. Yeah, so it's not a roof.

It's not a roof, it's a pergola.

Yeah, it's actually slats.

Where that structure is like a not really a pergola,

it's we could do some kind of decorative, more of a traditional look if that would be better.

It doesn't match the house though. It's about matching. It's about architecturally complementing the house. So doing something like that, there's nothing like that anywhere on the house. So it wouldn't make sense to bring that in now.

I think this is the most simplistic design for the accessory structure.

Is that the AZAC you're talking about?

It looks like wood.

Is it not a material finish all the way through?

Well, it's got you you would just wrap it.

Like, so if how we're wrapping the corners, are we gonna see that white edge?

No. That's not the actual profile, that's just a sample of the material but they make post wraps designed for a six by six post. This is actually a tongue of roof like a ceiling material. But yeah, they have designed post wraps that

have mitered edges to go around the post. So the architecturally looking Yeah. Not something that's like clad. Yep. Okay. Alright. That's all I have.

Go go ahead. I was

just gonna say point out that that's your garage that's pictured here with the it has like a wooden look door and you have a metal roof, right? A black metal roof?

Correct.

Okay. So if you went black

or The black would match, yes.

Right. And then the AZEK would have the same tone as the garage

door. Right. So

that might be

let me tell you.

Kimmel. No additional comments.

Okay.

So please, I think everybody's pretty well in agreement.

I move to approve with the AZEK wrap wood look and a blacker tone louver roof which will blend with the garage metal roof and the wood look door. Second.

All in favor? Aye. Anybody opposed?

Alright. Thank you. Great.

Thank you for your consideration and time. Thank you.

26 Dash 2591597 Hines Hill Road, and this is an accessory structure.

Yes. This proposal is for a carriage house in the rear yard. Just some brief staff comments for you here. Section three of the architectural design standards state that all facades including the rear over 12 feet long shall have at least one window or door opening. Staff's comment was to to suggest additional fenestration on the north side elevation to better meet this requirement. Additionally, section three of the architectural design standards state that enclosed accessory building shall incorporate some elements similar to the main body. Staff question the proposed window type and how it relates to the main house. Staff notes that double hung windows are proposed where the house has casement. Thank you. Additionally, to verify the proposed stone foundational material was to match existing house and to submit product spec sheets of all proposed exterior materials.

The applicant is here this evening to answer any additional questions that the board may have.

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

Leon Santpat, Ellis Architects. Was the original submittal. I just handed out a couple, one sheet there of this. We added at the north elevation, we added windows at the 1st Floor elevation. The windows were changed to casement windows and then all the material is gonna match the existing house.

The stone, there's no model number, it's actually just a cut stone. We did an addition probably five years ago to the house. The contractor that did that addition, he's trying to pull out all his specs from that, so I can get that to staff once I get a hold of that information. But windows, siding, hardy board is on the dormers of the house and the gable ends, shingles are going to match, so it's basically we're bringing in all the materials of the existing house.

Mr. Brown, any questions or comments? Ms. Zielinski?

No. I think we covered everything. Looks like

they responded to the inquiry.

Some comments.

No additional comments. Okay. So I move to approve. I'll second.

All in favor? Aye. Anybody opposed? Alright. Just Lauren, did you get one of these? I did, yes.

Okay, perfect.

Thank you. Thank you. 25 Dash 554670 Terex Road, and this is an addition.

The s is for an addition at 670 Terex Road for a living room, kitchen, and garage. Staff notes this application did receive informal board review at the 10/08/2025 meeting. The applicant has submitted revised elevations for the board's consideration. You do have staff comments in front of you. Three of the comments were addressing an issue staff saw on the side elevation here as well as question the proposed clip roof on the left and rear elevations, question the proposed column height on the left side elevation, question if the proposed man door on the left side elevation would be centered under the proposed gable and then question if the proposed foundational material and how it relates to the Main House.

The applicant is here this evening to answer any additional questions that the board may have.

You just state your name.

Andrew Heilmeyer, applicant. William Heilmeyer.

You just wanna go through the staff comments?

Yeah, so C was I think just asking if

all the roof's gonna be

the exact same, which it would be, we're gonna do a metal roof replacing existing roof and new roof all the same material. Let's see. D I believe is asking about the side where like there's that small part. We can either do bricks so it matches or inset it by the 18 inches. We're fine either way whichever way the board deems necessary. And then let's see e was different materials. So we can switch it all to board and batten siding. So instead of doing the horizontal that's fine, I think that's what that one was referring to.

Yeah I can explain that a little bit That comment was in relation to this left elevation here. Since this portion of the addition, this is new but you're connecting it to the main mass, it would then be considered part of the main mass so this section here before it insets, I think it insets four feet here for this doorway. This is creating the issue here because you have a horizontal siding, the existing brick as well as the board and batten on top. So this was the main callout that staff was seeing as an issue which is what the suggestion, if you inset that to have it end on an inside corner that would eliminate it or changing the material. We can it

brick to match that gives us that 18 inches it makes that room a little bit nicer but if we need to inset it by the 18 inches we're perfect.

That's up to you, you have to decide what you want us to review it for. Either way is acceptable.

Okay then we would do the brick, it would be our preference. And then I probably will need a little bit explanation on some of the questions. Sure. Sorry.

It may be a drawing error but just this column here was not all

the way up

to the roof here.

Oh yes, it would be.

And then as well as if this door doesn't quite seem centered under this gable so I was just questioning if that was another drawing error or if this door would be centered under this gable here.

Very good eye because I didn't even see that so yes we'd want it centered under that gable, absolutely. Yeah so we can have the draftsman fix that, absolutely.

So on the other side is the column going all the way to the roof or the roof is

Yeah the column should go all the to roof.

So will that cover the window then there? Is just the way it's drawn.

It's just the way I think it's drawn because that's set back more. It's not like in the same, it's set back a little bit. Don't know the exact dimensions. Yeah it would not affect the window, it would not block the window. And I think the foundation material so I think what you're saying is we just need to make sure we put the brick. He has it drawn as a block. We would just need to do the brick across the foundation, understandable.

So we'll change that to brick. I do think that that covers all the staff comments. Mr. Brown, questions or comments? Ms. Serensky?

No. Don't think everything.

Historically, on that left elevation again, between the front entrance and the garage, the chimney that's a chimney. It goes all the way up? Correct. Okay. So the gutter isn't gonna go past the chimney. It's gonna stop on either side?

Correct.

Okay. It's just We

can have

him fix

that. Alright.

I was gonna say I'm like I wasn't sure if it was like a different material wrapping up around the house or

if it

was a chimney. Okay.

That'd be an interesting look, but no. That's what I was asking about. I don't know that you can do that, but no.

That's all I have. Okay.

Yeah. No additional questions.

Make a motion to approve with modifying the left elevation to include the area required for brick, or the client would like to have vice brick to match the other brick in the same plane. That's Foundation material to brick. Oh, and the foundation material to brick and any other modifications submit to staff. Clarification update, sorry.

Okay, I second.

All in favor? Aye. Anybody opposed?

Alright, thank you. Thank you and I just wanna comment that Lauren and the staff have been great, so I just wanna put that,

I don't know if they're

in the

record, but I just wanna say that they've been great, so thank you. Thank you.

And I wanted to thank you for making the changes. It's a change.

It was a good thing, so

it really makes it better,

so we appreciate it.

Especially for our rookie. 26

Dash 101200 Laurel Lake Drive, and this is the villas.

Yes. Staff does note that this is still on the agenda as it was continued from the last meeting, but they are not quite ready to come back yet. So they have asked to be tabled one more time to the May 13 meeting and are going to try to make that meeting with the adjustments to the the elevations that were discussed at the previous meeting.

So if we have a motion to table again. I move to table. Second. All in favor?

Aye.

Alright. So we move on to other business. First we have the findings of fact for case number 22Dash730 which is 5530 Stone Creek Way. Anybody have any any, comments or additions to what staff drew up? So just need a motion to adopt these findings of fact.

I'll make a motion.

To adopt the findings of fact noted as case number 2022730. Is that the correct?

22Dash730.

22Dash730. Sorry. I switched numbers up.

We have a second. Second. All in favor.

Aye. Okay.

And then the approval of the minutes from March 11.

Okay.

Didn't see anything that needed to be changed in the minutes. Somebody's will we make a motion?

I'd like to approve the minutes.

Second?

I'll second.

All in favor?

Alright.

Think the problem We had to weren't we in the same boat last like three

of us have to abstain and the fourth wasn't here for quorum, is that the problem? Yeah.

Because three of us weren't here. Oh

from around Mr. Studentski you weren't here on the eleventh

So were

you still have only three.

Oh we still don't have quorum for it then.

Okay we're still

in the same boat.

Alright we'll

push at another meeting.

And then the the minutes for the April 8, we were just adjusting some things, weren't We had a technical difficulty, they weren't quite ready so we will have those on the next agenda for you.

Okay. Any additional update from staff?

I don't have an additional update right now other than we are still moving forward with the process of holding for the historic landmark expansion program a resident, just a general open not a meeting, but just a general residential informational gathering between us and here next Wednesday on the twenty ninth.

Anything from anybody else? I think we're ready for a motion to adjourn then.

Wasn't there another meeting we're having on the the That

would be the twenty seventh, that's the joint session between Planning Commission, Board of Zoning and Building Appeals and this board. You should've got the agenda for that today.

Okay. So we have a motion to adjourn.

Move to adjourn at 08:44PM.

Alright. We are adjourned.