Following, we too have large trees in the front of our home that is quite similar to yours - an ash that is quite beautiful and a blue spruce. HOA mandates we have two trees in front and this is what the original owners choose and I'm kind of stuck with them.

I wish we had a picture from farther back, where the camera was lined up with the center of the house, so as to give a more complete view.

I agree with Gardengal but would emphasize that, not only would a tree's contribution be negated if it was in the wrong place, but if it were seriously bad in the wrong place, its contribution could be substantially negative! ... mainly correlating with the cost of its removal and repair of the surroundings. I don't know how your husband could look at the conifer and not be 100% certain that it is way too close to the house. Way! And, without question, the shade tree needs to be limbed up. If the tree tops out now to at least 20', then it's canopy should be limbed up to the same elevation as the eaves of the roof (that we see above the bank of windows.) Keep in mind that removal of bottom branches is only going to force new growth to other parts of the tree, primarily its upper region. You'll be getting a large chunk of what you cut off, right back somewhere else within a few weeks. The disadvantages to not removing the lower branches now, in addition to the impeded view of the house face, is that those growing decidedly vertical will compete with the main trunk to become a permanent part of the canopy, which will make them ever more psychologically difficult to remove later, as it would then disfigure the canopy. And removing them later is just a bigger job because their wood is then thicker. Right now it's a small and easy job. If they're not being removed now because someone already thinks it will remove too much of the canopy, that fear can be put to rest. What remains of the canopy will re-develop over the summer into the same shape and form that it is now. It will just be a slightly larger tree.

some ideas:

I forgot to mention but Doug's picture reminded me of it ... that hedge cutting across the yard at an angle, at the foreside of the walk, is a major negative contribution to the overall appeal of the yard and home. Instead of creating an unspoken message to the viewers that says "welcome" .... it is saying "keep back! Not the guest entrance. We're keeping this barricaded to deter undesirables." Then again, maybe that is working out as an advantage. :-)

That conifer needs to be gone. I’m surprised your homeowners insurance agent isn’t kicking up a fuss about it. We just bought a new house, and a lilac is touching the house - trim it back, he said.

Insurance agents generally have little undertanding of plants or how they might....or might not....affect a structure. I would certany not put much emphasis on their recommendations.

btw, here, where massive native conifers abound and where many are planted very close to houses (or the house itself built in very close proximity), I've yet to encounter any agent that actually comes out to inspect the property............

Oh my ... when you have to pay to take one of those big, bad boys down. (Seen them in Portland close to houses and large enough that, if they fall opposite direction of the house, their roots kicking up will still take out two or three rooms. Still, the atmosphere is great if your nerves can tolerate it.

Gardengal, of course I wouldn’t expect my insurance man to have an understanding of my lilac’s needs. What he DOES have an understanding of, though, is my insurance policy and when/if it will pay for damage to my house.

If if he wants me to trim back that harmless (in my opinion) lilac, I will.

It would need to be a pretty flimsy house to have a lilac damage it!! They are just not an aggressive or large enough growing plant to be a concern.

The hedge that blocks the entrance bothers me more than the trees.