City of Hudson, Ohio

Meeting Minutes - Final

Architectural & Historic Board of Review

John Caputo, Chair

Allyn Marzulla, Vice Chair

John Workley, Secretary

John Funyak

Françoise Massardier-Kenney

William Ray

Karl Wetzel

Nicholas Sugar, City Planner

Amanda Krickovich, Associate Planner

Wednesday, August 9, 2023

7:30 PM

Town Hall

27 East Main Street

Call To Order

Chair Caputo called to order the regularly scheduled meeting of the Architectural & Historic

Board of Review of the City of Hudson at 7:30 p.m., in accordance with the Sunshine Laws of

the State of Ohio, O.R.C. Section 121.22.

II.

III.

Roll Call

Present: 4 -

Mr. Caputo, Mr. Funyak, Ms. Kenney and Mr. Ray

Ms. Marzulla, Mr. Wetzel and Mr. Workley

Absent: 3 -

Public Comment

Chair Caputo opened the meeting to public comments for anyone wanting to address the

Board. There were no comments.

IV.

Consent Applications

There were no items on the Consent Agenda.

Old Business

New Business

There was no Old Business.

VI.

AHBR 23-703

72 Village Way, Suite 1A

Sign (Hairboss University)

Attachments:

72 Village Way AHBR Packet

Ms. Krickovich introduced the application by displaying the building, describing the proposed

sign and sign revision and reviewing the staff comments.

Mr. Joe Berdine, Signarama, stated he has contacted the owner regarding using the sign with

the address.

The Board, staff and applicant discussed the proposed sign revision, the potential discoloring

of the existing sign location on the building, and placing the bottom sign higher on the

building.

Ms. Kenney made a motion, seconded by Mr. Funyak, to approve the revised proposed

sign (two signs), wth the space above and below the two signs the same. The motion was

approved by the following vote:

Aye:

4 - Mr. Caputo, Mr. Funyak, Ms. Kenney and Mr. Ray

AHBR 23-743

1306 Meadowood Lane

Alteration (Pool House) Accessory Structure

Attachments:

1306 Meadowood Ln AHBR Packet

The applicant was not present for the meeting.

Ms. Krickovich introduced the application by displaying the site plan, displaying the

elevation, describing the accessory structure, and reviewing the staff comments.

The Board discussed the need for fenestration.

Mr. Ray made a motion, seconded by Ms. Kenney, to approve as submitted provided the

fenestration rules are complied with as approved by staff. The motion was approved by

the following vote:

Aye:

4 - Mr. Caputo, Mr. Funyak, Ms. Kenney and Mr. Ray

AHBR 23-730

69 W. Streetsboro Street (Citizens Bank)

Exterior Alteration (Window and Door Infill)

Attachments:

Citizens Bank AHBR Packet

Mr. Sugar introduced the application by displaying elevations, and describing the project

including the removal of doors and a window. Mr. Sugar also reviewed the staff comments.

Ms. Carrie Love, HLS Architecture, noted infilling the doors and windows with brick could

present problems since the sill heights are not all at the same height.

The Board, applicant and staff discussed the width between fenestrations.

Mr. Ray made a motion, seconded by Mr. Funyak, to infill the two sliding doors and

install a false window to replace the existing window on the side of the building. The

motion was approved by the following vote:

Aye:

4 - Mr. Caputo, Mr. Funyak, Ms. Kenney and Mr. Ray

AHBR 23-708

11 Atterbury Boulevard

Awning (Brew Kettle)

Submitted by Mike Sheets, Bright Covers

a) Staff notes the applicant is proposing a 1,346 square foot awning that

would replace the existing window canopy.

b) The proposal was presented to AHBR on August 9th and tabled. The

applicant requested to bring a sample of the proposed roof material to

present to the board.

c) The Architectural Design Standards state awnings shall be retractable

and made of canvas or other fabric on a metal frame. Awnings shall not

be backlit. Awning colors shall be compatible with the sign and building

colors. Staff acknowledges a traditional canvas awning may not

complement the architecture of the building; suggest a design with a metal

roof with thicker framing and posts that could be more compatible with

the existing structure. Compatibility is important as the proposed location

is highly visible from the street.

d) Question the framing as depicted intersecting the metal architectural

features above the glass entryways. Staff notes the proposed canopy

would also obscure these entryways.

Attachments:

11 Atterbury AHBR Packet

Ms. Krickovich introduced the application by describing the project and proposed materials,

displaying photos of the building, and reviewing the staff comments.

Mr. Jeff Osland, Bright Covers, described the freestanding 1364 square foot awning with

six-inch posts and the owner's willingness to correct any drainage issues.

The Board, staff and applicant discussed: The suitability of polycarbonate in this high

visibility location, the existing awnings being different from the one proposed, that

polycarbonate allows light penetration, that canvas is not appropriate for this application as it

does not match existing building materials, that the Board would like to see a sample of the

polycarbonate, and is concerned about setting a precedent by allowing polycarbonate for this

application.

The applicant requested the application be tabled.

This matter was continued

AHBR 23-665

2262 Weir Drive

New House (2629sf Two Story Single Family)

Attachments:

2262 Weir Dr. AHBR Packet

Ms. Krickovich introduced the application by displaying the proposed elevations, and

reviewing the staff comments.

Mr. Joe Bailey, Camden Builders, was present for the meeting.

The Board, staff and applicant discussed: Consistency regarding the window grids, the

distance between the windows on the side of the house, and that the foundation be consistent

around the house.

Mr. Ray made a motion, seconded by Mr. Funyak, to approve as submitted with no

grids on the rear windows and to spread the side windows to better align, as approved

by staff. The motion was approved by the following vote:

Aye:

4 - Mr. Caputo, Mr. Funyak, Ms. Kenney and Mr. Ray

VII. Other Business

AHBR 23-684

7322 Arborwood Drive (Informal)

Addition (352sf Garage Expansion

Submitted by Len Huddleston

a) The Architectural Design Standards state the front face of the main body

must sit forward at least 18" from the front face of the wings. Staff notes

the existing garage is forward of the main body and the applicant is

proposing to extend the existing garage by 16 feet.

b) The Architectural Design Standards require the materials used in any

mass to be applied consistently on that mass on all sides of the structure.

Staff notes the applicant is proposing board and batten siding on the front

elevation that is not consistently applied to all sides of the mass.

c) Staff notes the Land Development Code requires side loading attached

garages to be 25 feet from the side property line. The applicant is

proposing to be approximately 22 feet from the property line. The

applicant would need to revise the site plan to show the 25 feet or pursue

a variance request through the Board of Zoning and Building Appeals.

d) Staff notes this case went to the AHBR on August 9, 2023. The Board

requested the applicant provide documentation of the factors of a

practical difficulty on the property. The applicant has provided this

documentation. The AHBR can use these factors in determining if a

special exception should be granted.

Attachments:

7322 Arborwood Dr. AHBR Packet - 9.27.2023

7322 Arborwood Dr. AHBR Packet

Ms. Krickovich introduced the application by displaying the site plan, reviewing the

Architectural Design Standards, and reviewing the staff comments.

Mr. Len Huddleston, applicant, was present for the meeting.

The Board, applicant and staff discussed the following reasons which might justify the

addition being more forward of the main mass: The depth of the wooded lot, many other

houses in the neighborhood have forward projecting garages, and it will allow another vehicle

in the garage. The applicant stated the board and batten in question will be corrected. The

Board and applicant noted the proposed plan meets the site practical difficulty criterion in the

following ways: The neighborhood will not be burdened if the addition is allowed, that other

feasible options are not practical, and the size of the addition is in keeping with the

neighborhood.

The Board agreed that the proposed addition fits with the neighborhood, however, care must

be taken not to set a precedent which would allow others with less compelling reasons to

request the same variance. Mr. Sugar noted three members of the Board are not present and

with the addition of those three, the vote could go against approval and that the criterion could

be reviewed in greater detail at the next AHBR meeting. Staff also noted there is not a known

survey on file.

AHBR 23-741

144 Hudson Street (Historic District)

Addition (972sf Mater Bedroom and Great Room)

Submitted by Chris Lachman

a) Staff notes this project went before the AHBR as an informal review on

August 9, 2023.

b) The applicant has submitted material cut sheets for the addition. The

Architectural Design Standards state all chimneys must match the

foundation material. Additionally, the Architectural Design Standards

state additions should be designed to be compatible with the main

structure by incorporating materials and foundation to match.

c) Staff notes the existing foundation is brick and the existing chimney is

painted brick. The applicant is proposing the new chimney to be a stone

veneer material. Recommend both chimneys be the same material to meet

this requirement.

Attachments:

144 Hudson St. AHBR Packet 8.23.23

Ms. Krickovich displayed elevations for a 972 square foot rear addition.

Ms. Chris Lachman, applicant, described the existing elevations and proposed plans.

The Board, staff and applicant discussed the windows, a site visit, this house's lack of historic

relevance even though it is in the historic district, and the general opinion of the Board that

the plan is good.

Working group recommendation for AHBR Consultant.

AHBR-6785

Attachments:

Perspectus RFP

Chair Caputo noted two firms were interviewed for the Historic Consultant position.

Ms. Kenney made a motion, seconded by Mr. Ray, that Perspectus be retained as the

AHBR historic consultant. The motion was approved by the following vote:

Aye:

4 - Mr. Caputo, Mr. Funyak, Ms. Kenney and Mr. Ray

Minutes of Previous Architectural & Historic Board of Review Meeting: July

12, 2023.

AHBR 7-12-23

Attachments:

AHBR Minutes July 12, 2023 - Draft

A motion was made by Mr. Funyak, seconded by Mr. Ray, that the July 12, 2023,

Minutes be approved as amended. The motion carried by the following vote:

Aye:

3 - Mr. Caputo, Mr. Funyak and Mr. Ray

1 - Ms. Kenney

Abstain:

Minutes of Previous Architectural & Historic Board of Review Meeting: July

26, 2023.

AHBR 7-26-23

Attachments:

AHBR Minutes July 26, 2023 - Draft

A motion was made by Ms. Kenney, seconded by Mr. Ray, that the July 26, 2023,

Minutes be approved as submitted. The motion carried by the following vote:

Aye:

4 - Mr. Caputo, Mr. Funyak, Ms. Kenney and Mr. Ray

VIII. Staff Update

Ms. Krickovich informed the Board the next AHBR meeting will take place at City Hall on

Terex Road.

The Board discussed notification of upcoming Board meetings and how exceptions may or

may not be permitted and the possibility of requesting applicants 'present the case' for being

granted an exception.

IX.

Adjournment

___________________________________________

John Caputo, Chair

___________________________________________

William Ray, Board Member

___________________________________________

Joe Campbell, Executive Assistant

Upon approval by the Architectural & Historic Board of Review, this official written

summary of the meeting minutes shall become a permanent record, and the official

minutes shall also consist of a permanent audio and video recording, excluding executive

sessions, in accordance with Codified Ordinances, Section 252.04, Minutes of

Architectural and Historic Board of Review, Board of Zoning and Building Appeals,

and Planning Commission.A motion was made by Mr. Funyak, seconded by Mr. Ray,

that the meeting be adjourned at 9:06 p.m.. The motion carried by an unanimous vote.