City of Hudson, Ohio  
CD Meeting Agenda - Final  
Architectural & Historic Board of Review  
John Caputo, Chair  
Allyn Marzulla, Vice Chair  
John Workley, Secretary  
Andrew Brown  
Amy Manko  
Françoise Massardier-Kenney  
Jamie Sredinski  
Nicholas Sugar, City Planner  
Lauren Coffman, Associate Planner  
Wednesday, April 8, 2026  
7:30 PM  
Town Hall  
27 East Main Street  
Call To Order  
Roll Call  
I.  
II.  
III.  
IV.  
Public Comment  
Consent Applications  
6598 Stone Rd  
Accessory Structure (Pavilion)  
Submitted by Elizabeth Nicklas, Peninsula Architects  
a) Staff recommends approval as submitted.  
Attachments:  
50 W Streetsboro St  
Sign (Ground Sign)  
Submitted by Shweta Arora  
a) Staff recommends approval as submitted.  
Attachments:  
Old Business  
V.  
5530 Stonecreek Way  
New House Alterations (Windows, Trim and Material Changes)  
Submitted by Maher Holozadah  
a) Staff notes project received AHBR approval at the September 28, 2022,  
AHBR meeting.  
b) Upon final inspection, staff observed deviations from the final approved  
plans including changes to the proposed window design, changes to stone  
material on front elevation, and removal of frieze boards. The applicant  
has submitted revised elevations for the Boards consideration to request  
approval of the changes.  
c) Window Design: Staff notes a different window design was implemented;  
however, the windows are consistent. Section IV-3(e)(4) states “the  
building shall have a typical window used for most windows”.  
d) Applied Stone: Additional stone has been applied to the front mass.  
Section IV-4(d)(3) states “The materials used in any mass must be applied  
consistently on that mass on all sides of the structure”. Staff notes the  
Board may consider the additional stone as it is expanded in a small area  
and ends at an inside corner.  
e) Frieze Boards: The originally approved frieze boards have not been  
installed. Section IV-4(f) states details in the main body and the wings  
must be consistently applied. Staff notes there is no specific requirement  
for frieze boards.  
Attachments:  
41 E. Main Street (Historic District)  
Commercial Addition (Office and Storage Space)  
Submitted by Elizabeth Swearingen, Peninsula Architects  
a) Staff notes this proposal received informal AHBR comments at the April 9,  
2025, meeting and Planning Commission approval on January 12, 2026.  
b) Section IV-4(f)(3) of the Architectural Design Standards state “Details in  
the wings should be the same or subordinate to those in the main body. For  
example, a wing should not have an elaborate cornice if the main body has  
a simple one.” Staff notes the introduction of gable ends, window paneling,  
and widened corner board detail on the proposed addition.  
c) Staff notes horizontal siding is proposed for the wing addition, while the  
main mass has brick. However, Preservation Brief #14 (Guidance on new  
additions) states “a new addition should be differentiated, but compatible,  
from the historic building.”  
d) Staff notes the design follows the guidance of Preservation Brief #14 by  
being subordinate to the existing building. The design is lower in height  
and separated by a hyphen (link).  
e) Remove references to “or approved equal” where materials are  
documented on the elevations.  
f) Verify the proposed exterior door materials for the overhead and man  
door.  
Attachments:  
Legislative History  
2/25/26  
Architectural & Historic Board continued  
of Review  
88 N Main Street (Historic District)  
Alterations (Door Replacement)  
Submitted by Joseph Kernan  
a) Staff notes this application was continued from the March 11, 2026, AHBR  
meeting.  
b) The AHBR requested the applicant add additional detail to the proposed  
front entry door to better align with the surrounding Historic District.  
c) Staff notes the applicant has requested the AHBR table the request to the  
April 22, 2026, meeting to give them additional time to address the Boards  
comments in their design.  
Attachments:  
Legislative History  
2/25/26  
3/11/26  
Architectural & Historic Board continued  
of Review  
Architectural & Historic Board continued  
of Review  
6050 Pine Ridge Trail  
Alteration (Windows, Chimney, Foundation)  
Submitted by Robyn Jones, Prestige Builder Group  
a) Staff notes this project received AHBR approval at the September 10, 2025  
meeting. The applicant is requesting a modification of the approved plans  
and has submitted revised elevations for the Boards consideration.  
b) Window Design Change: Staff notes a window design change is proposed  
on the front and rear elevations. Section IV-3(e)(4) states “the building  
shall have a typical window used for most windows”. Staff notes the  
proposed window changes meet this requirement.  
c) Window bump out: Staff notes a rear elevation kitchen window bump out  
was added. Section IV-4(g)(4) of the Architectural Design Standards state  
projections on the ground floor should be carried through the foundation.  
Revise the rear kitchen window projection to depict a full foundation  
underneath.  
d) Foundational height: Staff notes the applicant is proposing to raise the  
foundational height on the rear elevation, creating an inconsistent water  
table. Revise elevations to depict a consistent foundational height/water  
table on the rear elevation.  
e) Chimney: Staff notes the applicant is proposing a chimney on the rear  
elevation. Section III-1 (g)(2) of the Architectural Design Standards state  
that all chimneys must match the foundation material. Fireplace vents,  
when incorporated, shall be located at the rear elevation. Revise proposed  
chimney material to match stone foundational material.  
Attachments:  
33 E Streetsboro Street (Historic District)  
Alteration (Windows)  
Submitted by Tracey Crawford  
a) Staff notes the applicant received approval for Pella Reserve Series style  
windows at the May 14, 2025 AHBR meeting.  
b) Staff notes the applicant received a denial for Anderson 200 Series style  
windows at the February 11, 2026, AHBR meeting.  
c) The Applicant is seeking approval for Anderson E-Series windows. Staff  
notes the window proposal is for new construction and not for the  
replacement of existing historic materials.  
d) At the March 11, 2026 AHBR meeting, the Board reviewed the Andersen  
E-Series windows and requested additional documentation for  
consideration within the Historic District. Staff understands the applicant  
is currently working with their contractor to provide the requested  
materials.  
e) As this is a new construction project and the proposal is for a wood  
aluminum clad window, the Board could consider approving the E-Series  
for this particular request. The Board could then instruct the window  
representative to provide additional documentation to further evaluate  
whether this window series would be appropriate for the replacement of  
historic windows on historic buildings in the future, which is a higher bar  
review.  
Attachments:  
Legislative History  
3/11/26 Architectural & Historic Board continued  
of Review  
New Business  
VI.  
29 E. Streetsboro St (Historic District)  
Accessory Structure (Detached Garage)  
Submitted by Tracey Crawford  
a) Staff notes that Andersen E-Series windows are proposed and understands  
the Board is currently considering their appropriateness for use within the  
Historic District.  
Attachments:  
40 Roslyn Ave (Historic District)  
Alteration (Window Replacement)  
Submitted by David Thomas  
a) Staff notes vinyl-clad wood windows are proposed; however, the house  
was constructed in 1987 and is considered non-contributing. The existing  
house has vinyl siding and windows.  
Attachments:  
6142 Independence Dr  
Addition (Garage Addition and Renovation)  
Submitted by Robert Cogdeill, Roberts Construction  
a) Section III-1(g)(8) of the Architectural Design Standards state that large  
expanses of blank wall are to be avoided. Fenestration placement should  
be at a maximum of approximately every 12 feet. Incorporate additional  
fenestration on rear elevation to meet this requirement.  
b) Section IV-4(c) of the Architectural Design Standards state that all roofs in  
all the wings must be of the same shape as the main body, but they may  
have a different pitch or orientation. Roofs shall not intersect a wall so as  
to cause a valley. Question the shed roof extension on the proposed  
addition, as the main mass has a gable roof.  
c) Section IV-4(f)(1) of the Architectural Design Standards state that details  
in the main body must be consistently applied throughout all sides of the  
main body. Revise elevations to depict shutters on side elevation to meet  
this requirement.  
Attachments:  
200 Laurel Lake Dr  
New House (Villas)  
Submitted by John Ducatman, RDL Architects  
a) Staff notes this application received informal AHBR review at the  
February 28, 2024 meeting. The project received site plan approval from  
Planning Commission and Board of Zoning and Building Appeals.  
b) Staff notes the Board may want to take the first meeting for project  
orientation, initial comment, and review.  
c) Staff comments are attached for the Boards review.  
Attachments:  
Other Business  
VII.  
159 Hudson Street (Informal)  
New House (Single-Family Dwelling)  
Submitted by Brendan Boatwright, McAlpine House  
a) Reduce overall footprint to meet impervious surface calculation  
requirements.  
b) Section I-2 (b) of the Architectural Design Standards state that new  
buildings and alterations shall respect the existing context and framework.  
Question the overall compatibility with the existing architectural  
framework of Hudson Street.  
c) Section IV-4 (b) of the Architectural Design Standards states that the main  
body must be the largest visible mass. Revise elevations and overall design  
to better meet this requirement.  
d) Section IV-4(b)(2) of the Architectural Design Standards state that the  
front face of the main body must sit forward at least 18” from the front  
face of the wings. Additionally, Section IV-4 (h)(1) states that the wing  
must be attached at the rear or side of the building and may not extend  
forward of the main body. Staff notes that the proposed wings would  
extend in front of the main body by approximately 15 ft. Revise elevations  
to meet this requirement.  
e) Section IV-4 (g)(2) of the Architectural Design Standards state that  
projections which extend out from the mass to which they are attached  
more than five feet will be treated as wings, except for open porches, and  
single story additions off the rear of multi-story dwellings. If the roof line  
of the addition intersects the roof line of the existing dwelling, then the  
addition shall be classified as a wing. This guideline should not be  
construed to mean a masonry pier or continuous wall foundation is  
required upon the enclosure of an existing deck or porch.  
f) Section IV-4 (e)(2) of the Architectural Design Standards states that wings  
usually have simple composition that is dependent on the main body.  
Question if the front wings are taller than the main mass.  
g) Section III-1(g)(3) of the Architectural Design Standards states exposed  
foundations and tie courses shall be of a consistent material on all  
elevations. Revise elevations to depict a more consistently applied exposed  
foundation on all elevations.  
h) Section III-1(d)(5) of the Architectural Design Standards states “All  
facades (including the rear) over twelve (12) feet long shall have at least  
one window or door opening. Fenestration placement on the accessory  
structure shall be proportional to the house.” Incorporate additional  
fenestration on the east-side elevation to meet this requirement.  
i) Section IV-4(c) of the Architectural Design Standards state that all roofs in  
all the wings must be of the same shape as the main body, but they may  
have a different pitch or orientation. Roofs shall not intersect a wall so as  
to cause a valley. Question the proposed flat roof, as the main mass has a  
gable roof.  
j) Section IV-4 (d)(1) of the Architectural Design Standards state that the  
walls of the main body must be a dominant material. Up to two additional  
materials may be used to call attention to the composition. For example a  
different material may be used on building projections gable ends,  
entrance recesses, or to emphasize the horizontal or vertical divisions of  
the building. Revise elevations to meet this requirement.  
Attachments:  
Legislative History  
2/11/26  
Architectural & Historic Board discussed  
of Review  
5 Thirty Acres Ln (Informal)  
Addition (Kitchen, Master Bedroom, Bathrooms, and Garage)  
Submitted by Matt Plecnik, Cleveland Draw Architecture  
a) Section IV-4(b)(1) states “wings may not be larger or taller than the main  
body of the structure. Question overall size and appropriateness of  
proposed addition. Suggest reducing the length of the addition to be less  
than the main house to meet this requirement.  
b) Revise elevations to depict a consistent foundational height/water table  
around the new addition.  
Attachments:  
258 N. Main Street (Historic District) (Informal)  
Addition (Bedroom, Bathroom, Office, and 2-Car Garage)  
Submitted by Nate Bailey, Hara Architects  
a) Staff notes this proposal received informal AHBR review at the March 11,  
2026 AHBR meeting.  
b) Staff notes that the Board previously provided comments regarding the  
overall size of the proposed addition and suggested reducing the footprint  
to lessen its overall impact. The applicant has submitted revised elevations  
for the Board’s consideration in response to the Boards feedback.  
Attachments:  
Legislative History  
3/11/26 Architectural & Historic Board discussed  
of Review  
179 Elm Street (Historic District) (Informal)  
Demolition (Single-Family Dwelling)  
Submitted by Nate Bailey, Hara Architects  
a) Staff notes the applicant is proposing to demolish a 1952 home located  
within the Historic District in order to construct a new single-family  
dwelling on the property.  
b) Staff notes Elm Street was incorporated into both the local and national  
historic districts in 2022.  
c) Staff notes the boundary increase application included 179 Elm Street as a  
contributing building based on its age. The historic district period of  
significance extends to 1960. 179 Elm Street was categorized within a  
sub-period identified as 1940-1960. It is described follows: “The  
one-story Minimal Traditional Side-Gabled house with aluminum siding is  
asymmetrical in design. The 6/6 double hung windows are flanked with  
shutters. The attached Gable Front one car garage projects forward from  
the main façade.”  
d) The boundary increase application further states “The Boundary Increase  
exhibits the established architectural styles and types of residential  
buildings and expands the period of significance from 1940 to 1960  
exhibiting Colonial Revival, Cape Cod and Minimal Traditional styles with  
a strong predilection for Colonial Revival styles.  
Attachments:  
Staff Update  
VIII.  
IX.  
Minutes of Previous Architectural & Historic Board of Review Meeting: March  
11, 2026  
Attachments:  
Adjournment  
*
*
*