City of Hudson, Ohio  
CD Meeting Agenda - Final  
Architectural & Historic Board of Review  
John Caputo, Chair  
Allyn Marzulla, Vice Chair  
John Workley, Secretary  
Françoise Massardier-Kenney  
William Ray  
Jamie Sredinski  
Karl Wetzel  
Nicholas Sugar, City Planner  
Amanda Krickovich, Associate Planner  
Wednesday, August 14, 2024  
7:30 PM  
Town Hall  
27 East Main Street  
Call to Order  
I.  
Roll Call  
II.  
III.  
Public Comment  
Consent Applications  
IV.  
A.  
138 Atterbury Blvd  
Addition (Front Porch)  
Submitted by Amy Proya  
a) Staff recommends approval as submitted.  
Attachments:  
Old Business  
V.  
New Business  
VI.  
1751 Hines Hill Rd  
Pergola - Addition  
Submitted by Adam Timan  
a) The Architectural Design Standards state that roofs on projections should  
match the roof material of the building (unless both roofs are flat) and to  
the extent possible, shall be same kind of roof. Natural finish metals such  
as copper, terne coated steel, or lead may be substituted for any roofing  
material. Staff notes the proposal is for a flat metal roof and the proposed  
roof would connect to an existing metal hip roof.  
b) Question how proposed structure would attach to the existing addition  
Attachments:  
809 Stonehaven Cir.  
Rear Porch Roof  
Submitted by David Marsh  
a) The Architectural Design Standards state that roofs on projections should  
match the roof material of the building (unless both roofs are flat) and to  
the extent possible, shall be same kind of roof. Natural finish metals such  
as copper, terne coated steel, or lead may be substituted for any roofing  
material. Question proposed metal roof material.  
b) Question the number of steps shown on the rear elevation and if the rear  
gable is accurately depicted.  
c) Question width of proposed post beams. Recommend minimum 6” x 6”  
posts.  
Attachments:  
39 Church St  
Alterations (Window replacement)  
Submitted by Gunton Corporation - Pella Window & Door- Devine  
a) The secretary of the interior standards states that deteriorated 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 in design, color, texture, and other visual qualities and,  
where possible, materials. Question the condition of the existing window.  
b) Submit clear photos/documentation of the window being replaced  
Attachments:  
2562 Brafferton Ave  
Addition (Front Porch)  
Submitted by Shawn Hook  
a) Question the proposed column width. Staff recommends a 6” x 6” post  
width or larger  
Attachments:  
64 Aurora St (Historic District)  
Addition (Primary Bedroom)  
Submitted by Russell Gayheart  
a) Revise elevations to label proposed materials for siding, shingles, and  
exposed foundation.  
b) Question if trim is accurately depicted for the existing and proposed  
garage doors.  
c) Staff notes the proposed addition would be attached to an approximate  
2008 garage addition.  
d) Preservation Brief #14 states a new addition should bear a relationship to  
the proportions and massing of the historic building. Question the  
proposed 50 ft uninterrupted roof span of the proposed addition.  
e) Suggest removing shutters for the three ganged windows on the west  
elevation as they would not appear functional.  
f) Question the smaller window sizes along the east elevation in comparison  
to the existing windows.  
g) Submit a product specification sheet for the proposed garage door.  
Attachments:  
264 E Streetsboro St  
Addition (Front Porch)  
Submitted by Shawn Hook  
a) The Architectural Design Standards state that roofs on projections should  
match the roof material of the building (unless both roofs are flat) and to  
the extent possible, shall be same kind of roof. Natural finish metals such  
as copper, terne coated steel, or lead may be substituted for any roofing  
material.  
b) Staff notes a metal roof is proposed. Staff recommends a shingled roof due  
to the chimney location  
Attachments:  
33 E Streetsboro (Historic District)  
Addition to Detached Garage  
Submitted by Tracey Crawford  
a) Verify the design and materials of the proposed garage door. Staff notes  
the existing garage door design and materials would not typically be  
approved in the historic district.  
b) Verify the proposed window design.  
Attachments:  
68 W Case Dr  
Addition  
Submitted by Charles A. McGettrick Jr.  
a) The architectural design standards state that the 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.  
Staff acknowledges that the existing roof is flat; however, question the  
proposed slope in relation to the existing roof pitch.  
Attachments:  
241 Ravenna St  
New Single-Family House  
Submitted by Tracy Corpus  
a) The Architectural Standards state “the materials used in any mass must be  
applied consistently on that mass on all sides of the structure.” Staff notes  
the siding on the garage wing would not be applied consistently and would  
transition from horizontal to vertical at the rear elevation.  
b) Staff notes the exposed foundation would not be applied consistently at the  
rear of the building.  
c) The Architectural Design Standards state “large expanses of blank wall  
are to be avoided.” Question if the windows should be enlarged along the  
front, left, and right elevations to better meet this requirement.  
Attachments:  
7750 Stow Road - Ellsworth Hill Elementary  
Outdoor Learning Pavilion  
Submitted by John Peterson, GPD Group  
a) Staff notes the proposed pavilion would be constructed partially from  
reclaimed wood salvaged from the former “Flood House” Barn located at  
1213 Barlow Road.  
b) The Architectural Design Standards state “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.” Staff notes the 30 ft long east elevation would not have  
fenestration. Suggest integration of a hayloft style window to meet this  
requirement.  
Attachments:  
2155 Middleton Road - Country Club of Hudson  
Golf Cart Storage Barn  
Submitted by Elizabeth Swearinger, Peninsula Architects  
a) Staff notes the AHBR approved the design for the golf cart storage barn on  
September 13, 2023; however, the applicant has amended the design to a  
new location and reduce the size of the building.  
b) The previous AHBR approval conditioned that all non-functional louvered  
windows become true windows. Revis the louvered windows depicted on  
the south elevation.  
c) The Architectural Design Standards state fenestration placement should be  
every 12 ft. Staff notes a span of 18 ft on the east and west elevations  
without fenestrations placement.  
d) The Architectural Design Standards state there should be a typical window  
for the building. Staff notes windows with grids are depicted on the west  
and north elevations, while windows without grids are depicted on the east  
and south elevations.  
Attachments:  
Other Business  
VII.  
A.  
27 College Street (Historic)  
Addition - Informal Review  
Submitted by Nate Bailey, Hara Architects  
a) Staff notes the Land Development Code requires a minimum setback of 35  
ft for street sides not designated as “front” (Church Street). The existing  
home is considered pre-existing nonconforming; however the addition  
would be subject to the current setback standards. The proposed addition  
is depicted with a setback of approximately 10 ft.  
b) Staff notes the home is comprised of a historic main mass and historic  
wing.  
c) Preservation Brief #14 states “new additions shall not destroy historic  
materials that characterize the property. Staff notes the proposed  
addition would remove a significant portion of the historic wing to connect  
to the home.  
d) Preservation Brief #14 states “preservation of historic buildings inherently  
implies minimal change to the primary or public elevations. An addition  
attached to a highly-visible elevation of a historic building can radically  
alter the historic form. A new addition should not be highly visible from  
the public right of way”. Staff notes the addition would be highly visible  
from Church Street.  
e) Preservation Brief #14 states “a new addition should always be  
subordinate to the historic building. It should not compete in size, scale or  
design with a historic building.” Staff notes the addition would be taller  
than the historic main mass and would compete in overall size.  
Attachments:  
Minutes of Previous Architectural & Historic Board of Review Meeting: July  
24, 2024  
B.  
Attachments:  
Adjournment  
VIII.