addition of Preliminary Findings of Fact. Mr. Joseph Matava, Peninsula Architects, along with the Qadri family,
were present for the hearing.
Mr. Matava presented responses to the previous Planning Commission comments. Mr. Matava summarized the
building's architecture and history. Mr. Matava explained that the transition from brick to wood was a deliberate
choice to match surrounding houses. He further stated that the Department of the Interior guidelines recognize
the need for minor impacts on historical houses to meet modern needs. Additionally, Mr. Matava detailed
discussions with the City Arborist and Assistant City Engineer regarding stormwater management and strategies
to preserve the front yard tree.
The Qadris explained that the dental practice requires additional space for four dentists, office functions, and
storage. They stated their due diligence regarding water issues and their commitment to minimizing the impact on
the existing tree. Ms. Qadri confirmed the practice has no plans to leave its Hudson location and stressed the
need for a building that is both functional and aesthetically pleasing. She also noted the physical stress placed on
her staff, who must manage supplies across multiple levels and presented photos of the currently crowded storage
rooms.
The Commission, staff, and applicants discussed business parking and delivery access. The applicants any heavy
equipment deliveries would require plywood to protect the grass. City Arborist Tom Kiepura clarified that a
semi-permanent fence would be used during construction and stated that pruning would be limited to only a few
limbs to allow for the structure’s completion.
The Commission and Mr. Qadri discussed the overhead door design. Mr. Matava noted that only one door would
be used and that the budget would likely decrease due to reduced site work. While the number of garage doors in
the neighborhood was discussed, Mr. Matava noted it was his understanding the Architectural and Historic Board
of Review (AHBR) would determine the final style. Chair Norman pointed out inconsistencies in the provided
drawings regarding the revised steps; Mr. Matava assured the Commission that the submitted drawings would be
corrected.
Chair Norman opened the meeting for persons with standing. Ms. Robin Meeker of 33 E. Main Street stated that
no existing buildings in the neighborhood feature two architectural styles joined in the middle and noted that staff
would still need to manage supplies across different levels. She questioned the door size and the village’s policy
regarding attached garages. In response to Ms. Meeker’s question, Mr. Sugar clarified that attached garages are
permitted in the Historic District so long as they are not directly oriented to the street.
Chair Norman then opened the meeting for persons without standing. Mr. Tom King of 12 Hudson Common
Drive spoke in support, noting that dentistry is a permitted use and that other non-residential structures, such as
fire bays, exist nearby. He suggested that the proposal fits zoning standards and that dual review of the design
might constitute "double jeopardy," arguing that AHBR standards should govern historic appropriateness.
The Commission and applicants discussed the removal of the drive apron and the addition of an interior sink,
addressing prior conflicting testimony regarding water access. The applicants responded to Ms. Meeker’s
testimony by noting the existing building already connects two structures and clarified that the proposed space is
intended as a storage room to improve internal traffic flow rather than to house a vehicle.
The Commissioners discussed surrounding garages, removal of the drive apron removal, and garage door
compatibility. However, some members raised concerns regarding the lack of LDC standards for attached
garages, missing staging information, and the casual nature of the application. Further discussion focused on the
need to preserve the Historic District, the long-term impact of the decision, and the projects compliance with the
Purpose Statement of District 5.
The Commission concluded by discussing the staff-provided Findings of Fact. Chair Norman expressed that the
findings were too brief and lacked specificity. The Commission requested that Chair Norman’s specific
comments be preserved in the minutes and that staff enhance the Findings of Fact for future review. The session
ended with a discussion on the procedural distinctions between preliminary and final Findings of Fact, and that if
the application is approved, the final Finding of Facts will be presented to the Commissioners at the February
meeting.
Mr. Nystrom made a motion, seconded by Ms. Smith, to approve the application with the
