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

Nicholas Sugar, City Planner

Amanda Krickovich, Associate Planner

Wednesday, February 12, 2025

7:30 PM

Town Hall

27 East Main Street

Call To Order

Roll Call

II.

III.

IV.

Public Comment

Consent Applications

Old Business

New Business

VI.

AHBR 25-12

171 Brentwood Drive

Alteration (Siding Replacement)

Submitted by Patrick Nussbeck

a) Section IV(1(d)(2) of the Architectural Design Standards state - The

materials used in the main body must be applied consistently on that mass

on all sides of the structure. Revise to depict siding applied consistently

around the mass.

b) Section IV-4(d)(1) of the Architectural Design Standards states a different

material may be used on building projection gable ends, entrance recesses,

or to emphasize the horizontal or vertical divisions of the building. Suggest

revising to only depict the proposed board and batten siding along the

entrance recess.

Attachments:

Legislative History

1/22/25 Architectural & Historic Board continued

171 Brentwood Dr. AHBR Packet

of Review

AHBR 24-880

1769 Edgar Drive

Alterations (Windows)

Submitted by John Bolovan

a) Staff notes this addition application was previously reviewed and approved

in August of 2021. The applicant is now proposing changes to the

approved plans.

b) The applicant is requesting to remove the dormer on the south elevation as

well as remove windows and replace with a garden trellis on the north and

east elevations.

c) Section III-1(g)(8) of the Architectural Design Standards state large

expanses of blank wall are to be avoided. Fenestration placement should

be at a maximum of approximately every 12 feet. Revise plans to depict a

window or a door to meet this regulation.

Attachments:

1769 Edgar Dr. AHBR Packet 2.12.25 Meeting

1769 Edgar Dr. Previously Approved Plans

AHBR 25-65

16 Owen Brown (Historic District)

Addition (Bedrooms, Dining Room & Porches)

Submitted by Mark Madar

a) Staff notes the proposed work includes an addition to the rear and right

elevations, installation of a dormer on the left elevation, front and side

porches, full siding replacement and window relocation and replacement.

b) The Secretary of Interior Standards and Preservation Briefs relative to

additions on a historic building:

· Appendix 1(2) “The historic character of a property shall be retained

and preserved. The removal of historic materials or alteration of

features and spaces that characterize a property shall be avoided.”

Staff notes the proposed left elevation and window placement

would be impactful. Additionally, staff questions the front door

opening and roof removal from the historic mass. Suggest

re-establishing the front door and a wrap around porch.

· Appendix 1(6) “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. Replacement of missing features shall be

substantiated by documentary, physical, or pictorial evidence.”

Staff notes the applicant submitted photographs showing the

deterioration of the siding; however, the existing siding is a shake

material and the applicant is proposing hardi board.

· Appendix 1(9) “New additions, exterior alterations, or related new

construction shall not destroy historic materials that characterize

the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and

shall be compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural

features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its

environment.” Staff questions the proposed dormer work and the

granular flat roof on the porch and if they are appropriate.

· The National Park Service Preservation Brief - “The new addition

should be smaller than the historic building - it should be

subordinate in both size and design to the historic building.” Staff

notes the rear addition is lower in height than the main mass;

however, is flush with the existing mass on the left elevation.

Suggest an inset from the existing mass.

c) Staff suggests using this meeting to gather information, set up a site visit to

further evaluate existing conditions and to request the assistance of the

Historic Consultant.

Attachments:

16 Owen Brown AHBR Packet

Other Business

VII.