City of Hudson, Ohio  
CD Meeting Agenda - Final-revised  
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, October 25, 2023  
7:30 PM  
Town Hall  
27 East Main Street  
Call To Order  
Roll Call  
I.  
II.  
Public Comment  
III.  
A.  
Public Comment Received 10.24.23  
Attachments:  
Consent Applications  
IV.  
A.  
59 Great Oak Drive  
Pavilion & Pergola Extension (432sqft)  
Submitted by Dan Van Voorhis, Suncrest Gardens  
a) Staff recommends approval as submitted.  
Attachments:  
Old Business  
V.  
A.  
201 N. Main Street (Historic District)  
Demo, Alteration & Re-build  
Submitted by Elizabeth Swearingen, Peninsula Architects  
a) Staff notes this project went before the AHBR on June 28, 2023 for an  
informal review and before the AHBR on October 11, 2023 as a formal  
review.  
b) At the October 11, 2023 AHBR meeting, the Board requested a site visit  
and assistance from Perspectus, the Historic Preservation Consultant. The  
site visit was conducted on October 17, 2023.  
c) Perspectus has prepared the attached advisory report for consideration.  
Attachments:  
Legislative History  
10/11/23 Architectural & Historic Board continued  
of Review  
B.  
20 E. Prospect Street (Western Reserve Academy)  
Addition (Ellsworth Hall Dining Expansion)  
Submitted by Seth Duke, Bialosky Cleveland  
a) Staff notes this project went to the AHBR on April 26, 2023 as an informal  
review.  
b) The Board members questioned reducing the amount of glass on the south  
elevation, the curved shape of the roof, the door design on the east  
elevation and the window spacing on the west elevation. The applicant has  
submitted plans documenting these changes.  
c) The Architectural Design Standards state long expansions of wall should  
be avoided. Staff notes a span of approximately 24 feet on the rear  
elevation without fenestration; however, this is located along interior  
storage space. Question if a brick pilaster treatment could be applied to  
break up the wall span.  
Attachments:  
New Business  
VI.  
A.  
1221 Barlow Road  
Demolition (1,200sqft Barn)  
Submitted by Rachelle Brenner  
a) On August 22, 2023, Code Enforcement sent a notification letter to the  
owners of this property for exterior maintenance.  
b) Although the barn is not within the City’s Historic District and is not a  
designated land mark; however, staff sees historic significance in the barn.  
Question if maintenance of the barn has been explored.  
Attachments:  
B.  
167 Hudson Street  
Addition (Detached Garage/Pool House 1,082sqft & Outdoor Kitchen)  
Submitted by Matthew Lones  
a) The owners went to the AHBR as an informal discussion on December 16,  
2020 with a previous design. The previous design was not pursued based  
on the size and setback requirements within the Land Development Code.  
b) The applicant is now proposing a detached garage/pool house that will  
meet all applicable Land Development Code standards.  
c) The Architectural Design Standards state enclosed accessory buildings  
shall incorporate some elements similar to the main body, for example  
similar corner boards, window types, or materials.  
d) 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. Question the wood shuttered windows on the rear elevation.  
Attachments:  
C.  
29 Division Street (Historic District)  
Alterations (Windows)  
Submitted by Jared Crowe  
a) The applicant is proposing to replace two existing wood windows on the  
front elevation.  
b) Staff notes Secretary of Interior Standards require deteriorated materials  
to be repaired where feasible rather than replaced. Provide  
documentation on the need to replace rather than repair.  
c) Question the proposed exterior material. The manufacturer website states  
a vinyl material. Staff notes only wood or aluminum clad have been  
accepted exteriors.  
Attachments:  
D.  
7238 Valley View Road  
Addition (760sqft)  
Submitted by David Pelligra  
a) The applicant is proposing to demo the existing addition and re-build a  
new addition in the same footprint as the existing.  
b) Staff notes this house is not within the Historic District and is not an  
individual landmark.  
c) Question the flat roof that will connect the existing house to the addition.  
d) Verify proposed foundation material and if a new foundation will be  
needed.  
e) Applicant to submit product specification sheets on roof, siding and  
window materials.  
Attachments:  
E.  
58 Owen Brown Street (Historic District)  
Addition (200sqft)  
Submitted by Ronald Zelenak  
a) Staff notes this case was previously approved by the AHBR on May 25,  
2022. The applicant is now proposing to change the plans from an  
enclosed rear porch to an open concept rear porch.  
b) The applicant is proposing to utilize all previously approved materials.  
Confirm deck railing materials.  
Attachments:  
E.  
6577 Ebury Circle  
Addition (2,610sqft garage & rear porch)  
Submitted by Steven Moore  
a) The Architectural Design Standards state all roofs in all the wings must be  
of the same kind, but they may have a different pitch or orientation. Roofs  
shall not intersect a wall so as to cause a valley. Staff notes the existing  
house has a combination of hip and gable roofs. The existing garage has a  
gable roof. The applicant is proposing a gable roof on the addition to  
match the existing garage.  
b) 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 placement of the two rear windows to  
meet this requirement.  
c) Provide specification sheets of siding, roof and window materials.  
Attachments:  
Other Business  
VII.  
A.  
6598 Stone Road (Informal Review)  
New Residential Construction (Single-Family Dwelling, 4,113sqft)  
Submitted by Quinn Miller, Peninsula Architects  
a) The applicant is proposing to demo the existing house and accessory  
structure on the property.  
b) Staff notes the proposed house would be classified as a large mass type  
within the Land Development Code. The large mass type is classified per  
the following “This type has a complex massing with several large masses  
attached to each other. It does not have a dominant (forward) main body,  
but may have one or more central masses to which other masses are  
attached. Most of the building is two stories tall. It may have more than  
one entrance, and several subordinate wings or projections”  
c) The Land Development Code states “the front setback shall not differ by  
more than ten percent from the average of the front yard setbacks existing  
on the two properties immediately adjoining the subject property, unless  
approved by the Architectural and Historic Board of Review”. Staff notes  
the proposed house would have a setback of approximately 230 ft. The  
adjacent house to the north has a setback of approximately 60 ft. The  
adjacent house to the south has a setback of approximately 130 ft. While  
the proposed house would not be within 10% of the surrounding homes,  
the house would be located on an approximate 5 acre property.  
d) As the proposed house would be located to the rear of the property to the  
south, staff recommends increasing the setback along this boundary,  
moving the driveway further to the north.  
e) As designed, the proposed garage would be considered an accessory  
structure. Accessory structures must be located within the side or rear or  
rear yard. The applicant could look at ways to further integrate the  
garage with the main structure to be considered attached; however, also  
note the Architectural Design Standards state “attached garage may not  
be located within a wing or a central mass that is the most forward of all  
the masses.”  
f) The Architectural Design Standards state “The same roof shape must be  
used throughout the building for all roofs, except for turrets, towers and  
other unique masses, where a special roof may be used. Roofs may have  
different pitches and orientation. Roofs shall not intersect a wall so as to  
cause a valley.” Staff notes flat roofs are shown along with gable roof  
forms.  
g) The Architectural Design Standards state “At least one entrance must face  
the street.” Revise to include an entrance along front elevation.  
h) Submit a roof plan with the formal application to help staff and AHBR  
better understand teh massing and roof forms.  
Attachments:  
Minutes of Previous Architectural & Historic Board of Review Meeting:  
October 11, 2023.  
B.  
Attachments:  
Staff Update  
Adjournment  
VIII.  
IX.  
*
*
*