A discussion followed among the Commissioners, the applicant, and staff regarding the upstairs living area. Dr.
Qadri clarified that the space has always functioned as an apartment and is not suitable for storage. He explained
that the proposed design would create a direct path for moving equipment into the building and emphasized the
need for both office and storage space. He noted that most of the addition would be used for storage and that the
property is located in a mixed-use neighborhood with both commercial and residential elements.
Further discussion addressed concerns that the addition resembled a commercial rather than a residential
structure. Commissioners expressed skepticism about the tree’s health if the work is done, questioned whether
the applicant was requesting more than would typically be granted, and noted that the tree canopy covers the
entire yard, which, according to the arborist’s report, would require full-yard mulching. The applicant stated that
the AHBR had responded positively to the project and that a similar building form exists on Church Street.
Commissioners discussed the purpose of the wider door into the storage shed and the intended use of the garage
space.
The applicant stated that an existing wall would be converted into an entrance door and that construction
materials would be stored on-site, as far from the tree as possible. The City Engineer’s report confirmed that
materials would be stored on the applicant’s property. The definition and function of the bioretention area were
also discussed.
Mr. Joe Gutoskey of Gutoskey and Associates explained the purpose and operation of the 11-by-11-foot
bioretention area.
Chair Norman reminded the group that the Planning Commission is responsible for ensuring that architectural
design aligns with the Land Development Code (LDC). Mr. Sugar noted that the AHBR had conducted an
informal review and that Mr. Matava had incorporated some of their feedback into the revised design. He added
that the AHBR was generally supportive of the application. Chair Norman questioned why AHBR’s comments
were not included in the staff report, to which Mr. Sugar responded that a high-level summary had been provided
in the previous staff report. The group discussed the importance of the Planning Commission having some
familiarity with architectural standards when reviewing such applications.
The Commissioners also discussed how equipment would be brought into the new addition. Dr. Qadri explained
the process and confirmed that the second floor would be used for office space. It was noted that the existing
curb cut and driveway had not been evaluated for alternative uses, such as connecting to the existing building .
The applicant mentioned a shared garden area between their property and the neighbors, and that a rock garden
was being developed to enhance the visual appeal for both properties.
Chair Norman opened the floor for public comments from individuals with standing, but no comments were
made. She then opened the floor for general public comments.
Dr. Sarra Qadri, daughter of Dr. Qadri, spoke on behalf of the family, emphasizing that Hudson is their home.
She explained that three dentists share the office space and that the proposed addition would allow them to order
supplies in bulk, improving efficiency. She noted that they had been forced to purchase another business in a
different city to accommodate their needs and that equipment deliveries often disrupt the dentists’ schedules. The
new space, she said, would help the practice operate more smoothly.
With no further public comments, Chair Norman closed the public discussion.
The Commissioners and the applicant discussed the potential to park vehicles in the storage building. It was
noted that the current staff includes four full-time and one part-time employee, none of whom have dedicated
office space. Dr. Qadri stated the doctors and office manager are in need of offices.
