Architectural and Historic Board of Review Town Hall 7:30 p.m. 2 nd Floor Meeting Room 27 East Main Street Hudson, Ohio February 23, 2011 M I N U T E S Chairman Mitalski called to order the regularly scheduled meeting of the Architectural and Historic Board of Review of the City of Hudson at 7:30 p.m. in the meeting room of Town Hall. Roll Call: Present: Mrs. Church, Ms. Marzulla, Mr. Mitalski, Mr. Pelligra, Mr. Smart and Mr. Wyatt Absent: Mr. Holmes Officials Present: Mr. Richardson, City Planner Mrs. Egan from McKenna and Associates was also present at the meeting. The minutes were taken by Ms. Soloman, AHBR Clerk. The meeting was not tape recorded. I. Public Comment Chairman Mitalski asked if anyone present wanted to address the board on any agenda item. There was no public comment. II. Applications Reviewed A. Consent Applications 1. 5235 Darrow Road Sign (one building sign Dick ll Do It) Submitted by Tamara Brown Mr. Wyatt made a motion to approve the application as revised.
AHBR Minutes February 23, 2011 Page 2 2. 6520 Hammontree Drive Accessory Structure (inground pool) Fence (4 ft. ornamental aluminum) Submitted by Backyard Pleasure Pools, Inc. Mr. Wyatt made a motion to approve the application as revised. B. New Business 3. 71 Manor Drive Addition (complete home remodel and addition) Submitted by Kevin D. Bowie The board reviewed the application. Mr. Kevin Bowie, the applicant, was present at the meeting. Mrs. Egan said that the applicant provided explanations to the initial comments prior to the meeting. She said that the new foundation would be parged and the new windows would be Pella windows with vinyl exterior and wood interior. She added that the existing house had two different types of vinyl windows. The board discussed the plans and determined that the maximum width window and door trim that would match the existing should be incorporated on the addition. They also determined that the transom windows on the left elevation would be acceptable as proposed. Mr. Wyatt made a motion to approve the application as revised. 4. 5644 Virginia Court Addition (deck, screened porch and fireplace) Submitted by Michael J. Robinson Mr. Michael Robinson, the applicant, and Mr. Nickolas Lekas, the homeowner, were present at the meeting. Mr. Lekas provided information on the proposed stacked stone material. He said that he wanted to use a blue, gray color for the stone and composite decking to tie in with the color of the house. He said that all steps would have solid risers. Mrs. Egan asked if any sides of the deck would have a railing instead of steps. Mr. Lekas pointed out
AHBR Minutes February 23, 2011 Page 3 one small area that will either have a railing or bench. Mr. Robinson said that a railing would not be required since the deck was less than 30 inches above grade. The board determined that either option was acceptable. Mr. Lekas stated that it would be difficult to address the comments from the fire department since moving the chimney flue fifteen feet away from the garage would change the design of the project. Mr. Richardson suggested that the applicant discuss the issue with the fire inspector. He added that the board could approve the application contingent upon approval from the Fire Department. Mr. Mitalski said that another remaining issue was the roof shape. Mr. Lekas said that he thought that a gable roof on this structure would look like a small house behind a bigger house. Mr. Robinson said that the intent of the structure was similar to a gazebo and that the hip roof would complement the house. The board agreed that the hip roof would be acceptable. Mr. Wyatt made a motion to approve the application as revised with the following additional conditions: a) Conditional upon approval from Hudson Fire Department. 5. 5790 Hudson Drive Accessory Structure (storage building) Submitted by Paul F. Keller Planning Commission site plan approval on February 14, 2011 Case No. 2011-03 Mr. Richardson presented the plans and explained that the remaining comment was a question regarding the proposed material. He said that the intent was to match the existing building. Mr. Paul Keller, the applicant, provided a material sample and explained that the existing building material was block and new structure would match. The board had no further questions. Ms. Marzulla made a motion to approve the application as submitted. Mr. Wyatt seconded the motion.
AHBR Minutes February 23, 2011 Page 4 6. 11-19 Atterbury Boulevard New Construction (Hudson Station Phase 2) Submitted by Reveille II LLC Mr. Dean Hoover and Mr. Kevin Zak were present at the meeting. Mr. Richardson presented the plans and color rendering. Mrs. Church thanked the applicant for submitting the color rendering and said that it was helpful. Mrs. Marzulla questioned why the colors of the material samples were different from the rendering. Mr. Zak said that renderings tend to vary from the actual colors, but the finished building materials will match the sample. Mr. Wyatt asked how the flower boxes would be maintained. Mr. Hoover said that the association would reserve the right to access the flower boxes for maintenance. Mr. Mitalski asked what material was between the metal panels at the side elevations. Mr. Hoover said that it was brick and glass. Mr. Zak said that because the building was a simple brick box with projecting bays, it would read as a brick building. There was discussion on the proposed railing material. Mr. Hoover said that they looked into a Plexiglas material and rejected it for several reasons. He said that it was reflective and would cause glare, and it would become scratched and discolored over time. Mr. Zak said that the proposed cable would disappear from view on the interior and have the least impact from the exterior. Mr. Hoover commented that the railing style was already approved for Phase 1. Ms. Marzulla noted that the approved cable rails are not yet completed on Hudson Station Phase 1. Mr. Smart entered the room at 8:00 p.m. Mr. Mitalski asked why the parapet walls were different on the three buildings. Mr. Hoover said that it was designed to appear as if it evolved over time. Mr. Zak pointed out that there were only subtle differences and that the massing and use of materials were consistent. There was discussion on incorporating brick instead of metal at the side projections. Mr. Hoover said that the bays were cantilevered and in order to support the weight of three levels of brick, additional supports would be needed in the traffic lanes in the basement. Mr. Zak said that he believed that the plan was consistent with the design standards as presented and this was the proper use of materials that would yield a high quality building. Ms. Marzulla said that this view of the building would be highly visible from the public realm and was concerned with the urban look the predominant metal siding gave rather than the more traditional brick face of the building s front elevation. Mrs. Church said that she understood the structural issue with
AHBR Minutes February 23, 2011 Page 5 adding brick, but she agreed that there was a lot of metal on a visible side of the building. Mr. Smart asked what would happen to the commercial areas if the building must be constructed in three phases. Mr. Hoover pointed out on the floor plan that it could be split into three parts. Mr. Mitalski said that it was important for Phase 1 that Phase 2 be built. He commented that when the project was completed it would make more sense to people. Mr. Mitalski asked if Mr. Hoover was asking that the board vote on the plans as submitted. Mr. Hoover said yes, he thought the plans complied with the design standards as presented. Ms. Marzulla said that it was the responsibility of the board to protect the quality and character of the buildings in Hudson. She said that she was only saying that one side of the building that is highly visible should be brick. Mr. Hoover said that the design standards do not suggest that all visible sides of buildings need to be brick. Mr. Zak said that this was an interesting use of materials and it was true to the proper use of those materials. Ms. Marzulla pointed out to Mr. Hoover that over the course of the two prior informal meetings plus tonight s formal presentation on this project, the board had made suggestions to Mr. Hoover and Mr. Zak on how there might be alterations to building materials and some details to bring this project more in line with the traditional building design character of Hudson, but there was no change, however small, made to the project in response to the board s suggestions. Mr. Hoover s comment was that he did not make concessions. He felt he built to Hudson s standards and he liked his building as is. Mr. Smart said that in reference to an issue with Phase 1, if the design needed to be scaled back or changes to the design must be made, the applicant must return to the board for approval. Mr. Hoover agreed. Mr. Smart made a motion to approve the application as submitted. Mr. Wyatt seconded the motion. Roll Call: Aye: Mrs. Church, Mr. Mitalski, Mr. Pelligra, Mr. Smart Nay: Ms. Marzulla (The building does not protect the public realm or project the quality and character of Hudson.)
AHBR Minutes February 23, 2011 Page 6 D. Other Business 1. Approval of minutes Mr. Wyatt made a motion to approve the February 9, 2011 meeting minutes. Mrs. Church seconded the motion. Roll Call: Aye: Mrs. Church, Ms. Marzulla, Mr. Mitalski, Mr. Pelligra, Mr. Smart III. Adjournment Hearing no further business, Chairman Mitalski adjourned the meeting at 8:30 p.m. David Mitalski, Chairman Laura Church, Secretary Denise Soloman, AHBR Clerk