City Council - Regular Meeting

It is 07:30, we're gonna go ahead and get started. Hello and welcome everyone. We did start early tonight with an executive session to interview applicants for boards and commissions. As such, we will now resume our normally scheduled public meeting. I'd like to take a moment and welcome everyone who is here in attendance tonight as well as those who may be joining us remotely via the HCTV video feed.

Therefore we will continue with section three, the pledge of allegiance. Will you please stand and join me? I pledge allegiance to the flag of The United States Of America and to the republic stands by a nation under God, indivisible with liberty and justice for all. Thank you everyone. We will move on to section four, roll call. Mrs. Wheeler, will you please call

the roll?

Doctor. Bird? Here. Mr. Brezovich?

Here.

Mr. Ramo? Here. Doctor. Getz? Here. Mr. Sutton? Here. Mr. White?

Here. Thank you, Mrs. Wheeler. We do have a quorum tonight with six of seven council members present. We'll move on to section five on the agenda, which is the approval of the minutes. Item A number 20 six-thirteen will include the 01/17/2026 special workshop and council retreat minutes. Also the 02/03/2026 council meeting minutes, and finally the 02/10/2026 council workshop minutes. Do we have a motion from council council to accept the minutes as provided?

We accept the minutes as provided.

Thank you, Councillor Brezovic, do we have a second?

Second.

Thank you, Councillor White. Are there any comments or discussion on the minutes as provided? Seeing none, Mrs. Wheeler, will you please roll call a vote.

Mr. Brosovic?

Yes.

Ms. DeRaymo? Yes. Doctor. Goetz? Yes. Mr. Sutton?

Yes.

Mr. White? Yes. Doctor. Bird?

Yes. Thank you, Mrs. Wheeler. The approval of the minutes as provided passes by a vote of six in favor to zero against. We'll close section five and move on to section six, which is a public hearing. It's item A, number 20 five-one 146, this is an ordinance amending the official zoning district map of the city of Hudson and chapter twelve oh five, chapter twelve oh six and chapter twelve thirteen of the Land Development Code to establish Zoning District 11. We'd first like to offer the floor to city staff if a brief overview or update is required or would be helpful for council or the public tonight.

Thank you, Mayor. The CD Director will go ahead and give a brief overview.

Mr. Hannan, I will swear you in then. Will you please raise your right hand? Do you solemnly swear under the penalty of perjury that you will tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth during your testimony this evening? If so, please say I do.

I do.

Thank you, sir. Please continue.

Yes, thank you. As noted for brief introduction, this proposed Land Development Code amendment would establish a new zoning District 11 along the South Darrow Road corridor. In reference to the 2024 Hudson comprehensive plan, the proposed tax and map amendment is responsive to comprehensive plan recommendations related to the following, to permit additional commercial uses along the eastern frontage of Darrow Road support the surrounding business parks and to step down the current District 8 Industrial currently present on both sides of Darrow Road to a light industrial focus. Additionally, the amendment provides some further development opportunity for the corridor in response to the vacant site at 5555 Darrow Road. However, this is only permitted within the allowances of a planned development which requires a higher level of design and approval including review by both the Planning Commission and City Council.

Of note on the work to date, the South Darrow Council Subcommittee completed five sessions to develop a zoning framework. City Council received the work from the subcommittee, advanced the framework to a draft amendment and conducted a first reading and referral to the Planning Commission on 09/16/2025. The effort has progressed through five Planning Commission meetings including a public hearing on November 10. The November 10 public hearing of the Planning Commission included notice to all property owners within 300 feet of the proposed district as well as a courtesy notice to all businesses within the boundary. And brief summary, the code amendment establishes a focus on office and light industrial uses to continue the corridors emphasis as an employment center, allows for expanded allowance of some outlot retail service and restaurant in response to the lack of amenities available to existing office and industrial parks and allows for a more transformational mixed use plan development to leverage a potential large employer to the site and expand amenities to the larger area as part of the plan development.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Hannan. Mr. Sheridan, any additional comment from staff?

No, Mayor, thank you.

Okay, thank you. Continuing on, I will now offer the floor to anyone here tonight who would like to make a public comment specific only to this public General public comments will be handled moving forward. So if so kindly please raise your hand, gain my attention as you were verbally called upon. Please approach the lectern and state your name and address. I will swear you in and counsel will hear your remarks. Remarks will be held to a five minute time limit. Sir?

Hello, I'm Andrew Meldrum, 290 Aurora Street and Mayor, I'm representing Hudson Heritage Association. I have remarks, it'll go slightly over five minutes so I ask your grace for that.

I will swear you and will you please raise your right hand? Do you solemnly swear under the penalty of perjury that you would tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth during your testimony this evening? If so, please say I do. I do. Thank you, you may begin.

Okay, for Hudson Heritage Association, we respectfully urge you to vote no on this issue. This is not simply a routine zoning matter, it's a question of whether the city will uphold the spirit, intent, authority of the comprehensive plan that you, our city council, commissioned and adopted just two years ago. The comprehensive plan is not an abstract document, it clearly states a comprehensive plan is the culmination of a community driven effort to determine goals and a corresponding plan for the future serving as a guide for policies, practices, and investments. It further explains that the plan provides an opportunity to prioritize development and land use patterns, identify important and potentially transformative projects, and align resources to address growth and improve a community's quality of life. This was not a rushed or casual effort.

The 2024 comprehensive plan process spanned nearly two years. It included extensive technical research and abundant public involvement. More than 1,500 residents provided input to its development. Thousands of ideas were gathered. The steering committee included elected and appointed officials and residents representing various points of view.

City staff also participated. In short, this plan represents the collective voice of Hudson and is specifically intended to be used by city council and the planning commission to guide decisions regarding land use and zoning as well as to guide those submitting development proposals. It explicitly says that public decision makers will be using the plan as a guide in their development deliberations such matters. The discussion regarding District 11 is one of those deliberations and you are the public decision makers the community has entrusted to apply the comprehensive plan. The future land use section of the comprehensive plan makes clear that as future zoning changes, these recommendations should be referenced.

The recommendation for the Daravel Corridor is that development within areas designated light industrial flex should focus on a strong income tax base. The proposed rezoning does not align with that direction, instead it converts much of the designated light industrial flex area into hotels, retail outlets, grocery stores, and restaurants intended primarily to support surrounding businesses. The comprehensive plan specifically and intentionally designated a light industrial zone to increase tax base for the former Jo Ann space, only with a small sliver of retail fronting Darrow Road intending to lead into the Downtown Hudson area, not to be a competing retail destination itself. The proposed District 11 is not what the plan outlined or proposed for future use. We have heard a few reasons for considering a District 11, the most surprising that the Jo Ann space was not empty when the plan was adopted.

So the town is navigating this rezoning based on new circumstances. That's disingenuous. As early as 2011, Jo Ann's was saddled with significant debt with a buyout by Leonard Green and Partners. Again, between 2020 and 2023, the company experienced significant financial challenges with sizable layoffs and rated as high risk for bankruptcy in October 2023. The comprehensive planning committee was aware of this and the situation was taken into consideration when the plan was drafted.

In fact, the period from August 2023 to February 2024 covered the strategy phase of the planning process. It was the period when the vision for land use was determined, the very time frame that Jo Anne's financial challenges were in the news. During the planning phase of the comprehensive plan, retail expansion, hotels and additional grocery development were not identified as priorities anywhere in Hudson, nor were they identified as elevated as primary needs by residents throughout public engagement process. In fact, the comprehensive plan's focus for retail was to strengthen Downtown Hudson and not to have a competing retail district within the city. The city's website also characterizes this proposed district as a transitional zone between office and industrial uses to the South and retail to the North.

The scope and scale of the proposed change are anything but transitional, rather they represent a substantial commercial expansion that risks adversely impacting existing businesses and restaurants along Darrow Road and within Downtown Hudson, undermining the very vitality the comprehensive plan seeks to protect and enhance. This rezoning appears reactionary, it appears to be tied to a specific circumstance rather than guided by long term policy. Sir,

your time is up, but I will give you that additional two minutes. Thank Please so continue.

On the other hand, the comprehensive plan anticipates change. It includes economic shifts, bankruptcies, vacancies, and redevelopment pressures. That is precisely why it exists, to prevent reactionary decision making. A comprehensive plan is designed to provide stability over time. It spans ten years for a reason.

It is meant to transcend individual council terms and political transitions. It does not matter which members were seated at the time of adoption, it was voted on and adopted by this governing body as the official policy guide for the city. If the city begins rezoning in ways that directly contradict the newly adopted plan, then the plan ceases to be advisory, which will undermine public trust. It sends the message that even after nearly two years of engagement and 1,500 participants, the community's voice can be set aside when circumstances become inconvenient. This is not the right time, this is not consistent with the comprehensive plan, and zoning should not be changed to accommodate a single project or short term condition because that is what this overriding, this is, the overriding of the comprehensive plan for a project by IRG developers.

We are not opposed to development. We are opposed to development that disregards the framework the community worked so hard to create. Respectfully, we ask you to honor the current zoning, honor the public process, honor the document that this council adopted as the guiding policy for the city of Hudson. Please vote no on this zoning change, thank you. Thank you sir.

Is there any additional public comment again specific only to this public hearing? Please state your name and address then I'll swear you in.

Marcia Kersten, 7481

Herrick Park Drive, Hudson, Ohio.

Thank you. Will you raise your right hand? Do you solemnly swear under the penalty of perjury that you will tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth during your testimony this evening? If so, please say I do. I do. Thank you. You may continue.

Okay. As a member of the twenty twenty four steering committee, I am I was unaware until recently that a mere few months after city council passed the twenty twenty four ten year comprehensive plan, council formed a South Darrow Road Subcommittee to review the area zoning changes recommended by the plan in light of the closing of Joanne. The zoning had been listed in the plan as light industry flex with a little bit of commercial along the the edge. And of course, we were very aware that Joanne was in trouble and potentially not going to survive when we created that zoning. A few months later, it appears the council visited Valor Acres in in Brexville to speak with the developer of that large mixed development site that creates apartments, light industry, office space, restaurants, a movie theater, and a hotel.

The district was created in Brexville was created in Brexville and it is described as a live, work, play destination and a community entertainment district. The proposed Hudson zoning plan suggests that the Hudson development could create a connected internal campus including a mix of uses such as restaurants, lodging, health and fitness services, grocery stores, and retail. In other words, the creation of a second competing and completely new downtown center that will negatively impact the current historic downtown district. This development completely disregards the 2024 comprehensive plan framework that 17 volunteer residents worked for one and one half years to develop. A citywide survey was sent out to all Hudson households and countless open houses were offered to collect ideas and opinions from residents.

According to the survey and the open houses, the top three reasons that people either moved to Hudson or stayed in Hudson was safety, our schools, and our historic downtown centrally located. This new huge development would certainly damage that downtown, draw businesses from the downtown into the new development, and draw residents away from the downtown businesses. I urge you not to vote for this zoning change. Thank you.

Thank you. Mr. Carl was this public comment specific to this public hearing, sir? Please, state your name and address and then I'll swear you in, sir.

My name is Robert Carl. I live at 7624 Red Fox Trail in Hudson.

Thank you sir, if you would raise your right hand. Do you solemnly swear under the penalty of perjury that you will tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth during your testimony this evening? If so, please say I do.

I do.

Please begin.

I just wanted to make a couple of comments about things that, a couple of improvements that you could make so that this thing would be closer to what the comprehensive plan intended. I went down through this comparison of existing zoning and subcommittee proposed uses and I noticed that a lot of the uses are in both plans, both the comprehensive plan and in this proposal. So I'm not going to comment on that. I'm just going to comment on three items. The first one is the grocery store.

We had a grocery store down in the South part some years ago and it closed. I think it was called Country Counter or something like that. And it closed and now we have a Hynens and Giant Eagle, I'm sorry, an Antony. And the Hynens would love to be down there in the South, but if that happened, we would have a big empty space downtown. So that's a huge problem.

And I'm not sure that putting a grocery store down there is going to be helpful. It certainly wasn't in the comprehensive plan. The second thing I'd like to point out is under residential, it says multifamily and townhouses. When we did the comprehensive plan, there were comments about, many comments about what kind of residences the city would like to have more of. And there was only one type of residence that the majority of Hudsonites were interested in.

And those were ranch style, single floor homes. That's because a lot of people would like to live their old age here and have a single floor plan. Nobody said anything about townhouses, or multi family, or apartments, or those kind of density homes. High density homes were not part of the comprehensive plan. In fact, the voters didn't like those ideas at all. So, if you remove that, that would go a long way toward making this proposal more appropriate given what the comprehensive plan said. So those are my comments.

Thank you, Mr. Carle. Is there any additional comment tonight from the public specific only to this public hearing? Mrs. Norman.

Please state your name and address and then I'll swear you in.

Sarah Norman, 2212 Edgeview Drive.

If you please raise your right hand. Do you solemnly swear under the penalty of perjury that you would tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth during your testimony this evening? If so, please say I do.

I do.

Please continue.

Thank you. Council members, I'm really hoping to give you a much higher level bird's eye view of some of the considerations that you need to put behind this decision. This decision about District 11 cannot be made in a vacuum. There are a lot of other considerations that requires more than you just to give a emoji thumbs up, thumbs down on it. You should be able to articulate to the citizens the decision, the rationale behind your decisions because this is basically your clock tower moment.

The decision one hundred and some years ago to build the clock tower down on Hudson's Green seemed like a small decision at the time, yet who would know that the entire municipal identity for generations to come would be built up around it? Well, here you are at making a decision that will have the same level of impact on generations of Hudsonites for the many years to come. So your planning commission has wrangled with three interwoven topics since 2025. One is limits on further senior housing development, second is residential density limits that are contained in the land development code, and finally District 11. Our consideration of the broader topic of residential density is affected by what this council decides is appropriate for senior housing.

That legislation got tabled indefinitely at your February 3 meeting. Since then, I gave to the Planning Commission Council Liaison all of the supporting documents presented under oath to the planning commission at its public hearing on that amendment. You have all the information available to see what a financial drain on city emergency services excessive senior housing can be. Did you know right now that 10% of Hudson's dwelling units are dedicated to senior living? And did you know that that 10% is responsible for more than 50% of our emergency calls in the city?

So I urge you to get those materials from Doctor. Weinstein and revisit that proposal that the Planning Commission sent to you. It's intertwined with the density discussion. Now our consideration of density began as a response to the removal of townhouses by the council from all but one zoning district in 2025. In short, the change removed a very high density style of housing, townhomes, without removing similar or more dense styles of housing like apartments and single family attached.

This would be an excellent legal test case, but we really don't wanna go there. So your planning commission dug into the topic to find out if our density limits were rationally related to anything at all, and what we learned is that they are not. The most dense multifamily developments in existence in Hudson come in at around 17 units per acre. So where did the 30 units per acre for multifamily come from? We have no idea, nobody knows.

So when the Planning Commission heard testimony from Arthur Schmidt of OHM Advisors, this is the company that shepherded the comprehensive plan through and very well acquainted with the city. The Planning Commission asked Mr. Schmidt where our numbers fall in relation to our peer communities in Northeast Ohio. We are outliers in a very big proportion. Our permissible number of units per acre are completely out of line with modern practices adopted by cities of similar population and economy.

So your planning commission hopes to bring some fixes to you for this in the future, and this brings me all the way around to District 11. The planning commission had some but not a lot of input at the public hearing, but we worked diligently to craft important and meaningful revisions to this new district because it will govern a significant and prominent piece of land for years to realized late in the game was that the legislation, because it allows planned developments, would open up a Pandora's box of cheap incentives to over develop the Joann's property and beyond. Planned developments may have a higher scrutiny because they come through both council and planning commission, but this is a very untested chapter of our zoning code. It's only ever been used once for 1st And Main twenty years ago, It's badly drafted and it's very incongruous, the rest of the Land Development Code. So the Planning Commission made sure that we would add additional recommendations at our last meeting to District 11, including that the bonuses of planned development would not be available in District 11.

And we created lower density limits that are completely out of line with the rest of the land development code, but it was the best we could do. It's not perfect. So I suggest to counsel not to rush this vote, not to rush this decision because the consequences are so great and a very minimal amount of time at doing some really good revision work would bring us all to a great resolution for the city. I recommend the counsel pursue a solution that will buy it time to hammer out better legislation. One solution would be to continue your vote on the third reading until the end of summer that it will allow us for the Planning Commission to assist with changes to get the planned development chapter ready so it will conform to the rest of the land development code.

And Mrs. Norman, your time is up, but you did ask for two additional minutes. I will grant that, but that will be firm.

Thank you. Another option is to pass the legislation but impose a moratorium on development applications until that that new language for planned development chapter has been hammered out. This would allow a developer to subdivide the land but not to actually create any buildings until we had all of the inconsistencies worked out in our zoning code. Another option would be to completely scrap this version and start with the corrections to the planned development chapter and then perhaps in a couple of months come back to where we left off, and I think that's the recommended, preferable version. But another opportunity would be staff to provide our maximum build out so our infrastructure will actually support whatever we build there.

The Planning Commission heard testimony about the capacity of Joanne's property, but we don't actually know how that fits in with the rest of development must integrate seamlessly with what we already have in Hudson. So whatever route you choose, please at a minimum incorporate all of the recommendations from your planning commission who labored over this very carefully. Give us the best we can for Hudson and we encourage you to give some time for rewriting, thank you.

Thank you, Mrs. Norman. Is there any additional public comment tonight specific only to public hearing twenty five-one hundred forty six? Seeing none further, we will close public comments and close section six on public hearing and move on in our agenda. The next section is section seven for general public comments.

Counsel and myself value and respect comments from the public aligned with the City of Hudson codified ordinance 220.03 titled rules item G subtitled decorum, kindly asking everyone in attendance to remain respectful of the process and display courtesy professionalism and order at all times. Please mute your electronic devices if you have not already done so. If you must leave the room prior to the end of our meeting, please do so as quietly as possible. And again, we will limit public comments to five minutes And again, as a continued reminder, I forgot to mention this earlier, there is a device on the lectern that will change colors when the five minutes is within twenty seconds, it'll start flashing and then it'll turn red at the end of that five minute timeframe. I will help to verbally remind the speaker as well.

Therefore, per the City Of Hudson Charter Article three, Section 3.02, if there is any resident of the municipality here tonight who would like to speak to City Council regarding any topic that's relevant to the City Of Hudson, kindly raise your hand, gain my attention and as you are verbally called upon, please approach the lectern, state your name and address and Council will hear your remarks. Is there anyone here tonight who would make a general public comment tonight? Megan?

My name's Megan Higgins, address is 6387 Forest Edge Drive. I want to start start by thanking our incredible city staff for all the time, research, and dedication they put into every project they take on. We are so fortunate to have such an incredible group of people to work for us and to help our city always become better. I have spent the last nine and a half years advocating for disability awareness after my daughter was born with a neuromuscular disorder. And I've spent the past three and a half years advocating locally for accessibility and inclusion with the Hudson Inclusive Playground.

I have said this in the past, but it's worth repeating again. The disability community is the largest minority group in the world and minority group anyone can join at any moment in their life. And when it happens, it's like the blink of an eye and your life is changed forever and you are never prepared. You are so thankful to the people who came before you and advocated for disability awareness and for accessibility because you quickly realized how literal little our world is designed with those needs in mind. I was thrilled to hear the city created a new updated design for the Hudson Gazebo.

This gazebo is a beloved landmark and an architectural centerpiece that reflects our shared history and serves as a gathering place for all of our residents. It is precisely because the gazebo is such an important symbol of community life that I respectfully urge city council to support accessibility features so that all residents can enjoy it. Public spaces belong to all of the public. A structure that cannot be accessed by all residents does not fully serve its purpose as a true community gathering place. When a resident who uses a wheelchair, a parent pushing a stroller, or an older neighbor with limited mobility cannot access the gazebo, the message, however unintended, is that the space is not meant for them.

Across the country, treasured landmarks such as The United States Capitol and the Biltmore were have incorporated accessibility features without diminishing their architectural integrity. Careful design, compatible materials, and thoughtful placement can protect the gazebo's appearance while removing barriers. If the gazebo is truly a public gathering place, then it should be fully accessible for all of our community members to enjoy. Historic preservation and accessibility are not opposing values. In fact, they share a common purpose, ensuring that meaningful places remain relevant and usable for generations to come.

We can appreciate the history of Hudson while also acknowledging that there is a reason why so many of our buildings and our landmarks are not accessible. Historically, people with disabilities were often excluded from community life. That exclusion exclusion was once common, accepted, and built into the design of our shared spaces. We have since recognized that exclusion as inequitable and wrong. Preserving history does not require preserving past barriers.

Adding accessibility does not erase historic character. Accessibility is not a modern intrusion. It is a reflection of modern values, dignity, inclusion, and equal participation. It demonstrates that we have learned from it. We can honor history without repeating its exclusions. So I hope that as we move forward with the gazebo that you will keep accessibility in mind for all of our residents. Thank you.

Thank you, missus Higgins. Is there any additional general public comment tonight? Ma'am in the back in the black vest. Could you just state your name and address please?

Barbara Hannah, 187 Elm Street. Thank you for listening tonight and we ask counsel to kindly consider, the short term rental operation that you have at this time. We met as a group on Elm Street and several of the other streets came to the meeting also because there was a big notice about a short term rental coming to our neighborhood at, 151 Elm Street. We already are at Short Street. We have four rentals, regular rentals on our street, which has affected us to some degree.

And we would like counsel to consider limiting the amount of short term rentals district and perhaps throughout Hudson. We would like to keep the fabric of Hudson, which is strong in family and community. And the rentals and the short term rentals do not add to this from what we have observed in our own area. Thank you.

Thank you ma'am. Is there additional public comment ma'am in the gray sweater? Had your hand up earlier.

Good evening friends and neighbors. My name is Sarah Beyer and I live at 15 Chadbourne Drive. I also would like to speak about the gazebo renovation. I'm sorry I missed the comment section online. I didn't see it in time.

So I am in favor of modifying our gazebo and making it ADA compliant. I personally work as an independent provider through Summit DD for several of our community members here in town. I also work as companion in Hudson who are in assisted living. And for me, being able to see people that I work with who I consider family, be able to enjoy our community space and be able to be in the community that they grew up in, that they raised their families in, that they want to be a part of. That they pay taxes and to be able to enjoy everything that we all enjoy.

I think that's important. They are our community. They're a part of us just as we are a part of them. None of us are guaranteed tomorrow. Each one of us could leave here tonight and have a horrific accident.

And, if that happened to us and our bodies were altered in any way, shape or form, we would want to have accessibility just like I want my friends and my family to have accessibility. And I would hope that you would think about that and think about how these accommodations can help each one of us. At some point, our bodies are going to age and we may need those accommodations for ourselves. So I hope that you will take these plans, think about them and help put those into place so that each and every one of us in town can use the space and we can all enjoy it together. Thank you so much.

Thank you. Is there additional public comment over here, ma'am? Please state your name and address.

Sure.

Good evening. My name is Tampa Lan Murphy. I live at 170 Elm Street. My comments tonight are based simply on my personal perspective of what living in the historic district of Hudson means to me. It's not theatrical, it's not political, it's very emotional.

It's based on what I have envisioned and experienced having lived on Elm Street for the past twenty years. I've learned to count on the fabric of Hudson Heritage community for my safety, for my security, and my greatest monetary investment. Most residents of Elm Street and the surrounding Rosalind, Oviatt, Division, etcetera, were caught quite flat footed when the true intent of the public notice sign that was posted on the front lawn of the recently sold 151 Elm Street. The sign was posted during a relentless snowstorm, frigid below zero temperatures, making leaving our houses extremely difficult, let alone to pay close attention and read the fine print of that sign. The sign had a phone number of city hall.

It had a web email address and a URL code that I had to get out of my vehicle, climb over the snow piles of the plows had created to get within the six feet in order to scan it on my phone as a means to inform anybody about anything. Not to appear complacent or civically uninvolved. I don't think anybody was prepared for a short term rental permit announcement for anywhere on Elm Street. As has been stated before, we already have four rentals on that street within a few property slots, but not a short term rental or Airbnb or a V BRO. We, I, have entrusted the decisions of our city representatives to have careful and thoughtful oversight, to use mature wisdom and discernment, to have the well-being of the community first and foremost, and to know the pulse of the residents, and I'm speaking of Elm Street.

After the debacle of the local Airbnb house party gone wild that happened not too long ago, I would have thought that some visionary caution and guardrails of some sort would have been enough to establish any future prevention of the practice of Airbnb's and vacation rentals short term. Please, counsel, remember to protect who we are. Please stop this practice of a revolving door of Airbnb's, VBRO's within our community, especially within the historic district where I live, where I love. Please don't fight against us. Fight for us.

As small as this may be, this is where I live. I don't want the revolving door of people I don't know coming in and out. Party central. Thank you.

Thank you ma'am. Is there additional public comment tonight? Ma'am in the White.

Miss Patterson. I live at 1708 Edgar Drive. I'm here to speak on behalf of my neighbor Tony who has been involved in an ongoing saga about the fence. My daughter and son-in-law had hoped to be here, but they were not able to be here tonight and they asked if I could read three sentence texts from them before I share my brief comments. From Brett and Lauren Talleyan of 7050 Topper Drive, we are sorry we could not attend tonight's meeting.

We'd like to share that Tony and Allison have been wonderful neighbors. Neighbors. In the past, we have had negative experiences with previous neighbors and consider ourselves super lucky to have Tony and Allison as part of our neighborhood. Now for my comments. Thank you for this opportunity.

I have lived at 1708 Edgar Drive for forty five years. My mom has lived with me the last eighteen. Tony and Allison are the sixth family that live next door. Our property's abut on their west property line. They requested and received permission from us to remove several sections of our old split rail fence in order to install their fence.

Believe me, the view has been so much improved. Both Tony and Allison have shown us many kindnesses, including during my post op no weight bearing phase after foot surgery. Multiple entrees and pastries were dropped off. Our trash cans were handled without even asking. Their thoughtfulness was especially touching during the ups and downs of my mother's health since her fall last July.

Tony came rushing over several times when the squad pulled in to take her back to the ER, each time asking what he could possibly do to help us. The lights on top of the fence have made me feel even safer in my neighborhood. My mother recently passed, but she loves sitting by the living room window to see all the creatures in the day and his lights on his fence at night, especially the red and green that were added for the holidays. I'm here in part because my family has been where Tony currently finds himself. Ours was a property issue forty years ago.

We were sued by a neighbor. Dollars 17,000 later, we had to relocate our driveway because that neighbor discovered the city had neglected to include our cul de sac which of course was where our drive exited when they dedicated the rest of the street. Even though they had been maintaining it, cars were constantly turning around there, possibly looking for a cut through. While we suffered more than financially, we did not have to deal with things like Tony has. A meme being posted online with his image titled Hudson's Citizen of the Year nor being placed in jail for twenty four hours over the fence issue.

In conclusion, I don't believe people should have to pay the price when someone else made the error, the omission, the neglect, especially when that person was in a position of authority. Thank you.

Thank you ma'am. Is there additional public comment tonight? Mr. Revita.

Anthony Revita, 1746 Edgar Drive. I wanna thank Lois for stopping by. I have given you some information that I received that might be some of a repeat of what I gave you before. But one of the things that I had is on 04/08/2025, I came to that meeting, had mentioned this before, but I wanted you to know that the Consul President Foster had made a statement to the Consul and he made a statement to the city, made a statement to Mr. Sheridan and he made a statement to Mr.

Pritchford. And this statement has cost the city to date, right now, Mr. Pritchford's invoices, haven't been able to get last month, but I believe they're close to $50,000 So the city has spent $50,000 on my $12,000 fence that was approved originally. In this statement, mister Foster said, but it became personal when the records were pulled and started looking at my home construction. You claim it's because of the driveway, because you want to learn more of the layout of my home, which has me greatly concerned and has acted on an inconsistent basis.

You'll see on my comment that this is absolutely a delusional statement, and I said it before that from that particular statement when I say that it was $50,000 for legal fees, This hasn't even started the court case yet. We haven't been in front of a judge. Mr. Pitchford has sent so many different things to my lawyer to ring up

the

costs that we haven't been able to keep up with whatever he's putting out there. At this point, what I was saying about Mr. Foster's statement is that the police ended up doing an investigation because of it. Mister Pitchford, Mister Sheridan have no no reason or no way that they're going to go after this situation. So my only way that I could is to ask the counsel for help in this.

I asked the counsel back then. Mister Pitchford then put a statement out that none of that I can't talk to my own counsel people. And he did that purposely because now I have no avenue to go to talk to my city. I can't talk to Mr. Sheridan, I can't talk to Mr. Pitchford, and the prosecutor did what she did. I handed you some things that should be very disturbing. Mr. Foster, which is the counsel president, made very derogatory statements about myself, and he had nothing to back them. These were lies.

Mr. Pitchford knows that they're lies, I asked my lawyer why is he doing this? And he asked Mr. Pitchford, and Mr. Pitchford said, the city has a lot of money invested into this.

So instead of going for what the facts are, Mr. Pitchford is worried about what the money is. And I can tell you right now, I'm gonna make some copies of these invoices. It's amazing what $50,000 worth of invoices are. At the end of the day, when I tell you this, I am looking for that this city council, which I spoke to Ms.

Kowalski, it is such a different atmosphere here, and I'd like this to be a different atmosphere for every person that comes here instead of what was in the past, because the past was trying to incriminate somebody because of what they look like, because of what they feel, and they were making just simple narratives of the situation. A narrative is a narrative. I want facts. There is no facts. What I gave you guys

You do have fifteen seconds,

Mr. Thank you. What I gave you guys is a lot of information that showed what this pursuit was. I went to the, I need fifteen more. I went to the Your

time is up, Mr. Vita, but I will grant you additional two minutes because I have done that several times this evening, but that will be firm. Thank you,

went to the city commerce last year and I went there because I'm new in the city. A few of my friends that are in building construction, I went there, enjoyed it. When I left, Mr. Foster, I'm the only person at that meeting, that was, there was an investigation put on me for going to a city, Commerce. And it made no sense back then, it makes no sense now.

There was no information that was brought up, I had a ticket, I went there. City, Mr. Sheridan, then sent it to the Cuyahoga Falls prosecutor for basically me showing up at a city event. I will tell you this, I'm going to continue this fight only because I know I'm right. And when you know you're right, you're gonna continue to do what you're gonna do.

This has all been a personal vendetta against me and my family. I don't like it, but this is the only avenue I have to come to you and say, here, this is what it is. Now, mister Pitchford has stepped up the case, I tried to get more information, he disallows me from getting the information which is against the law.

You have fifteen seconds, Mr. Rubino. Thank you very much for

your time, I appreciate it. Thank you, sir.

Is there additional public comment tonight? There is no additional public comment, we will close section seven and move on to section eight, which is correspondence and council comments. If any council member has correspondence that has not already been generally distributed and or council comments, we will hear those now. Please gain my attention and allow me to verbally recognize you and assign you the floor. Are there any comments from council tonight? Mr. Brezovic?

Yeah, I'd just like to make a short comment thanking all the members of the public tonight who came out to speak on both the public hearing and public comments. I really appreciate your input. While city council meetings aren't great for back and forth dialogue, I really appreciate these things to think about and we'll have some future discussions on a lot of these items.

Thank you, Councillor Breswick. Additional council comment, Councillor Gatz.

On Saturday, Mr. Sheridan and I did meet with the Elm Street residents and because of that, we're going to have a council workshop where we will look more intensely at the Airbnb law and try to understand if there can be some changes.

Thank you, Councillor Goetz. Councillor White, did you have your hand up as well? Sir?

I just want to thank everyone that attended the meet and greet night. I appreciate the conversation and feedback. Looking forward to getting out there more once this weather breaks consistently. I also wanted to congratulate the city manager and staff for the state of the city last week. It's very impressive and polished presentation and thanks for all you do, very good.

Thank you, Councilor White. Additional council comment tonight? Council President Byrd.

Sure, so I have got to read into the record email that was sent to counsel. This is from Christine Callahan and she lives at 57 Ambrose Drive. I watched the recent architectural and historic board of review. I was very concerned at how easily concerns about accessibility were dismissed. I understand concerns about keeping the gazebo area architecturally in line with the historic district.

I agree that black metal rails and putting the rails in the middle do not provide the best look. However, I do not believe historically duplicating a structure should supersede concerns about accessibility. Understanding that historically those with physical and mental disabilities were not accepted in public places in the era in which the AHRB is referencing with their comments is very important in understanding why the gazebo was designed the way it was. Even when the current gazebo was constructed fifty years ago, if disabled children were at school, they were hidden away and kept in a single room all day. To think that not, I do not think honoring errors of discrimination is an acceptable reason to not make accessibility updates to the structure of the gazebo.

If we truly take the green back to the era of being referenced by the design, all the concrete on and surrounding the green as well as the asphalt roads and traffic lights would need to be removed. The green space is a shared public space and should serve the entire population of our community including those with physical disabilities. With updates being needed to the gazebo in the green now is the perfect time to address the accessibility of the gazebo. I appreciate your time and consideration. And in my comments, would just again like to echo Kyle's comments about all the public feedback tonight and specifically I appreciate those of you commenting on folks with limited accessibility and making something like gazebo available to all.

So thank you for that.

Thank you, Council President Byrd. Additional comment from council members who haven't spoken yet? Any additional second comments? Councillor Brezovich?

That's point of information. Do we email we receive requesting being read into the record, is that generally handled by yourself, the president or is it at our discretion?

So yes, I was just going to state it is counsel's discretion for anything that is sent to you to be read into the record. I guess I would state my personal opinion is if it is a resident and they're specifically asking that then somebody should read that into the record. And I know Christine Callahan's was requested, a partner were there additional ones that specifically requested to be read into the record? And another just point of information, our charter states that and you may have heard me in my preamble that for public comment, it is limited to residents of the municipality. In our rules 220.03 for correspondence and council comments where that lies, where you can at your discretion read something that has been given to you.

It doesn't state that it has to be a resident of the municipality, but I kind of go back to the charter and say that's what we're talking about here. We're talking about residents concerns and things that involve Hudson. So again, the rules do not state that, the charter does, but it's a little bit different with regard to public comment versus reading something into the record. So that is at your discretion if there's something you would like to read.

I don't feel I've done the background research to answer the current residency question on this email.

I think And for clarification, if the rules 220.03 do not require it to be a resident, but that is something that you can take into consideration if you chose to read something, if it has to do with Hudson Business. So I would say the way the rules are written right now is that there is not a residency requirement but I just referenced the charter just to show the two different pieces.

Appreciate the information. I think it has specifically been requested it be read and I will honor that if I can have the floor. The floor is yours. Hello, my name is Todd No. I am the son of Shirley No. She was on the committee to build the bandstand in the nineteen seventies. She fought very hard to make that happen. I am against the proposed changes to the Hudson bandstand. Shirley No would be against these changes too. The woman who helped make the bandstand was also a leader in the Hudson Garden Club.

Through her leadership, the Hudson Garden Club replanted all the dead elm trees. These are the trees that line the streets of Hudson and Hudsonites now enjoy. My mother planted trees she would never see grow tall. She planted them for you. Her Hudson her husband created the Hudson Youth Soccer Program. He was instrumental in the building of the Hudson Library. There is a scholarship in his name given to a student from Hudson every year. He did this for you. The list of things my parents did for Hudson is long. They did it because they loved their town.

They were involved with Hudson's churches and scouting and voting and sports, men's clubs, women's clubs, education. My parents were the definition of civic engagement. They were loved by their friends and respected by their neighbors. Instead of the alterations, maybe somewhere on the bandstand should be a plaque thanking Shirley and Perry Noe, two of the finest and giving citizens of Hudson. My mother created a landmark, a place to gather and celebrate. My father created a library, a place to gather and learn. To the people of Hudson, please have respect for those who have come before you and gave so much of their lives and their hearts to this town. Do not change the bandstand. Todd, no and the information is there that I needed. Thank you.

Thank you, Councilor Brezovic. Additional second comment from any council member? Seeing none, we will close council comments section eight and move on to section nine, report of the city manager. Mr. Sheridan, the floor is yours to provide any updates to counsel.

Thank you, Mayor. Tomorrow the American Red Cross is gonna be at Barlow Community Center for a blood drive between noon and six p. M. It also just a little history note, the Red Cross was started today one hundred and sixty three years ago in Geneva, Switzerland. So I thought that was kind of unusual that we'd be talking about that tonight. The Merry Mulch totals for this last year were nine ninety two trees were collected. And just so everyone knows out in the public, we are going to continue the budget in brief and the 2026 budget in brief will be mailed out to all the residents at the February. And that's all I had, Mayor.

Thank you, Mr. Sheridan. Are there any comments for Mr. Sheridan from council members tonight? Seeing no comments from council for Mr. Sheridan, we will close section nine and move on to section 10 for appointments. Council President Byrd, do we have any appointments tonight?

Yes, we do. We have several mayor. So first I will mention the council safety subcommittee. There's been a increasing amount of attention and interest in the city around safety, be it fire, EMS, traffic, etcetera. In response to several council members have requested that we form a council subcommittee on safety as such I hereby establish an ad hoc advisory subcommittee of council members.

This committee shall be called the council safety subcommittee. I appoint Sam Barryamo, Dan White and myself as members of this committee. And next is a number of boards and commissions. Applicants are the appointments that we're going to make. Just before I make those, there's been just incredible outpouring of folks that have been interested in serving their community and some incredible applicants, very impressive and we appreciate everybody giving their time and bring themselves out for that and volunteering.

If people weren't selected this time, we hope that they continue to have an interest in the city and reapply. So I am going to make an appointment to the cemetery board of Just clarification,

you need to make a motion for appointment because we will need a second in a vote.

Yes, I'm sorry. I'll make a nomination or a motion to one. Okay. Alright. I would like to make a motion to appoint Doug Hart, my mayor to the cemetery board. Second.

Point of information, do you want to make these and vote on these individually or as a group? Yes.

This is for a full term.

Okay, so the motion on the floor is to appoint Doug Hartmeyer to the cemetery board for a full term and Councilor Goetz, you did second that. Are there any comments on that motion to make that appointment to the cemetery board? Seeing no comments, Mrs. Wheeler, will you please roll call a vote on the appointment, the motion to appoint Doug Hartman, excuse me, Hartmeyer to the cemetery board for a full term.

Ms. Zaremo? Yes. Doctor. Gets? Yes. Mr. Sutton?

Yes.

Mr. White? Yes. Doctor. Bird? Yes. Mr. Brezovich?

Yes. Thank you, Mrs. Wheeler. The motion to nominate Doug Hartmeyer to the cemetery board for a full term passes by a vote of six in favor to zero against. Council President Byrd, are there additional appointments tonight?

Yes, the next one I move to appoint Karen Farkas to the Environmental Advisory Committee. Second.

Thank you, Councilor Gatz and just for the record, the Environmental Awareness Committee.

I'm sorry, what did I say? Awareness, okay. Sorry. Environmental Awareness Committee. Environmental Awareness Committee for a full term.

Thank you. So that motion seconded by Doctor. Gatz. Are there any comments on that motion to appoint Karen Farkas to the Environmental Awareness Committee for a full term? Seeing no comments, Mrs. Wheeler, we please roll call the vote.

Doctor. Goetz? Yes. Mr. Sutton? No. Mr. White? Yes. Doctor. Bird? Yes. Mr. Brezovich? Yes. Mr. Ramo?

Yes.

Thank you, Mrs. Wheeler. The motion to nominate Karen Farkas to the Environmental Awareness Committee for a full term passes by a vote of five in favor to one against. Council President Byrd, are there additional appointments tonight?

Yes, next I would like to move to appoint Gary Villar to the Hudson HCTV Committee.

You council president. Thank you council president Burt. Is there a second to that? Second. Thank you councilor Gaetz. Is there any discussion or comment? Seeing none, Mrs. Wheeler, will you please roll call a vote on the motion to appoint Gary Veyer to the HCTV committee for a full term.

Mr. Sutton? Yes. Mr. White? Yes. Doctor. Bird? Yes. Mr. Brezovich? Yes. Mr. Ramo? Yes. Doctor. Gaetz?

Yes. Thank you, Mrs. Wheeler. The motion to appoint Gary Veyer to the HCTV committee for a full term passes by vote of six in favor to zero against. Additional appointments, Council President Byrd.

Last one mayor. I move to reappoint Matt Babica and Ben Barron to who have reapplied. They are current members. They've reapplied and I'd like to appoint them to a move to appoint them to a full term on the Military and Veterans Commission.

Thank you, Council President Burrowser. Is there a second to that? Second. Motion. Thank you, Councilor White. Is there any comments on that motion?

Just to clarify, so the Military and Veterans Commission has five members now. Two of them came up for reappointment. There's a motion now to reappoint both of them which would fill the committee for now but we are working on expanding that committee to seven members. So we will be appointing additional two members in the near future.

Thank you, Council President Byrd. Any additional comment on the motion to nominate these two gentlemen? Seeing none, Mrs. Wheeler, would we please roll call a vote on the motion to nominate Matt Babica and Ben Barron to the Military and Veterans Commission for a full term. Mr. White, Doctor. Bird.

Yes. Mr. Brezovich. Yes. Mr. Ramo. Yes. Doctor. Goetz. Yes. Mr. Sutton.

Yes. Thank

you, Mrs. Wheeler. That motion to nominate Mr. Matt Babica and Mr. Ben Barron to the Military and Veterans Commission for a full term passes by a vote of six in favor to zero against. Is there any additional appointments or comments tonight Council President Byrd? None, thank you. Okay, thank you, sir. We will close section 10 and move on to section 11, the consent agenda. Council members, if there are any items on the consent agenda that you wish to have considered separately, please allow me to read the item, gain my attention and state your wishes.

The first item on consent tonight is item A, number 20 six-fourteen, a motion to acknowledge the timely receipt of the January 2026 monthly financial report. Item B on consent is number 20 six-twenty two, a resolution authorizing the city manager to enter into stormwater easement agreements with various property owners along Baldwin Street and North Main Street. Item C on consent is number 20 six-twenty three, a resolution authorizing the city manager to advertise for bids and to enter into a contract for the 2026 storm sewer and culvert lining improvements project and the repair of a 78 inches storm sewer pipe at Darrow Park with the lowest and best bidder. Item D on consent is number 20Six-twenty4, a resolution authorizing the city manager to enter into an agreement with Cogent Communications for the provision of an internet circuit for the city's velocity broadband services. Item E on consent is number 20 Six-twenty 5, a resolution authorizing the city manager to advertise for bids and enter into a contract with the lowest and best bidder for labor and equipment to install and terminate aerial fiber cable for the fiber to the home project at a cost not to exceed $500,000 for a one year term.

Item F on consent is number 20 six-twenty 6, a resolution authorizing the city manager to advertise for bids and to enter into a contract with the lowest and best bidder for labor and equipment to install and terminate underground fiber cable and conduit for the fiber to the home project at a cost not to exceed $1,000,000 for a one year term. Item G on consent is number 20 Six-twenty7, a resolution authorizing the city manager to solicit qualified bidders and enter into professional services contracts with up to three firms for labor and equipment to install and terminate customer premise equipment for the provision of velocity broadband services at a total value not to exceed $1,000,000 for a one year term. Item H on consent is number 20 Six-twenty8, a resolution authorizing the city manager to advertise for bids and enter into contracts with three firms for the North, Central and Southern portions of the city for labor and equipment to install and terminate underground fiber and conduit for customer laterals for the provision of velocity broadband services at a total value not to exceed $1,000,000 for a one year term. Item I on consent is number 20Six-twenty9, a resolution supporting a technical correction for fiscal year twenty four community project funds encompassing municipal water infrastructure improvements, providing broader benefits to the city's water system including the following projects, the Hudson Drive waterline, waterline at City Hall and the new well at the water treatment plant.

Item J on consent is number 20 six-thirty, a resolution authorizing advances of local taxes. Item K on consent is number 20 six-thirty one, a resolution amending resolution 20 five-fifty four, a three year contract for the summer fireworks in 2025, 2026 and 2027 and declaring an emergency. The last item on consent is item L, number 20 six-thirty two, a resolution authorizing the city manager to advertise for bids and enter into a contract with the lowest and best bidder for the Gazebo legacy project and declaring an emergency. Thank you, Council President Byrd noted we will pull this item from consent and discuss this separately. Those are all of the items on consent.

Therefore do we have a motion from counsel to approve the consent or excuse me, do we have a motion to suspend the rules to allow passage of the items on the consent agenda less item L number two six dash three two.

I move to suspend the rules less item l item two six three two.

Thank you, councilor Brezovic. Do we have a second? Second. Thank you, councilor Goetz. Mrs. Wheeler, we please roll call a vote on the suspension of the three reading rule for the consent agenda tonight.

Doctor. Bird? Yes. Mr. Brezovich?

Yes.

Ms. Doremo? Yes. Doctor. Gertz? Yes. Mr. Sutton? Yes. Mr. White?

Yes. You, Mrs. Wheeler. The rules are so suspended by a vote of six in favor to zero against. Do we have a motion from counsel to approve the consent agenda less item L number 26 dash 32.

Move to approve consent agenda A through K less item L26-thirty two.

Thank you Council President Byrd, do we have a second? Second. Thank you Councilor White, are there any comments? Seeing none, Mrs. Wheeler, will you please roll call a vote on the approval of the consent agenda less item L26 dash 32.

Mr. Brezovag? Yes. Mr. Ramo? Yes. Doctor. Getz? Yes. Mr. Sutton? Yes. Mr. White? Yes. Doctor. Bird?

Yes. Thank you, Mrs. Wheeler. The consent agenda less item L26-thirty two passes by a vote of six in favor to zero against. We will now return to the item that was pulled item L number 20 six-thirty two. Do we have a motion to suspend the rules to discuss item L 20 six-thirty

suspend the rules to discuss item 20 six-thirty two.

Thank you, Councillor Getz. Do we have a second? Second. Thank you, Councillor Brezovic. Mrs. Wheeler, will you please roll call a vote on the suspension of the three reading rule for consent agenda item L number twenty six thirty two.

Mr. Ramo? Yes. Doctor. Gets? Yes. Mr. Sutton? Yes. Mr. White? Yes. Doctor. Bird? Yes. Mr. Brezovich?

Yes. You, Mrs. Wheeler. The rules are so suspended on consent L number 20 six-thirty two by a vote of six in favor to zero against. Do we have a motion to pass item L on the consent 20 six-thirty two so that we can open this up for discussion?

Move to pass 20 six-thirty two. Thank you, Council President Byrd. Do we have a second? Second.

Thank you, Councilor White. Is there any discussion on item L number 20 six-thirty two for the consent agenda? Council President Byrd, I would like to offer you the floor first since you did pull this item.

So I think we wanted to have a discussion around this language so that we all understood that this is not a contract, this is not in making any kind of commitment to any particular design yet. This is just allowing you to go out and bid when we get the design finalized?

To bid an award, correct. So whatever we decide we want to do, the staff will put this out to bid as counsel decides or approves.

But

we also had the polling of Let's Talk Hudson that was sent out to council today. As you saw what the results of that were, many of the people wanted to see the existing gazebo if repaired and painted and restored and not have any of the external additions made to it. So we kind of saw that I think when we did the 90% on Friday. So I asked staff and the CD department to ask the architect to give us a layout of all the things that we've compiled including the Let's Talk Hudson. And basically this is what Jenna has up here tonight that they did a rendering of all those things put together.

So with that, I'm more than happy to turn it over to staff. Jenna, you want to

take the floor?

Sure. Good evening, counselors and Mayor Anzavino. As mister Sheridan noted, over the past two weeks, we have concluded engagement with many community organizations and members of the public to ensure the gazebo was aligned with historic preservation while balancing the needs of our community. I'll provide a quick summary. I'm sorry.

I was cutting out. I'll provide a quick summary of the last few last couple weeks of everything we've gone through and then give you an update on the rendering you're looking at. So following our 01:27 workshop, we held a meeting with stakeholders on 01:30 to gather some comments. This was a group of individuals that used the gazebo and we felt were important to public comments. A few of those items we discussed was addressing standing water, limiting UV exposure for stringed instruments that play up in the gazebo, improving acoustics in the gazebo.

We discussed keeping benches as that does not impact performances, expanding the plaza on the North side, and updating utilities. I also met with architecture historic review board last Wednesday, 02/11, and they provided feedback surrounding our design that was presented on Let's Talk Hudson. Their comments were expressing concern with the railing removal, widened steps, expanded stairway, raised platform, and the ramp, and their concern with impacting the historic integrity of the structure. Our comments on Let's Talk Hudson concluded 02:15 and as I know many of you received the summary this morning, I will give you some of those comments for the record this evening for those who are watching at home. The majority position was to preserve historic integrity, minimize structural changes, reduce concrete footprint, retain benches and wood railings, and focus on repair and accessibility improvements without altering character.

The minority position but also very present, support modernization for long term usability, emphasize improve accessibility and performance functionality, and view the proposal as a reasonable effort to balance preservation and progress. With all that being said, based on the feedback, revisited this design with KGK and they were gracious enough to provide us a quick turnaround on this option. As you can see from the rendering you're looking at, we have left the gazebo primarily intact. Our goal now would be to repair any wood issues, replace like for like materials for anything that needs replaced including painting the gazebo. You will see there are several areas that enhance our landscaping buffer and also help with drainage in the area.

We determined that installing underdrains from East Main And Church Street Corner to the edge of the new plaza plus additional under drain offshoots would help with our runoff and the standing water that is in the general area. We discussed running electrical conduits and relocating any conduits and boxes impacted by the new plaza. We will also update the plaza surrounding the gazebo with new concrete surface to assist with draining and incorporate any possible use of pervious concrete to be more environmentally friendly and sustainable. And last but not least, we we have determined that installing an ADA lift on the south facing side of the gazebo will ensure accessibility for all members of the public. One option that we have explored and talked about internally was a product called Flex Step by Lift Up.

This is a unique, feature. It can be viewed as a staircase when it is not in use and it can also raise up and down from the ground level to the top of the platform. This is just one example of a customizable approach we can take to incorporating accessibility into the gazebo without adding the presented lift or presented ramp that you had had been provided in the last workshop. So as you can see from our updated rendering, we still maintain the concrete plaza surrounding the gazebo. It is expanded from the initial concrete that it that currently exists.

You will see the outline here. The red line shows our current plaza. This would allow for more seating, performance space, but also not impactful to the primary structure. In the rear on the south facing side, you will see some landscaping buffers just to add more aesthetics to the surrounding area prioritizing greenery. And then also surrounding the gazebo, you will see updated landscaping and a area for the proposed ADA lift, will go before the architecture historic review board.

I will just scan through a couple of these photos so you guys can take a look, but ultimately, we have prioritized keeping the current gazebo structure as intact as possible while adding ADA accessibility. Oh, here is a different view. You'll see a little bit of a lift back here but that will be built out at a further date.

Jenna, do you have a picture of that angle or could you blow up the previous aerial shot to show the details of that

There isn't a south view but I actually have I can show you what the lift looks like. This is not the best example and keep in mind it is very customizable on material but it could potentially look like a stairway that we we have option to pick materials and make a little more closely aligned to what our gazebo aesthetic is today. Mister Sheridan shared a very nice video with us this morning that showed this in use, but ultimately, it can reflect the aesthetics of the gazebo and would be a great option if we can figure out how to incorporate it. So you'll see that right here.

And that's what I wanted you to blow up, just that corner right there so anybody who's watching has an understanding of what we're talking about. So that corner right between the bushes that faces that would be the north, yes, 4 30. Southeast corner. So we would have that space open for some type of accessible ramp. The option you presented is one option.

It could just be a standard lift that would then get somebody with mobility issues up to the platform surface of the existing gazebo.

Any further comments?

I was just gonna let you ask if you had any additional comments to provide. I did. Comments from council tonight. Councillor Gatz?

Two comments. One, on some of the previous renderings there had been brick around the outside and that gave it a nice look. You took that away for any particular reason?

Mr. Sheridan or?

One of the comments that we had saw was that it was going to date it. So we're having that band around it. So we just had the architect take that off the rendering as a new one since you already had the other one.

That it would date it?

Yeah, that that banding would date it. But if council wants it, that would be one of the items we'd wanna go over tonight.

Then the second question is where the ramp is, there would still be the wooden railing so would you have to turn that into a gate?

We haven't determined exactly how we would open up that space but we would either need to remove a portion of it or come up with a creative solution to put it on a

So, hinge or I've had personal experience with lifts when my husband was ill and they're very noisy and they require a lot of maintenance. So maybe this one doesn't but I think that's something to consider. Thank you.

Councillor Gaetz, additional comments? Councillor White?

I know we had cost breakdowns of the previous options, where does this come in?

We'll have to get that, we just got the rendering today.

Is this this morning, okay. And the ADA lift, would that be an after the fact thing that wouldn't be in the original design?

And again, just so everybody knows, I want to kind of say that the staff has done a fantastic job trying to stay ahead of this. It's been very difficult obviously with all the changes and everything, but long story short, they're they're meeting tomorrow with the vendor for this type of lift. So I want to make sure everybody understands it's not a ramp, it would be a lift. Back to Doctor. Goetz's question about the gate is if you go with the stair option, it's a set of stairs when it's not a lift.

And then it will, you know, fold down into a lift so that the wheelchair can go on, it would pull up a plate in the back and at the same time it moves a wall up in front so nobody falls out. It's all part of the lift design. So it's kind of ingenious how they did that. You can go with just a straight lift too. We had heard from the stakeholders when Jenna, Greg, I, and I think Eric Hutchinson was there from staff, that they also felt that the back of the gazebo for events and concerts should have a set of stairs.

So that kind of satisfied this. And last but not least, this came to my attention from a resident in town. Kind of put out the feelers if anybody had any ideas of anything like that and they were the ones who sent me this in Facebook and I commend them for doing that because I actually thought it was a very it was exactly what we were looking for in a lift. So we thought it most of the time, 48 out of 50 times it's going to be used as a set of stairs, but those two times will make it accessible to anybody with disabilities.

Let me offer to additional council members, I'll come back to you. Additional council members, Councilor Durema.

Donna, thank you for all of your hard work. I know there's been a lot of changes. So I think that lift up is an awesome awesome idea aesthetically and historically and keeping the the look of the gazebo. I would be here to see the money amount because to me this seems way more inexpensive compared to what we were looking at and you know, I would love if we could then have that the lift up be in the money that we were allocating for, let's say the more expensive concrete version and have that be in it just because it seems like this maybe might be a little bit more inexpensive but thanks for all your efforts and I appreciate everyone's comments. It's really hard to please everyone and I think kind of a mix mix up would be the best option.

Thank you, Councilor Duremo. Additional comments from council members who have not spoken yet. Council President Byrd. So

I also like the idea of this lift. My concerns are around reliability. Most of these are probably not used outdoors. So I think that's something we want to clarify with the manufacturer. I think also around ease of use and if this requires some special code or a key or needs to somebody there to operate it then I don't really think that's probably consistent with the spirit of the ADA which people should know was passed and put in the law before Kyle was born.

So it's been around here for a long time since 1990. And then, so you did say that we are putting down a bunch of conduit underneath? Yes. Okay, all right. And then I think this whole sort of episode experience highlighted maybe a need or some way that we can identify who is the source of truth, the experts with people with disabilities in the community, something people that are an organization that could be identified as a resource.

This is the group that we should talk with to get more input, more information. Thanks.

Thank Thank you, President Byrd. Just wanted to offer the floor to Councillor Brezovich or Councillor Sutton. Councillor Brezovich.

Thank you. As far as the gazebo goes, the platform out front, my understanding originally was conducive to these performances, the bandstand. It sounds like we've gotten further feedback that it's actually not needed or was this more of the preserve the existing gazebo is the reason for the removal of that outer kind of platform?

I think it's a wish list item. If it's available, we'll use it, if not, it's not going to make or break anything, they're already using the concrete out front. So would we like to have it? Does it help with functionality? Absolutely, but do we need it? No.

Overall, mean this one I find a little difficult. I'm in the camp of having preferred the ramp, I really generally prefer a passive approach to the ADA access, lifts, be it they noisy, reliability, maintenance, etcetera. Ramps are much easier not only for people with a disability but for parents pushing their kids up for stroller and I use ramps all the time. So I definitely had a preference towards that, but if we feel the data and the feedback we got doesn't merit it then I suppose that's where we are. I want to try to fulfill the majority's wishes where possible while still addressing the ADA situation and the rear stairs is a valid point I had not considered from a function standpoint.

Just my general thoughts and I don't know that I have a strong preference for one design over the other at this point.

Thank you, Councillor Brezovic. Jenna, did you want to comment on something? No, thank you. Councilor Goetz has a comment but Councilor Sutton, floor is yours.

Yeah, so I read every comment, I think Jenna summarized them very well. Previous three or maybe it was four iterations of this didn't quite strike the balance of historic and accessible. They each seem to lean too far one way or the other. This makes a big leap towards finding that middle ground. That said, this is in the Historic District, this is a historic structure.

Any other historic structure in the Historic District would have to go through the ARC Board for review. They do have a meeting on the twenty fifth. So I would like to make a motion that we put this new option back out for public comment and refer it to the AHRB and table our item to a date certain of March 3.

Thank you, Councilor Sun for that motion. I did just wanna clarify something with that. This item on consent, would it include all these other options and I understand that's what your motion is to include this back not just with talk, engage Hudson, but if this were to pass tonight, you would go out Mr. Sheridan and ask for all these additional costs, was that your thought process? So would you go out to bid for everything that you've showed us already plus this new option so that council could then look at everything and does that satisfy, I'm not trying to negate your motion, I just wanna ask for that clarification.

No, I would not go out to bid for all the options, that's not on the table. We don't do that. Yeah, so we would go out with whatever council wants as Mr. Sutton is mentioning, if we want, there's not a lot of work here with the ramp. We did have a lot of work. If I can't answer some of the questions, the reliability Doctor. Bird asked about, It is an outdoor lift. And again, can it break? Yeah, absolutely. But I want to put a 911 button on it that's on the backside of City Hall that would be able to contact the fire department in case anybody had any issues with it, they can come out and help them out in twenty four hours a day. Ease of use, Jenna can find that out tomorrow when she meets with them and others on staff.

Point of order, there is a motion on the floor.

Understand. I was going to get to that. I thought this would be a quick and easy point of information. So the motion on the floor from Councilor Sutton is to, can you restate that motion? You had mentioned table but then you mentioned postpone, I wanna make sure we understand. I know you want to have this go back out this rendition to the public but your motion on the floor is to postpone to a date certain and did you make that date?

Three part motion. Part one, gather public feedback again. Part two, get this in front of the art board. They have a meeting in a week. Part three, defer counsel's decision on this until the March 3 meeting.

I'll second the motion.

And I just wanted to ask the solicitor for clarification on this. I understand your first two requests to get in front of the art board and to get feedback from the community. Can we do all of that in one motion because essentially you're asking for a motion to postpone L26-three to a date certain of March 3. How do we officially incorporate the other requests from Councilor Sutton? Is that okay to make that all in that motion? Yes, if that's what he

wishes we can make that motion.

Okay. Just wanted to clarify that. Okay, so that motion is on the floor from Councilor Sutton. Do we have a second to that motion? I second the motion. Thank you, Councilor Brezovic. Is there any discussion on that motion that's on the floor? Councilor Deremo.

So the whole point of this was we're in a time constraint. Mr. Sutton, we were told we need to get this passed. This is a February, the fiftieth anniversary of the gazebo. I don't think we have the time to put it out to bid, ask for public comment again and get this done to have our farmers market, the July 4. I don't know if we have the time to do that and it be completed in a timely manner. That's what we were told. So that's the impression I'm under.

Thank you, Councilor Dremo. Mr. Sheridan, would you like to comment?

Is it okay to answer?

Yes. Don't

want to be out of order.

We're in the discussion of the motion, yes.

Just so again, the other plan that you had was more extensive with the ramping and everything. And also when I was going through the comments, the ramp before did not take you all the way up to the gazebo. If anyone knows anyone handicapped, you're not taking them to the gazebo. So therefore, it's not getting the final result. So that's how we kind of navigated to the lift. But the extent of this, the concrete and all that would be done under concrete program. We would have that in spring. We do not have to go to arc board. Greg is here to tell me if I'm saying something wrong, but the lift is the only thing that would need to go to ArcBoard. Happy to go to ArcBoard.

I have no problem with that because I think we have a plan here that the public wanted and I'm happy to put it back out to get more feedback. But we have concrete that has to go down. The public works will run the under drains. The Hudson Public Power will run the electric. I don't have to go out to bid for either one of those. I'm looking at the plan and then we have the concrete. The lift is the one thing that staff will talk to the vendor tomorrow about and see if we can have that in by July 4. So that would be the only question mark I have right now to make that deadline even with the March 3 delay, we can do that,

Thank you, Mr. Sheridan. Additional discussion or comments from council members? Councillor Brezovich, is that your hand up? Yes. Yes. Councillor Brezovich,

If I could ask a follow-up question of Mr. Sheridan. So with this delay passing this motion, it would I assume prevent us from going with any of the other ramp approaches if we did do this motion postpone, go with this, we're kind of committing ourselves to something more of this scale without a ramp from a timeline perspective?

I don't think so. I mean, you're just getting more public input on this plan, if that's what council would like. We would have also been into architect. Think we were planning the architect with the other plans with the ramp and everything would have taken us into getting an architectural design by mid March. So March 3 and then letting us go ahead and award at that point, we would be ready to go with a set of plans.

Me rephrase my question then. At what point regardless of which plan is selected, would we need to have motion for you to go out to bid buy?

If you wanted to go out for the ramp plan, would need to start thinking about that now, so I can begin the design and have it ready by March 15. So I would need that answer today.

Okay, so that kind of circling back if we did proceed with the current motion on the floor, we would be kind of past your needed deadline to really consider one of the ramp plans. Okay.

Thank you, Councilor Breswick. Additional discussion on the motion that's on the floor. Councilor Gaetz.

This wasn't on the motion but I didn't give a chance to

understand. After this motion? Well, Councilor Sutton entered the motion to postpone to a date certain. So we're in discussion of the entire item so we can ask any questions. Correct Mr. Pittsburgh or is it only related to the motion on the floor?

I think it would relate to the timing question.

After we do this motion, and I can ask my question. After this, you'll let me ask.

If I can say design could have something to do with timing.

That's what I was saying.

But I don't want to interrupt.

It's a very small

That's a fair point. Believe we should allow the discussion to continue, so please continue.

My question before was, doesn't the gate around the gazebo go all the way around?

The handrail?

Yeah, the handrail.

Except for where the steps are at currently, yes.

Right, so my question was if you have the lift, you'll have to do something with that handrail that's there. That's why I wondered, are you going to make a gate there so that they can get into the gazebo?

Okay. Yeah, to answer the question, the gate when you mentioned the gate, we won't need a gate, but yes, the handrail will be cut off and it will be a set of stairs.

So you'll leave it open. You won't have a handrail there.

Correct. It will just be like a set of stairs. Say you just came to Hudson for the first time and you were walking up that sidewalk and you didn't know the steps were on the north side of it, you would walk right up those steps. If we use the step option of that lift, it'll look like a set of stairs.

Because I thought that was one of the objections, people didn't want any of the handrails changed.

Understood, but I guess this is the compromise I think we all threw on the floor already is that we're trying to bring it up to the next fifty years to make it accessible and inclusive to anyone in the city. So this is the least impactful of all the designs I think to get people up to the gazebo.

Thank you. Thank you, Councilor Gets additional discussion on this topic from council members. Council president Byrd. So I just had

a question about as far as whether we do a lift or a ramp, it seems like some sort of ADA accessibility is necessary or required. Could a board or something approve a design that did not have that?

Greg, did the architect mention about the ADA changes to this that they have to be done?

My understanding and we talked with our designer, we talked with the county building officials and we did some online research. Wouldn't it would not be a mandatory need to change, but it would be encouraged or recommended to change and it largely lies on the appropriateness of doing the change, but if we don't do some type of accommodation, we are opening ourselves up to a future legal challenge. There's not a bright line from county building, for example, that tells us exactly what to do. And while I have the floor, if I can just mention briefly, we can certainly take this back to the Architecture Review Board next week. For Architecture Review Board's final approval, they'll want to see the detailed design on just how those handrails will be modified.

We probably won't have that ready by next week, but we can certainly have the board review the concepts and request that they give you feedback.

And I don't know if it was noted tonight, I don't think so, but the ARC Board four were out there today with staff?

Yes, they had a site visit which they commonly do for Historic District to observe existing conditions. A couple of our staff were present and at least my understanding is that there was an appreciation that what is being shown you tonight seems like a reasonable framework to work with.

Thank you, Mr. Hanern. Again, the motion on the floor is to from Councillor Sutton is to postpone L26-thirty two to a date certain of March 3 as well as push this latest design rendering out to the public to solicit feedback and to get this in front of the ARC board at their next meeting. Is there any additional discussion on that combined motion?

I just wanna put my final thoughts in.

Councilor Brezovic, go ahead. Apologies.

I'm not opposed to the postponement and passing the motion, I just worry about pigeonholing ourselves into a situation where either we don't like the vendor, we don't like the lift or it's too expensive and then we leave ourselves without a nice ADA compliant option from a timeline perspective. So I do think I will vote no to the current motion on the floor because of those reasons.

Additional discussion from council or comments on the motion that's on the floor again which is to postpone L26-thirty two to a date certain of March 3 as well in that timeframe, get feedback from the residents on this latest rendering and put this latest rendering in front of the ARC board to solicit additional feedback. Additional comment before Council President Byrd.

So if we pass this legislation tonight, it still needs to go to the art board, right? Or not?

Well the motion before you discuss it going to art history board, but also the Land Development Code would require a final zoning permit, which would document and detail the construction drawings and would require Architectural Review Board approval as an alteration. That final zoning certificate would have to occur sometime after authorization before construction.

Real quick, just to clarify, is the lift the only thing it's taking it to architectural review

Yes, right. The lift in any railing impact is all that is being proposed for alteration to the existing structure. That is all that would have to go to the review board.

Thank you. Additional comment or discussion before we move to a vote on Councilor Sutton's motion that's on the floor, which again is to postpone L26-thirty two to a date certain of March 3 as well as put this latest rendering out to the residents for feedback and to the ARC board for their feedback. Additional comment before we vote on that motion. Alder Doramo.

I'm so sorry. It would just be this rendering then period, moving forward. This would be the only option that we would be looking at if this is, we're not gonna look at the other ones after Mr. Sutton's motion,

correct? My understanding if this motion passes we are pushing this entire legislative item to a date certain of March 3, you will not have authorization to go out and request any bids. So my understanding is we could come back and have this discussion all over again on March 3 if this motion passes and we can then talk about changing course. My understanding is this motion does not put us into a decision but it may put staff into a timing issue of being able to move forward with a more extensive design that does include the ramp. Is that clear, Mr. Sheridan?

Yes, but I think the public has spoken that they don't want the ramp. So and again, the ramp only went up to the landing, it didn't go up to the gazebo. And in order to go up to the gazebo, it would require almost a three sixty circumference as you saw in that one plan to get it up to that level because you can only go one inch and 12 inches for 30 feet and then you have to go to a landing, then you can continue that. So again, that's why we came up with the lift idea. At this point, to summarize this, we're repairing the gazebo for all the residents out there.

Structurally, the drainage issues, removing the electrical we need to. Question though about the plaza, is Council okay with the plaza on this one, the size of it? I haven't heard a yay or nay on that. Is that having that increased size or do you want something between the red line and the gray outline? The green by the way is just receding and mulching that would be grass.

And I guess I would jump in. Mean we do have a motion on the floor. I know we're starting to kind of get off into all kinds of other discussions. Do need to

Only reason I'm asking is we're gonna put this out as Mr. Sutton asked to get feedback and I really didn't hear feedback about the plaza. So I have to put this out. I wanna know if this plaza is where council wants us to. If you want us to put this one out, then I'm good. We'll put this one out.

But for clarification, if we postpone this to a date certain of March 3, we are not authorized. This council would not be authorizing you to do anything to bid. Correct.

And I'm only putting this one out to give feedback on.

That was part of Mr. Sutton's motion is to put it out to bid for or to put it out for further public comment.

For public feedback and arc board but not to authorize you to go out to bid for this rendering, is that correct, Councillor Sutton? So nothing goes out to bid based on the motion that's on the floor.

He's hosting it for public feedback is what he's saying.

Yes, but he's not authorized, the motion does not authorize Mr. Sheridan to go out to bid for just this rendering, correct? Councillor Sutton, correct?

Correct.

So Mr. Sheridan would not have authorization to do anything from a bid standpoint on any design if this motion passes. So for clarification. So we would then be delayed as we have no, well it'd be a workshop next week but we have that tonight. The next regular council meeting is the March 3 meeting for the next discussion on this item if this motion carries.

Does that clarify everything for counsel? Additional discussion, we're in round two of discussions. One moment, Councilor Dramo. I just wanted to give anybody else, Councillor Brezovic, Councillor President Byrd and Councillor Dramo, have spoken in the second round, anybody who has not spoken in the second round, do you have any other comments or questions? Councilor Goetz.

I like this rendering, I like the amount of increased space and I understand that you wanna know if we should give that to the residents, not that you're gonna go out and do it, but for them to see. Maybe give them a couple of versions of the concrete so they can decide, but I'm fine with this new one.

Councilor White?

If we vote on this motion, can we still request public feedback on this option?

Well that's what

I'm That's part of the motion.

If we vote it down to not delay, to give him the ability to go.

We vote this motion down, then we go back to the motion that was on the floor previously, which was the pass legislation 20 six-thirty two as it stands.

It passes him the ability to go out and bid it.

So your question is if the motion on the floor right now fails and we go back to the main motion to pass L2632 as is, your question is can we somehow incorporate this latest rendition?

Into the bid process and get public feedback. Mr.

Sheridan, what

is your thoughts on My

thoughts are, I'd say postpone to March 3. We can go to ArcBoard, four of them already came out and looked at it. I don't have an issue there. I think they're gonna like this rendition, but I'm not gonna speak for ArcBoard. And the only other question I had was, as I said, the plaza. I just heard the comment if we want to give multiple renditions of the plaza. That's what I'm looking for because I have to put this out and I want to make sure I put out exactly what the council would like. So we're only putting out this plan and I'm not changing the Plaza as it's shown. And that's it, I'm ready to go. We can put this feedback out starting tomorrow.

We'll be on ARC Board next week and we'll be back on March 3 with the input from the feedback and we'll be able to have this discussion and determine which version you guys would like us to go to and we'll still be okay by the July 4.

Additional comment or discussion before we move to a vote on the motion that's on the floor to postpone to a date certain of 03/03/2026 as well as solicit feedback from the art board as well as resident feedback. Councilor Durema.

I love this, I just think a brick around is nice and it ties into the brick on the walkway and it's historic and beautiful and keeps the aesthetic, that was it.

We For

are in a third round of discussion, Council President Byrd.

So Tom, I'm glad you feel comfortable with the wait. So that makes me feel more comfortable. I would just make sure that people understand that the ARC Board's involvement in this is gonna be about picking, approving the lift or not, which to me is really not an option to not pick the lift. And then secondly, 55 people responded to the poll. So that's about 2% of the city population. I think these are great. I like to hear from the public but I don't think we're gonna get a lot more information but if you're comfortable with the way that I am.

I'm okay with the timeline.

Thank you, Council President Byrd. Additional comment in our third round of discussion. Seeing none, Mrs. Wheeler, will you roll call a vote on the motion on floor from Councilor Sutton to postpone legislation L on consent twenty six-thirty two to a date certain of 03/03/2026 as well as to take this latest rendition that is being displayed tonight and put that out to feedback to the residents of Hudson as well as put this in front of the ARC board at their next meeting. That motion from Councilor Sutton was seconded by Councilor Bresovic. Will you please roll call a vote?

Doctor. Goetz? Yes. Mr. Sutton?

Yes.

Mr. White? Yes. Doctor. Bird? Yes. Mr. Brezovich?

Yes. Ms. Zaremo?

Yes. Thank you, Mrs. Wheeler. The motion from Counselor Sutton to postpone consent item L number 26 Dash32 to a date certain of 03/03/2026 as well as put this latest rendition from this evening's presentation out to feedback to the residents of Hudson as well as put this in front of the ARC board on their next scheduled meeting passes by a vote of six in favor to zero against. Thank you.

That concludes our consent agenda. We will move on to section 12 for legislation. Item A is number 20 five-one 146, an ordinance amending the official zoning district map of the city of Hudson and chapter twelve oh five, chapter twelve oh six and chapter twelve thirteen of the land development code to establish zoning District 11. This is on a third reading tonight and it is actionable. There is a staff request to postpone this to a date certain of 03/03/2026 and per rules 220.03 and item O, council can enter a motion to postpone to a date certain if they'd so choose.

Is there a motion to pass or a different motion on legislation item two five dash one four six from council tonight?

I move to postpone this to a date certain of 03/03/2026. Thank you and

just for clarification, that's legislation two five dash one four six.

Yes, thank you for that clarification.

Thank you, council president Byrd. Is there a second to that motion of postponement to a date certain of 03/03/2026 for legislation two five dash one four six? Second. Thank you, Councillor Gatz. Is there any discussion on that motion to postpone? Councillor Sutton.

Do we open to

amending that motion to refer it back to the Planning Commission? They have explicitly requested additional time with it.

And so President Byrd that would fall on you if you would like to consider amending your motion. No. Thank you council president Byrd. Is there any additional discussion on the motion to postpone legislation item two five dash one four six to a date certain of 03/03/2026. Seeing no further discussion, Mrs. Wheeler will you please roll call a vote on postponing legislation item 20 five-one 146 to a date certain of 03/03/2026 as motion by Council President Byrd and seconded by Councilor Goetz. Mr. Sutton. No.

Mr. White. Yes. Doctor. Byrd. Yes. Mr. Brezovich. Yes. Mr. Ramo.

Yes.

Doctor. Goetz. Yes.

Thank you, Mrs. Wheeler. The motion to postpone legislation item 20 five-one 146 to a date certain of 03/03/2026 passes by a vote of five in favor to one against. We'll move on to item B on legislation is number 20 six-thirteen. This is an ordinance amending section 672.02 item I six of the codified ordinances of the city of Hudson in order to prohibit the carrying of a concealed handgun in city buildings. And legislation item 20 six-thirteen is on a third reading and actionable tonight. Does council wish to make a motion on legislation item 20 six-thirteen?

Move pass item 20 six-thirteen.

Thank you, Councilor Gaetz. Is there a second to that motion?

Second.

Thank you, Councilor Deremo. Is there any discussion on the motion to pass legislation item 20 six-thirteen? Seeing no discussion, Mrs. Wheeler, will you please roll call a vote on the passage of legislation item two six dash one three.

Mr. White? Yes. Doctor. Bird? Yes. Mr. Brezovich? Yes. Ms. Doremo?

Yes.

Doctor. Getz? Yes. Mr. Sutton. Thank

you, Mrs. Wheeler. The motion to pass legislation item 20 six-thirteen does pass by a vote of five in favor to one against. We'll move on to item C on legislation is number 20 six-twenty one an ordinance amending section one, plan submissions and general notes of chapter fourteen nineteen, engineering standards for infrastructure construction of the building and housing code. This is a second of three readings tonight.

Item D on legislation is number 20 six-thirty three, an ordinance amending city council rules to define the role and duties of council liaisons. This is a first reading tonight. That does conclude the legislative agenda tonight. We'll move on to section 13 on the agenda. We do have a second executive session. There are two topics that will require separate motions. Do we have a motion from counsel to enter into executive session to discuss the first topic tonight?

I move to enter into executive session pursuant to Hudson codified ordinance 220.05 B two and five to consider and discuss the leasing and transfer of real estate and matters that are required to be kept confidential by law. Invited to the executive session are all members of council, the mayor, city solicitor, assistant city manager and the city manager.

Thank you Council President Byrd. Do we have a second to that motion?

Second.

Thank you Councilor White. Are there any comments? Seeing none Mrs. Wheeler would you please roll call a vote to enter into executive session on the topic mentioned as per the motion from councilor Byrd.

Doctor Byrd. Yes. Mr Bresovic.

Yes.

Mr Ramo. Yes. Doctor Getz. Yes. Mr Sutton. Yes. Mr White.

Yes. Thank you, Mrs Wheeler. We will now enter into a private closed door executive session by a vote of six in favor to zero against. Please note at the conclusion of our executive session on this first topic, we will return to the dais to enter back into executive session with the second motion to discuss the second topic. We will then take a short recess and continue this evening with a workshop meeting, thank you.

Still on topic 13 for executive session, we will require a second motion to enter into executive session again to discuss topic number two. Does counsel wish to enter a motion?

Yes, I do. I move to enter into executive session pursuant to Hudson codified ordinance two two zero point zero five b three and five to discuss pending court action in matters that are required to be kept confidential by law invited to the executive session are doctor Bird. Mr. Brezovic, Mr. Ramo, Doctor. Getz, Mr. White, the mayor, the city solicitor and the city manager.

Thank you, Council President Bird. Do we have a second to that motion?

Second.

Thank you, Councilor Brezovic. Are there any comments? Seeing none, Mrs. Wheeler, will you please roll call a vote to enter into executive session based on the motion brought to the floor by Council President Byrd.

Mr. Brezovich? Yes. Ms. Doremo? Yes. Doctor. Goetz? Yes. Mr. Sutton?

Abstain.

Mr. White? Yes. Doctor. Bird?

Yes. Thank you Mrs. Wheeler. We will now enter into executive session as listed in the motion by a vote of five in favor with one abstention. And again, note that the conclusion of this executive session we will return to the dais to adjourn our regular council meeting, take short recess and then continue on with a workshop meeting.

Thank you. We will move to section 14 for adjournment as there is no further public business covered by this regular city council meeting, do we have a motion to adjourn? Move to adjourn. Thank you, Council President Byrd, do we have a second?

Second. Second.

Thank you, Councilor White. All in favor of adjourning, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Seeing none, this regular council meeting is so adjourned at 10:08PM on 02/17/2026.

We will take a short recess and continue on with the workshop meeting. Thank you. I'd to call this meeting to order. This is a duly notice workshop meeting of the Hudson City Council held in accordance with the Sunshine Laws of the State of Ohio, section one twenty one point two two, the City of Hudson Charter Article three, section 3.02 for Tuesday, 02/17/2026. It is 10:11PM.

Per ordinance two two zero point zero three one titled workshop meetings and item C would now like to turn the meeting over to Council President Byrd so

as to continue through the remaining workshop agenda items. Council President Byrd, the floor and workshop meeting is yours. Thank you. Number 16 correspondence and council comments. Any new comments that people need to express tonight?

Nope. Okay. Discussion items none. 18 proposed consent agenda for 03/03/2026. A is TMP-eight thousand four and ninety nine in ordinance to approve the editing and inclusion of certain ordinances and resolutions as parts of the various component codes of the codified ordinances to provide for the adoption of new matter in the updated and revised codified ordinances to repeal ordinances and resolutions in conflict and therewith and declaring an emergency.

The only thing I have to add is again it's the continuous updates per state law and it's been budgeted and we are recommending passage of this ordinance.

It's basic kind of aligning ours with state laws.

Yeah, any updates, the American Publishing will get right on them, so everybody will see the most current.

Questions, comments for Tom? 19 proposed legislation for 03/03/2026 A is twenty five-one hundred forty six and ordinance amending the official zoning district map of the city of Hudson in Chapter twelve oh five, Chapter twelve oh six and Chapter twelve thirteen of the land development code to establish Zoning District 11.

Doctor. Bird, I have staff here tonight. They just want to mention the items that were brought up in the PC meeting regarding D11.

Yes, of note, I gave an introduction prior to the public hearing, you received the public testimony. We specifically recommended considering until next meeting to consider legislation to make sure that we give you a proper update from the last Planning Commission meeting. You have the information before you regarding Planning Commission's February 9 meeting. I was just going to briefly touch on each of the topics that they discussed. The first was regarding the minimum acreage for planned developments.

From a staff standpoint, we had recommended increasing that from 10 to 50 acres and Planning Commission did recommend that this be incorporated. The second was consideration to adjust the proposed residential density for multifamily from 20 units per acre I'm sorry, from 30 units per acre to 20 units per acre. I'm sorry, and noting the buffer yard D along Terex Road, sorry, I had a typo there. The buffer yard along Terex Road Planning Commission was supportive of. The next on max density, staff had recommended reducing the max density to 20 units per acre.

Planning Commission recommended further reducing that to 15 units per acre. From a staff standpoint, we do see value in keeping with the 20 units per acre. The base math works well for a minimum 50 acre threshold for development and no more than 200 units per planned development. And one item of note, the residential is intentionally requested to not exceed 25% of the development so that it stays a commercial industrial focus. But on that base 50 acre plan development from a gross acreage across the entire site, you'll have no more than four units per acre.

But we'd like to see those concentrated so that we're still focused on commercial industrial uses. And then the final item, Planning Commission had an additional recommendation regarding planned development bonuses. Within Section twelve oh four, the Land Development Code provides bonuses or incentives for applicants to consider up to a 25% increase from the base code to maximum floor area and floor area to lot area ratios. Those thresholds don't come up too often and several years ago you could also apply for a density bonus. I think that was the key one that probably gave the community some hesitation and was unclear if developers were going to try for that density bonus.

Once that density bonus was removed, these two existing topics weren't I didn't see as critical. So on that topic, I did agree with the Planning Commission and rather than just exempting District 11 from bonuses, think it'd be cleaner just fully remove that bonus standard. Again, adopted to remove density from bonus allowance about four or five years ago and I think it is appropriate to just remove that in full. And Planning Commission made some good comments about the challenges of how to weigh the merits of a requested bonus. So that was the highlights of that additional Planning Commission discussion.

The first file within this application of this case is the staff memo from February 17 and it says with draft amendment. So I've captured what I've just discussed in that draft amendment. We could give you a clean copy if counsel wanted to consider action on that or if you have any discussion, we'll note that and give you a revised amendment for your consideration next meeting. Thank you.

Comments or questions for Greg or Katie because Katie's staying here tonight.

It seems a pretty common item brought up both in comments in general tonight was around the grocery stores being allowed. Any thoughts on that?

That was discussed by the council subcommittee. We did have five meetings to look at different uses that might be worthwhile. I can appreciate the discussion certainly. A couple of things that we did look at, we certainly anticipate that a lot of Hudson residents are doing some of their grocery shopping outside the city of Hudson. It would be a desirable amenity for the business parks in the area.

The code would require that it provide some indoor dining. So So it would give some restaurant or lunchtime type use. And we also looked at what some of the existing square footages in the district were. I think we had tracked that the Acme grocery store is about 63,000 square feet, I believe. And the Drug Mart Callahan's building was over 40,000 square feet. So we also looked at that for some comparison. So this 40 seems to be the minimum amount for a full function grocery store but not something in the scale of acne.

Sure. I just, I have to say I found some very valid points to the Hynens concerns and that, you know, you've got a Giant Eagle supermarket just south of this new district. You've got an ACME already as you said in the center of town and the Hynens which is in a very small footprint, I could very and we know they're interested in being in a larger footprint here in Hudson, I could very well see them viewing this as a perfect place to move to and then we lose that in the downtown area.

One just brief note and just as a reminder, again, a grocery store also could only be proposed within a planned development which is that higher bar it requires review and approvals by both Planning Commission and City Council. So it does set a pretty high bar for proposal of such.

I mean we couldn't deny Hynan just because we want them to stay downtown at

that point if it was a

Yeah, right, I'm not sure the nuance is offhand but you bring up a valid question.

Just to clarify Greg, just so I understand better. I mean at this point we're just trying to adjust S-three Thousand And 11 Lane Development Code to just open up more opportunity for IRG to develop this area and you know otherwise it could stay vacant longer or we might not have any. I mean that's how I understand it.

I think it picks up a couple key pieces. As we talked briefly, the comprehensive plan already requested that the frontage be revised to commercial to allow more retail and service businesses. And the comp plan also already requested that the heavy industrial be removed from this area. So this plan addresses both of those. And then of course the other key piece is we do have 100 vacant acres, 1,400,000 square feet vacant, one of the largest buildings in the state of Ohio.

So this will give some additional opportunity. And most of those more uses of interest, the grocery and residential are only through that plan development. So they would come before council as well. Would not just be the immediate opportunity. Right,

and that's what I was asking, But

yes, would give the developed, the current owners more opportunity to do some development. From our understanding as well, if we can provide some range of uses, a hotel might not work, but if a hotel plus they can do a restaurant or other services, then there's some critical mass to make something viable. And I'll turn it over to Katie as well. She's had a lot of work into this from an economic development standpoint and might have some thoughts.

Yeah, I would just add to that. For me, it's not just about the Joann Acreage. I think this is a real opportunity to support a lot of the income tax generators down in that area. As I meet with all of our other businesses, I know this has been documented in some of the memos, but things like places where you can get a lunch and a thirty minute break without going down to the fast food and stow are of importance to those employers. Spoke in the public hearing at Planning Commission that a hotel would really be something that would support their business at Highfields.

Other businesses have told me they really business appropriate hotel and so by adding these things into the zoning of course it doesn't guarantee that they would be developed. The city doesn't own that property, we're not soliciting specific development but it allows those those gaps that I'm hearing from income tax generators to be met of course taking into consideration from comp plan and the steering committee on what our vision is for that area long term, but about protecting the income tax base from my perspective.

There was comments about this would create big competition with downtown. How can we try to explain that it's gonna be different and different type of retail and different types of restaurants? Can you give us more facts about that?

Sure. Yeah. You know,

I think there's definitely probably different price points. So what you'd be looking at down in this corridor if if there were going to be retail or restaurant opportunities is new construction. And a new construction price per square foot is likely gonna be somewhere in the 30 to $40 per square foot price range and that's not going to be an independent boutique or retailer. That's going to be a national chain with national chain backing. So it's going to have a very character to what we see downtown which is like the charming independent experience that you can only have in that downtown environment.

I don't think you're gonna see those same types of users end up construction plaza surrounded by office. I do think also if you have the opportunity to go back and listen or engage with one of the planning commission members, Jesse Obert was on steering committee, she's now on planning commission and she owns a small business down in the downtown area. I felt that she gave a very balanced perspective on why this area felt different and some of the size restrictions felt appropriate to her as a small business owner in that that downtown area. But yeah, I think I think it really comes down to what the price and rent of that building is going to be. It's going to draw a a different tenant and a different user.

Any other questions? You wanna share?

Sorry, only final comment from staff. We can have a draft legislation and amendment proposal to you aligned with the first attachment, the staff memo that was submitted for this meeting unless you'd like to see a specific revision. If not, we'll have that ready for your final consideration in two weeks.

To Patricia's point and Katie's comments and sort of allaying people's concerns. Are there examples that we can do or even publish literature that demonstrates that something like this doesn't cannibalize other businesses?

We can look to see if there's something that we could add to the record. I don't know Katie if you were having an initial thought.

The only other thing that struck me was, and I'm glad it was raised, but there was that concern of the comparison to Valor Acres and how it was meant to be an entertainment district. I think we definitely pulled examples from Valor Acres as an office industrial led mixed use development, but they're incorporating things in there like a green and pavilion for event activation. I don't think that that's been the discussion at at this site to date. And so I think there's also kind of a difference in intent where this we already have our community gathering space. I don't think that we're looking to replicate that.

I don't think the words entertainment district have ever been used by anybody in the process to describe South 91. So I think that's something that could better clarifying that may help and I I do think the vision statement was workshopped through the planning commission discussions pretty heavily and very productively and I think it really did help to solidify that this is the intention of this district is to be an income tax generating district and allow for some flexibility to support that as the primary use. And I think if you looked at what's happening downtown that's certainly not how our downtown vision statement is written and so by putting that as the purpose statement there, sorry I'm saying vision statement, purpose statement. I think by putting that as the overall theme with which a proposed development would need to be evaluated does provide some safeguard to that.

Yeah, that's a great point with the purpose statement and the key example with Valerie Acres that I think was beneficial for staff and the council subcommittee is that Sherwin Williams built a significant R and D facility at the former VA hospital site. And they would not locate there unless a mixed use amenity was incorporated that would be, they would be able to attract employees for. So that was the lesson learned, not to create as intensive development as they did.

Right, thanks. Thank you. Appreciate you staying late.

You're gonna sign a cleaned up version, Greg, of that?

Yes, we'll have that updated for you for final consideration.

Okay next one on legislation is B19B26-twenty one an ordinance amending section one plans, submissions and general notes of chapter fourteen nineteen engineering standards for infrastructure construction of the building and housing code. This is scheduled for a third reading on March 3. C is 26 dash three three in ordinance amending city council rules to define the role and duties of council liaison. This is scheduled for a second reading on 03/03/2020 is items to be added to future agendas.

Mayor? I think we've got everything else on the tracker as needed.

Anything else on any other that needs to be added to the agenda? Okay, then last one is 21. If there's nothing else, we are adjourned.

Thirty. 02:30.