Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

The time is now 07:30 on Monday, 05/11/2026, and I'd like to call to order this regularly scheduled and noticed meeting of the Hudson Planning Commission. Mr. Sugar, would you call the roll, please?

Yes. Miss Obert? Here. Mr. Intermarado? Here. Miss Smith? Here. Miss Norman?

Here. We have four of our seven members present, so we have a quorum for conducting business. For the city tonight, we have mister Sugar, mister Hannan, and mister Pitchford. The next item of business is item three swearing in. All persons who intend to address the planning commission to either deliver commentary or testimony, this is your opportunity to be sworn in. Please stand and raise your right hand, including staff. Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you give tonight will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? If so, please say I do.

I do.

Thank you. You may be seated. I will call everyone's attention to the rules for public hearings and conduct that are on the back page of your agenda. Also, I want to remind folks to sign in on the piece of paper provided at the back of the room, especially if you were going to be speaking so that the scribe will get your name spelled correctly. Our next item of business is item number four, minutes of the previous Planning Commission meeting for 04/13/2026, and we do have the same people who were here for that meeting, we can go ahead with that.

Were there any corrections to provide for those minutes? I only had one. It's a fairly important one on page four. Our vote related to item twenty twenty six dash 73 was not a six, zero vote. I did vote against it. I confirmed that with the video. So it was a five to one vote. Other than that other than that, can I have a motion to approve the minutes as corrected?

Motion to approve.

Thank you, miss Ober. Do we have a second? Second. Thank you, miss Smith. Any further discussion?

Mister Sugar, could you call the roll, please?

Yes. Ms. Overt? Yes. Mr. Intermarado? Yes. Ms. Smith? Yes. Ms. Norman?

Yes. The motion carries four to zero to approve the minutes as amended. Item number five is public discussion. This is specifically for topics, that are not appearing during a public hearing item on the agenda. Our only public hearing this evening is Western Reserve Academy, so if you're here for that, you may wait until that item on the agenda. Is there anyone who wishes to address the Planning Commission on a topic of interest to us? Come to the podium, state your name and address, please. And you have five minutes.

Hello. Rhonda Granger, 2415 Norton Road here in Hudson. I would like to address a statement recently made by Samantha DiRamo regarding the District 11 proposal suggesting that the planning commission did not do their due diligence. Respectfully, that characterization is inaccurate. The planning commission recognized this proposal for what it is, one of the most significant zoning changes Hudson has considered in years.

This proposal carries long term implications for traffic, infrastructure, public services, community character, housing density, and the future of Hudson's commercial tax base. Because of the magnitude and complexity of these changes, the Planning Commission requested additional time to continue its review and fully evaluate the proposal against the comprehensive plan and the intent of our zoning code. That is not a failure of diligence. That is diligence. Our city charter established the planning commission specifically to provide careful, independent, and informed review of zoning matters before legislative action occurs.

The commission's role is not to rush complex proposals forward, but to ensure they receive the level of analysis and public scrutiny they deserve. I believe it is important for the public record to reflect that the request for additional time was a responsible and appropriate action by the planning commission, not evidence of inaction or neglect. Process matters, transparency matters, and adherence to the charter matters, especially when decisions of this scale could permanently reshape our community.

Thank you. Thank you, miss Granger. Is there anyone else here who wishes to address planning commission? Seeing none, I will close public comment, and we will move on to correspondence. Are there any members of the planning commission who have correspondence outside of a regularly noticed and scheduled meeting that they need to report to the body?

I have, a short list of items here. I neglected to mention last month our gratitude to Phil Leiter, HCTV AV guy, who has been at so many meetings for my whole tenure here. He has retired and I did want to just say we were grateful for his service and we hope he enjoys his retirement well deserved. Also, I got an email on April 21 from, John and Didi Bedell. This I'm just gonna summarize this.

I copied mister Sugar on it in reply. The upshot of this email was a question on behalf of Hudson Heritage Association related to movement on the Saywell House in conjunction with the Hudson Middle School redevelopment of their entryway, and I pointed him towards apparent well, apparently, mister Bedell says that the city has I'm sorry, not the city. The school district has the Saywell House for sale, slated for demolition in early June, which is shortly. I referred him to mister Sugar indicating the Planning Commission had not seen this a second time. We haven't heard back from the school, so I anticipated they're probably bifurcating that and gonna handle the Sable House separately, and then I think Mr.

Sugar responded to them on that for a joint meeting of the Planning Commission, Architectural Review Board, BCBA, termed by some as a training session. In many ways, it was. I think it was intended to be an opportunity for us to meet together, and the takeaway, one of the big takeaways was learning about the other boards and commissions and their workload and how it's different from ours. ARC Board meets twice a month and they have 12 to 20 items on their agenda, but they can use a consent agenda and like get a bunch of things done instantly. Also the BCBA has a database of all of their cases going back to 2018, is a fascinating idea.

Help I don't know how it's helpful to them, and I don't know if it would be helpful to us, but I made note of that. Also, city council president is championing a code of conduct with requirements of civility. Both of those are undefined as of yet as well as a continual good standing review for all members of boards and commissions. And then oh, sorry. That was speaker's time limit.

I I wanted to let, this body know that I addressed counsel with a topic related to d 11 that came up just a couple of weeks ago. I literally woke up one night and said, oh my gosh. If we build out a planned development in District 11 as proposed of 200 units, is that gonna trigger the growth management allocation? And so I asked Mr. Sugar for the numbers on that, but I went with a guesstimate on normal duplex apartment style occupancy with 1.75 residents per unit, give or take, and the important thing to note is that that population level would in fact trigger the growth management allocation for the subsequent two years if no other residential units were built in Hudson.

And then Mr. Sugar indicated to me that in Hudson the average occupancy is 2.87 persons per unit, and I understand that there's a difference between a single family home versus duplex or an efficiency or what have you, probably not putting four people or three people even in an efficiency, but that would bring the number of units down to 120. And so I did address counsel with that information and wrote them a letter as well. And again, it's one of those things that as we unfold the layers of this onion, of all of the considerations that need to be made, frankly, it's it's I think would be well served to spend a year on it. But that was important to tell you that I had spoken to counsel in that regard.

Other comments or questions related to correspondence? Our next item on the agenda is number seven, old business. And our item here is a PC twenty twenty six dash 72, a conditional use and major site plan request for Western Reserve Academy to construct an addition to the Wang Innovation Center. This is a public hearing that's been continued from our March meeting. It was continued from April at the request of the applicant, and we will go through the order of information on public hearings that appears on your back page, beginning with the introduction from staff. Mr. Sugar, you have the floor.

Yes, thank you. I can provide brief background. We last talked about this, item on March 9. The applicant has taken the the time to update the plans and the drawings, pursuant to the discussion. There were three items that we were tracking with the applicant.

Those dealt with storm water, sidewalk extension, and tree protection. So in your packet, you have updated plans, one for storm water improvements, Discussions with our assistant city engineer who recommended improvements to the northern pond north of Hudson Street that that would that would help with with the storage of water in that area and be more beneficial than what would be required for this addition based on the lot size that it's located on. So there is an additional plan set to capture that work. Thesis and city engineers reviewed that as acceptable. The second item is the sidewalk extension.

The applicant has updated the civil set of drawings to depict the sidewalk extension along the frontage of the building. We made a few notes. There's a lot of existing trees and landscaping behind the sidewalk, so it was kind of worked out in an appropriate place. We also looked at any future extensions to the north and the south in terms of the location that it's proposed at. The applicant's proposing some replacement trees.

We just had a minor note on on to to coordinate those species with the arborist too who had some thoughts on that in terms of which species to use. And then finally, another note with our city arborist dealt with tree protection. So the applicant was asked to take a look at the trees near the addition and look to preserve any additional trees. We had identified the three mature Norway spruce trees located near the building. So we had a site visit there with our city arborist and the applicant, and those limits of disturbance have been pulled in a bit to protect those trees, which has also been reviewed by by the arborist.

So those three main items have have been addressed for the conversations, And we have also provided preliminary findings of fact for the board to consider and updated recommendations. There would be five updated recommendations on page four. That's all I have, thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Sugar. Applicant, any comments you wish to make on this, whether you're walking us through changes or what have you? Name and address, please.

Jason Boltz, Wheeler Boltz Architects, 641 West Market Street in Akron, 44303. Nick did a really good job summarizing the three takeaways from last meeting. As he mentioned, we we have gone and added the sidewalk on Oviatt. And with that, it did require does require in terms of its placement removing a couple trees. But on the other side of the building, we are saving the three spruce.

And as he also mentioned, up on the other side of Hudson is the existing retention basin that isn't quite doing its job. So they surveyed it and had come up with a solution to reduce that outflow rate from that pond as well. So other than that, nothing on the project has changed from last time you saw. If you want, I could walk through it again with you. If not, I'm happy to take a bite.

Any of the members of the Planning Commission need additional details from before? I think that would suffice, Mr. Polz. Thanks. All right, thank you. We'll move on then to initial questions from the Commission. I'll begin with Mr. Intermarado. Any questions for staff or applicant?

Nick, could you pull up site logistics, the updated site logistics plan? By the way, I thought your application is you did an excellent job.

Thank you.

Comments are more just observations about the logistics. So where are the, how many construction workers are you expecting here? Maybe 20 at max?

I'm not sure

I can answer that but that sounds appropriate.

I'm trying to think, where do you imagine they're going to park?

They are instructed to park on the far north of, past the athletic fields or towards the athletic fields. There's a large parking lot.

Oh, okay.

On the

other side of the MAC Center. Okay. It's up further on that. Go past the football field, right Jeff?

Yes. Great,

that's a good idea. So Have you put the project out to bid yet?

As of today, site work, steel, concrete is hitting the streets and we're finalizing the drawings over the next three weeks for the balance of the project. Okay.

I would I've been involved in similar projects and I would just suggest to you that Crow's a fine contractor. I'm glad to see that you have Crow. But this is a pretty tough little job. Logistically challenging. And one

thing

I just mentioned is and I I know they do their best to present you people with a budget, but I would strongly encourage you to don't just rely on that budget as as gospel. I would before you get the before you start digging the hole, I would recommend that you receive these bids, you know, at least through the steel and see how it compares with the budget they have carried. Yeah. Because this project is probably gonna be more on the expensive side mostly because of logistics.

Right.

And how bidders take that in the account as opposed to construction managers can differ. And I would even say, you know, even right through the scope review, I wouldn't rely on anything firm so that you make sure before you start digging a hole that you have a project that you can afford, that you get those bids in and do the scope reviews and just double check that everything is good, be my comment to you.

Thank you.

Is this building, the new addition, independent of the original building with electrical and underground utilities, or are you tying in?

No. It'll be tied in, and it's, you know, technically from a code perspective, one building.

You happen to know or is there underground, utilities? Does it have to be dug in?

Yeah. And and, you know, much of them are right where the building the addition's going. So, yeah, there's a a good amount of utility work that needs to be done.

Okay. And as far as you know, is the schedule that you provided us, has that slipped any?

Not to my knowledge. No.

Okay. The only concern I would offer to you is this is the excavation portion of this project is gonna be pretty challenging, think. I would just double check that the duration you have for the foundation is checked off by the contractors that are gonna do the work just to the only concern I would have for you is you wouldn't want to dig a hole and have it open for an extended any longer period. And I'm sure you're you you don't want that anyway. But I would imagine that the steel that that you have out for bid, you would probably need, what, twelve to fourteen weeks from award for shop drawings, approved shop drawings and fabrication.

Right. And that's exactly why we're putting an early bid package out to try to get a jump on that time lag.

Yeah. Excellent. Because then you wouldn't wanna have the hole in the ground and then you're waiting for the steel as as I'm sure you're so you wanna make sure with your scrub reviews that that's all timed. I mean, the other thing for your your masonry, I I would imagine getting around a site, they probably won't even be able to use a a forklift to to get around. They might have to put the mortar, you know, you have a you have you to get a mixing station on that site somewhere, and I'll probably have to walk it over from one side of the anyway, it's it's a complicated

It is.

And it what what my point is it'll make your durations maybe go a little longer than you might anticipate once you do your scope review. And, that's just my observations. Now, the the students, where were they where will they be entering the building during construction to get the classes? I

So from the diagram that's up there now, there are multiple entries. So we we could go they could go into the octagon on the bottom of page, Then up about halfway up to the on the right side of the building, there's an entry there as well. Actually, there's multiple entries all up the east side of the building. And then there's also a main sort of campus addressed entry to the Auditorium Building on the west side towards the the

I see. Okay.

There's there's gotta be one, two, three, four, five five entry points that all could be used.

So pretty much go through the existing building to get to their classes. Yeah. So there'll be no

it

won't be anywhere near the construction site then

Right.

In that regard.

That's the intent. Okay.

No. You did you did a good good job, and I appreciate the effort you put into saving of the trees that you Thank you. You saved. That was Yeah. Crew It was hard to do, I'm sure.

Crew wasn't happy with it because it affected their lay down space.

I know. But I it's greatly appreciated. I I wanna just commend you for the work you've done. It's very well done.

Thanks.

Thank you, mister Intermarado. Miss Smith?

No questions?

Thank you, miss Smith. Miss Obert?

No questions?

I only have two, thank you. I only have two. These are, I think, both for staff. Just to close the loop, so as we're, I didn't have this box checked off from the last time related to street tree planting requirements. Did we decide that with the installation of the sidewalk and we may lose a couple of trees, we are crediting the applicant with the saved trees in the back that are mature, or do they need to plant street trees once the sidewalk is in? What's the last

They're replacing the three that are going to be removed, and then there are more existing beds that Okay,

we're

Thank you.

And then there was a question that came up during my questions last time related to the Platt notes related to storm water. Was that incorporated in the changes that are being reflected through this new set of drawings? Actually, anyone who knows the answer to that question can answer.

Yeah, can you clarify?

Right. When we install storm water infrastructure, there's a requirement in the land development code, I would have to look up the citation for you if you need it, That the plat notes be entered for the responsibility, apparently, for maintenance and care of that stormwater infrastructure. And I asked the question last time about the stormwater improvements, and I don't have an answer written down. And I also did listen to the video just to see if I, you know, didn't write because I was asking questions or something like that. And I didn't hear a clear answer on that either.

Name and address please.

Hi, Jeff Jaco from West Missouri Academy, 115 College Street, Hudson. I think to this, we're adjusting an existing stormwater retention basin. We already have that was already an existing space, and we've already been required to maintain that over the years. So all we're doing is changing the outlet structure to reduce the flow. So I don't think that would you would need enter that or how

Yeah, my understanding, we do have an existing access agreement for that Northern Pond. I think that's what your what that section is intending.

That makes me happy. I'm satisfied knowing that, that we have an existing access agreement. Okay, that's for the city, correct? Has that access agreement?

Yes, correct.

Okay, those are all of my questions. Next we move on to any comments from individuals withstanding. This is a person who would have received notice about this hearing in the mail, and if you wish to address the Planning Commission, you have fifteen minutes. Anyone withstanding who wishes to address Planning Commission? Seeing none, we'll move on to comments from the public. These are any individuals who did not receive notice about the hearing and wish to address counsel on this I'm sorry, Planning Commission on this specific topic. Is there anyone who wishes to talk about this project? You have five minutes. Seeing none, we'll move on to final questions from the commission. Mr. Intramurado, any final questions? None. Ms. Smith?

No questions.

Ms. Obert? None. I'm just going to say I forgot to compliment you on the work that you did on the drawings. It makes us feel really good when we give constructive things that we're required to point out to you, and then you come back with all the T's crossed and all the I's dotted. So it's noticed and appreciated, as Mr. Inmarado said. Any final comments, applicant, on this topic? No. Okay. Time for discussion and action by the commission. I'll open the floor for any thoughts, considerations, or concerns you want to express.

I was not at the original submission meeting, but I reviewed that there's substantial changes, and I think they're significant and well thought out in the submission today. So I'm I'm very pleased with the trees and the storm water changes and all of those things. So I and the fact that it's it's gonna go to the ARC review board, it's a historic district. I I think this is a good plan to move forward with.

Any other thoughts or comments?

I was satisfied with the changes, and the recommendations that staff has on there for us. Looks like they're headed in the right direction.

Agree, mister Inmarado, anything?

Looks good to me.

All right, do we have a motion?

Motion to approve with the staff recommendations.

Second.

Discussion, do we wanna mister Pitchford, we had a, proposed finding of fact in the staff report related to findings of fact, proposed findings of fact, and if we learned anything at the joint session of AHRQ Board, BCBA, and planning, We aren't really sure how to move forward on finding this a fact yet. There was some discussion about anticipating whether or not an appeal would be filed subsequent to our conversation and hearing and everything like that. And I had suggested to Ms. Zobert that we might have a longer discussion or a longer how do I want to say it? Shorter than Mr.

Sugar wrote, but encapsulating all the parts related to that. Do you feel as though in this particular case we're sufficient moving forward on just the motion? We've had no public comment, none from residents withstanding. Can we just take action on the motion?

We can take action on the motion and specifically state, yeah, we make the necessary findings of fact then, I would include a statement that make the finding of the fact that this satisfies one,

two, three.

Given that, do you have any additional things you would like to add to your motion, Ms. Overt? Perhaps you would like to start all over again.

Start all over again. I'll make the motion then

to amend. We do have a seconded motion on the floor. So if you wanted to amend that, we'd need Ms. Smith to withdraw her second. Draw. And you to withdraw the motion.

I will withdraw my Thank previous

you. We have an empty floor. Ms. Overt, please, would you like to move then?

Then I would motion to approve as the proposal meets 12:06, what is it, two?

Right? And it meets the site plan review standards section 1,104.04. And what was the last comment? The district standard sections twelve oh five point zero seven and the applicable setbacks.

Okay, we have a motion on the floor. Did we want to include, before we finish that, did we want to include the recommendations from the staff memo?

The four recommendations from the staff, yes. So please include the final recommendations on page four from staff. You got those, Nick? I don't need to read them?

Correct.

Thank you. So this would be a motion to approve item number twenty twenty six-seventy two, specifically finding that all of the submitted documentation and testimony comports with LDC requirements for site plans found in 1,104.04, district requirements found in 1,105.05, and conditional use standards of 1,106.02, but incorporating the five recommendations of staff found on page four of the staff report dated 05/11/2026. Is that a fair statement of your motion? Yes. Do we have a second?

Second.

Thank you, Ms. Smith. Any further discussion?

Okay, Mr. Sugar, would you call the roll please?

Yes. Mr. Intermarado? Yes. Ms. Smith?

Yes.

Ms. Obert?

Yes. Ms.

Norman? Yes, the motion carries four to zero, and so you have your approval. Thank you so much for your effort and coming this evening. Thank you. That will close our old business, the continuation of that hearing, and will lead us on to new business.

And while we don't have any items listed under the agenda there, there were a couple of things I think we need to address. And one is that we need to have three representatives attend a design charrette on June 10. Staff invited myself as the chair, Ms. Obert as the vice chair, and Ms. McCoy as a representative from comprehensive plan to that charrette, and unfortunately all three of us are out of town, and apparently they cannot reschedule the meeting.

I did confirm with Mr. Nystrom that he is available, but we, with staff's request, have been asked to send a total of three representatives. So I would like to take volunteers for that on June 10. It's a Wednesday night, and it is a three hour commitment to talk. This is related to Clinton Crossing.

What time is the meeting gonna be in? Do we know yet? We

are not officially set and I'd say for June 9 we're 90% of the way there.

Is it ninth or tenth?

I'm sorry June 10.

Thank you.

Sorry about that.

No no no, that's alright.

We were gauging several different processes to make sure that this date could work. We're zeroing in on that and we'll probably be official within two days. I anticipate probably a five to 8PM Although But it's not that's what I would anticipate.

What's the purpose of this?

This is an opportunity to work with consultants to Clinton Crossing is the old phase two down by okay. And to come up with ideas related to how that public space and the new residential development would work in there. And it's not the final deciding, it's talking about concepts. We would I'm making this up. We would want sidewalks.

We would want single story homes. We would want beautiful architecture that makes us think about the depot that used to be there. And again, I'm making all of this up. And the idea is that there would be a cross section of the boards and commissions and other people with that information to be so the presumption is that planning commission representatives would come thinking about the Land Development Code and what we might be able to work with in the existing code or consider what changes would we need to make or what kind of a project would it have to be in order to make changes that would make that design go forward? Mr.

Hanan, could you fill me I in on

actually had this on my staff update. This Oh is helpful, I can give a So few additional again, this process would be led by RDL Architects and OHM Advisors. They are the consultant team that would be helping to take the comprehensive plan recommendations for Clinton Crossing for the downtown development and transition it to concept plan that the community would support and would come before Planning Commission and Council. So the first key piece is this community charrette. We would be looking at two different dates in June.

One would be a targeted stakeholder session where we'd probably invite 60 to 70 representatives from Architectural Review Board, BCBA, Planning Commission would have larger representation, but then also some members from Park Board, Tree Commission, other organizations, civic and community groups, some downtown representatives of businesses and property owners. And you would go through a three hour facilitated process where you would be told about site constraints, development standards, where the wetlands are, the practicality of not interrupting the railroad, where we might need to set aside areas for sanitary improvements, things of that nature. And then you would work in small groups to come up with developments that you would like to see. And then all the groups share their information and then we would have another public session where all the Tourette information can be shared with the full public. And then we'd work down towards three options in July.

And then we'd work down further to one preferred plan in August. And then that plan is what RDL could develop further for a national submittal to the Planning Commission hopefully for this fall. So this of funneling down as we get more and more review. But this SHREP would be this key, rather than a regular public meeting, it's a bit more intensive where you're given preparation information and then you and small groups develop concepts that you think would help implement the comprehensive plan.

Thank you Mr. Hanner, you did a much better job explaining that, those dynamics and that logistic. Okay, any other comments or questions? I can attend. Thank you Mr. Intermarado. You can too, thank you Ms. Smith. Okay. Alright, we have our three, and I'll reply to Ms. Hernandez who emailed me today about that, but you can take a note

Ms. Hernandez. And then a brief reference, we will also have a general public session we anticipate the following week. And we encourage any board members that weren't able to make the stakeholder meeting to be able to go to the general public. I think we'll have much more formal information out by the end of the week.

Thanks. Fantastic. All right. That took care of that. In other business, item A is Planning Commission discussion topic on planned developments. This item was tabled until this meeting from the last, and we are resuming a discussion amongst ourselves. I do understand we have a guest here this evening, so I'm going turn it over to staff to get us started on this item on the agenda.

Yes, thank you. Yes, brief update. This was from our last meeting. We had just prepared some general information, collected comments from the board members in a memo, provided a little bit of information, some clarifications, things we heard from the last discussion as I was, me and Greg were reviewing the previous tape. And then of course we reached out to Mr. Schmidt here with OHM Advisors who has developed a little more study for us and is here to help walk the board through those findings and that research.

You want to get started, Mr. Schmitt?

Absolutely. Evening, everybody. Arthur Schmitt, 3716 Sandalwood Drive, Brunswick, Ohio, representing OHM Advisors.

Okay, thank you. What do you have to tell us?

Well, good evening, everyone. I'll be brief just to go over the memorandum that was shared to you just to go over its structure and some of the findings that were in there to help you out. And then I can take questions or offer any other thoughts to help with your overall conversation. So with the memorandum as in last time with the housing density, what we did is offered a very brief, and I do mean brief, history about PUD's. There's a lengthy, lengthy history that you can get into and discuss, but what I wanted to do is at least just kind of set the table in terms of the history of PUD's in a very overarching way along with just setting the tone of what the role of the comprehensive plan is as it relates to PUD's.

And then following that, we went into our peer city analysis overview. We used the same cities as we did previously when we were talking about the zoning density. Those cities were City of Aurora, City of Twinsburg, City of Brecksville, City of Medina, and the City of Solon. On that Pier City Analysis Overview page on page three, we have just kind of a brief what we were trying to do was one to two sentences just to give you an overview of what each of those PUDs are. I think one item to take note of is when you're looking at different PUDs, it's difficult at times to compare them as if they're apples to apples, right?

We're kind of talking apples to oranges, apples to lemons, zucchini, tomatoes, insert your fruit or vegetable of your choice there because there's a lot of differing factors that go into each city's district's plan unit developments. And I'm sure as you started to go through the document and the memorandum, you were starting to see that. What we wanted to try to do in working with staff was just start to pull out some of the highlights of those cities' PUD's just to help you again with your overall understanding, how you can start to apply some of that to the City Of Hudson and to your community and maybe some of the intricacies that are in there. So with pages four, five, six and seven, that is just a direct copy and paste of the City Of Hudson's BUD. Again, just to have reference, you had it there in the same document.

And then beginning on page eight and sorry, I'm making Nick go fast

on the screen over there.

And then starting with page eight, starts with the City Of Aurora. And as you can see, and this is the same rhythm is for each municipality that we were reviewing. It is a direct copy and paste from the zoning district of what its purpose statement is, however it's defined by that community. And then we started to highlight a few different things. So they're not, again, not necessarily all the same for each city, again, because it's not apples to apples.

But what we were trying to highlight was, for example, with the city of Aurora, the flexibility for density and uses that are permitted, in this case, the overall land use structure, the development plan. We tried to outline design standards that were specifically called out in the PUDs. In other way in other comparisons, we start talking about the purpose and the planning framework. We start talking about what are the steps to go through that PUD development. So if you're an applicant, what are the submission requirements?

What is the first process of the overall approval? How you move through? What are some of the implementation and legislative aspects to it? And then again, if there's anything kind of unique to those districts or PUD's within those cities to highlight. So that's what we were trying to accomplish with this, again, to give you a general oversight.

Again, each is very different. It's not apples to apples. Some of them do have very specific zones that they call out for that are mapped, and we did keep the mapping like we did the previous time with the housing density review, the zoning map next to it. So some municipalities have them specifically mapped. Others have general areas that they'll consider PUD's to be appropriate, and then you have to come in as an applicant to review and discuss those and go through that process to confirm those.

And then in the case of Solon's, we, in working with staff, included it because Solon's was a very particular area as compared to maybe some of the other PUD's that looked at the entire city and highlighted some specific areas. So I wanted to provide that in consultation with staff just because it was a little unique. I thought it added some other value for you all to consider and think through as you're making your determinations for Hudson because it's a specific area. It is not a specific parcel. There's multiple parcels involved with it, and it does have the ability to potentially be expanded if that municipalities chooses to do so.

So that is a brief overview just to set the table. And then I'm happy to answer questions. Oh, I take that back. One other thing, we did include an appendix that again was a copy and paste of the legislative within each of the municipalities PUD district just so you could go back and look at it for yourself as well. If there's anything of particular interest, to make it a little bit easier to go back and reference as you so choose. So now with that, I will answer any questions, help in any way that I can.

Thank you, Mr. Schmidt. I'll begin with Mr. Intermarado. Any questions, comments?

Not at this time.

Thank you. Miss Smith?

I was most interested thank you for this research. It's very helpful. I was most interested in the city of Solon and, particularly how they they said the district establishes a clear ratio for residential, a maximum of 33% of the site, and nonresidential 67 to 90% of the site. Is that common to set percentages, and is that easy for for a city to enforce in your opinion from a development standpoint?

It's it's common in the sense of of establishing a a percentage ratio, in other instances, beyond the ones that we we looked at. Oftentimes, that can be a little helpful because as opposed to giving a harder concrete unit number, it's acknowledging the fact that some sites have site conditions and site constraints that can change the way that that density mix ultimately looks in the project. I think from at least my personal experience, it can be easily it is something that can be upheld by the community and worked with the developer, again, because it just offers the site constraint flexibility of understanding what actual percentage acreage of the site can be developed. And so that way, you don't become potentially pushed into a specific density, and it feels more dense potentially in an area because there are site constraints that have to be considered. So it does offer that flexibility as an alternate to an actual number.

Are you through your research, not just with these examples, are you seeing in planned developments just through your research in other communities, do the majority of them do have a residential component? Yes. Okay. And explain why to me.

A lot of it comes down to the from a developer's perspective of just having some clarity as they know that within most markets they can sell those units at the end of the day. So there's just more of a level of confidence that they know that mixture of residential. We know that there can be there'll be a market for it. We know we'll sell that. We're oftentimes with commercial, with retail, any type of, let's say, flex industry or other type of development, there's not as much confidence or sometimes there can be ebbs and flows within those markets.

So oftentimes, at least in the conversations that I have with other developers and looking at other cities, they see that as kind of their foundation as their confidence piece, right? And then how much that's allowed kind of, again, ebbs and flows with how the other markets are doing, what the requirements are from that community, what the nature of the community is, what they're seeing. It wouldn't be something you would see perhaps at the edge of the city if it's more if the land is more open, if it's more residential versus maybe internal to more of a downtown or a corridor setting where you could see more of that commercial retail mix making making sense.

And are you seeing I see in the Solon example too. Are you seeing because in the Solon example too, I know one of the concerns we had was, you know, they have a lot of flexibility in our code and what about design standards? And it says here, at least in Solon, that architectural and landscape design standards are governed by the underlying c three commercial district standards. Are you seeing that as well, that they're they're going a mix of the code and the the plan development unit standards in the these communities? Communities?

Yes. Oftentimes where it's happening is in the Solon example where you're seeing they're taking design standards, architectural standards from their base zoning and then elevating that up into the PUD if that area happens to be designated for a PUD. A lot of that is just to help with the overall context so it doesn't look like

It doesn't look different.

It doesn't look different. Doesn't look random. It's looking in the fabric of at least what's around there. Or just to put a counter to that, if there is a desire to change what the look and feel is of that particular area, in a lot of ways, this could allow them to move in that new direction maybe until they update the underlying zoning.

Thank you. Thank you Ms. Smith. Ms. Obert.

It looks like a lot of these communities have designated green space. That's pretty common for all of these as well?

Yes, at some level, some percentage.

So my question for staff would be, we didn't see any sort of designated green space on the proposed District 11, correct?

Greg can help. I believe those were in our subdivision standards. We took those.

But subdivision is residential only, not commercial, right? So that wouldn't apply to this?

I could check into that.

Yeah. I'll I'll take a look. Yeah.

Okay. Because I know for residential development

I know the topic came

up. Green space.

Yeah. Correct. Okay.

My next thing is specificity on on language. So I know we're not comparing apples to apples, but some of these communities label them a PUD or a PUD. All of all of them some others say just planned development. In my brain, those are two different things. Like a PUD is generally for a residential neighborhood where you have an overarching HOA board that's managing and doing all of the other things beyond, right? Where a planned development is more of a we're going to develop and then we're hands off. Is that

Yes. I mean that I view it, I guess, as it's starting to evolve. They're sort of starting to merge a little bit from the standpoint of you're seeing, even in just in the description you were giving, Ms. Oberth, the planned development district, just planned districts that you're starting to see some residential components in there. But I think traditionally, as it was started, you're right, planned unit development, more residential led based majority, you would say, of the percentage.

And then planned development would be a bit more commercial retail oriented. But those two are starting to mix a little bit more just because of I think more of the nature of the market going back to the previous comment that I made before regarding just having that confidence mix in how the market is going. And it also some of these two and I didn't mention it in the opening, but if I may, I'll bring it up here. You look at because we were discussing this with Steph, you look at the city of Brexville, you have Valor Acres, theirs is a very specific one. It's kind of built off this, but it's not each one for that is developed separately, right?

So that was one concern even as we were talking about comparable cities about how that works. And then in our research, we're finding the planned development areas, here's the basis. And then as in that case, Valerie Acres is coming forward, they're developing it specifically for that site and all the nuances that go there. But yes, back to your point, that is the definition as they've kind of grown up and now they've started to mix a little bit more.

So when you're talking earlier about Ms. Smith's comments, were talking about the application, the applicant and basically being able to enforce the standards of percentages of residential versus commercial. But at this point, we don't actually have an application in front of us. This is a city led project. Does that make a difference experience on the enforceability of what happens in these planned developments?

Not necessarily because I think this gives you the opportunity to set what it is you're looking for within that area, what the mixture is. And then I think as you start to kind of create the guardrails, create the fences around what you're interested in, I think it's just making sure that you're acknowledging that as different applications come up, where are you willing to be flexible in certain areas and what are maybe some elements that you're like, no, we really feel strongly about this. This is an aspect we feel strongly about. I think that through these examples, you'll see, and maybe you started to look at it too, there are some elements where they're starting to hold true of, we aspect. We want to make sure we hold true to that.

I think, and I hope I'm not misspeaking, it was either Brexville or Twinsburg that was starting to talk about kind of the open space and how it's being bordered with other districts around. That was something that was more of a nonnegotiable item than let's say the unit type mix, right, of single family, multifamily. More willing to talk and have a discussion about that to see how things are changing and flowing. But we really want to make sure that wherever we're placing this, we have a good kind of we're being a good neighbor to our other zoning districts that there's a buffer there, especially if there's kind of conflicting uses potentially in that area.

Right. Okay. So that leads me to my next point. We spent almost two years together working on the comprehensive plan in which we discussed much of this land. And the intended purpose from the comprehensive plan that was put together was all about income generation. Right?

Mhmm.

We talked about the front parcels in front of the existing structure that could be potential some sort of retail restaurant space or small office, but largely making it an you know, or maintaining it as industrial income for the city. Do you see other communities and successful developments not including residential in such developments?

Trying to think. None that are coming to mind right now that doesn't say that they don't exist, but none that are jumping out to me right now. Why

I mean, just because this is your area of expertise. But why do you think that is is it just the cost benefit to the developers by keeping residential in there? Because my understanding is the discussions with IRG was the residential component was apartment rentals, not for sale.

Right. I from from my experience when we've been looking when we've been dealing with this and other instances, I think with their and by they, I mean developers that we speak with, they've indicated that it's twofold. It's that kind of comp that part of the part of being confident in the market in terms of the residential being able to sell and also

adding

additional individuals who are going to purchase, who are going to go to the restaurants, who are going to go

to the retail Patrons,

you. It's been a long day, sorry. Adding additional patrons to the area, so it creates more of a buy in for those commercial retail spaces. There's a bit more confidence that we have people nearby who can come to these spaces. Sometimes those commercial spaces are smaller in size, not all the time, but sometimes those commercial spaces could be smaller in size. So it's just adding a bit of confidence if you're having more patrons in and around the area who you're hoping would be going to those businesses.

Right. So and this is where

I think some of the confusion,

people's interpretation of the comprehensive plan or maybe public council's view of that was if this is going to largely be income generating, we're we're not talking about businesses that are gonna need foot traffic. Right? So maybe those few retail spaces in the front might rely upon foot traffic or it's just the employees of the commercial industrial spaces that are shopping or dining at these smaller places. Right? I kinda forgot where I was going with that. I guess my point is is, like, if we're not are we seeing companies outside of Valor Acres asking for specific developments for their their intent their sole purpose? Beyond

Valor? I'm just trying to think at least in the area. Just just to be clear too, miss Obert, of of including residential in the mix?

Regardless. Regardless with Yes. I I guess just like a a company or companies that are saying, if you build the us this, we will come.

Nothing's coming to mind as we're sitting here. That can be something though that I can kind of reflect on a little bit more and think of and send a report back to you all as all commission members. But nothing is jumping out as a specific example.

Okay. Last question. I'm sorry you're in the hot What suggestions would you make to Planning Commission in terms of modifications to our existing code? Because to us, to me, and I'm sorry, won't speak for all of us, it seems a little vague. The definition of plan development doesn't quite match our purpose statement. So I think our initial intent of having you here today was to try to help guide us so that we're making the best decisions. So having your knowledge of what this code looks like helps us get there. So if any suggestions you have of terminology or changes that we should make or make this process easier?

I think just kind of reviewing some of the other municipalities, think one thing that jumped out in some of the other ones and even thinking of other municipalities that we work with, I think the clarity and the approval process and the step by step and what's required is something that I can say at least on our side of the table as a design firm, not necessarily developers, design firm, very clear. They're expecting x, y, and z at this stage, at this stage, at this stage, and here are my clear steps.

Right. And we don't see that.

I I think that could be that could be further clarified in in the existing one of just being, you know, not leaving room for interpretation. And I think the more clarity, the better. Again, I speak just from my side of the table because then I know very clearly these are the things we have to do. This is what staff needs. This is what planning commission needs. This is what we're going to walk through. And if I don't have that, I have to make a really good argument or rationale lie to staff. So Mr. Sugar, in this case, Hanover, of why we don't have that material right now. So I think that's helpful.

I think all of the purpose statements, that's always a struggle because you see some of them like Solens, for example, is very specific, but it's a very defined area. It's more defined, I would argue, than some of the other PODs and PDs that we've listed in here. But I think clarifying the purpose statement of what the intent is, what the overall goal is, how it relates back to your comprehensive plan, I believe it was Brexville's that did have a lot of language tying back to their city master plan. And obviously, as that city if as that city master plan would be updated, it would either be strengthened or it would still tie back to it. So you're not tying it to a specific the 2007 city master plan.

That's what we refer to, right? It is just saying the city master plan or, in this case, the city comprehensive plan. I think those two areas would be the biggest sort of suggestions I would make. And then anything and you have that a bit in your existing one. You have your architectural design standards kind of throughout the land development code.

So I think as you have here tying it back to the existing standard because you have a style and a flavor of Hudson already. And so you would probably, I would assume, want to see that continued through any new development. So I think tying it back to the existing code in that sense. And then I think the area in which you could, again, we talk about that flexibility, the areas that you want, Perhaps some of those design standards can be up for conversation, can be up for flexibility based on the site constraints that you have in that particular PUD area that you're calling out. And I think within I would always argue identifying that within a reason that you're most comfortable with between all the commissions, counsel and staff, right?

Where are those areas that yes, we can have a conversation about that or let's talk about that a little bit more that makes sense for us. I think going back to Ms. Smith's question, the percentages versus the actual numbers, I've just personally seen the times that, that can be helpful because of those site constraints. And then you could have the reverse effect. Oftentimes when you're putting a specific number, it's meant to be, we want this amount of density, but that could push that density up a little bit higher in a particular area because of site constraints, right?

And so because of that number, you're forced not forced into it, but it's like, well, our number says we can have x, right, as opposed to if it's a percentage, it allows you to kind of think through that a bit further as it relates to the site constraints. So I think those three areas would be the ones that I would highlight and work together and work with staff to be really, really comfortable in those areas.

Okay. I think that's it for now.

Just to jump in, the open space does reference the residential and it references like 1,107.05.

But only residential?

Correct.

So for a mixed development, it does not apply?

It's just residential and is about 19 acres per 1,000 residents for those that open space allocation.

I'm sorry. Say that sentence again. 19,000

19 acres per 1,000 residents.

Thank you. Sorry. Yeah. Okay. Thank you, Ms. Ober. I'm going to pick up with a couple of questions, Mr. Schmidt, that Ms. Overt's questions made me think. So these are going be a little bit out of order, but I'm going to get back to it. So one of the things that I know we've been hearing from staff on this specific D-eleven proposal is that we have workers who are going be coming in to the former Joanne site in some way, shape or form because we don't know which parts will remain and which won't, but they're the ones who need to be patronizing the amenities in this district. So would we necessarily need residents?

Necessarily if you're looking at I mean, I think it's having those patrons, right? I think that's part of the perspective that oftentimes developers are looking for. And I think it's just very natural and easy to go to residents because you know they're there. You know they're committed to being there. But you can look to the number of employees of existing businesses there.

You can start to look out to a larger area and see potentially what your capture rate could be with that. And I think if there's a good understanding of potentially what is missing or what else is needed from a market capacity perspective, you can start having the conversation that those employees and those other numbers add into that mix.

And I'm mindful it's not a planned development, but immediately across the street, we have a large complex of, to my knowledge, medical offices. I've not been to anything over there that wasn't a medical office, although there is a day care. And I'm mindful that those folks don't have a place to eat other than going to Stowe or into town, and they also don't have any residents living near them to patronize them. So, there's a part of me that's kind of like, well, would we potentially be overbuilding to create a demand for foot traffic consumer need that we would have been better off to stick with the light industrial or flex space instead of complicating this. Does that question make

sense?

It doesn't make sense and there are. There's different businesses and types that capture rate that market analysis will use is that you are willing to drive x amount of distances to go to something versus the willingness to walk across the street or walk down the street for something. Oftentimes when they're looking at that and we're going through this in a different project, oftentimes with restaurants they're looking for that foot traffic. How many folks can I capture within my immediate area that I know are going to come to this business on a, I guess, semi regularly basis as much as possible? So it's just again, it's a little bit of a balance of figuring out what is that mix and what are the right number of sort of patrons in the area and potentially that could add to it just to help with the overall commercial retail selling for those businesses.

Okay, thank you on that. So another question that she made me think of, as you are looking at these peer cities or beyond just from your knowledge, would you say that the range of uses tends to be on a narrower scale or is a more wide open scale? And the genesis for that question is because one of the sale points that we've been hearing is that this is a change in the underlying uses that D8 would normally allow, removing adult business, removing auto repair shops, a certain number of things. Adding a couple more, but it's a net loss overall and what I'm trying to assess is, is that moving in the right direction if you're looking to provide and build services and amenities that are trying to support residents? What is your general impression on that?

I generally see that the uses are opening up a bit more. Part of that is due to I think the way that we've traditionally looked at zoning uses. We're like we're we get super defined in what that use is and there's businesses and items that come up that start to like loosen that a bit. So the example and Ms. Albert might remember it from when we talked about it at Planning Commission is industrial, right?

You hear industrial and immediately everybody thinks the smokestacks, right, the small coming out and it's You're making cars. You're making cars, right? And industrial has really changed and Mr. Sugar and I have talked about this too. Industrial has changed a lot where they're still making, but it's making, it's having an office and it's having a storefront because I want to make it, I want to run my business and then I want to sell it to you right from where I'm making it.

So it's shifted that. I know that's a very specific example, but I think that's part of to your question, that's part of that thinking that some of those uses open up a little bit in the sense of what are you really permitting in there. And so perhaps it's either adding more adding additional language to outline some of those or again how that's written to include that in the discussion if again if I'm the developer and I'm coming to you all as Planning Commission say, I want to create this maker space, right? I want to create this maker space where it's entrepreneurs who are coming down, there's manufacturing, they have their offices where they can run their business, right? They're also selling it right out of there.

That's the type of space that I want to create down in this area. So how does that get defined then in the existing code? A great example of that is in Downtown Cleveland. Fifth Street Arcades is one of those where it's utilizing the old arcade that's down there. But that is a if you go through the arcade, it's two sided. That is a mixture of restaurants. It's a mixture of maker spaces where they're making items and selling it to you. There's lawyers that are there. There's CPAs. Just saying, Marshall.

Just saying. CPAs that are down there. There's a whole eclectic. There's coffee shops. There's an individual who I think they manufacture both dresses and ties right there and you customize it and then you get to see it, the whole thing, right? So it's a variety. So that's probably a really good example of the sense of how does that fit then if that is something that you're looking for in the existing language of how a code looks and then versus a PUD would look. Yes.

Alright, last question that she inspired.

I don't like being blamed

for

no, no.

Questions.

She said inspired.

I spent so much time today working on this. I couldn't believe there was a question I hadn't thought of, but lo and behold, here we are. Generally, whether you're talking about planned unit developments or planned developments, when you calculate residential density, you're looking at the whole acreage. Is that correct? Yes.

Okay. So I don't know if staff shared with you. I made some bad drawings, but they are geometrically correct, okay, mathematically correct. Related to calculating density, if we have in the proposed D 11, you know, a new area and we're gonna do a planned development and we are allowing 200 residential units, you you can never have a density higher than four units per acre because you have a minimum of 50 acres and you have a maximum of 200 units and the math works out to be four units per acre because you're not pigeonholing them into 20 units on 10 acres and there were a number of things like that. So I just wanted to make sure that we were still on the same math part on Yes,

I think, because I was just looking back, think, for example, City of Aurora has, they talk about a specific dwelling unit capping and density.

That's what it looked like to me from reviewing those others. But again, it's a sampling of peer cities and that may maybe they are peer cities because their zoning codes are stuck in the same era that ours are. All right. So moving on not to questions not inspired by missus Obert, I'm just gonna give you a a prelude here. I sat down this morning at about 06:30 with my first cup of coffee and I thought this is great.

I'm gonna go for the low hanging fruit, small project, I'm gonna be done by my PT appointment at 10:00 and at 02:30 I was still drinking cold coffee and I was deep in a rabbit hole and I think in the interest of time tonight, I have an extensive list of questions and this is just from really the two pages. I did look at 1,202.02, which is the procedural aspect, but the bulk of these 10.5 pages of notes come from 1,103.04, which is the chapter on planned developments. And I just have to say there were a number of things that came up along the way that were really The things that were open ended and ill defined were very challenging for me to get through. These are not things that you can directly answer for us today, so I'm going to just highlight a couple of things as I look at them here. One of the things I think that we have some issues with is related to Oh, this was a funny one.

This one you'll laugh at. So the review procedure in 01/2002 says that pre application conceptual reviews are mandatory for site plans except the preliminary plan development. I was like, oh, well look, they don't even have to do that except, except you have to look at 1,103.04 which then makes them mandatory. So we have a loop that goes around in our land development code where it says you don't have to do it for this and if you relied on that and didn't go further, you would be surprised when you found out you actually had to do that. So that's the kind of thing that made me almost spit my coffee out this morning.

And I'm committing to meet either with staff and or Mr. Pitchford in the future to go over these. Probably what I'll do, staff, is just make a scan of these, and I apologize because it is my handwriting because that's how I remember stuff, alright? But one of the things I did want to call your attention to is, as I drew out for everyone at this last meeting, which we got you to come to, when you look at the planned developments allowed in Hudson, this is it. It's the whole city except not in District 4 and not down in overlay where it's a conditional use.

And I didn't see that in your report. There was no indication that there were limitations in Hudson. It just has the entire zoning map. And I don't want this to come out mean, but then I was like, did AI write this report? Is that why it didn't distinguish that it's not allowed in the historic residential neighborhood at all?

No, that was just an oversight on my part that I just left the existing zoning map in there didn't necessarily highlight where PUD's were promoted.

Okay, and then as Ms. Obert pointed out sorry. You get one more reference here, my friend. As she pointed out, the definition, which mister Hannah provided for us in the report, seems to indicate and I I couldn't understand why it would be allowed in all the city. And it was it was at the end of the day when I said, well, of course, it's because of this discrepancy between the definition of a planned development and what the purpose statement tells us we're doing.

The purpose statement indicates we're talking about mixes. Mixes and so part of the time I spent today was figuring out what all the mixes could be in all of those different districts in the entire city, but the definition is contemplating River Oaks, for example. So we often say, well, there's only been one planned development in Hudson. It was first in Maine. But that's not true.

River Oaks is a planned development. It was, according to the definition, a single entity for residential, you can stop right there, and built over a period of years in a predetermined program. So it met the definition but it didn't meet the terms of the code. And so I don't know, I wasn't around when River Oaks got approved and proceeded so I'm not really sure what area they was it just a subdivision? I don't know, staff do It you

went through as an open space conservation subdivision.

So we didn't get treated as a planned Maybe development at

it potentially falls under that definition the landowner did not apply for a planned development.

Okay, that's helpful to know. Alright, so that yes. It's very strange and it bothers me that we would think we could go forward with D11 with the existing zoning that we have and not risk the pitfalls, which I will give Mr. Pitchford the legal pitfalls. That's what I mean, why Mr.

Pitchford gets to talk to me about those. There's a number of places in those regulations that are just so vague, I would never ask this Planning Commission to try and enforce them because I do not know what an exceptional quality product is in the world of planned developments. I am expecting I am paid to design the building if it's exceptional because he would truly be I think he's dead, but he's an exceptional architect. I would not expect and I'm just I'm not picking on anybody at all, but I would not expect an average local developer to come in and deliver me an exceptional quality product, not unless I know that that's a reputation and they have some substantiation for that claim. There are some things we require to be above average, which to me is lesser than exceptional.

One of my compadres here might disagree with that. We're supposed to incorporate creative design. I'm not sure I would know what that looked like if it hit me beside the head. To assure compatibility with the neighborhood character. So as I drove down 91 to my mother's house this afternoon, I looked at the West Side Of 91 and I thought, we're going to create two completely different view sheds as you drive down 91 if we build up against the road on the East Side and leave the existing development on the West Side which is the complex of medical buildings.

If we were looking to create compatibility with the neighborhood character that surrounds it, we'd be replicating what's on the West Side on the East Side And I'm not sure that we actually want that. So how do we how do we get around that requirement? Let's see.

I thought he was gonna answer that one. It was not really

a question. I'm expressing my frustration and I think he's channeling that He can take it. That part. Not at him. Not at him.

There are a number of exceptions written in throughout the entire thing and I guess one of the things I would like to ask you about specifically on that is that do we find that planned developments are still extending those liberal benefits like the exceptions for you have to abide by open space, except if you plant extra trees. You have to abide by integration with the transportation system, unless you have significant mitigating circumstances. Are we really selling the farm for nothing with these still, or is the city actually getting benefits when they go through a planned development process?

I think depending on the situation, there's the opportunity for the city to get benefits out of it. And a lot of it comes down to what base zoning is within that particular city and what the area that the PUD is going over. Right? In some instances, like I think Solens, for example, for the most part, where they're built out is pretty well defined, where the residential is pretty well defined. For that community, and again, not speaking for them, just my observation, by their community identifying that area, that was their area that they said, we can start to change things, change the development pattern, add something new out of use that's not typical here in the city within this area and we're comfortable doing that within this area as opposed to kind of having it be a little bit more ad hoc with the application.

I think in some ways, and again this is just my own personal analysis, I don't know just to pick on not pick on, but just to talk about Brexville and Valor Acres, I don't know if that happens given their underlying zoning, right? I think that their PUD, their planned development area was needed in order for that development to come to fruition because, one, there was not a zoning district that would permit that and two, there wasn't that kind of large area for it to happen available in the city to be under one district. So I think it can, miss Norman, be be beneficial to the city if if kind of what's being outlined is in the is being clearly defined and it's starting to advance the elements that everyone in the community wants to see advanced. Right? Right.

Alright, these are the special questions I wrote just for you. In your report, you mentioned that most of these are on a sizable piece of land. In your professional estimation, would a sizable piece of land be two acres or five acres in size or would it be 50 acres?

I would say it would be minimum double digits. I would say 10 plus acres, sizable.

To your recollection since you worked on the comprehensive plan for us, do you feel that a planned development being available citywide would be consistent with our comprehensive plan?

It would, yes.

Do you recall if our comprehensive plan referenced plan developments at all? I'm putting you on the spot, but I'm not meaning to.

No, no. Honestly, I don't recall off

the top of I didn't recall that it did either, but I can't witness to that and that's why I'm asking you. On page three of your report, it says that Hudson's review process is detailed requiring consistency with zoning and subdivision standards. And so I wondered if you had any way to reconcile all of the exceptions that appear in that section related to those. Are the exceptions part of the way that this gets built out in other places too?

Yes. I think one area there is just, you know, refining what that review process is for you all and what those steps are. Because without question, mean, of these communities have very detailed sort of review and outlined steps. But the more detailed and outlined you can be and where your comfort level is as a community and as a staff, I think the better off you are in those areas.

The report also says that these standards are explicitly non negotiable unless mitigated, and I just wondered what does mitigated look like? What would we be looking for mitigation? So like an environmental standard for example, we are not required, the way this ends up working out, and I promise not to go in the weeds and here I go, but I'm sorry. So if the request is a minor modification, which is a plus or minus 10%, okay, it's small in the grand scheme of things, but you're looking at a potential variance of 20% since you can go 10% in either direction. So if we have a wetlands requirement that it falls within that plus or minus 10%, it's a minor modification and the Planning Commission never has to pass judgment on and it's handled administratively.

If it's larger than that, then we would be able to to pass judgment on it and it's that is available for so many different items for that minor modification exception that I it feels like there's there's also no after enforcement, if that makes sense, or or follow-up enforcement or or that we got the benefit of the bargain, that we got what we what we sacrificed for.

I I I understand. There forget if it was Aurora or Brexville, I think or even Medina, I think it was, that they start to outline some of those once a PUD or a planned development is approved and has gone through the process, due diligence in terms of ensuring that what was approved by staff and by Planning Commissioning Council is ultimately what is built. And then the areas that are supposed to be maintained as outlined, if there is some type of maintenance agreement or anything of that nature, that that's also being maintained through the duration. And I want to say that it might even be in Brexfield that if there is some violation to that, I think permit and everything can be revoked and this might be something more for Mr. Pritchford as well and the city holds it at that point.

I did not get into the weeds of what that means for the city to hold it in that scenario. The point I'm trying to make here is that in some of these other peer cities, they are outlining kind of the after effect too. It's not only just the process and what you're going through and potential, like you said, mitigations that could come up, but also outlining that what ultimately gets built is matching what that final approval is and that there are I don't want to call spot checks, but there are points of checking back in and making sure that things are being maintained the way that they're supposed to be ultimately in So the as a way to your point about mitigations from environmental and other things to see that those actually got done the way that it was agreed upon, whether through planning commission council or staff, the way that it was supposed to and functioning the proper way.

So it's interesting that you bring that up because one of the things that derailed me for a long time this morning was looking at development agreements. I have blithely pretty much ignored that chapter because we have never had to look at a development agreement, but it looks like that is the surety that the Planning Commission would need to assure that a planned development in this case, because that's what we're talking about, is going to meet certain expectations, and yet we never attach a development agreement as a condition to any of our contentious projects. And so, staff, do you have any information on development agreements? Are those things that Planning Commission could make a condition of an approval that the developer would enter a development agreement to these specific terms with the city, and I'm gonna pick on the townhomes down 91. Like if we had known that a potential sale would perhaps derail this project, could we have asked the developer to enter a development agreement with the city to build out as Planning Commission approved or else come back for changes.

Would that have been something we could have negotiated?

Can at least add one note. We can definitely look at that and give you some additional feedback. In my mind, I'm thinking of the base tool being a plan development is or I'm sorry, a development agreement is something where the city has performance requirements in addition to the applicant or developer, where they're both bound to each other with performance requirements. But let us look at it from the question you raised and give you some feedback.

It's like parking in 1st And Main a development agreement. Something city owned and Main Street is part of the project, overall project.

But does it have to be, I guess is my question. Okay. And you may not know the answer right now.

Yeah. We'll take a look.

Alright. Did I read them a dyna map right that all of their zones are open for PUD's?

Yes. They take it under consideration. I know that they I know just in practice that they don't try to have that be all over, but they do consider it.

Okay, and then I wanted to ask you, I thought of one other question here. So some of our peers look like they have amended their plan development language recently. When they rewrote that, about how long does that process take? Give or take?

I'd say at least a couple of months because you're talking, for the most part, you're talking a couple of readings. I would imagine, and I'm looking at staff here.

Not counting council readings, because we know that that's a mathematical equation.

So oftentimes, it would have to be some type of public hearing to present those changes. Whether that would count as a public like a planning commission presentation would count as a public hearing, I think, would be each city's own kind of interpretation of that. But that there would at least be a public hearing, public notice, and at least one presentation, I would say, if not two, yeah, at some point before, to your point, before going through then the council amendment and adoption.

So two to four months at the outside?

I would say so. Okay. Yeah. Assuming Planning Commission meets at least once a month.

Just to add one brief note, I haven't reviewed the other cities for that. What is their review process for zoning amendments, Time given to the boards, the formal

Well, I'm looking for complicated ones. We're not talking about just like I don't think density is a complicated request to make. We took testimony, we talked about it, we hashed it out, we made some decisions and we forwarded that to counsel for their decisions to make. This becomes more complicated as you'll find out from my 10 and a half pages of notes. It's because when you move one part, now you're moving other parts in other sections or references to that.

And so so however you're gonna do it, if you're gonna take the whole thing out and start fresh, now you still have to make sure that you're covering all the bases. I mean, the question about subdivisions, we don't require subdivision compliance in our planned development. That's not one of the considerations. So the open space is completely ignored, but it comes up under the site plan. That's how it would be, but not through subdivision.

Two quick notes, one thing I was thinking, didn't know if it was relevant, my understanding of municipalities, everybody does their code amendment process differently.

Sure.

For example, Twinsburg, believe any amendment has to go to the vote of the people. It's not even council's authority. So every city has a different nuance. And then you mentioned about the subdivisions not applying. I haven't looked at that in detail, but my memory of planned developments is that those base purpose requirements of site plan applies, subdivision applies, and the planned development is on top of those, not that they set the others aside.

We will get into those weeds and have a longer conversation when people aren't wondering how the calves are doing tonight. Alright, that's the conclusion of my questions. Thank you Mr. Schmidt for your patience in answering all of those. Any other thoughts or comments from Planning Commission members either in general or for Mr. Schmidt?

The only

comment I'll make is I know that people are talking a lot about the comprehensive plan and I think my understanding is when the comprehensive plan, wrong because I wasn't part of the committee, but I know you helped write it. But when it was developed and they were talking about this land, it was based on the recommendations or based on the premise that they thought Joann's would remain there. Is that correct?

Yes.

And that the retail in front right? So I I don't know. I just think that the community needs to have an open mind because as you said, from what I what I've heard is there's no references to a plan development in the comprehensive plan. Is that correct?

I I don't recall. I I it's probably bad that I don't recall it, but

I

don't recall off here.

You don't recall. So my comment is that I don't know if the public has really thought about this or or there maybe they're starting to think about it and they're starting to have, which they should, conversation with their council members conversation online. So I just think that it should continue and that I think the community needs to decide what they want this to look like with council. Counsel. So I just think that we keep referencing comprehensive plan, I just want to make the point that I don't think anyone in the comprehensive plan talked about a plan development or what that could look like.

I don't recall talking about specifically a plan development. But we did talk about the event if Joanne closed because they had already filed bankruptcy once when we were working on this, which is why we had talked about splitting off the front but assuming that the existing building would stay regardless if it was Joanne's or not.

But is that any were written in the plan, or was that just a discussion?

No. It's called out in the map that the front would have been called was pulled out to be potentially developed. But we I mean, we can't call out a business to potentially close in the comprehensive plan. It's not that It's a 30,000 foot view.

Yeah. Guess what I'm saying, one of the things that I thought about was interesting to me because, you know, you look online and you see people are the community, they're taking votes online. And one of the votes I saw in one of the roundtables, was like split. Do you want housing in District 11? Half were like yes and half were no, at least from the one that I saw, the snapshot. So I just think it's a I guess I'm just making the point that I think it's a conversation that needs to continue. The the public needs to to weigh in and, you know and I I guess I'm not sold on that it doesn't have to have residential because what I'm hearing is that all these planned developments have residential. I'm I'm more

By by the same token, I'm gonna caution us to use social media as any sort of true barometer since you can have multiple accounts invoke five times because that's the outcome that you want compared with the comprehensive plan's statistically valid survey.

I'm just saying I've seen a lot of different opinions.

I agree. No, And you're

a lot of different opinions and I think that before we say it shouldn't be this or that, I think we need to look at what are the like when I'm reading about these other cities, what are the goals? What are the goals for housing? How does that align with the goals of

the city? I think that's important discussion to have.

So I think that's the driving factor that I have heard most from the comprehensive plan steering committee members was this location to stay income generating. So residential does not generate any income. It's a net loss. So if we're going to include residential, how do we make up for that on income?

And I did see in the comprehensive plan that we need other types of housing, more diverse housing, not just single family homes.

Again, we outlined that in an actual meeting with counsel that we presented in one of their workshops and the type of housing and stuff. Essentially, get a mixed bag of there is some need for other types of housing, but the overwhelming response of people in the housing demand is single family homes. And that, I mean, that was on the survey.

But it did it did

So I think that there are people who are vocal about wanting one particular type or not, but the reality is we asked questions with OHM and their advice on trying to get the most information out of the people who who answered survey and it was asking the same question in different ways to get to get the best answers that we could. Right? But I think at the end of the day, what this particular developer has proposed or discussed with staff is apartment rentals, which overwhelmingly people didn't want.

My question is, didn't the comprehensive plan say they want it first? There was a need in the community for more first floor masters?

It's a layered answer because the overwhelming wish for housing is more single family homes. Well, we didn't get 1st Floor masters. There is a wish for 1st floor masters. That's one layer of a multi like of a multi point multi choice question. But my point is is that this particular development and what was being proposed was apartment rentals, which is not single floor master houses, single family or otherwise, there's not even ownership, it's rentals.

I would like to move us in this discussion, if there are no other questions for Mr. Schmidt or Seth, about next steps we take from this discussion. We've now had two meetings of discussion and what would the pleasure of the Planning Commission be for what we do next related specifically to the plan development chapter?

I for one would like further assistance in the definitions of plan development and making sure that the purpose statement within the land development code makes sense. The specificity and defining exactly to what Mr. Schmidt has suggested. Refining the exceptions, providing more detailed outline of our goals and the processes for applicants. I think the best thing that we can do, because we've heard this before, that Hudson's difficult to work with.

Well, let's stop being difficult to work with and be very clear on what we want. Be very clear on the intention of what's supposed to happen in a plan development and where it should be. So I would love I would love for our commission to get support from council and staff if OHM can contribute on how do we get very precise within this plan development language to make that process more clear.

Do you think we should engage our council liaison or other council members in that process? What would your vision for that be?

I mean, feel like we're still waiting for some pieces and parts to come back from council like we've asked for the density and senior housing overlay that we suggested.

So I think that all of

that would be great to get more feedback.

And I believe density is on the workshop for tomorrow evening. Is that correct?

I can touch on that one. I'm double checking my calendar here. It's not tomorrow. It is June 9.

Oh, workshop. Okay.

Do we meet before or after that?

We meet the evening before. Yes.

I do think it would be good it would be good for the city overall instead of an Us versus them to come together with council. I don't know if it's a subcommittee, but to sit down and develop ideas based on the community goals of what it should look like. I think that's reasonable. I do like the percentage idea. That's in the last meeting, that's what I was talking about.

I didn't know how to, you know, if you don't want a lot of density and you want, but you but if the community goal is to still have some type of diverse housing, obviously the public is saying, I'm hearing that not not apartments. Mhmm. But, you know, they but I I hear from Hudson people all the time, and I see your friends and neighbors, there's not a lot of diverse housing for seniors, for empty nesters. So I think coming together and having a conversation with counsel would be very productive and bring the city together.

Mr. Anomarado, you have not weighed in yet. Sorry.

We just completed the comprehensive plan and it did address this specific District 11. And to suggest we need to go out and get information, we already did collect that information. There's no confusion. The comprehensive plan laid out a map and it was very clear to address any deficiencies in responses to answers and language. This area was specifically designated to have no residential.

Specifically, how would you like us to move forward related to the plan development though? I appreciate your comments on the comprehensive plan.

Well, would agree with Jesse. I mean, it needs to be completely redone. The way it is now is completely inadequate. It's not useful at all.

Would it be sufficient then for me, to take some of these detailed would you first, let me ask. Would you all like to review these detailed notes about the chapter? Yes. Okay. Send notes to what I will do is I will scan these, and I apologize for my lost school handwriting. I will send these to Mr. Sugar so that he can distribute them to all of us so that I will not and then after that you may weigh in with comments, but like I said, I will commit to meeting with staff and to Mr. Pitchford to go over some of these topics. Should we continue this discussion after that meeting to the next meeting in June if there's anything to follow-up on.

I have one question. Last meeting we sent our recommendations to counsel.

For density, yes. And District

11, some other

It was previous, yes.

Yes. Have we received any feedback from that?

Well, we heard that Are we supposed to? I I they're not obligated to reply to us if if you monitor the meetings. We got criticized by Councilwoman DeRaimo for not having applied due diligence, which of course fell I think really I'm reading between the lines. I think probably her complaint was that we didn't meet frequently enough, which would have required us to meet the Monday before Thanksgiving and a second time during December right before Christmas, which perhaps fair criticism, also impractical in Hudson where people leave for those weeks. So having said that, we would not be expecting a response directly back from counsel.

The density item that we sent to them last month went through their pipeline as far as I know with no hiccups. I don't know that anything is amiss or out of order and that I have no reason to suspect that. So it is in the pipeline on the normal course of procedure. It takes time. As we continue to proceed, it'd

be nice to get, to understand where they're at with our suggestions. We go forward with more Sure,

suggestions. Is that something you could reply or report back to us? You know how we've asked you to give us a report on appeals if they get filed?

The that report on the status of each of the

recommendations. I

think would that satisfy your concern, Mr. Nermada? I'd like to know

where their heads are at on our recommendations before we just keep going on and on and on and we don't, you know

That's why I said we need to come together.

Well, we did. We sent we did come together. We sent them our recommendations.

It's different than sitting down with them and having

a conversation.

And just I I don't mean to interrupt the discussion, just a a brief orientation. My understanding is that the land development code and the charter spell out some procedures of how tax amendments should occur. So you, Planning Commission, certainly has a role and responsibility to recommend to city council land and land code amendments to consider. But council also has an authority to determine when they wish to start a a formal amendment and send it to you for consideration. So you have a couple things that are kind of in counsel's queue but they have not advanced them to the point of starting the recommendation back to you for a formal consideration.

So density is about to be referenced to counsel and they receive the recommended changes as twelve oh one related to the comprehensive plan and the general purpose statement. And I think the one other open one is the regulations related to senior living. That's that's in council's hands at this time as well. So but we'll give you a proper list of where those items stand.

Would it be easy, mister Sugar, and I I don't know what your preference is, would it be easy to create a table at the bottom of our agenda that reports on items forwarded to council and they can disappear as they are handled by counsel. Does that make sense what I'm describing to you? That way you wouldn't have to perhaps replicate it every single week with fresh information. You could just add the one item at the bottom of the list and take off the We

can add what our system can do,

what's practical. Whatever works best for you is fine for me. Do I hear so we're going to distribute the notes and we will then is it the pleasure to continue the conversation at the June meeting? Is that the desire?

Yes. Okay.

I think an invitation to have direction from counsel how they'd like to move forward.

Okay.

And maybe that is us sitting down together like they're doing this with Clinton Crossing and some of these things.

I'm gonna trust that our liaison will communicate that back to to counsel. Okay.

And one of the most eye opening things for me tonight looking at these other cities is that it can be whatever we imagine. When I I mean, one of the last meetings, he said, no. We can't have single housing. Aurora is doing it. And Aurora's, they have, they have single housing. And if that's what we need with with 1st Floor masters, why if we can't imagine it, why can't it be what the city actually needs?

Mhmm. Don't know. Fair question. Alright. I think that will conclude our discussion tonight on that topic. Steph, do you have anything you need to wrap up with? Did we miss a single stone on this discussion? Every one of them turned over.

No, I've been taking notes, so I think review those.

Fantastic. All right, then we'll move on to item 10, which is staff update.

I can start with just looking ahead for the next meeting. We did receive two applications that I'm currently reviewing. One is the Hudson Fire Department garage outbuilding that we've been tracking for a bit now. So we're just working with the engineering department on that application. And the other would be a is an application for a dentist's office that's on a vacant lot on the corner of Lawnmark at Norton Road. That'll be a new build. And I'm currently reviewing that application that came in today.

This is Norman. Also have a couple brief notes. We've already covered a couple of these. We just touched on the land development code recommendations regarding density, will be on the June 9 workshop. We have Clinton Crossing, which we discussed with the upcoming charrettes and public engagement, which will be you'll hear much more about over the next week to ten days.

For reference, I'm not sure if I mentioned last month, but council is looking at some amendment to our short term rental program and policies. Those are run as a business license rather than through the land development code. I think we have seven or eight peer cities that we looked at, and I think seven of those eight peer cities all run them as a business license. One key thing that council will be considering is some additional regulation to ease the future growth of them, to find some method that still allows the program to continue but ease future increases in those. And they'll be discussing that further in workshop tomorrow night.

And then also District 11, as we've touched on briefly, but just for a reminder, council at least has anticipating or has a potential final action a week from tomorrow night.

I have a question for you, Mr. Hannon, on the short term rental. I listened with interest to that discussion happening on council, and I wondered if you were aware of any cities that do a blended business license with a conditional use permit, so that it's a both and, and I don't know if the reg I haven't read the regulations because they're not part of chapter 12, but if there is no provision for being able to retract a license to do that under the I'm just going say three strikes and you're out. Three loud parties and you're gonna lose your short term rental license. But if it was also a conditional use permit, would there be any advantage to that?

There may be. I sense maybe the conditional use process of public testimony, notification of what might be coming in your neighborhood, but having a business license to maybe have a quicker and stronger enforcement pool. I haven't seen that, but there may be a way to put those tools together.

Just an idea. Any other comments or questions from Planning Commission? Alright, if there is nothing else, I would accept a motion to adjourn. Motion to adjourn. We have a motion, is there a second? Second. All those in favor, please signify by saying aye. Aye. And we will stand adjourned at 09:18 p. M. Thank you all.