Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

The time is now 7.30 on Monday, June 22nd, 2026, and I'd like to call this regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting for the City of Hudson to order. Mr. Sugar, would you please call the roll?

Yes. Ms. Obert?

Here.

Mr. Inamorato?

Here.

Ms. McCoy?

Here.

Mr. Nystrom? Here. Ms. Smith? Here. Ms. Norman? Here.

Here, we have a quorum with six of our seven members present. Next, I will go through the swearing in. I think we only have the staff members here tonight, but we will administer the oath to you since you are our sole source of testimony this evening. Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you will give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? If so, please say I do. Thank you. You may be seated. Item number 4A on our agenda is approval of the minutes from April 27, 2026's joint board with session of council and, well, with many groups. Those items that those set of minutes was provided to everyone. Were there any corrections or adjustments anyone wanted to call out? I only had one on this. What's page two? I feel like the sentence at the very last paragraph that states the Planning Commission serves as an advisory body to City Council lacks clarity. We're not advisory to City Council in a general way, specifically on, we advise on the land development code changes and implementation of the growth management allocation. Does that seem to? be acceptable to the group, okay. All right, seeing no other corrections, may I have a motion to approve from someone who was present at that meeting and can make that motion?

Motion to approve as noted.

Thank you, Mr. Nystrom. Do we have a second? Second. Thank you, Mr. Inamorato. Any further conversation, discussion? Mr. Sugar, could you call the roll?

Yes, Ms. Obert?

Yes.

Mr. Inamorato? Yes. Ms. McCoy?

Abstain.

Mr. Nystrom? Yes. Ms. Smith?

Abstain.

Ms. Norman?

Yes. The motion to approve carries four votes with two abstentions. The next item on our agenda is item 4B, minutes of the previous planning commission that was held on May 11, 2026. Any additions or corrections from the planning commission members they wish to call out? I only had one, which was a typo. On page two, poor Ms. Sugar got referenced, and it's really Mr. Sugar. Other than that, may I have a motion from someone who was present at that meeting to pass the minutes as corrected?

I'll make a motion as noted.

Thank you, Mr. Enmarato. Do we have a second? Second. Thank you, Ms. Obert. Any further discussion? Mr. Sugar, would you please call the roll?

Yes. Ms. Obert? Yes. Mr. Inamorato? Yes. Ms. McCoy?

Abstain.

Mr. Nystrom? Abstain. Ms. Smith?

Yes.

Ms. Norman?

Yes. The motion carries four to two, approved as corrected. Item number five is public discussion. I do see that Councilwoman Weinstein is here, but no other members of the public. So unless you have anything you'd like to add, we will move on to correspondence. This is an opportunity for the Planning Commission members to reveal any outside correspondence that may not have transpired during a regularly noticed meeting or other event. Is there anything that the Planning Commission members wish to reveal or discuss? I'm going to ask for those of us who participated in the charrette just to give a short summary. That was a noticed meeting, but we were there on different days and in different groups. So anyone want to start? who did sure it. Ms. Obert?

Sure. It was actually a well-attended group. I think they did three of them. Over 40 people attended each one. They split us up into smaller groups where we could identify opportunities and really talk personally and intimately about what our hopes and dreams were for the development at Clinton Crossings, formerly known as Phase 2. It was a three-hour evening, and I thought it went pretty well. It seemed, in talking to some other council members and City staff at the event that just about everybody has kind of come up with the same idea. Similar themes continued across all of the tables that night that I was there.

Thank you, Mr. Nystrom.

I'd have to agree. I thought it was very well done. It was nice to see a cross-section of everyone there. And yet, like you said, I think most of us all came up with a lot of the same ideas, very strongly against heavy density issues. But it was pretty interesting to see the proposed site plans and thought it was well done.

It was well done. Our group had a lot of density. I think we were the only one. But it was well done and well attended. I agree.

Yeah, and I'll just throw a couple of comments, and I agree that it was a very well-organized event. Transpired flawlessly, just like right on schedule, kept people on task. The moderators at each table were really good. I had to really digest what came out of the groups that I saw at our evening event, because there was a great call for a lot of density, very high density housing in that area. And there were other things as well. I don't want to just dwell on that. And so as I sort of digested what had transpired, I kind of felt like if you were one of the small Santa Clauses and you took a kid on your knee and you said, did you want a pony for Christmas? What kid would say no? Everybody wants the pony because nobody understands that the pony requires whatever the thing it is, daily attention, food, poops a lot, that kind of stuff. There are all of these things that come with the beautiful, glittery, desirable thing that don't get calculated into the ask. And that's sort of where I felt like we had gone, we'd given everybody carte blanche in a make your own world without constraining them by the realities of what, just for example, five or six high density multi-family apartment buildings was going to generate in terms of infrastructure needs, traffic congestion, just the myriad of, everyone seemed to be really sensitive towards the Owen Brown Street traffic as far as that underpass goes, and once they got past the underpass, they just lost their heads and went crazy with great ideas. So it'll be very interesting to see what staff pulls together for those open houses, because I think if you had six groups at every single charrette, that means there were 24 sets of ideas that got generated. And distilling those common themes through the lens of what they actually mean, I think there was a group that had an ice arena on there. You can dream and wish. It is a good thing to do. But that was, so that was my feeling. Great job, staff.

Thank you for- Sarah, to follow up on some of your comments, would, for the public session, is it, I agree with Sarah, there was a lot of just whatever I wanted just put on the drawing. I don't know if it would make sense to provide some guidelines for the public as it relates to density and some of the rules, or if that's not you know, the way it's intended to be run. I wasn't sure, but we were all over the place with things that were nowhere, anywhere near code, at least in my group.

Yeah, I agree.

And I didn't know whether having some ground rules for people to consider so that I don't want to be the one to say, you know, that's probably too dense, because then I don't want to be that guy in the group. So I don't know in the public...

But we are that guy. I mean, ultimately, we're that guy who says, ah, yeah, okay.

I mean, we had, our group generated like 95 homes. You know, it was as many as you, and people were still saying, well, you could still put more in. And so, just food for thought, I didn't know whether it's worth putting some ground rules to have a better, I mean, if maybe our group saw... If you were homes, there would be comments about other things to do. But, you know, we filled up with homes and townhouses, and there was nothing left to talk about.

If it helps, maybe it didn't come through strong enough, but in that last session, the attendees were referenced to the comprehensive plan, and that was in their packet, that you're looking at public and semi-public use and residential, not to be looking too far beyond those, but I know people... right, push and pull a bit with that. From a code standpoint, I think the code allows something much denser than what the comprehensive plan is recommending. Comprehensive plan is focusing largely on detached housing. The code allows 30 units per acre of multifamily. So I think what will go here will probably be something much less than what the base code permits. And then I would just encourage you to stay connected. Several PC members were able to attend. I think this would be helpful to continue. A reminder, the next session is July 1st. And there will be the ability to see everybody's work. And then RDL's team will be finding a way to pull some survey questions to better gauge to try to zero in on what those themes are. So that July 22nd, you could see three concept plans that pull ideas. So I think it will be types of questions where it may not be, do you want a rec center or do you want, market hall or it might it might talk about do you prefer detached or townhomes do you do you like the units facing Owen Brown or do you like them interior so it might pull the attendees some questions that help help RDL come up with some three different concepts to for the community to further react to and later in July but yeah it's good good points and good discussion right there different views and people pushing and pulling a bit on the comp plan and So we'll continue to focus in through RDL.

One question to staff. So one item that kept coming up at our table was we've got to pay back this $11 million. What is the value of the property as is right now?

I don't know.

Because everybody thinks we have to generate $11 million worth of property. REVENUE INSTANTLY TO PAY FOR THIS THING.

I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE CURRENT APPRAISAL IS. AND SOME OF THAT IS GOING TO BE A COUNCIL DISCUSSION ON HOW MUCH REVENUE IS DESIRED. BUT I SENSE THE GENERAL INTENT IS TO BE MINDFUL OF THAT OVER THE LONG TERM. NOT THAT THERE NEEDS TO BE A DENSE ENOUGH PROJECT THAT THE LAND TRANSFERS FOR $11 MILLION. BUT JUST OVER THE LONG TERM THROUGH THE TIF FOR OTHER BENEFITS the project is at least somewhat mindful of the city investment, not that it shall be the primary driver.

Okay, anything else on the charrette? I just want to reveal that there were, I had a number of residents inquire with me about where to sign the petition on D11, and I don't have anything to do with it, so I only could say what I had heard. I think it was at a council meeting on that. And then the last item, which probably I should have done first, at the close of the last meeting, I got a fair request from Councilwoman Weinstein about whether or not we should add agenda item to each of our meetings for the council liaison to engage with us and to exchange ideas and talk and report and that sort of thing. And I indicated I really wanted to chew on it. Part of it was because I felt like this last year was a very abnormal year because we had an LDC question almost every single month and we haven't done that in the four and a half years that I've been on. So I inquired with staff about that and gathered ideas that maybe instead of making it a standing agenda item, because there are times that we have three applications scheduled for a meeting, and every minute is precious for getting those processed, that instead of we do that, allow a public comment, or if we know that there's an item we need to discuss, that we would create a special agenda item for that, but that we really don't have a need for it on an ongoing basis. And that was the consensus. I asked Mr. Nystrom, because he's the most senior person on the Planning Commission, and consulted with the city solicitor as well. So I think unless there's any comment or objection to that proposal, we will handle it that way. And Dr. Weinstein, if you find that there's something you need to communicate with us about, please feel free to reach out. I'd be happy to add you as an agenda item as it's needed and vice versa if we feel like we need to get a report from you, I will not hesitate to add you to the agenda.

I just had a general comment. I mean, I think it's good if we, if our, this is just a comment. I think it's good if our planning commission does interact more with council. I feel like I don't really know, I mean, know council that well, and I think that would be good. So if there are other opportunities like possible committees that we could be involved with, with council, I think that would be a very positive thing. Thank you, Ms. Smith. Work more with them. Sure. Yes.

Okay. No further correspondence. We will move on to old business. And this is a continuation of our discussion on the planned development text within the land development code. And I sort of asked Mr. Sugar to give us an overview of where we have been and where we are headed. Mr. Sugar.

Yes, I can give that overview. So we had discussions over two meetings, April 13th and May 11th. We watched the May 11th meeting and took some notes. That was our most substantial discussion. And some of the notes and comments that jumped out to me, I can summarize here. That was, of course, when Arthur Schmidt with OHM Advisors presented to the board. He had prepared a memo that's still in your packet, which is essentially largely a city review, a peer city review based on plan developments. He gave a brief history of planned developments. He compared Aurora, Twinsburg, Brecksville, Medina, and Solon. He did note that they're not always a one-to-one comparison because they're unique, written for each city, of course. We talked about if they typically have residential components. That was affirmed by Mr. Schmidt. talked about green space requirements yes those were typical as part of the planned developments that he reviewed and he did note that one piece of advice from mr schmidt was that the city should determine the areas where we are willing to be flexible in our code and where we want to hold the line like that would be a good exercise for us to to pursue we spoke about the joanne site a bit as the district 11 was a topic at the time mr schmidt also advised that we could after reviewing our code that we could clarify the approval process that's something that jumped out at them what's required for per the code not leaving as much room for interpretation He did note allowable uses are opening up a bit more. Example was industrial. That doesn't have the same black and white designation as it may have done so in the past. And then we talked about the board noted open-ended items in the code again. Pre-application meetings not being clearly defined. Should we limit zoning districts where the plan developments are allowed? We discussed the minimum plan development acreage. Mr. Schmidt noted 10 plus acres is something he sees as typical. And he did note that exceptions are the way that most plan developments get built out. It's just refining what those are within your code. Board members noted that they would like to see further assistance in the definitions of the plan development, making sure the purpose statement makes sense, DEFINING THE EXCEPTIONS THAT I MENTIONED, CLARIFYING THE GOALS AND PROCESS OF THE APPLICANTS SO TO HAVE TRANSPARENCY ON BOTH SIDES OF THE TABLE AND VERY CLEAR DEFINITIONS ON THE PLAN DEVELOPMENT AND WHERE IT SHOULD GO IN THE CITY. BOARD MEMBER SUGGESTED MEETING WITH COUNCIL ON THE TOPIC. And then Chair Norman submitted notes and even typed those out for us and those were in the updated agenda. So that's all I have for introduction.

Great, thank you, Mr. Sugar. And I am gonna apologize that I didn't do a very great job of proofreading those notes. There are a couple of typos in case you read it all and it was less than what was handwritten, I promise you that. As you turn to what would be page number six, it is underneath 1204.02 plan developments. The language from the code is in blue typeface, as you probably noted. And there are at the top of that page, which begins with two, the proposed plan development shall contain. Comments says the purpose statement does not limit mixed uses, and that's not true. The purpose statement in the language does limit the mixed uses to those permitted in the district, but it's the definition of planned developments in the back that doesn't limit it to just mixed uses. So that's where our conflict comes in. Going over a couple of pages hence, so this would be page eight, nine. I did not have the D11 language in front of me at that time, and Mr. Sugar has promised to give me a brand new land development code printed copy once we've got all of these additions to it. But in case it matters to you, I won't read them all now in the interest of time, but in case it matters to you, I did make the full list of all of the permitted and conditional uses in the new D11 language so that we would know what kinds of things could be mixed in a planned development in that area. I miss, on that same page, there's a comments near underneath number three, the proposed planned development, and the citation about the bonus section was misidentified. It is 1204.02C, not B. Therefore, the comment underneath that says bonus section 1204.02B, including seven, you can just strike that out because that's not the part that it refers to. And at the top of the next page, comments, bonus section 1204.02B with eight, that's also not true because it wasn't B that got repealed, it was C. And the reference in the code is to B, And then I'm just going to throw these out there for your interest. There are a couple of things I did. Well, I'll start with these additional questions. One question I came up with that I should have included somewhere, I'm not sure where it would have gone, but why don't we use the concept plan vehicle for the conversation starting? So just for example, what I'm thinking is that if our if our zoning code was written in a way that an applicant came to council. with a concept plan, which is just some pretty pictures and ideas and no real drawings, and said, hey, we'd like to put this plan development in this area. If Council was the one that began that conversation and said, we'd love for you to take detailed drawings to the Planning Commission and tell us what they say, that would be a way for Council to begin that process, for us to give the refined feedback, and then to send it back to Council for a final approval.

Does staff do that preliminary review now? That concept?

Yeah, I believe that's required under the code is that you begin with a pre-application meeting.

Yeah, we have a pre-application meeting process for every submittal.

But then it would come to us.

So I'm just asking because I don't understand. What would be your purpose in having a concept plan go to council just so that we have better guidance from?

Yeah, just so that they would be aware that this was coming down the pike. Because the way we have it going right now is it, I mean, I don't know how council would be surprised by this. But I guess it could happen. And this sort of gives, like if it didn't make, if the concept plan didn't get a thumbs up from council, it wouldn't even come to us to take up time on our agenda. Right. Okay. Right. And so that doesn't mean the council would approve the end product, but at least it would give a sense that the city is interested in this instead of starting with the detailed plans with us, which really have to be pretty detailed, which is a heavy investment.

As I say, that's a big cost on them if the council and the city isn't a proponent of whatever their idea or their concept is.

Right. So just an idea. We don't have to hash it out, but I wanted to include that. Then... I didn't know why I was losing sleep, but I figured it out. They woke up and realized that the full circle on one of these items, which is minor modifications, this was near the end, so the last two or three pages. When we have a minor modification, which is equal or less than 10% change on any number of things, there can be many, many things that are a minor modification. Right now, the only way it ever gets reviewed is through staff. The city manager has the authority to approve this, and of course he can make his designees the ones that make that decision. But in the zoning code, in the land development code near the beginning, gotta find it, here it is. I've got this big, really large post-it note on it. This is 1203.09G, Three, planning commission authority to call up site plan applications for minor developments. And I wondered if that would be a way for us to be able to call up minor modifications to review amendments that would come to a plan development.

We would have to know that minor.

Right. Staff would have to be telling us about the minor modifications. So, and it may be that minor development and minor modification are two different things. Again, this is a weeds question. We don't have to hash out tonight. I just wanted to put it on the radar because those were late questions that came to me. Having just gone through that, is there, and let me just add one other thing. I did talk to Mr. thomas who is our assistant city solicitor about goals for this evening and i said you know it could be that we would start working on this and have detailed discussions about things it could be that we would set up a work plan for how we want to proceed and what the next steps will be and set some times and dates and personnel who would be attending to those things. So I wanted, at that point, open up the floor to the Planning Commission members for ideas, thoughts that you had while you were preparing for tonight and where you would like to see us go.

So I'll start. I think that we are trying to take little bites of this really big topic. And I think that it'd be great to get some understanding from council as to how they would like us to go about working on this project. And then for us to actually have a work plan of this is what it is and this is how we're gonna attack piece by piece. Arthur from OHM had suggested we identify locations in our map as to where we would consider these developments of 10 acres or more, right? So that's kind of limiting as it is, but yet it's not quite spelled out in our land development code that way. So I don't know if we, kind of use that as the starting point, and then ask council for some direction coming back down, and then we come up with the work plan to really dive in. Because I think there's a lot here that needs to be done, and probably more than we can chew in a couple of meetings, especially if we have other applications to consider.

I agree. I was going to make a recommendation that a joint committee be formed with some members of planning commission. Because this is just, it's too big of us. It's too big of, I mean, it's a small section now in the code, but it could be a very large section. And I think getting council's review and their feedback is really important for what it would look like.

Without holding you to it, who's on your dream team for this joint committee?

I don't know, because I don't want to commit other members with their time. I think Matt Romano just volunteered. I'd be happy to help on it. I have to make sure there's no sports those nights. Yeah, I'd be happy to try to do it. I don't know who else has interest. Does anyone else have interest? Other commissioners?

I'm on board with that only because, I mean, your point's well taken that I think working with council and Ms. Oberts as well would be a beneficial thing for us to do partly because I'm not sure council's actually interested in us changing anything. I don't know, that's not where this came from. This came from us horrible and partly me.

And maybe we just need to have that discussion with them.

Yeah.

You know, and maybe it's a few minor things or a couple sentences or like you said, the concept goes to council first and they approve the concept and then it comes to us. So I think it warrants a discussion.

Mr. Nystrom, you had indicated you want to say something here.

About just setting up a subcommittee to do like we tackled with the appendix. Appendix A. to work on this and then come back to planning, get the approval of planning, then submit it to city council. Isn't time of the essence on something like this?

It would be if we actually hope to have something meaningful. I mean, even just improving our process before anyone brings us a planned development proposal.

I just would want to make sure that we have the support of council before we create a subcommittee to do this. I don't want to come up with what we did before where we spent meetings working on something and then it gets tabled indefinitely with no response. That seems like a waste of time and resources of city.

Also, may I ask a question? Yes. Part of the play developments and density, that whole conversation was part of why we were taking the moratorium last year, beginning of this year, yeah. So if that was canceled on us, to Ms. Ober's point, do we have the support of council to go ahead and push this, to try and work on it if we were not given that time before? Are we gonna be given the time now? IT'S JUST, I MEAN, I DON'T KNOW.

CAN WE ASK COUNSELOR WEINSTEIN RIGHT NOW? WOULD YOU MIND GIVING US, YOU CAN'T GIVE US EVERYONE'S OPINION.

So we haven't talked about it on council. So I don't know council's feelings. I think what we would want to be clear on is the problems you're solving, right? So what is in and be informed of what is in our code right now for plan developments? What are the problems that you all see in it and that we want to address with the changes? And then I think it could be a great conversation of here are the problems we see with it. And here's potentially how we would like to either have a discussion, form a committee to solve these issues that we see.

So on that, were you able to review the detailed notes that I had on the planned development language?

The memo that's attached?

Yeah, the typed ones.

No, just reviewed it briefly, not detailed.

Because that was intended to be sort of the annotated review of what the actual language is. That's why I put the two parts together on that. It's a lot to digest so I'm not gonna give you a hard time for that. But I think that's sort of the starting point because if we have not, we may have a really clear sense of what the problem is having discussed this for a while now. And articulating that to council so that we have their support is something we need to find a way to do. How do we bridge that long memo with a statement to council on the need for changes in this section?

I mean, I can work on that and see, you know, go through it and summarize it and see kind of my read on it and what I'm understanding from what you're saying. And we could either talk about it or we could talk about the next meeting. Up to you. Or if you want, we can attach the memo and you can present it to council. I think council has appreciated the times that you've come and spoken to us. And I think pretty much anyone that said anything said that was appreciated and the way you explained it was really well done.

and i'm here yeah first yeah i think that's an idea we could talk about i think that we it sounds like we're all in support of that because we don't want to approve something or have an architect waste money on something that council's not in support of with regard to planned development because planned

They're not, though. I mean, this is the thing. We have one. We have one, and we have a new zone where they're allowed, and that it could be a big part of our, could be a second large part of our city. And that's what makes this a critical and a time critical decision, too. Anything else, Mr. Arnold?

My observation is that one did a great job with all the, notes you put together, Ms. Norman. It's a lot to read. There's clearly a lot of conflicts within the code. But for me, just starting out, do we need to have a plan development in every district in Hudson? I mean, I'd start right there just identifying where do we need it? Do we need all these mixed uses in every district? You know, We're way further along the development of Hudson than when this was first created. How necessary is it at this point in this stage of Hudson's development? I think surely there's a lot of districts that there's no place for it to even be part of it. Why should we have mixed uses in some of these residential neighborhoods? I just don't think you need a plan development in a large part of Hudson.

And I think that was the point, is that the Land Development Code currently allows it just about everywhere. So we have to make modifications or what have you so that it is not an option.

Right. So to fix everything is going to be an effort. But I'd like to start out with just possibly identifying districts that it's not even applicable.

Right.

And just start there to at least alleviate 90%. of the potential problems we have and narrow it down to where it's maybe applicable.

That was OHM's suggestion as well. To identify on a map where we would consider a plan development first.

No, I'll just tell you, so I've updated council. They know you're having these discussions, so they know the OHM came, so they've been kind of pointed in the direction of that report, so if anyone wanted to read it. So they're kind of up to date on that part so far.

All right, well, thank you for that. No problem. And you raise a good point, Mr. Inamorato, that I think the easy thing to do would be to eliminate it from Let's just say all the residential districts. I mean, really, who's arguing with us on this? Right? Okay. Or who's coming, I should say, to advocate that we would retain planned developments in residential districts.

I agree. That's my point.

Yeah, exactly. And staff, do you want to add anything to this as we've been having this discussion? Is there anything else? related to process of making these changes. I think the workshop is tomorrow night to talk about density. Am I correct on that, or has it been moved, Mr. Mayor?

They're gonna move to July. Oh, it's moved to July. I'm sorry, and I'm glad to check after the meeting. I thought maybe we swapped an email on that. We might have.

Okay. I'm at the apex of summer chaos right now. Okay. So yeah, so that's fine.

ONE THING I WAS GOING TO NOTE, I WAS GOING TO CATCH THIS AT THE END OF THE MEETING, BUT WE'VE ENGAGED PLANNING COMMISSION AND COUNCIL'S AVAILABILITY FOR CONSIDERATION. THAT'S RIGHT. THANK YOU. Oriented and has some initial discussion before the Clinton crossing project starts site site discussions in the fall It's possible sometime could be carved out that that joint session occurs Maybe you could have two agenda items just for the point of interest like what was your response?

Did you have a majority of both that could attend?

we Yeah, we had four confirmed, and there were some members I didn't hear back from, so I was going to circle back.

From us?

Yes.

And then council as well?

Council is a quorum. I have a quorum of both, but I would love to get as close to a full attendance. So one thing I was going to check while we were in the room was to also talk briefly about having August 10th, which is your regular meeting date. We would have to have private applications accommodate to maybe that 4th, I thought to briefly at the end of the meeting, at least kind of gauge calendars so that we can get that joint session meeting date set by the end of the week.

I am afraid of concluding this topic by not having made a plan to do much of anything at all. And is there room on an upcoming council workshop that we could bring this to council for consideration?

I anticipate that there is. I'm going to see if I can access something while we're talking here.

I'll be very candid with you. On one hand, while I feel quite capable of being able to deliver that message, I do not feel like I'm exactly getting joyous reception in front of a council that is has indicated their concern about the fact that we have all been appointed by previous council, not directly, but in very indirect, but very pointed ways. And so there's a part of me that wonders if we're spinning our wheels even worse than if we just created a subcommittee of ourselves and did the work on our own and said, here.

Is it worse, though, for us to spin our wheels, work on this, and then council to just reject it completely than it is to ask first?

I think if you don't mind. No, please. What we're talking about is not political. What we're talking about are ambiguities that could make it really difficult for the city, really difficult for the applicant, extremely difficult for Planning Commission to make a decision on. I mean, Chair Norman, you did an outstanding job of putting this together. All I had to do is read through here and say, yeah, that makes sense. Yeah, that makes sense. Oh my gosh, how in the world are we gonna decide on exceptional design? What does that mean? How easy could that be flipped one way or the other between us I think if our best intentions are to just clean this up, I don't think that's a political issue. I think that's something a subcommittee could work on, just like we did others. We do the best job we can, and it's in city council's hands. If it's nice and clear of why we're doing it and what the changes are, I don't see why that would be completely rejected.

I agree with you, but we saw how our recommendation on senior housing got treated. And so I don't say that to argue with you. I just say that as a cautionary tale that we are attempting to serve as diligent partners with the city government that we have been appointed to serve, and we all tried to do our best, and I think we felt very stung by that response.

I think in conjunction with losing the moratorium time that we requested, I think definitely made it feel like we're spinning our wheels.

I think it's important to communicate, and I think to present the information at council. At the same time, I don't think the code is perfect. I don't think if we work, even if we worked on it with council and a committee did and jointly, I don't know if everything could be fixed, you know, like exceptional. And some of these things are very subjective. We struggled with that in the code. But I think in good faith, going and having the communication, Chair Norman, I think is important.

So I think we can do both simultaneously. I think we should present. Is that the notes that you created to council and create a subcommittee and start working on it until council comes down and says, no, don't do it. We should continue to do our jobs to the best of our ability.

I disagree with that because I think if we do have a subcommittee, I think it should include council members and be a joint committee. RATHER THAN JUST GOING AND DOING IT ON OUR OWN. I THINK MY OPINION WOULD BE TO PRESENT IT TO COUNCIL FIRST AND GET THEIR REACTION AND THEN GO FROM THERE.

TYPICALLY THAT'S WHAT CITY COUNCIL DOES. THEY THROW IT BACK IN OUR LAP.

THEY HAVE TO, THOUGH. TO BE FAIR, THEY HAVE TO.

I WASN'T SAYING THAT TO SAY A SLIGHT. I WAS SAYING THAT'S OUR JOB.

But I think it's important that that blessing to do that come from them and we do it together rather than separate. I think we need to work more with them.

I was taking that we would form a subcommittee and that council would provide direction, not that they would sit on the subcommittee with us. I think council has many, many tasks and to specialize in land development code is asking a lot of them who are already involved. time taxed, but I'm not opposed to that.

I just, I would, I thought when we said subcommittee, it would be, I think it's a really important, I think because, you know, we have a developer in town who wants, I think this plan did this D 11 is very important concept. They may want to be involved. We don't know. So I think it's, it's worth having the conversation and then going from there, I think.

I mean, I think we should submit or at least present to council. We can work on creating a subcommittee, and if we need to include council moving forward, we can do things simultaneously. I don't want to slow things down when it feels like there is a time crunch here.

As it stands, I mean, Ms. Norman listed, there are a lot of flaws in our current policy. PLAN DEVELOPMENT CODE. SERIOUS FLAWS. FOR LACK OF UNDERSTANDING HOW THIS PROCESS IS GOING TO WORK, WHAT IF WE JUST MADE THE PROPOSAL TO PROPOSE TO BAN PLAN DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS UNTIL SUCH TIME AS, YOU KNOW, LIKE 90 DAYS OR WHATEVER AND JUST MAKE A PROPOSAL TO If they're interested in... I mean, there's clear deficiencies. We're not... I think the deficiencies listed speak for themselves, that there's clearly problems. Put a moratorium on it for 90 days and see if anybody's... Well, you'll get your answer about if it's important or not. But there's serious issues...

I mean, we're open for a lawsuit. All it takes is for there to be any level of disagreement on any point that someone wants to take to the mat and And Mr. Thomas will be very busy.

To leave us just that vulnerable, that's not reasonable.

I don't disagree with that whatsoever. I'm just saying we asked for moratorium before and council said no. So, I mean, I just think that that might be spinning our wheels on that. Let's start working towards a presentation to council, get there okay.

Well, I think from our standpoint, It's our job to let the community know that there's legal and serious flaws in our current code. And we're making a recommendation to minimize or rectify that at some level, but to just leave us exposed like this. I'm okay with proposing just no submissions for a plan development until such time as we can at least deal with the very obvious issues that are current.

So, excuse me, Ms. Smith, I will call on you in just a moment. I want to just say I will allow the conversation, as long as we feel like it's being productive, to go on. I would like for you to be thinking about what motion you intend to bring to this body so that we can move forward from the remaining of our comments. Ms. Smith, if you want the floor.

I think, you know, and this is what we struggle with with the density. You know, our role is to interpret the code. That's my understanding. We're commissioners. YOU KNOW, WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT WRITING CODE AND WRITING LAW, I THINK WE DO NEED TO INVOLVE COUNCIL AND GET THE BLESSING OF COUNCIL BECAUSE THAT'S MORE THE ROLE OF COUNCIL. SO I WOULD MAKE A MOTION FOR CHAIR NORMAN, I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION FOR CHAIR NORMAN, SARAH NORMAN, TO PRESENT an abbreviated version of her memo to council and ask for direction or next steps and then bring that back for us to have a discussion. I think it's premature to say we're gonna build a committee and we're gonna do this and we're gonna write this when I do think we need to do this with council and not on our own. We need to have a partnership.

Okay, we have a motion on the floor from Ms. Smith for the chair to present an abbreviated version of the memo to council for its consideration.

And I'm sorry, feedback?

And feedback. Do we have a second for that motion?

I have a question first.

Yes.

Staff, were you able to locate a time on council schedule when that presentation could occur?

A couple notes on that. The density, land development code request related density is scheduled for July 14th. Of note, and I may need Councilman Weinstein's help on this point, looking at the council agendas, 714 is showing a relatively light agenda, but it is a joint session because council has a recess the week before. So they'll have a legislative session and a workshop the same night. So I know there's somewhat a desire to not put too much on the workshop discussions, but if Vince Norman's already going to be present. That's beneficial, certainly. From a staff standpoint, I don't think I have the authority to put something on an agenda. So I can, you can request council liaison to work through that, or I can pass along to the city manager. But I don't have the authority to say what agenda it could be on. And just briefly while I've got the floor, just two other quick points for reference. As you know, it's the time that it takes for code changes. We certainly know that it's a lengthy process. Just for brief reference related to District 11, as we sit today, staff is not aware of any planned development that is being considered or discussed by any property owners within District 11. uh... with with the changes that were incorporated with the adoption you know those options for residential the option for specialty grocery store were removed those were somewhat things that might incentivize property owner to pursue a plan development so i don't i don't sense that urgency is there but i can't speak for what what they could knock on our door about tomorrow and then but the other piece for for Upcoming references, Clinton Crossing project. At this time, we would anticipate that Clinton Crossing will be a plan development. The general schedule would be that starting in September, Planning Commission would review a concept plan. That would be something less than the plan development. But the intent, and this is what we talked about in the joint session, the intent would be to have Planning Commission and City Council review a concept plan, work with the community, and get to the point where there is acceptance on such. And then a developer would be recruited to implement that plan. So it would be sometime in 2027 that a developer would be coming to you for an actual plan development for Clinton Crossing, just on very broad timeline.

Thank you, Mr. Hannon. We do have a motion on the floor.

Question.

Yes, Mr. Inamorato.

So I'm fine with the motion that's not there. But in addition, how does the board feel about then a moratorium on receiving planned developments?

There's room for a second motion if we decide to pass this. And if you would like to offer that, we will take that up at that time. It is a separate idea, so I don't think it's appropriate as an amendment to this motion. No, I wasn't making an amendment.

I was just curious how the members felt about that.

We could discuss it if you would like to make that motion after we've taken action on this. Do we have a second for the motion for the chair to present an abbreviated memo to council for its consideration of feedback on planned developments?

Yes. I don't like the word abbreviated. It sounds stupid, but there's a lot of great information in here that I think anybody can sit down and read through here and say, boy, yeah, you're right. This could be a problem. I would hate to see something minimized.

When I said abbreviated, I meant I didn't think Dr. Sarah Norman would read the whole thing. You know what I mean?

When I say present, I meant abbreviated.

They get full copies of the eye I will both provide the whole steak and cut it up into bite-sized chewable pieces not a problem So I would not I would not personally I would say not to be too worried about that detail Do we have a second for this motion? Calling again for a second on the motion I There is no second on the motion, so it will fail for lack of a second. Is there another motion that the Planning Commission would like to bring to the floor?

I'd like to make the motion to place a moratorium on plan development applications for six months. Until such time, we can rectify some of the obvious problems with the current code. I think that's a terrible idea.

Okay, wait for the discussion, please. We don't have a second on it yet, really. Just so you know, I should not be taking comments before we have a second. because to have a conversation before we have a second presumes that we have something we're actually gonna be voting on. So if we get a second on the motion, then it's open for discussion again, and I will be sure to give everyone ample opportunity to address it. Okay, Mr. Inamorato, just so I have it written down, to place a moratorium on planned development applications for six months until changes can be made to the planned development language. Do we have a second for that motion? Is there a second for the motion to place a moratorium on planned development applications? There's no second, so that motion will die for lack of a second. Anyone else like to tender a motion to the chair? How you would like to proceed on this topic?

I don't know what else we're going to do. I mean, my motion was to work with them and communicate. I think we need to let go of the past and we need to work with them and build for the future. That's what I think.

I think your comment has an emotional base to it. It's not emotional. It's about looking at how that process works. And I think that my objection to what you put out there is... tying tying the subcommittee to council and i i just to me that doesn't that doesn't that that holds us from doing our job if council wants it to be that way that's fine they're entitled to do that but i i mean well see i i guess i see our job differently because i see our job is not writing law or writing code unless we have council's input like the last time we did this with the

moratorium, council supported us on that and they supported us rewriting sections of the code. We were doing it with them. So I think that that's the natural way to go about it rather than starting our own subcommittee.

I would agree with you that that is the model we should be following. but we can only lead the horse to the water and this current council has not reconciled its relationship with us what that should be they have passed things that we have recommended to them so we can't say they oppose us all the time that would not be true but pretty critical decisions that we have spent time on and we have refined in ways that were completely brand new from what the previous council suggested They have tabled indefinitely. And that was a bad use of our time. Had we but known, we would have chosen differently, I'm sure. So I don't disagree with you, Ms. Smith. I do think that that communication has to be two-way. And we have not been feeling like that is necessarily the case. And future time will tell. I mean, we are not done yet. We still have work to do. Mr. Nystrom, did you have something you wanted to say?

I'm trying to come up with a good motion. That's an honest answer. I like the idea of... chair presenting to city council. But I think in order to not waste any time, just like we've done in the past or the last six plus years, that we create a subcommittee to begin working on it now with some pointed suggestions and some of the obvious errors. And we'll get some immediate feedback, I would think, from city council when you present it. I just hate to lose time on this.

I am going to take that as a motion for the chair to address council with the memo and also for the planning commission to establish a subcommittee to begin work on revisions to that language.

Correct.

Do we have a second? This is a motion for the chair to address council. with memo related to the planned developments and also for the Planning Commission to establish a subcommittee to begin revisions to the planned development language. Do we have a second?

I'll second.

We have a motion with a second. Is there any discussion on the motion that's been seconded?

I'm probably not going to vote for it. I just feel, again, I don't want to put the cart before the horse and make a committee to do work that may not be utilized like has happened in the past. Again, I think it sends the wrong message. I think we need to work with council. And who knows? Maybe if Chair Norman goes and presents, they'll say that's a great idea, or we don't know what direction that's going to go in. I just think developing a committee, in my opinion, is premature in this case.

Can I ask you a question? Yes. I'm sure you've read through Chair Norman's notes and had your own. Are there some things in there you think no matter who was sitting across from us wouldn't agree that these things, some of these items are so clearly an issue that they'd have a problem with those being incorporated?

I don't know what council's going to say until she goes and presents, but I think that...

I'm saying regardless of who's on council. Do you feel like there are some items on there?

I think there's some issues there, but I think there's issues. We've talked about issues with the whole plan development code. It's not just the plan development section. There's other sections that are ambiguous. So I think, again, I see our role as not writing law. I think we need to go to work with council, and if we take that approach, I think we'll have more positive outcomes. That's my opinion.

But can't we do both? Can't we start the subcommittee now based off of Chair Norman's notes? Because as we were saying it, time is kind of of the essence, right? There's a lot of things that we need to kind of address. So if we start it now, and at least maybe if we go to council, council's like, hey, this is great. We can work with you. Then we have already started something. It's not sitting down looking like, hey, what should we do? We've already had things going. I think personally it's easier to go to somebody and present, like, here's what we see that's a problem, here's some ideas to fix it. And then go to council with that and have them go based off of that versus just sitting down and being like, all right, what should we do?

I think we have that with what she's written.

And my whole point as to why I didn't second your motion, because it's not that I don't think it's valid. It's that I don't want to lose time. If council doesn't have time on their agenda in July, then it doesn't go until August. So then we lose two months of potential subcommittee working on this to make progress in something that potentially has a six month opportunity before it's presented to us. So if the city has legal standing here that there's potential to come up in January with a planned development application coming our way, and staff just told us that we could potentially be looking at Clinton-Clausing in September, which is only three months, we're kicking this can when we could have had some teeth into it. I would love to work with Council. If Council wants to come on our subcommittee, by all means, let's do it. But nothing is stopping from us to plant the seeds of what we want to accomplish so that we can then get further support with Council. If Chair Norman presents to Council and they throw it away, which I don't think they will, we can modify the subcommittee to continue with more of their support and more people on their subcommittee. I don't think that's a problem. I just don't want to stop progress because I do think that it is important.

Yeah, and I just, I think the order that you do things is important. And I think, again, before we, last time with council when we did that rework of the part of the code, We got their blessing and their feedback before we did it.

I would not agree with you on that. That was not the order that it happened. With Appendix A, that was completely us because we just got tired of seeing 10, 8 1⁄2 by 11 copies because no one does that. It's not even real. It's not real anymore. So we wanted to change it, and we proposed that to them with... I'm sure they knew it was happening. We had a council liaison at that time. I'm sure it got reported back. But we did not start by asking them if we had permission to amend our own Appendix A. That is within our power in the Land Development Code for us to originate changes before councils even said anything about it. That is within our power.

Yeah, I just, I guess I'm making the point that I just think there's been a lot of, and I've even heard it tonight. Well, they didn't do this for us or they voted against this. I just, I think for the community and the public good, we need to do a better job of coming together with council and working together with them rather than us versus them.

Heard and valid. I just want to keep working. Yeah.

Cause I think the public is, is tired of it. I really do. I think they want us all to work together and, and to find the common good.

All right. We have a motion that's been seconded that the chairs to address council with a memo related to plan developments and also for the planning commission to establish a subcommittee to begin revisions on the plan development language. Is there any further discussion on this motion? Are you ready to vote? Mr. Sugar, would you call the roll please?

Ms. Obert?

Yes.

Mr. Inamorato?

Yes.

Ms. McCoy?

Yes.

Mr. Nystrom? Yes. Ms. Smith?

No.

Ms. Norman?

Yes. The motion carries five to one. So now that we have decided that the Planning Commission is going to establish a subcommittee, I will take a list of volunteers for the subcommittee. I'll write myself down first, because I love revising laws. Anyone else care to be a part of this committee? We need at least one, preferably Well, if staff will participate with us, that'll be close enough to three. Thank you, Ms. Obert. And the committee is open as long as we don't have more than three. That's our absolute limit. Staff will ask you to sit in on that part. And we might, I'll connect with you about timing and see if we want to connect with OHM to get started on that. And Dr. Weinstein, of course, we'll invite you to that as well. Ex officio, but just so that you can tell everybody what's going on. All right. And in that, I just want to wrap up our conversation on this by saying thank you all for being very honest in presenting your opinions. Some people are of the mistaken notion that in order to be an effective body, everyone has to agree on everything. And I welcome dissent on this group because I really believe it helps all of us find the right answer in a better way. So I very much appreciate your different opinions and having the courage to express those. And you know that I never count who won and who lost on this dais because it's too important for us to just do good work. Okay, if there is nothing else on the item related to planned developments, staff, do we need to close anything up with you on that topic?

I'll just coordinate with you further on that. Okay, that's fine. Thank you.

We'll move on. There's no new business that I know of tonight, unless anyone has any to introduce, and that would take us to other business. Item number nine, planning commission discussion topic on special events. And I forget who I said I would ask on this first staffer. Ms. Obert, you asked to have this added to the agenda.

I did. I believe Nick had some contacts for us. even though we had a very busy week. Did you say you were going to supply some contacts first?

I have the code section that you're referring to. I can pass that out.

So for the general public's reference, the chapter that Mr. Sugar passed out to us is Chapter 872, Temporary Special Events. This is 872, notably not in the 1200s, which is the zoning code. and there were questions related to special events. The purpose of the chapter, I will just read briefly here since it's short, to make provision for special events of a temporary nature which may be held on city-owned property within the municipality, regardless of the zoning provisions generally applicable to such a property, and any such special events shall be subject to the requirements of this chapter. All right, Ms. Oberts.

Sure, so this came about regarding a potential application for a special event. Some of council has put up on social media about potential food truck areas. There was a city event that was denied a food truck because they didn't have the proper permit. So my discussions with staff last week led to my own confusion over what the process is and when it's needed. And with our events coordinator, I was informed shockingly that she coordinates well over 100 special events, some of which are city sponsored, some are church or other nonprofit related, but over 100 events every year, which is a lot. I really think given the nature of a Clinton Street crossing coming, potential for some food truck operations in the future, changes to the, there's been discussion about changes and rules for food trucks, that we could get ahead of this and potentially streamline this for staff to make it a little easier, but also make it easier for people who want to have a special event so that they know. So one of the things that I'm gonna not say her last name, Stasek, Ms. Stasek and I talked about, is an if-then type of a scenario. So if you were to look up the requirements for applying for a special event permit, it's kind of vague and it's left up for interpretation. So if you were to be hosting a quote-unquote special event, let's say in the Acme Plaza, potentially had 250 guests coming throughout that special event, they would be required a permit. However, the Acme Plaza sees more than 250 people on a day as it is. So why do they need a permit to see more people than they already see? So there was some questions that I had for that that I just, again, I want to get ahead of it while we're thinking about changes and additions to Clinton Street Crossing and what that looks like. I think this is also an opportunity We get labels a lot that the city of Hudson is hard for business, it's difficult for businesses to come here. This could also be one of those things. So I'd like to make it easier and more clear for local businesses who want to host a special event or a nonprofit that would like to entertain one. So that's where we are.

Any comments or questions from other commissioners?

Actually, staff, I'm sorry. I have a question. Could you pull up the verbiage about the application when you go to the city website? That might help guide people where I started with this.

So what are the issues with the policy, or why are we looking at changes?

I think what I heard, let me restate this, and Ms. Obert, you can tell me if I'm restating this based on what I heard you say. So there are a number of places, since this temporary events policy applies to both private and public property, if they are anticipating that an event will draw more than 250 individuals, they're required to apply for a special permit. And the concern that I hear Ms. Obert bringing is that there are some places that draw 250, more than 250 people on any given day anyway why would they have to apply for a permit? When we look at this as applied to the Clinton Crossings area, and again, every group was a little bit different, there's a whole section that's residential, this probably doesn't apply to them, but the lower area that was mixed use there could be a situation where our food hall, I'm just going to make it up. It was in my group. It might not have been your group. But our food hall normally attracts over 250 people any given business day. But when they want to have a special event, now they have to apply for a whole new permit because they would anticipate that that event would draw at least 250 people to the property. And so that's the question. Am I correct, Ms. Oberg?

Yes, and my example is the farmer's market. They're a temporary special event. Do they have to apply for a permit every week for the duration of their event? If the city's goal is to have it be the same for every applicant, do they? Do we know if the farmer's market applies for a permit weekly?

I can tell you our staff spends many, many hours assisting the farmer's market, fire, public works, police, community development. I just don't touch those applications to tell you if it's a blanket or if they upload 15 applications at one time every week. But I know the city staff's intent is to help support and encourage these events. The city even runs some ourselves in addition to ones run by private organizations. The temporary special event definition does give some criteria where you may be able to say that regular traffic at Acme does not apply. I appreciate that the definition may need tighter, but it talks about things that increase or disrupt normal flow of traffic. So you could say regular Acme hours is part of their normal flow of traffic.

What about the sidewalk sale?

Special event permit.

That has a special event permit?

Question.

Sorry, go ahead, Ms. Smith.

I'm just trying to understand it better. So are you saying that the ask is for some events that have more than 250 people for them not to fill this out and apply it and come under this policy? Is that the question? I'm, exactly. Well, okay.

So it doesn't, the ambiguity is there as to who and when and why. If it's private property, like a, ACME Plaza and they want to host an event where they already see 250, what's the disruption to traffic? It's private property. Why would they apply for a permit?

I have some questions then. Wouldn't we, for the public safety, wouldn't we want if there's more than 250 people, wouldn't we want them to have liability insurance, that their food operator was licensed so the food was safe for that many people?

It doesn't have to be food. If you were going to sell jewelry in the Acme parking lot, do you have to have a permit in the city to sell jewelry on private property?

Well, my concern is that some events that would need to follow these for safety reasons wouldn't, and then we could have potential issues.

Correct. That's why I want it to be very clear, and I think that it's a little bit ambiguous.

Because I know that, and I'll give you an example, you know, they had the Medina years ago, that fair where they did inspections of the food trucks, but then they didn't check the backwash or something, and people got sick from the food trucks and died. There's safety issues why certain events have to, my understanding is for liability and food safety, they have to come under.

And my whole thing is this language for special event permit occurred more than 10 years ago. And the way that we handle special events in the city has changed drastically since COVID. We have a lot more of them. Again, to your point. Let's nail it down and make it correct and make it easy so that I'm not trying to eliminate permits. I want to know who has to apply when and it be very clear because on here, if I had 100 people coming to a private property, I may not need a permit. But what if that private property is on North Hayden and my event is at 1030 on a Tuesday during school hours? Like, do you see what I'm saying? There's a lot of things here, and I don't think it's very clear. The farmer's market was one of my questions. Do they literally have to submit a permit every week, or to Greg's point, do they submit 20 of them for their entire season?

They have food trucks there, so it's important that they abide by the food truck safety laws. It's important for, they have liability insurance because they got a lot of people.

You have to have... to be a tenant of a building, no landlord's going to allow you to operate a business in this space.

But they're in the middle of, I mean, it's important, my understanding with these festivals that they sign these things because then someone gets hurt and they sue the city and that's why you have these parameters.

But if it's on private property.

Ladies, ladies, ladies, if you will allow me, I'm going to interrupt you because I'm going to complicate all of this for you incredibly. First of all, just my quick reading, but I did not see anywhere in Chapter 872 that there is any provision for a blanket application. So if the city's entertaining blanket applications, they're already getting cheated out of $25 a week or whatever it is that they have to pay. But now to keep things completely complicated, I would like to turn your attention to Chapter 1206.04, Temporary Uses. We have an entire section within the zoning code that regulates temporary uses And I'm curious how we square these two sections, 872 with 1206.04. It includes seasonal sales. You get it for 60 days. That would be a way that you would be able to do a farmer's market in a blanket provision is if you had a 60-day permit. And we've never used this section. Oh, I take that back. We used it once related to a contractor's office or construction office as Mr. Enrato and Mr. Nystrom would know you would sometimes have a trailer there for laying out your plans and doing your work and storing things like that. There are some details on that, but it does not seem to affect and it includes portable storage units. But it does not seem to address the kinds of events that are just a gust in 872. And I'm just going to throw this out for Mr. Thomas to do some homework on. If we don't allow it under the zoning code, can special events like this even exist on their own if we don't permit them? So I'm sorry we won't resolve exactly what the nature of the dispute was on this topic related to that. I think we're only going to have made it more.

Just to note, we've used this section in the code for like temporary holiday sales if a business wants to sell Christmas trees in addition to what they normally sell.

So you're saying they would go through 1206, not 872. Right. If they wanted to sell Christmas trees. Yeah. Why?

It's not an event, per se. It's an addition to their business. It's product.

I would buy you an adult beverage and have a good argument about what the difference is between these two. Seriously. Because if you're telling us that the farmer's market gets funneled through 872 and not through 1206, I think we have some concerns about the use of the green. And vice versa, if you are sending, and I know it's only one weekend, but if you're sending the sidewalk sale through 872 and not the temporary uses, I think we have room to examine that. It seems like these two sections should be working in a sort of symbiosis that I'm not sure we've ever actually asked. And is that fair, Mr. Hannon?

Your point is fair, and actually before that comment, I was going to acknowledge that the section 872 is in the general codifieds, right? Which includes regulations on all sorts of operations that occur on private and public property. And council can revise and amend those with just a standard legislation and three readings. So any PC member, any resident, any business owner could just talk directly to council to request that. and I haven't studied this in detail, but my understanding is it's not generally Planning Commission's authority to make recommendations outside of Section 12. And that's why I touched, the one thing I was gonna touch is if you're somehow requesting Planning Commission Recommend or incorporate into 1206 or study these differences That's fine that I can see that connection to section 12 and and and just rather brief reference I do know from the community development standpoint when this special event season push is done in September October we do plan to look at amendments that might be needed so so feedback from direct business owners would be helpful to

influence that and of course that also should please please take that straight straight to council as well um given that connection miss obert is there anything that this commission is required to do on this topic this evening no not at this time it was more or less i i think that we had a lot of pieces for temporary uses in this this temporary special event to try to merge this all together so that it made sense prior to it becoming a bigger issue okay

right if there's nothing further that we need to do i have one question yes mr animal for example uh if to keep uh acme plaza if they were going to have an event that wasn't normal use or customary to the way they conduct business would we want them to have a permit for an event such as that? Something to think about.

Do they now, like for the parade parking, do they, that's, I mean, I would consider, does Kiwanis, because that's their staging area, do they get a special event permit for that? I don't, that's what I'm saying, is there some things that don't like that?

That is under the Memorial Day Parade special event permit. Okay.

Okay.

I mean, I guess we would want to have some knowledge of an unusual event that we wouldn't expect Acme to host, that they would apply for a permit under that unusual situation. Right. That's my only comment.

Thank you, Mr. Enamorato. Any further comments or questions? All right, we will move on then to staff update. Staff?

Yes, we will have two private applications for next month. One is a major site plan review for a new building, a dentist's office that would be located on the corner of Lawnmark and Norton Road. I've mentioned this a couple of meetings ago, and the application was in process then, but it has been confirmed. And then the other is a conditional use application for a youth gymnastics training center within an existing tenant space on Hudson Drive.

Okay, thank you. And our next meeting, yeah, Mr. Hannon, go right ahead, sorry.

I had one more staff point. Sure. Just to pick back up on the discussion, we started to touch on a potential joint session and Planning Commission City Council, with the main focus being to orient and have both bodies give some guidance before the Clinton Crossing project becomes an application. Nick reached out to everyone to verify July 27th as an option, and we did get a quorum. I know we haven't heard from Mr. Nystrom or Ms. McCoy. I don't know if you have your calendars. So 27th is a possibility.

Yes, I should be able to make that.

That's a possibility. Okay. And then the other option that we might do is have this joint session on August 10th, which is your regular meeting date. And any private applications, we would move to your 8-24 secondary meeting date. So I'm noting that for comment and feedback of how you feel about that.

I will jump right in. I don't mind if you do that. I have marked off August 10th to attend here, so I'm free for that. However, if you have a second meeting, I will be in Germany again. Yeah.

Okay. Any other feedback?

August 10th will be a tight flight squeeze for me. If my flight's delayed, I will not make it.

So your question will begin with for that date? Okay. Okay, well we'll, the Clinton Crossing subcommittee of council is having a meeting tomorrow morning. We'll get some additional feedback there and then we'll send communication out yet this week. Thank you.

Sure, thank you, Mr. Hannon. Okay, anything else from staff? Okay, we are good then. Before we adjourn, I just want to say congratulations to Ms. McCoy on returning after the safe birth of your baby. And I want to encourage everyone to have a very safe and happy Independence Day. The time being 8.52, we now, oh, I'm sorry, can we have a motion to adjourn? So moved. And a second, please. Second. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. All those opposed, same sign. We stand adjourned at 8.53 p.m. Good night.