Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

The time is now 731 on Monday, July 13th, 2026. And I'd like to call to order this regular meeting of the Hudson planning commission, which was duly noticed and scheduled under the Ohio revised code, um, sections related to the sunshine law. Mr. Sugar, would you please call the roll?

Yes. Um, Mr. Inamorato here, Ms. McCoy here, Mr. Nystrom here, Ms. Norman here. Ms. Silbert?

Here.

We have a quorum with five of our seven members present. For the city this evening is Mr. Chris Thomas, Associate General City Solicitor, Mr. Greg Hannon, and Mr. Nick Sugar. Item number three on our agenda is the swearing in of all persons intending to deliver testimony or commentary to the Planning Commission at this evening's meeting. If you intend to deliver testimony or comment, would you please stand? Raise your right hand, including staff. Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you will give tonight will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, under the penalties of perjury? If so, please say, I do.

I do.

Thank you. You may be seated. In the event you have not yet signed in on the paper in the back, please take care to print your name and information there so that not only will the scribe print your name correctly in our minutes, but also staff can reach you in the event that is necessary. Item number four on our agenda this evening is the approval of the minutes from the previous Planning Commission meeting of June 22nd, 2026. Were there any corrections or modifications that need to be made? The only one I bring to staff's attention is that Mr. Hannon's name appears as Mr. Hannah throughout the presentation. whole document, so other than that, may I have a motion to approve the minutes of the previous meeting as amended?

Motion to approve.

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

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

Yes. The motion carries five to zero and the minutes are approved. Item number five on our agenda this evening is public discussion. There are two public hearings this evening on tonight's agenda, but if you have an item that is a planning commission's business you would like to talk about that is not A part of those two public hearings, either on the Norton road dental office or the flights gym on Hudson drive. Um, you are welcome to take the floor at this time and you have five minutes. Is there anyone here from the public who wishes to address the planning commission on a non public hearing topic? Seeing none, I will close public discussion and move on to correspondence. This is an opportunity. for Planning Commission members to disclose any communications that they may have had with the public outside of the purview of a regularly noticed meeting. Are there any correspondence items to discuss this evening? I only have two. One is that the Planning Commission did receive a complimentary letter from Mr. Joe Campbell related to the Christ Community Chapel application, which of course they inaugurated recently with a large, I think it was a drone display. And I hear it was lovely. I did not attend, but it was wonderful to have his thoughtful feedback. This job does not come with a large paycheck and we rarely get compliments. And so it was wonderful to have his feedback in that regard. And if you'd like to read it, I will pass around. Um, otherwise you can return it back. And then secondly, um, I will be appearing at the workshop tomorrow evening to assist council on a couple of topics. I believe density is on the agenda plan development information, and hopefully I think we're going to talk about some senior housing. Maybe we'll find out. Okay. Um, that is all that I have in the correspondence department. Is there any old business? I see none listed here, none from the Planning Commission. That will move us into new business. The first item, item A, under new business is a public hearing on a major site plan request to construct a dental office. I'm gonna ask the applicants to come forward and have a seat at the table that's equipped with microphones. And we will be following the process for a public hearing which appears at the back of the agenda for this evening. All of you have already been sworn, so we will move on then to an introduction from staff. And Mr. Sugar, you have the floor.

Yes, thank you. I can provide brief background. The property is shown here on the screen. It's located at the corner of Longmark Drive, Norton Road. It's a approximately two acre lot. It's the previous site of the Double Play Sports Recreation Facility. You can see there there's a building and some parking existing that would be demoed for this use. The proposal's for a 5,000 square foot dental office. These are the offices for the Caruso's and they're currently operating in Stowe. So this would be a major site plan review per our code review. It is classified as a professional office, which includes the dentist uses. Of note on the site, there are no wetlands or streams on the property. There are pockets of existing trees you can see there. So I've provided some notes from a site visit between myself and the city arborist. We also had some additional recommendations for the landscaping requirements. Of note there is an existing shared drive Here that accesses properties to the north And there's also a existing easement Located along this parcel boundary So those the easement and the drive do not align currently and Though we did recommend that the shared drive be utilized for this building as multiple properties are serviced and it's stated in the code that you reduce the number of driveway aprons and share access and driveways when feasible. Also of note, the proposal exceeds the maximum parking spaces for this use, though the applicant will discuss their need for parking with the board. I did receive a note on the ownership of the parcel. I just wanted to clarify that. So the deed that was submitted did have a previous owner. The property has since changed hands and the current owner is Hudson Reserve Properties which are in fact the Caruso's. So I have the current deed that was recorded. and some information from their attorney that helps explain that if the board would like to see that. So with that, we had staff recommendations on the final page, which would be page 10. And those are essentially to consolidate the drive entrances into one curb cut, revise the landscaping, reduce the number of parking spaces, and on a minor note, there was a sign, Shown depicted in in the city right-of-way that would need to be moved back That's all I have from update

Okay. Thank you, Mr. Sugar. Um, just to the applicant, before I give you the floor, this is an evidence gathering meeting and the public hearing. And just for your information, we've all gotten the packet of information that was listed on the agenda. So we take notice of that and you, you're free to talk about it and amplify it as the, uh, you need to, but we have seen it. And so we do know about those things. Um, in the, course of events for public hearing you do have 30 minutes which you may allocate among people however you would like and just give us your name and your address when you start and you may have your 30 minutes now leon sampat ls architects 22082 lorraine road fairview park ohio

Dr. Anthony Caruso, 3234, I believe we wrote Pizzetta Road, Cortland, Ohio, 44410. That's our home address.

Okay, thank you. All right, go ahead. Yeah, so to address some of the staff comments, you know, we are proposing a 5,000-square-foot structure. I'll kind of go through the comments in order. So as for architectural design standards, we don't have a problem reducing the amount of stone. We like the way it looks, but we are planning on going to the Architectural Review Board as required. So if they request that or feel the need to have that, we will accommodate that. Parking, I know the two main issues I do want to kind of stress are the the requirements for parking, and Mr. Sable, he's the general contractor with BCI. He's gonna pass out a couple things here. The first item's a, This is a design guideline from the American Dental Association, the ADA. I don't know if you've all heard of it, but it's a fairly large association. They publish a 350-page manual on how to design a dental office for dentists to kind of gather information. As part of that, you'll see there, and I can get Mr. Sugar the actual 300-page document. We have a PDF file of that. I just clipped page 209. So right at the bottom there, it's in bold too. They stress the need for parking. They are actually saying most communities require one to 200, and this is a national standard, kind of looking at a lot of different things. But they are saying that to make a dental office successful, they should really be looking at one space for every 133 square feet. So that would put us at 38 spaces. We're not looking at 38. Mr. Caruso does have an existing office in Stowe. He does want to move it to Hudson. And a part of that, I mean, he's got 12 staff right now. and it's gonna be increased into 15. So at 20 parking spaces, that leaves five parking spaces for patients, because as everybody knows, employees are not driving together, there's no carpooling. So to realistically have a building that's functionally, good for him, we're saying that he needs 31 spaces. And then we've also done quite a few dental offices ourselves, so that would be our recommendation as well. Over the past 20 years, we've designed and built over 500 dental offices. And then Mr. Sable has, over the last 40 years, has done over 500. So that's why they're looking at us, also leaning on us to see what's the correct, I know your code is a requirement or a standard that you wanna have, but it's great for a business use, but for a dental office, it just doesn't work. They do have a lot of employees. The second issue is the, the shared drive, which I mean, I don't even know if I could call it a shared drive because there is no access easement for that. The second page that Bill passed out is basically was done by Albern Rice and that's basically the ALTA survey that was prepared and there is no easement or access easement in that driveway, for that driveway. They are allowed to go on the east property line. and if they want to build a driveway there, that's what that easement's for. We weren't a part of any discussions prior to this about, somebody had mentioned that that access easement was supposed to be at that shared driveway. When Mr. Caruso purchased his property, that was not the case. We had that document prepared to understand what he could build and where he could put his building. So that's not, you know, something that we feel that should be even considered. I mean, we intend to only have one access drive, and that is the one we're showing. And we kind of centrally placed it within the site, so that way if there is no plans, but if there was ever any future development, there would only be one access drive for that entire site. It would be shared. But like, again, there's no, you know, we gave you our boundary of limitations We are just staying within that area. We're not even going anywhere to the east of that property at this point, at the east end of the property. You know, there was some landscape comments. I mean, we have no problem. We meant to put landscaping at the north end of the property. So we have no problem with adding that landscaping. There was internal landscape planter beds. Again, that's something that we will provide as required per code. But I believe that was the extent of, there's the sign, which again, we'll come back and we will relocate that sign to be within the code. And I believe that was the items that I saw that the staff had commented on. I believe everything else was acceptable.

Okay, thank you. And we will then move to the next item in our public hearing, which is a sort of round robin of questions from the Planning Commission members. I will begin to my left with Mr. Nystrom.

Thank you. Quick question for staff. Do the buildings to the north that are using the, I'll call it that gravel driveway, do they have other access to their property?

Yes, that comes from 91, yes.

Are you prepared to appear before BZBA to have a parking variance? If that was the case.

Yeah, I mean, an increase in parking, yes, absolutely. To make this building functional, we need that parking.

Mr. Scherger, can you please pull up C1.0? of all dumb questions, what do item nine, 10, and 19 represent?

You talking about the clearing notes or on C1.1?

1.1 I'm and see 1.0 see 1.0 your items 9 item 10 and item 12 19 What do those refer to?

Just for clarity, Mr. Nystrom is looking at items that appear in a box in the middle of your graphic? Yeah. Yeah, OK. No key.

Yeah, we don't.

We'll find out.

I'd have to get. I'm trying to understand what those are for myself. We don't have a key on it, so we'd have to ask the engineer.

Yes, I looked everywhere for keynotes or something else. I didn't see anything. So on that same plan sheet, you're removing the existing concrete drive for that garage, taking out the garage, creating a new driveway. My question to you is you're already going to have to infill that concrete driveway access point, correct?

Yes.

Why don't you go ahead and remove, would you have any issues removing the adjacent concrete drive curb cut and that gravel driveway? Yeah, we would not have an issue with that. To look at next one would be plan sheet C 2.0. Just a quick question. Were any soil borings performed on this property before you bought it?

Can you come to a microphone, please, just so we have it on the record, give your name and address, and then give us your answer, please. It won't pick up with the distance, that's fine.

Yes, we can submit soil borings.

Name and address, please.

Oh, Bill Sable, 2950 Westway Drive, Brunswick. Okay, thank you.

All right, thank you. You did perform soil borings?

Yes.

And what did you find? What were the results?

It was good, silk clay, normal, our standard for spread footings, but it's standard. We didn't hit any. 3,000. Yeah, 3,000. We didn't hit any kind of underground water or any fill. Okay.

To the next page, just a couple quick questions. The storm sewer tie-in, be the northwest corner of the site, Are you going to bore on, you plan on boring underneath Landmark Drive? Yes. Okay. So you've got land banked parking. Again, I would suggest you go to BZBA for approvals on parking limits above what our code allows. To the right-hand side of the property where that gravel drive is, where I just mentioned about taking that out and infilling the curb. You've got two existing catch basins. Where do those flow to? Where do they outlet?

I would have to, you know, they don't have them on here, but I would have to assume that they're going to Norton Avenue.

Well, assume I don't know, because you're, I'd like to know for sure where those are outletting, and if they're not, to have them discharge into the pond. And that is fine. Another question for you. I see you've got an inch and a half domestic water line. Does this building require sprinklers?

No, it does not require sprinklers. Typically, we do these buildings within inch and a half to two-inch lines. Okay. Where's the meter going to be? Within the mechanical room of the structure. If you go to A1, I could show you that.

That's okay. I trust you. One quick second. My last question is for staff. Did you see the, did you have a chance to review engineering department's letter?

Yes, we have Mr. Rapp here if you have any questions.

Mr. Rapp, could you?

David Rapp, assistant city engineer, Hudson.

Thank you. Mr. Rapp, it looks like you just carbon copied your comments from the next project over.

Let me intercede on that. There was an error that I called to Mr. Sugar's attention that the engineer's report for this appeared was the incorrect one. Mr. Sugar, you want to give more details on that maybe?

Yes, I'm sorry. I can pull that up.

Is it corrected now on our link?

It's corrected now. Okay. I apologize for that. While the rest of the... You must have been very quick.

If you don't mind, if there's a way to share that with... Or can you read it now, Mr. Nystrom? Is that sufficient?

He goes back to the link now from Nick.

Correct. Yeah.

Scroll down, please. Yep. A little confused off the last one, so this looks a lot better. Yeah, that's all I have. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Nystrom. Ms. Obert.

I think my only question is regarding what the applicant had said about the shared driveway. Is the shared driveway staying?

As one of your members stated, we would remove it if required or asked of us. But we had no intention of working beyond our limits. But we will remove it if that's the planning commission's desire.

Well, so I was confused by your comment about the deed. I understand ownership has changed. But is there a deed restriction? Is there already a use there for that driveway that you do not have permission to remove it?

No. That's what I was saying, that when the easement was written, they're allowed to have access to the west. There's a 50-foot easement right down the center of the property. Between our property and adjacent property to the east, there's a 50-foot easement that they can build a drive if they feel they need one.

Okay, but there's a gravel driveway there now, and it is your intent to take it out?

Yes. Well, we were just leaving it as is for now, but if the Planning Commission desires to remove it, we will remove it. I mean, the curb especially, because I know you only want one curb cut, so we have no problem removing that.

Did you contact the property owner to the north who primarily utilizes that? We have not contacted them, though. Okay.

It would be my suggestion that we contact them to make sure that that isn't something, I know you're not currently occupying the space, to find out that if they are using it, that we don't want you to incur costs and then have a battle on your hands to re-put a bill back, right? That would be silly. That was my only area of concern.

Understood. Thank you, Ms. Obert. Ms. McCoy.

I may have missed this in the report. Did the city arborist look at any of the plans that you had for removal of the trees? And I know on the east side, it looks like you're trying to keep a lot of those pines and cherries. Did he have any issues with any damage maybe to the roof as we're building all the asphalt in the parking spaces? What was his feedback?

Yeah, so we are removing 11 trees. There was a graphics within the staff report, and the majority of the trees being removed are not in, they show signs of decay, or either major or minor signs of decay. There's one tree that is right in the middle of our building that he stated it was in significant health, was healthy and significant in size, but unfortunately that You know, we are trying to save trees, but it's like right in the middle of the building.

You can't build around it, huh? No.

Wouldn't be a good suggested by.

So just to add to that, I had a site visit with the arborist, and those were my notes through him of the visit. I just asked him to assess the health of the trees. So as Mr. Sampas stated, he assessed them from generally healthy, significant and healthy to clear signs of decay and kind of color coded those based on what we saw on site.

Okay, that's I think my only question you guys did not answer. Hold on one second, let me check.

So I did omit the row of pine trees along the drive were healthy. THE LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE WERE REVIEWED ON SITE WITH THE CITY ARBORIST AND HE SAID THAT THEY SHOULD BE FINE BASED ON WHAT THEY'RE PROPOSING AND THOSE WERE BUILT UP ON A MOUND AND THAT HELPS THEM, THEIR ROOT SYSTEM, SEPARATE FROM THE LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE. SO HE WAS COMFORTABLE. WE LOOKED AT THAT AREA IN PARTICULAR BECAUSE THEY WERE PRETTY CLOSE TO THE LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE BUT HE WAS COMFORTABLE WITH THAT AS DEPICTED.

That's a nice little buffer, too, landscaping. It'll look nice. I think those are my only questions that were not already asked or you guys did not address in the beginning, so I'm good.

Thank you, Ms. McCoy. Mr. Inamorato.

Yes. I think the design you have is, I really like it. I think it's not a cookie cutter. It's well done, and in my opinion, I hope they allow you to keep the stone because I think it is beneficial, but you did a good job in my opinion. When I first saw it, I had a concern about saving those trees, but I did go back and look today and I can see that the arborist is has an opinion that they are a little spent. So I guess I'm less concerned than I was originally. Uh, but I really don't have any questions. I think you did a good job here. Uh, aside from, so the owner of that house with a shared driveway, has there been, Any input from them as to what they prefer or what they would like?

Yeah, I believe it's a condominium.

It's a building with a few different businesses inside of it. They do have two accesses, not one, but two ways of accessing 91.

So as far as we know, they may not even be concerned about

5100 is in office use. It's the impact group. In our early discussions, I believe with your, Diane Kalta, your representative, we suggested you reach out to them to see the history of that and if they had any records of that being an easement or anything like that. So I'll just leave that. I CHECKED MY PAST EMAILS THAT ENDED AROUND OCTOBER OF LAST YEAR. I DIDN'T SEE AN UPDATE ON THAT.

THERE'S NOTHING RECORDED.

OKAY. THAT WOULD BE MY CONCERN IF THAT'S ADDRESSED, BUT I GUESS They haven't made any comments and they're not here tonight, so maybe that's not a problem with them. But as long as we. Verify their feelings about that, but. Not I don't have any other questions.

Thank you Mr. Amarato. I have a number of questions. Really, this question starts with staff. I'm curious why you picked the office designation versus the medical clinic. I looked at the definition of a medical clinic in 1213.02, number 181, and it includes dental offices or facilities, and then also offices, business or professional, that definition, which is 202, includes dental. My primary, so first I wanna know how you picked that, and secondarily, I wanna talk a little bit about the impact that that choice has on a number of other criteria we have to look at.

Yeah, we've typically classified medical clinics as larger facilities. It talks about multiple doctors. The size of this facility is around 5,000 square feet, which aligns with our smaller office sizes. So that's why we went with the office professional use.

Well, Dr. Caruso, can you tell us exactly how many doctors will be present on that site?

As of right now, it's just me. I mean, could I expand with an associate? Possibly.

And then he does have hygienists. So, I mean, they're not doctors. Is this right?

Well, that's an important distinction. And so this is your only location. You don't have other office locations elsewhere?

No, I do not.

Okay.

All right. When we looked at the code, that's what we have actually in our SD-11 drawing. I think we had 30 spaces based on that dental location. We saw the word dental, too, and I think we assumed that we could utilize that.

And that segues directly into my next point. There are two aspects of that decision that get borne out in, one is the floor-to-lot ratio. If we went with the medical clinics, it looks like it's 0.35 to 1. but office is 0.5 to 1. And staff, I have a question on this too. I see that the applicant is at 0.6 to 1. So my question is that they're not supposed to be in excess of 0.5 to 1.

They're 0.06 to 1.

Oh, 0.06. I'm sorry. That decimal place does matter. Okay. Thank you. While I'm in this area, staff, I wanted to call to your attention something interesting. My first blush when I looked at the building design, which I agree with Mr. Enamorado, beautiful building look, whether or not you change the stone, we'll talk about that later. But the first thing that hit me was, oh my gosh, they can't build this. It doesn't face the front. And there are no building siting and orientation standards for D9 I did go through the entire code, and in D1, D2, D3, D4, D5 with some extra conditions, and D10, all non-residential construction has to face the street. How do we have no building and siting standards for D9? How did that happen?

I don't know. I think D7 requires... commercial buildings to face the interior, which is also kind of odd. But I can't answer that. I did scrub that to make sure that we didn't miss that, and it's not in there. The requirement is not in there to face the street. So we did ask the applicant to... modify their design so that entryway could be both. And they've accommodated that. And I think it's a very nice street presence on Norton.

I don't disagree with your conclusion on that.

But yes, we did look at that section.

So would you just do me the favor of adding this topic to one of the, it's going to be near the bottom of a long list, I know, of things that we probably need to address. Because as it turned out, there is no building siting standard for this district. And so you are free to put it to the side. But it makes it feel very odd when the whole rest of the city requires something very different, except for that one district, as mentioned. Okay. Staff, did we look at the frontage related to that side street on Lawnmark? The note I have here is with two fronts... At 20 feet, are we not requiring the side setback of 30 feet when it's adjacent to residential uses? Because according to 1205.12, this is the D9 standards, subsection D6, setbacks are to be 10 feet on the side, unless abutting a residentially used property, which it is, which is 30 feet. But are you counting that as a front? And that's why we have the 20 foot setback on Lawnmark as well as Norton.

I have counted two fronts. Right, okay, I just wanted to verify that.

Okay. So let me ask, I think this question really needs to go to the applicant more than anything else. Two parts to this question. What is the status of the easement on this property for that access drive? I mean, no one's presently using it. Does anyone need it?

Could you remove it from your... Yeah, so the document I gave you is what's recorded at the county. Correct. I tracked on that. So there is no... Yeah, I mean, according to their attorney, we could remove it. There is no easement on that. No recorded easement.

It's not recorded?

No.

So I wonder...

I mean, there is no easement. No one's found an easement, but I'm just saying there's nothing recorded.

So when that was the sports complex, it was all owned by the same people. They owned the hexagon building. They owned the sports complex. They owned this one. They owned it all together. So they must have had it for their own personal use and never needed an easement when they owned all of it.

Correct. And then I believe, I don't know if they might have owned this property at one point.

I think they did.

And so they placed, or when they sold the property or when they, to whoever, they placed a 50-foot easement. on that easternly property line. So, I mean, if they own that property, they must have felt that they really don't need that driveway. They have two access points. I mean, it's pretty much a disrepair, that drive. I mean, that's why we have no problem taking it out at all.

Okay, so then the next part of that question is you mentioned in your previous testimony that you all were not going to be doing any development work beyond the limits of disturbance that you've established. And my question is why? because you have an entire lot here. Well, just for this project. So what will be happening with the rest of the lot? Is it going to be subdivided? Is it going to be developed?

There is no plans right now for that. I mean, potentially he could put another building there, but right now, you know, there's nothing in the works, you know, that... They looked around all over. I mean, they're located in Stowe right now. They looked all over Stowe, could not find property. So this was, they decided to move their practice. They may have established practice in Stowe. Sure. You know, this is a lot larger lot than they need, but they took it as it was.

Okay.

And they did want to be on the corner part of the lot. So that's why. IT'S BASICALLY JUST THAT'S WHY WE JUST LET THAT DISTURBANCE. RIGHT.

I UNDERSTAND YOUR THINKING ON THAT. BUT I DID WANT TO KIND OF WHY YOU WEREN'T EITHER USING THE WHOLE LOT OR ESTABLISHING A PLAN FOR IT THROUGH SUBDIVISION OR.

IT WOULD BE OPEN IF SOMEBODY SAID THEY WOULD LIKE TO PUT A BUILDING THERE AND WE WOULD HAVE A SHARED PARKING LOT AND A SHARED DRIVEWAY. WE DISCUSSED THAT. I DON'T WANT TO GIVE YOU A FALSE IMPRESSION.

NOT HAVING A PLAN IS AN ANSWER AND THAT'S SATISFACTORY TO ME. Okay, you've already answered that. Did you explore the possibility of an access off of Lawn Mark?

We did. Okay. We did look at that, and at one point we had access on Lawnmark and Norton. I mean, Dr. Caruso felt strongly that the Norton address and curb cut is really what it, you know, Norton kind of feels like a secondary.

I kind of know where you are when you say Norton, but Lawnmark I've got to think about. No, I understand that. Okay. And you answered that question about the easement. I believe in the staff report we saw that the, driveway needed to be 200 feet from others. Now is that going to be fixed if we remove those other? Yes. Okay. So that's where the issue comes in. Perfect. Perfect. Okay. Then I'll check off the next question. See, if I had some questions for you about the tree situation, I'm going to start with you and then I'll move to the applicant. Okay. You spoke with the arborist and did you have any sense from him about the care of these trees over the last 10 to 20 years? And whether or not the decay of those specimens on the property was due to neglect or are they reaching the end of their natural life cycle or what was the nature of his conclusions about that?

It seemed it was just natural. He didn't mention anything about care or neglect on the trees. So there were a couple that were like split trunks and they decay in the interior, I recall. But other than that, I think it was just natural.

Okay. So for the applicant, I looked at your demolition drawing here, which included the tree removal, which is site plan demolition is C1.0. I was looking for any of your Xs for tree removal.

If you look at L1.1, we actually did the tree removal.

That's over there? Yeah. Okay. That's what threw me off was I looked for them on that sheet, which said in the key that that's where they were.

If you actually look at Mr. Sugar's report, that's pretty much all of the trees that we're removing. Right.

Okay. Okay.

And we have the caliber and the species on there.

Right. The ones on top of the building, or I should say underneath the building, are a little bit difficult for me to read, but I saw that there was that one very healthy tree there. And sure, you know, in an ideal world, we'd love to see you build around that. But I think for your just historical information, we seem to have a connection between Dennis and trees. The last dentist office we looked at had a very significant tree that we spent several meetings having hearing and hearing testimony about the preservation of that particular tree which is unusually prominent in the city. So it does stand apart from this particular property. But one of the things I wondered was if you had conversations with staff or the arborist about the replacement and mitigation requirements of the land development code under 1207.02 related to tree preservation. They need to be replanted with the same or equivalent species. I did not see any replanting of the, I think it's the cherry, the maples. All I see are shrubbery down here and a honey locust. we have no problem we did not have comments of that okay conversations um but we have no problem doing that and so and so there's there's a cash in lieu for trees being you know of that are substantial trees which is defined in our land development code um related to removing those trees. Now, I understand we've got some disease on some of them, but that healthy one in the middle has a cash-in-lieu, to my understanding, correct me, staff, if I'm wrong, but there's a flip side to this, too, and that is when you preserve a tree, you get credit against whatever landscaping we would normally require for you to install, and that is found underneath. So I know dead or dying trees, which

that's different from decay so i think we still have stuff to talk about on that um yes my understanding is that section is for trees that are removed outside of the established limits of disturbance and it's essentially like a penalty are these inside the limits well these would be you would approve the limits of disturbance and then these would be inside that The limits of disturbance are proposed on that plan.

These would be inside?

Correct. OK. All right.

OK. We've got that on L11, the limits of disturbance.

OK.

I guess that's part of the reason why, too, that we define that.

OK. So under 1207.04 related to landscaping, The street trees, are those going to be required on both Norton and Lawnmark? Those are both fronts, you said. Are they already on Lawnmark?

They are already on Lawnmark. There are none on Norton, and that is one of the items I talked to the arborist about on site, and writing recommended moving those back on the private property because there's no room within the right-of-way. So he was totally fine with that. He had some recommendations on the size because of the utility lines. So I'm sure we could work through that with the arborist.

And you have no problem adding those? No, we looked at the comment, and we're fine with that.

All right.

So under a J of that section, which is 1207.04, there's a credit given for existing trees that are preserved to satisfy the planting of trees. And so, and you have interior landscaping required for the parking lots. So this is a long lead into the question of did you consider incorporating those existing trees on the sort of eastern side of your,

limits area i did okay we and it's they're too large the the root structure i mean there's a 22 inch oak tree that would be in the parking lot that potentially we could work around but the root structure would be probably detrimental to this new pavement over the years did the arborist give you that information the arborist yes no not your arborist no okay And then the maple, the 24-inch maple, I mean, that's in poor shape based on your environment. So those would be about the only two. I mean, the 38, same thing with the 38-inch.

So are you going to be planting maples and cherry on the street trees then? We would do that, yes. Okay. All right, I would like to talk to you then also about your stormwater management plan. You have a retention basin that looks like it's six feet deep. And I was wondering, do you have any way to correlate that depth? I presume there's some engineering standards. by which you determine the amount of impervious surface and how deep and how wide and how tall.

And that is all through our engineers. We did not do that personally.

So what's happening right now with the runoff from this property?

Because it's developed. It's not undeveloped. Correct. And I believe that all these catch basins, which we will need to verify with the engineer, but that they go out to the road, which if we need to pick up those lines that are there, we will have to pick them up and bring them to our basin.

You're not aware of any flooding complaints or any issues with stormwater runoff? Will that detention pond serve any subsequent development that's on this remaining part of the parcel?

No, it was sized for this development only.

Our regulations require us to see evidence of non-structural techniques if a detention basin is going to get used and other stormwater reduction members. Do you have a written justification for using the stormwater detention pond basin?

We would have to get that from our engineer.

Yeah. So there's a step process on this indicating that you're retaining, I should say, uncleared land. You're avoiding development on steep slopes. You're keeping vegetation buffers. You're minimizing impervious surface. You're using terraces and a number of other... A number of other items before we approve a detention basin. I wasn't here when this legislation was written. I think the intent was that we would not just slap a retention basin in. every time we wanted to create impervious surface, that we would use other techniques. And I am unaware that any of these techniques are no longer valid as a means of stormwater management. So I'm trying, like I say, to apply a law that I inherited and didn't. have a hand in that. So what can your engineering people tell us about what they looked at prior to deciding that the retention basin was the way to go?

The assumption we're going to make that when they look at this, they knew we weren't going to develop the east side. So at that point, really our only option to get the area would be underground retention or a basin of this nature because of the size. So that's where I could see that that's why they would have developed this plan. We don't have the area within our limits to just step it or I guess, yes, we could go outside and create a larger basin, but it might not be as deep, but it's gonna go out into the area that I don't know that there's any use of that. or any purpose for widening it and shallowing it up.

Well, I'm less interested in that because a detention basin is still a detention basin, regardless of how deep it is. My question is, before we get to that basin, what have we done in order to reduce the amount of stormwater runoff to minimize the size or the need for a basin at all? And that's the question I guess I'm trying to drive at.

I don't think there is. I mean, they would love to not create these basins, but... from what we've dealt with on a new construction, there's no other process without probably a rain gardens or something like that where that's gonna take up substantial area and planting, so.

Mr. Rapp, can I call you to the microphone again?

Your last question was so easy. I was up there once.

Well, I...

Probably more qualified than I am. That's why I did not go back there.

So, can you just opine a little bit upon those topics that I raised? I mean, we're frequently having to pass judgment on a detention basin of some kind, wet or dry, for stormwater. And we know that stormwater is a significant issue in this town, especially in areas just like this that used to be part of the township where stormwater management wasn't required for so much of its development history. but we're still required to ask for a written justification for why they're using these detention basins as opposed to uncleared land, avoiding development at steep slopes, vegetation buffers, minimizing impervious surface terraces, and et cetera. So what can you share with the Planning Commission on that topic? Are any of those obsolete engineering-wise?

In this situation, It's a tight mouse. I mean, they could utilize other parts of the property and put in some of these other features to build the way they have it. The pond is the primary way they can. THEY NEED TO WORK IT. IF IT'S A DEVELOPMENT, THEN YOU HAVE GREEN SPACE, OTHER WAYS WHERE YOU CAN RUN THE WATER THROUGH SWALES AND OTHER FILTER SOURCES BEFORE IT EVEN GETS TO A POND TO LEAVE THE SITE. IN THIS SITUATION, THEY COULD PUT UNDERGROUND STORAGE UNDER THE PARKING LOT AND RUN IT OUT BACK AND KEEP MORE GREEN SPACE I can work with their engineer and see if we can tweak it down a little bit and make one end of it more of a filter bed. It's just, without using the entire site, it's just minimal room to work with.

Yeah, I mean, I would guess that that's more for a larger development, where they would have the area to do that. You know, this is kind of a standardized, you know, what I've seen for these smaller 5,000, 6,000 square foot buildings. Okay.

Oh, I'm not going to dispute that we see it everywhere. We see it everywhere. Every Chick-fil-A, every, you know, Bed Bath & Beyond, everybody who's standing alone in the middle of what used to be a cornfield has got some sort of a pond to catch a stormwater runoff because we haven't figured out any better way to deal with it, apparently. Notwithstanding, we fly to the moon. All right, thank you, Mr. Rapp.

I have a question for him. Is that a cost-effective fix for the applicant?

Your suggestion of... What, the underground retention type thing? It is more money. It's absolutely more expensive.

Typically, we say it adds about $200,000 to a project.

Yeah. At a minimum. Yeah. I mean, if you put the entire parking lot up.

And again, we typically utilize that where it was a really tight site, where we're basically building the limits of the site. And then we use the underground retention because we don't have anywhere else to put it. Or if it's a steep site, we utilize that.

but even that does not provide any kind of treatment. It just stores it and flows out the other side. I don't know if they have the depth actually on this site to be able to do that even, but ideally if we can get some filter beds in different ways to filter it before it gets to a pond and goes off site, that would be great.

Okay. Related to this, to the extent you end up moving forward with the retention pond, or retention basin, I should say, since it's going to be dry. Our code does require an addition of a plat note related to the ownership and the maintenance of it, so I would want that to be one of the requirements we add for you to do that. I'm sure it's a matter of paperwork, no problem for you. I did want to talk a little bit about performance standards, which are found in 1207.10, which staff didn't really go through. I just want to talk a little bit about hours of operation. You had, I can't remember now. I think it was the gym. I read those. Are you open seven days a week? Are you fully staffed with all of your, I'm going to call them service base staff? Are they always full? What sort of, that would help us know what you need in the way of parking as well.

Currently we work Monday through Thursday, seven in the morning till four to five in the evening. Could we expand to Friday or maybe a Saturday morning possibly, but that's pretty much what our hours are.

Okay, that's good to know. Do you have any activities that cause vibrations, odors, noise outside of the building, anything like that? Okay. And loading of shipments would be? Small vans.

It would be mostly UPS. Yes. Okay.

Nothing different from a house. Okay. That's great.

They're probably the best neighbor to have. Okay. Because of the low. Sure.

Well, I have to say my mother lives in Redwood, which is not right on Lawnmark, but in that neighborhood adjacent to you. And I was like, this is a great, great bridge. I think it really is. Staff, I have a question related. Now we're going to get onto parking. So if we had determined that this was a medical clinic, we would be allowing one space for every 100 square feet. which would give us 50 spaces in this. Since we classified it as an office, we're looking at the, it's either 12 and a half, or would be 13 to 20. We have extraordinary circumstances as exception to that. And we can either, according to the code, we can either use the table that's provided, which gives us that 13 to 20, or we can use the parking generation manual, but we don't have that in our hands or hip pockets. Do you happen to have the parking generation manual available and would you be able to find out for us what that recommendation is for dental offices?

I can look. I have a hard copy in the office, but I don't have it on me here. I don't have it readily available. So I can try to search online.

I would appreciate if you do. Let me know if you find that answer. I'm looking for ways to get to the point of saying yes, but I want to make sure that we are abiding by the law. And while I appreciate what your professional design standards may be and what you say makes sense, if our law is constraining us to one particular ratio, we're here to enforce the law unless we can find extraordinary circumstances or if we have a different number coming from that point.

other resource um any comment staff about the compliance with the state route 91 corridor i have a question yes we had that in our analysis um the essentially lawn mark drive was the recommendation for the corridor plan and that would be recommended to extend north eventually uh to to Georgetown and then cross over 91.

So it's never going to be this easement? This is not gonna be?

Correct. Okay. This has been, when Redwood was built, they built out the recommendation of the plan in this section.

Okay, okay, great. I have a question for you on design standards about your building facade lighting. I do not recall if I had the I don't think I printed out the specs on your lighting fixtures, but I saw from your renderings that they were, I'm not going to call them facade lights, but they sort of were because they projected the light all around. So I'm sort of wondering if these are necessary for safety, considering that you're closing at 5 o'clock. Now, I know in wintertime that's actually dark, and it's dark when you open, so you need some sort of safety exterior light. But there is no pathway into the building along this front facade. Correct.

It's not safe. It is more for the image.

So could we do, I'm going to say an uplighting instead. Would that be a possibility? Yes. Okay. That is the end of my question. So whenever Mr. Sugar finds the answer on the trip or the parking generation calculator, we will hear his comment in that regard. We'll move on now to the next item on the public hearing order of events, which is. Comments from individuals withstanding? An individual withstanding is someone who received a notice of this hearing in the mail and you wish to address the Planning Commission. You have 15 minutes to give us your testimony. Is there anyone here from the public who has standing who would like to address the Planning Commission? Anyone withstanding? Seeing none, we'll move on to comments from the public. These are people who do not have standing, but are welcome to address the Planning Commission on this agenda item. You have five minutes. Anyone from the public who wishes to comment? Seeing none, we'll move on to final questions from the Commission. I'll go through the same order again. Mr. Nystrom, beginning with you.

No further questions.

Thank you, Ms. Obert. No questions. Thank you, Ms. McCoy.

No further questions.

Thank you, Mr. Inamorato.

No questions, I just wanted to say it's a very good application and a thoughtful design and I'm glad you selected Hudson for this building.

And then before we get to the discussion item, final comments from the applicant, anything else you wish to go over or address for the Planning Commission before we deliberate? No, I don't. Okay, great. This is the time then for the Planning Commission to have a discussion about the application and their inclinations on how to handle and proceed the project. And anyone who would like to begin may start.

I'm happy to start.

Thank you, Mr. Meister. Go ahead.

I think it's a very good application. I think it should be approved with the requirements of removing that existing gravel drive, infilling the curb cut to maintain only one new cut when the project is approved, adding in the extension of the storm outlet for those two existing basins, and the remainder of staff's recommendations. I don't think we need to worry about access to the north properties if they have two other drive accesses off of 91.

I agree.

Anyone else like to chime in? I sort of made a list on top of staff's recommendations. Staff's first recommendation, and I should start out by saying I did think your application was very well put together. It was easy to follow through. I like the design of the building. there's a part of me that's still like a side entrance really, but maybe it'll all work out if the Eastern part of this becomes developed at some point in the future and you are sharing the driveway and the parking area and it will all make sense in the future. I don't know. I am concerned in the meantime though that we will have the appearance of vacant land. Um, if the, the actual parcel to the east of you, is further developed with anything and your part of this parcel stands vacant, it looks like it's for no purpose. And maybe some flowers and taking that gravel drive out will be enough. Maybe that will be the solution for it. So having looked at staff recommendations, the first one is to consolidate the drive entrances to one curb cut, which I agree with. I took off the using of the existing shared access drive and removing the existing shared access drive based on the way that the what's the word I'm looking for, from fiscal office, the plaque indicates where that is. And I agree with you, Mr. Nystrom, that with the northern property owner having two other accesses to 91, I think this is redundancy that most of us don't enjoy with accessing our property. The second recommendation was to revise the landscaping plan to include a buffer yard A along the northern property line, which the applicant indicated they were willing to do. Street trees along Norton Road, I added onto that of cherry and maple, which would replace the species that we are losing. Yes.

Mr. Sugar mentioned that the city arborist made some suggestions based on power lines there. So I only wanna say if those are in the line with what the arborist suggests, that would make the most sense. Certainly wouldn't wanna put it.

He didn't mention specific species, but size, correct.

I would add that if the arborist approves. The third landscaping note is to depict the additional parking lot landscaping on the interior. We've not had a lot of discussion on that, but they are short a significant amount of interior parking lot landscaping. Staff recommendation is to reduce the number of proposed parking spaces by 11. I think we need to have a discussion about that. We have had testimony from the applicant that they require more. They provided professional justification for doing that. Mr. Sugar, do you have an answer yet on what the parking generation?

We were not able to find the specific IET, though we swapped notes. We do believe you have the discretion based on, as you mentioned, the study that was presented tonight. and the discussion on how the uses is both mentioned in medical and clinic, medical clinic and office use, and this would be between the two parking requirements. So I think the professional study definitely digs deeper into the general office use of what our code looks at, but that's my opinion.

Our code requires us to find extraordinary circumstances. That's what it says. I agree with your logic completely. And this is the thing. No shade on Dennis, but I don't see anything extraordinary here. I mean, we have good testimony. We have good reason to change it, but it's not extraordinary. Do you have a comment, Mr. Neiser?

I do. I would just keep that line and put or request variance through BZBA, which the applicant has already agreed to do.

Good point. I like that. Happy to let them make that decision for us. The fourth recommendation was to revise the location of the sign to be located on the private property. I'm sure we have no issue with that. I did write down to revise the design for less stone, more lap and reduce the roof mass. We didn't really talk about the roof mass. I had asked Mr. Sugar if they had a cross section of the building.

No, but for just a note for architecture, this would go in full to the architectural board of review. They would make those determinations, and we just wanted to provide some feedback.

I'm just going to give you my comment on this, even though this might be. So I have to consider in this chair whether you're going to pass the design review standards, but I don't have to decide if you pass them or not. And my concern, while your front-facing facades break up the roof massing well, and the rear is really not something that has to be addressed in a general sort of way, you're on a corner lot, which means all the people driving on Landmark will always see that roofing mass. So then I started to look at the height of the mass and I was looking for the cross section of this building because I wondered what on earth was going there. You have no access stairs drawn into that. So in my mind, it's wasted space.

It is, but it's also the function of the scale. Part of the design. Yeah, yeah. You know, to build a building of this nature and not have it visible and prominent. Sure. You know, he's making a substantial investment. Sure. That's part of, you know, we feel that the scale of it too, we've done several of these, hundreds of these, and it's definitely, you know, we feel that this is very much in scale with this.

And I would accept that because, again, I don't have to make this decision. So the one place I might differ a little bit from Mr. Intermerato is on the amount of stone. And one of the things we're looking at is that even though Darrowville, which is District 9, is not a historic district and under the normal historic review that it could be, but it's not, We are looking for compatibility with some of those, and just a little bit of reduction of the stone would probably make it blend in more. I don't want to try and fool anyone for them to think that this was built in 1890 or 1910, but I think we could blend in more with that appearance. I'm just gonna offer that. So I did have, how do we feel, Planning Commission, about revising that design for more, lab and less stone. Is that something we want to ask?

I really liked the stuff. It was the thing I liked best about this. I will remove, I will remove that. No, it looks good.

Um, we do need to ask the applicant to address the engineering and fire letters, the review letters. Um, I wrote down as we were hearing the testimony to remove the easement from the property, especially under the representation from the applicant that it hasn't been recorded. And so this is a matter of just paperwork on their end. And then finally that they would add a plat note related to the retention pond for maintenance and such.

It was clarified that that east easement is recorded. So that is staying, that east easement.

That's the one I was talking about.

That one is recorded. No, no, the driveway is different. The driveway is physical. I was saying there was no easement for the driveway. So there is a 50-foot easement. And we're not disputing that. That is staying. So that's their easement. They put it in place when they sold the property. Okay.

Do you know what that was for? I mean, what was the purposing on that?

Yeah, I'll show you here.

Sure.

The easement we're referring to is along this boundary. It is for the benefit of this parcel.

Oh, and that's so that they would not have to have a... Well, is that easement going to be 200 feet from the new entry point for this parcel?

I believe it's going to be really, center line to center line is 200 feet, over 200 feet.

It has to be.

I have to, I can measure on it.

The driveway doesn't have to be 50 feet.

50 feet wide.

I'm saying if you're talking about 200 feet, if it was 200 feet from center to center line, if you're, I don't know what the...

The easement goes on both parcels. On both parcels? Yes, so half of it, so it really would be from the parcel line, which would be the center of that easement, to where their center proposed access is.

Right.

I don't want to put you in a situation where we have authorized a drive access for your new project that would be illegal if you left that easement in place and it got developed because you're not in control of it.

Yes, center line to center line, it's 210 feet.

Okay, thank you. Thank you for that. Do we have a feeling then about having that? We're not going to talk about the easement then. All right. Are we good with the plat note on the retention pond? Yeah. Okay. So this would be six recommendations. Number one, to consolidate the drive entrances. Number two, revise the lines and remove existing shared access drive. Two, revise the landscaping plan to include, A, landscape buffer yard five feet along the northern proper line. B, depict street trees along Norton Road of cherry and maple if the arborist approves. C, depict additional interior parking lot landscaping. Three, reduce the number of proposed parking spaces by 11 or request a variance from BZBA. Four, revise the location of the sign. Five, address engineering and fire department letters of review. And six, add plat note related to the maintenance and responsibility for the retention pond. Any further discussion on this topic or other ideas that commission members want to have added to it? Any further discussion at all? Do we have a motion then?

Make such a motion to approve as per Chair Norman's enumerations.

Second. We have a motion from Mr. Nystrom to approve the recommendations of staff as were previous outlined with a second from Ms. Obert. Any discussion further on this motion? Seeing none, Mr. Sugar, would you call the roll, please?

Yes, Ms. Obert?

Yes.

Mr. Inamorato? Yes. Ms. McCoy? Excuse me, Mr. Nystrom? Yes. Ms. Norman?

Yes, the motion carries five to zero. Thank you again for your time tonight. And a really good project you put together. Good luck to you.

Thank you very much.

All right, that concludes item A under our new business for public hearings tonight. And we will move on to item B, which is the public hearing. on a conditional use request for Flights USA Gymnastics, a gymnastics sport training facility. And if the representatives are here and want to come forward to the table with the microphones, we will begin and follow the regular order of the public hearings that's provided at the end of your agenda. And that will start with an introduction by staff. Mr. Sugar.

YES, THANK YOU. THIS IS A CONDITIONAL USE APPLICATION FOR FLIGHTS GYMNASTICS. THEY ARE REQUESTING TO OPERATE A GYMNASTIC SPORTS TRAINING FACILITY. THE LOCATION IS HERE AT, I'LL ZOOM IN A LITTLE BIT, 5282 HUDSON DRIVE. THIS IS A THREE SUITE BUILDING SO THIS WOULD BE SUITE A, THE LARGEST SUITE IN THE BUILDING. THE GYM WOULD BE MOVING FROM THEIR CURRENT LOCATION IN KAIHOGO FALLS WHERE THEY'VE OPERATED FOR THE PAST 26 YEARS. SO ESSENTIALLY NO EXTERIOR CHANGES ARE PROPOSED. SIGNAGE WOULD BE REVIEWED THROUGH A SEPARATE APPLICATION. AS I MENTIONED, THIS IS CLASSIFIED AS THE SPORTS TRAINING FACILITY WHICH IS UNDER THE RECREATIONAL FACILITY CATEGORY. I HAD SOME NOTES ON THAT AND Chair Norman made a recommendation to review section 1206.06, which actually has specific procedures for classifying uses. So I took a look at that and I feel comfortable with the sports training facility classification. That section, REQUESTS YOU LOOK AT THE SIC CODES WHICH ARE STANDARDIZED BUSINESS CLASSIFICATION CODES TO SEE IF THERE'S OVERLAP. THERE'S ACTUALLY A SPECIFIC SIC CODE FOR GYMNASTICS INSTRUCTION AND THAT IS UNDER THE UMBRELLA OF SPORTS RECREATION SERVICES. SO I FELT THERE WAS REALLY GOOD ALIGNMENT THERE AND THAT KIND OF ENFORCED THE ANALYSIS ON THE USE CLASSIFICATION. that i mentioned that is a a conditional use so we have provided comment on the the conditional use standards that includes the operational times staff members class sizes things like that all of the proposed components of the use would be interior to the building. We've looked at circulation. Parking, we did have some notes on that as far as the conditional use standard requirement, which kind of goes a little bit above and beyond our typical parking requirements, kind of planning for the worst case scenarios. So with that essentially we landed on three recommendations and those were all exterior site recommendations. One is there are existing dumpsters on the site and we requested those be screened. Two, I mentioned parking. There are additional spaces that could be striped along the rear to provide additional parking for the whole facility. And three was there's sort of a cleanup item. There are two parcels that are comprised of this property. One's a non-conforming parcel. We requested that. consolidation be performed. I have heard from the property owner today, and they have agreed to all those conditions as they are essentially owner items. So that has been agreed to. And yeah, that's all I have for the update and staff report. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Sugar. As I mentioned to the other applicants, we are doing an evidence gathering hearing this evening and we take notice of and incorporate all of the documents that you submitted already that are reflected on the agenda for this evening. So now you have the opportunity to give us any further information or amplify any of those documents that you gave to us this evening. Name and address please so we know who you are.

John King, 2088 Forest Edge Drive, Cuyahoga Falls, 44223.

And I'm Aaron Blue with Onyx Creative, 25001 Emory Road, Cleveland, Ohio.

Go ahead, the floor is yours.

Well, obviously I've been in business for, I think it says 27 years, 26 years in my submittals. We were part of Coggle Falls for that entire time and have decided to move to Hudson because we feel like it's a great transition for our business as far as location, clientele, and also being cost-effective as far as where we're at with our lease. When we came in, we knew there was already a studio, cheerleading and dance studio, and previously a gymnastics club, so I hadn't thought too much of it. at the time and was a little bit behind the eight ball in discussing this with Mr. Sugar. He's been very helpful in setting a path for us to get this rectified and get the use certificate changed. We are looking forward to getting started and opening our business and are hopeful that we can get this passed with the three conditions being met. And also I had submitted an email request to Mr. Sugar where we would like to have a condition of being able to open while the landlord or owner of the building satisfies the three requests that were made tonight.

further i don't have anything further to add unless you guys have questions that's where we'll go next all right where we go next is um questions from the planning commission members i'll start on the opposite end of the table this evening mr inamorato do you have any questions for the applicants yet um on the inside are you uh planning on making any structural changes to the space

No, I am not. What gymnastics clubs sometimes do is put in what they call pits, which are in-ground holes in the floor so that they can put foam in them and kids would tumble into those. I've decided not to do any of that. We're going to be a little bit less, you know, construction-wise, we're not going to get into any renovation projects. So to answer your question, no. Okay.

So, staff, so the other tenants that are there currently, they're all remaining, is that my understanding?

There's one tenant that would remain, yes.

There's only one?

There's one other tenant in there now, and then there's a space in between that is storage, warehousing space. There's, to my knowledge, no one in that space at this time.

Center B unit.

The Center B unit.

Okay, and so then who has responsibility for maintaining the parking lot and the building?

The building owner.

Okay. So you have no responsibility for that, right? Correct. Okay. No, I don't have any other questions.

Thank you, Mr. Enamorato. Ms. McCoy.

I see on the staff reports, there's a note that you would host competitive meets within the space, which are seasonal. About how many people, I'm only concerned about parking, so about how many people would be coming to that? Because if the person in Unit C that's occupied has classes or something at the same time, would that conflict with?

We're not planning on actually hosting competitions at our facility, this new location. We did do so at our older one because it was a larger facility, but this one would be very difficult to bring in more people for viewing.

And you're closing the one in Kylo Falls and moving here, this is not a second one? Correct. Okay. Yes. Those were my only questions.

Thank you, Ms. McCoy. Ms. Zobart?

I think my only question would be for staff. Have we already started the conversation to the building owner to address the items of concern?

Yes, he read the staff report, contacted me today, and emailed that he's in agreement with those three items.

Great, no questions.

Thank you, Mr. Nystrom. No questions.

Just following up on that, Mr. Sugar, did the owner indicate how much time he needed to meet those conditions?

Not to my knowledge, no.

It feels like to me that striping parking spaces is not a big ask. I'm concerned about leaving this open-ended and giving the occupancy or use permit or what have you to the to the tenant when we know that it's the landlord who's whose responsibility that is do we have a way of i want to give a reasonable time but i don't want to give forever put a time period on it like 90 days 180 days what what would be 90 days would be reasonable I have far less questions for you than I had for the dentist's office.

Is the building owner here? Yes. Oh, would you be able to speak to that?

Oh, that'd be great. Yeah, approach the microphone. I'll have him come up.

There are actually two building owners. This is one of them that does the financial part.

Okay. Were you sworn in, sir? I was not, but I swear. Would you swear that the testimony you're going to give will be the truth of the whole truth and nothing but the truth? Absolutely. Name and address, please.

David Waxman, 31715 Burke Circle, Solon, Ohio, 44139.

What can you tell us, Mr. Waxman?

Oh, I'm sorry.

Go ahead.

Oh, yes. Happy to stripe the lot. As a matter of fact, we were going to do some extra parking lot maintenance this year anyway. Striping it, as you said, it's not a big deal.

Do you feel that 90 days is adequate time to accomplish all three of those items?

Yeah. The only thing that I would say that I don't have control over is the consolidation. I'm working with the engineer. Yeah.

But you can start the process for sure, right? And we'll go with substantial compliance, okay? Thank you for that. We appreciate that. Your testimony does that.

I have a question. Before you leave. Oh, sorry.

Mr. Intermarato.

Is there any plan to put a topping on the parking lot?

We do that about every five or six years. We'll redo the parking lot and re-stripe. I think we did that, I'm trying to think. I can't say for sure, but I think it was about four years ago that we did that. So it's coming up in a year or two to be able to do that.

Yeah, I guess, how many students do you expect to participate here?

Right now, I'm going to estimate that we're going to start with about 300 to 350 per week, which breaks down to far fewer daily. But a lot of those children are also dropped off. Most of those people don't stay. It's a lot of drop-off pickup.

My concern was, I'm trying to go from memory. To me, if I recall, the parking lot seemed like it was ready for a surface topping, and now that you're going to have this many people on the property, I think you should consider it. We'll absolutely consider it.

Especially since you're going to stripe it anyway. Right. We can consider that. I can't promise it, but we'll definitely consider that. Okay. Okay.

Um, Sam, I have something, a note written here under the district, the district. Um, this is, this is in the industrial and business park area and I'm. So let me just say, first, I'm glad to have an existing building used for a great purpose like this. This is really not my issue, but my problem is. you're in District 8, which is the industrial and business park, and part of our purpose is for this, and our job is to review whether your project complies with the purposes that are listed in this code, which includes, Um, commercial land for the future job growth. And secondly, only to the extent necessary to serve employees or as accessory uses our services permitted in this district. And I'm going to hazard a guess that your student population is not coming from surrounding employers or employees from other places. These are kids who live here. So Staff, what are we supposed to do in this situation when clearly the applicant fits in nicely into this existing building, and yet the purposes for creating this district seem to indicate that we should not even be entertaining this application?

Well, I'm looking there. I mean, the use itself is a conditional use. Sports training facilities... So it is acknowledged as a conditional use within the district. Okay. And I think generally, yes, that is the purpose statement, as you mentioned, but it does allow for that case-by-case basis of the conditional use review.

All right. That's helpful for me. Thank you for that thought. Okay. Do you know, staff, when this building was constructed by chance?

I can tell you. Yes. I'll help you out there. It was the Crystal Lloyd building constructed in 1980. Thank you. You're welcome.

Because what I wanted to know was this a township building that didn't have, how did it get built with no screening, okay, around the trash containers? And now I have the answer because it was before it was required out there. That's perfect.

And we're happy to do the screening.

Yeah, I think that would be great, especially since you're going to have a less industrial use in it it will really just sort of make the whole property feel a little more inviting in even a small way. I have a question for the applicant on safe areas for pickup and drop off. This is a requirement as a special condition for conditional uses in this area. And I wondered if, and you know the use and the traffic flow of your business better than we do, is this a situation that would make sense to reserve one or two of the parking spaces right by the door just for pickup and drop off? Sort of like the burrito loading zone at Chipotle, you know what I'm saying? And is that a situation that would make sense? Or do you have parents, because the age of what your students are, that are actually walking them into the building and then leaving. What would be best for you in that regard? What would be best for the safety of the people using it?

I don't disagree with you. I do think that that potentially would be a good idea to have a drop-off pickup location with signage. However, we're fortunate to have quite a large parking space on the north side, which is our end of the building, where there's a pathway in and a pathway out for parents, too, if they want to line up and then pick up children one at a time. So there is quite a bit of space on that side. Studio Luminance, who's the other tenant, has the other end of the building and has a little bit of their own access and egress on their side, so we don't really overlap quite as much as it may seem.

I would also add as.

the architect for the tenant sure i'm also a parent whose daughter's okay flights and i will say this parking configuration is far better than at the previous location okay that's good to know and so you have no safety concerns with this from a design perspective okay no burrito loading space is needed all right um i was going to ask you as well about the competition crowds but that appears not to be something you intend to do and that, and, And Mr. Sugar address 12 or 6.6. So those are the end of my questions. So going back to our order of events, then on a public hearing, we've gone through the questions from the commission. We would move now to comments from any individuals with standing. If you're an individual with standing, you received a notice about this hearing in the mail and you are entitled to 15 minutes to speak. Is there anyone here with standing? Seeing none, we'll move on to comments from the public. Are there any comments from members of the public? Seeing none, we will move on to final questions for the commission. I'll begin again with Mr. Intermerato. Mr. Intermerato, any final questions?

Are there plans to add bathrooms or locker rooms or what's in there existing is sufficient?

Yeah, what's in there is sufficient. There's existing, there's actually two sets of men's and two sets of women's. The idea is one of them, you know, by tag only is going to be switched to a women's since it is a predominantly female sport. So there'll be one facility for men and three facilities for women.

Okay, thank you. That's all. Thank you, Mr. Intermato. Ms. McCoy? No further questions. Thank you, Ms. Obert?

No further questions.

Thank you, Mr. Nystrom.

No questions.

I have no further questions, so we'll move on to final applicant comments. Anything further you'd like to address to the Planning Commission?

No, thank you. Okay.

We'll move now to discussion and action by the Planning Commission, and I will open the floor to anyone who would like to give us a thought, opinion, or make a comment.

I'm happy. It sounds like the building owners are willing to make the necessary changes. This use seems like it fits with all the other uses around it quite nicely. I see no issues.

Sure.

A motion to approve with the staff comments to be addressed by the building owner and allow occupancy within 90 days for the landlord to go ahead and make those changes.

have a motion on the floor to approve the recommendations of staff to allow first the existing dumpers dumpsters to be screened per section 1207.04 m with which is the owner's responsibility number two additional parking spaces shall be striped per figure one in the staff report and a lot can dial consolidation will be performed as the third item which the owner has agreed to be completed within 90 days. Do we have a second?

Second.

We have a second to the motion. Any further discussion on the motion, which has been seconded? Seeing none, Mr. Sugar, would you call the roll, please?

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

Yes. The motion carries 5-0. Good luck to you, and thank you for agreeing, Mr. Waxman, to comply with those things so we can bring this old township property up into the new days of our zoning code for 1996. Thank you very much. All right, next on our agenda this evening is item nine, which is other business. Do we have any other business to address this evening? Seeing none, we will move on to the staff update. Staff, you have the floor.

Yes, a few updates. One was our upcoming schedule. So we will hold a joint session with city council to discuss the Clinton Crossing project on our regular meeting schedule for August 10th. and we will move that meeting to the 24th.

I'm sorry, say that again.

Yeah, I didn't enunciate that correctly.

August 10th.

August 10th is currently scheduled as our regular meeting. We're going to have the joint council session on August 10th. And then we will move our regular meeting to the 24th, which is that date that we hold every month for a special meeting.

Right. I will be absent. Ms. Obert, will you be here to chair that meeting? Yes. Okay.

We're anticipating one application, private application for the 24th. That would be the daycare that we had the concept site plan review previously of Terexon 303. So I'll be reviewing that application. I assume it came in overnight here.

Anything else, Mr. Sugar, Mr. Hanning?

Yes, we also had sent some information on data centers. We wanted to update you on that. There is a proposed moratorium or stay on data centers that's going to council tomorrow for a potential vote. And we wanted to send you that information and just see if you had any initial feedback on that topic. THAT WOULD GIVE THE CITY TIME TO REVIEW OUR ORDINANCES AND ASSESS THE IMPACTS OF DATA CENTERS. WE HAVE NOT RECEIVED AN APPLICATION TODAY, BUT WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE HAVE THE CODES IN PLACE AND ADDRESS THE ITEM THAT THE CITY, HOW THE CITY WOULD LIKE TO SEE THAT DONE.

Any comments or thoughts from Planning Commission members about the proposal from Council?

I just think it's a great idea. I know there's significant issues with electricity and water infrastructure with those facilities.

My question is six months time enough?

My understanding that does give us time to expand that, extend that time period.

or gives council that authority. Yeah, I don't have a specific reference, but I see that the legislation makes it easy for council to extend it if they wish.

Okay.

Anyone else sent that into the table? I went to bed last night in a panic thinking, oh my gosh, I didn't do this last little bit of homework for tonight. And I woke up this morning and just had the epiphany that we don't have to do this. And then I was calling to mind, not the numbers, I'm not that nerdy about it, but I was calling to mind the exact provisions in the land development code that I think Hudson's very well protected, but very accidentally well protected against this. I don't think it hurts at all if council makes this stay or moratorium, but I did go through over my first cup of coffee, because I am that nerdy, and did pull some of the citations related to this. So first of all, we have a provision at the very beginning of the district standards in 1205.03 that says that use is not specifically listed as permitted by right or conditionally in a specific district are prohibited, they're prohibited. And accidentally, our zoning code was not drafted in a time when data centers were part of the reality. So it doesn't address data centers and since they are not listed as uses by right, they're not allowed. Having said that, we can go through the 1206.06 process of classifications to make a determination if that use fits somewhere. And I don't know, Mr. Sugar, have you done that review on this topic yet to see?

Not for this topic, no.

Okay, so that would be one very interesting thing to do would be to find out if, by chance, a data center would qualify as light industrial. And I'll get to that in a minute. When you look at the uses that are allowed in Hudson, there really aren't any that are similar to a data center. When you look up business services, which are allowed in a large part of the city, wireless telecommunication facilities, industrial use light is only allowed in two districts. Industrial use heavy is conditional only in District 8. And then installations by essential public utility and public services, which talks about bus shelters, bus stops, water towers, not including water towers, power generating stations. Is that it? Is this a data power generation station? I don't know. Transfer stations or outdoor storage. So my gut response on this would that be in the event we had a proposal from an applicant for a data center, at least with the composition of this planning commission, Any proposal for a data center would probably not be approved by us just through that regular reading, especially when it comes to the performance standards that would apply related to noise, vibration, adequate utilities for wastewater, electricity, all of those things that are good concerns would be part of the performance standard review. And then when we get to it's a conditional use, if it was coming in under that, it would be an even more comprehensive in-depth review. So I gave a long list of definitions we could look at. It would also not come under telecommunication facilities. And so, again, I see no harm for council in passing this, and I don't really think, but I also don't know how much it accomplishes. So I don't know if staff or city solicitor want to weigh in on those topics since I included you on that.

I think your point is, if it fits any word, light and dust. If you have to jam it into something, that would be, but even then, it's certainly not a good fit.

And here, yeah, and I didn't read that definition because our definition matters for that. Okay, so while we could say in a general sort of way, sure, a data center sounds like it's light industrial, the way it's defined in Hudson is it's a use engaged in the manufacturer predominantly from previously prepared materials or lightly treated raw materials of finished products or parts, including processing, fabrication, assembly, treatment, packaging, incidental storage sales, distribution of such products. It shall also mean, further, that such manufacture of electronic instruments, preparation of food, pharmaceutical, research and scientific laboratories, quote, and the like. And someone will have to explain to me how data centers are remotely like light industry the way we have it. defied defined it shall not include uses such as mining and extracting industries petrochemical industries rubber refining primary metal and related industries which that doesn't help us so i agree with you mister thomas in that regard light industries the place we'd probably train squeeze it in it's not coming in in hudson is it doesn't mean our definition sorry go ahead staff i gave you the door i took it away i was just gonna brief i think those are are some strong points from your reference

As this study occurs, we may find that there's value in data centers if they're a small scale accessory to a larger operation. There may be things to study in more depth that influence what the code says.

It seems like that a lot of communities are putting a restriction on their demand of power based on what, to your point, the size and capacity that they're willing to do. So that may be something that council could consider too.

And I see the APA put a brief out about zoning practice for data centers, so we can review that.

That'd be very interesting. And I'm just going to throw out there for what it's worth, there's always more than one way to skin a cat. And so it may benefit the city to consider not specific legislation related to data centers per se, but any industrial use that was going to And I don't have the statistic, but that would consume more than 5% or 3% of the generated power from Hudson. Now, Hudson Public Power wants to sell power. So if someone wants to use more, we want to probably sell more. But that shouldn't detract from the rest of the grid that serves the rest of the community. So that would be one way to address that. the power usage by data centers without naming data centers specifically that would keep it open to other industrial facilities. Another one might be with water use as well, or generation of, I'll call it storm water, but you know what I mean, the water runoff from that manufacturing facility, whether it was data center or something else.

Some cities do things such as beverage processing facilities have high demands on water use. Sure. Some things might be similar to that.

Sure, yeah, yeah. Well, I'd be interested in seeing the APA document, Mr. Sugar, if that's something you could get to me. I would appreciate that. Any further comments on this topic? Any questions from our liaison on that? Was that a helpful discussion on that? Dr. Weinstein? Did you, was this a helpful, was that a helpful enough discussion on that? Okay, great. Any further comments on that? Staff, any further updates?

I just forgot to mention the Planning and Development Subcommittee will be meeting this Thursday, so we should have an update for the group at our next meeting.

Any further business for the Planning Commission this evening?

I'm sorry, Ms. Norwood. Yeah, sorry, Mr. Heating. Go right ahead. Nick gave a brief acknowledgement about the joint session for Clinton Crossing. I just want to let the Commission know that the next public engagement session will be next week on Wednesday. It's July 22nd from 5 to 8 p.m. It will be an event where the 17 small group site plans which were prepared in June and then public feedback was gathered after those sessions The design team is working to narrow that down to three concept plans, get additional feedback from the community on what types of uses, what types of impacts are appropriate, and that will allow the design team to work towards one preferred plan in late August for community engagement. So for reference, also that event will be held at the Clinton Crossing site. So we're seeking to let people actually see the property in person. There will be free ice cream for all attendees. So don't forget that if you can make it. So I encourage you to attend next week if you're able. Thank you.

All right, thank you, Mr. Hannon. Any further business that we need to discuss this evening, Planning Commission members? Seeing none, I will entertain a motion to adjourn. Motion to adjourn. We have a second.

Second. Second.

We have a motion to adjourn and a second. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? We stand adjourned at 9.19 p.m. Thank you all for your time.