Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

The time is now 07:30 on Monday, 04/13/2026, and I'd like to call to order this duly scheduled and noticed regular meeting of Hudson Planning Commission under Ohio revised code related to the Sunshine Law. Mister Sugar, would you please call the roll?

Yes. Miss Obert? Here. Mister Intermarado? Here. Mister Nystrom? Here. Mr. Romano? Here. Ms. Smith? Here. Ms. Norman?

Here we have a quorum with six of our seven members present. I'll just mention that Ms. McCoy is anticipating the birth of her baby momentarily and we wish her the best in her absence. On behalf of the city this evening, Mr. Sugar, Mr. Hannan, and Mr. Pitchford, the city solicitor. Item number three on our agenda is the swearing in of people who intend to address the Planning Commission this evening. Whether you are participating in a public hearing or offering commentary to the Planning Commission, including staff, if you intend to address us, would you please stand up, raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm under the penalties of perjury that your testimony will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? If so, please say I do.

I do.

Thank you. You may be seated. Item number four on our agenda is approval of the minutes of the previous Planning Commission meeting, 03/09/2026. Any corrections that members of the Planning Commission have to offer? I found a couple on page two. I just had a question under item related to correspondence. The last line, number five, the AHBR chair, I believe that's mister Workley. I don't know.

It's Caputo. John mister John Caputo. There's also a John Workley, but he's

not spoke chair. To Mr. Workley, I'm sorry. I did say the chair because I misunderstood.

Oh, it's Mr. Workley?

Yes, it is. So that was my error. Okay. Sorry about that. I misunderstood that he was the chair, but he is not the chair. I just want to make sure we have because whoever Caputo is is not going to know what I'm referring to on that. On page six, I believe we're missing the word not. This is on the next to last paragraph that begins the commissioners. Midway down is a line that begins property is challenging, and at the end of that, and that this use may not be the most appropriate. I did go back and look at the video and that seemed to be correct.

Any questions or concerns about that? Where were you on? This is page six, the next to last paragraph. Midway property is challenging due to the presence of wetlands and that this use may not be the most appropriate.

On

page seven,

three paragraphs from the end, the paragraph beginning Chair Norman, are limited checkpoints. We don't really use the term checkpoints. I think review standards would be more appropriate in there or standards, one or the other. On the same page, next paragraph beginning with Chair Norman noted, there's a paragraph that says commissioners discussed increasing minimum required size to 75 acres. My recollection is that was a recommendation from staff, not the Planning Commission, and I don't actually think we pursued that line of conversation.

Wrapping around to page eight, there's a sentence that ends LDC are problematic and contain, and I think a more description based on the video is exceptions to core requirements of the code as opposed to conflicting codes. Conflicting codes is not per se wrong, but just less clear. Those are the only things I noted. Any conversation on those topics? Do we have a motion to approve the minutes as amended?

Motion to approve.

We have a motion to approve the minutes as amended for Ms. Ober. Do we have a second?

Second.

Thank you, Mr. Romano. The motion has been seconded to approve the minutes of the previous Planning Commission meeting, 03/09/2026 as amended. Mr. Sugar, could you call the roll?

Yes. Ms. Ober? Yes. Mr. Nystrom?

Abstain, I was absent.

Mr. Romano? Yes. Ms. Smith?

Abstain, I believe I was absent.

Mr. Nyromarano? Yes. Ms. Norman?

Yes. The motion carries with four votes in favor and two abstentions. Item five on our agenda is public discussion. This is an opportunity for members of the public to comment on any topic related to Planning Commission business, whether it's on our agenda or not, except those that may be related to the public hearing we have tonight. We have a public hearing on the day care proposed on 03/2003, so if you were here to address that, kindly wait until we've gotten to the public hearing portion of this evening. Also, sure that you have already signed in on the sheet in the back, which I referenced. Is there anyone here who wishes to address the Planning Commission tonight? Name and address please, and you have five minutes.

Good evening. My name is Pam Schulerman, July. Been a resident of Hudson for twenty seven years. I would like to share a few, several concerns regarding the format and substance of last week's open house regarding District 11 as well as the broader direction being taken on the District 11 conversation. First, the format of the open house was disappointing.

The poster board covered topics such as maps, timelines, and use categories all largely replicated information already available on the website of the city. The structure appeared to be designed to steer residents so that council members and city staff could direct people to the appropriate category of concern instead of answering the question themselves. When I asked Councilwoman Weinstein a direct question, she tried to usher me to a timeline display, and I clarified that I was asking her perspective as an elected official and didn't move. As it has occurred in many past conversations, responsibility was deflected to the past city council. And I reminded her and I remind all of the new council members that they are the ones in office now and are accountable for the decisions that are going to be made.

Second concern I have is the repeated claim that companies are unwilling to locate to Hudson due to the lack of amenities. This claim seems to be unsupported. I've asked multiple times for data and none has been shown. In fact, amenities, soon as Jim is across the street, there's multiple dining options nearby and even healthier options at Giant Eagle. My third concern is the framing of what workers want, quote unquote.

I believe it is misplaced. Workers prioritize fair wages, strong benefits, retirement security, and flexibility. They do not choose jobs based on a salad bar or their ability to walk to lunch. I believe Hudson should stop trying to be a big city. Young people, I am the mother of four 20, are not choosing to live in Hudson at this stage of their lives.

Pretending to do so does not make it true. I do not support residential development at the scale. Without more clarity and firmer limits. Heavy residential development does not benefit Hudsonites. Under the current proposal, IRG could construct up to 20 excuse me, 200 apartments, maybe more, an outcome that goes well beyond what was previously envisioned by this council, by this group.

Imagine the financial and public safety costs of increasing residential on that scale. Another misleading point I'd like to discuss is the repeated conversation that the city council previous city council approved residential. I heard it Thursday night and I've received emails from current council members that said, oh, the previous council did that. So yes, the prior council and the planning commission approved residential use, but only as limited and secondary. What is now being proposed represents a fundamental shift from controlled growth to a carefully designed that was carefully designed by the Planning Commission to negotiated growth driven by a single developer's objectives.

And let's talk about IRG. I want to make sure that the residents of Hudson and this group are aware that IRG has an extensive footprint in Northeast Ohio. In addition to Joanne's site, they own the former Goodyear Tire and Rubber company headquarters, the former Ford plant in Lorain, the IX Center, Canal Place in Akron, and the Football Hall of Fame in Canton. This scale and market power matter when evaluating claims about feasibility, necessity, and their leverage. Finally, it is clear that this initiative, based on conversations I've had with the city and with council members, that this is being this initiative for District 11 is being driven as much by city staff, economic development leadership, and most city council members with the exception of my board representative, Skyler Sutton, who I view as the lone voice of fairness and reason.

I recognize the need to replace lost revenue. However, the goal does not does not justify sidelining residents' well founded concerns or abandoning this commission's starting point and long established standards, standards that have been shaped by hundreds of residents over decades. City staff should ask peers in Streetsboro and Aurora how to recruit manufacturing and industrial services and companies. In closing, Hudson should not disregard this its planning framework at their urging of a nonprofit landowner or a developer or city staff eager to make a name for themselves. The community's vision must remain the guiding force. Thank you.

Thank you, miss Shoreman. Anyone else wishing to address the Planning Commission this evening? Seeing none, we will close the public discussion and move on to item number six, which is correspondence. This is an opportunity for Planning Commission members to reveal any conversations or discourse that has gone on related to our business outside of a noticed, meeting. Anyone have anything to report?

I was asked to present in your absence last month to counsel during a workshop, regarding the text changes that we proposed. I followed up with staff today. There has been no action taken on that, so we're in holding pattern until they take their next step. And that was just the verbiage. I'm sure staff could correct me if I'm wrong, but

it was

essentially strengthening the verb, the verbiage within our land development code regarding the comprehensive plan to be more clear. That's what we asked for.

And thank you for filling in for that. I was unexpectedly delayed. Anyone else have anything to re report on that regard? Seeing none, we'll move on to old business. The first item on our agenda is item number PC twenty twenty six-seventy two, a conditional use and major site plan request for Western Reserve Academy to construct an addition to the Wang Innovation Center. As staff noted on the agenda, the application has been asked to be, applicant has asked to have this tabled until May 11, and I don't think there's anything further except perhaps a motion from us, mister Sugar. Correct? Correct. Thank Do we have a motion to postpone this item to the May 11 meeting?

I'll motion to postpone till May 11.

Thank you, miss Obert. Do we have a second?

Second.

Mister Romano, thank you for that. Any discussion on the motion to table to May 11? Seeing none, mister Sugar, would you call the roll, please?

Yes. Miss Obert?

Yes.

Mr. Intermarado? Yes. Mr. Nystrom? Yes. Mr. Romano? Yes. Ms. Smith? Yes. Ms. Norman?

Yes. The motion carries six to zero, and we will see them on May 11. Item B is PC twenty twenty six-seventy three, conceptual site review for a day care center. This is continued public hearing from our March planning commission meeting. Just for those who are in attendance tonight who may not have been here before, I would refer you to the rules for public hearings that are reprinted at the end of our agenda. We will therefore begin, since everyone has at least been sworn in, I haven't seen anyone come in since we got started, with a staff introduction. Mr. Sugar or Mr. Hannan?

Yes, thank you. I can give some background. As noted, this was continued from our March meeting. The applicant has taken the comments from the Planning Commission and updated the site plans and some of the supporting documents that you see in the packet. Just a few notes and these are summarized in the staff report.

Looking at the topics, the topics of traffic were looked at further. You would see on the site plans the applicant is now proposing to convert one of the two southbound lanes to a turn lane. And then there are some additional comments and recommendations for our assistant city engineer David Rapp in his letter and there's a markup that follows that as well. With wetlands, of note, the building and parking have been pulled closer to three zero three. So you'll see that the southern wetland, there is less impact proposed there.

Also of note, the applicant's wetland consultant has submitted a letter certifying that they are category one wetlands, and this was received after the agenda was issued, so I did receive that myself. Tree preservation, there are some notes. We had a visit on-site visit with the arborist, so there are notes regarding the the trees on the property. The pond has been moved to the northwest corner, western portion of the property as there was concern from the Planning Commission as it was previously across a majority of the frontage on 303. The playground has been shifted.

And additionally with that in the staff report, we have included some preliminary findings with recommendations for a formal submittal. The applicant's here to give additional background and we're here to help answer any questions. Thank you.

Okay, great. Applicant, if you would like to come forward and have a seat at the table, we'll call on you next. I will say I think this is just a conceptual site plan review, and our decision in that regard is not a final nor a final appealable order, so I'm not sure that we actually have to make findings of fact in that regard. Mister Pitchford, do you have any thoughts in that that topic?

Let me me come back.

That's fine. That that's fine.

Because there are there's two different kinds of concept review, and one in our code does require and one does not. So

Okay. That'd be great. I really appreciate that because I I that was a question I had. So

So we're just providing our comments tonight, not a vote?

Well,

we we do have to make a decision. That is a term of that section of the land development code, and mister Pritchford, for your, edification, that's 1,104.04 b and c, and and it it requires a decision, but it is specifically stated that it's not a final decision. It doesn't guarantee that the applicant will progress through the next level of review, which is the actual and those the actual decision on the application, we would have to make findings of fact for them in order to go forward or not, whichever way it is. But Mr. Pitchford will let us know. Alright, so initial applicant comments. Name and address please.

Hello again, my name is Jeff Durbin. My address is 9635 Maroon Circle, Inglewood, Colorado 80112. So I'm with Crosslands Development Construction Company. Met most everybody, so a couple of you that weren't here last time. And I do have a whole crew behind me, so I'll introduce them here in just a second. But just wanted to cut, do you all hear me okay? Everything good? Just wanted to cover a few things. And if you don't mind, I'll read my notes because it'll be a lot more organized thought

doing So

first, thank you all for your productive feedback last month. The site plan we presented was very much in draft form and threw some things up there for you all to give consideration to and you gave us great feedback. And I think we took the plan back, added to it. The engineers, consultants did some work on some things and I think came up with some great suggestions and solutions along the lines of your feedback to make it a nice project. So you all will be the judge of that.

So here we go. Again, we made several adjustments. Tonight, we have traffic engineers, civil engineers, our environmental consultant and the Kanes who will be the TLE franchisees and also longtime residents of Hudson. And Ryan's here in his baseball coaching outfit because I think he coaches a lot of you all's kids, which is very cool. The list of items we heard from planning were regarding one, how will traffic look with this use in peak AM and PM hours.

The location and orientation and effectiveness of the turning lanes at this intersection. The impact of some kind of median cut at Terex Road. The location of the pond. Location of the parking stalls relative to both 303 And Terex Road, building setbacks as they relate to residential areas. We heard the request for minimal tree removal.

We now have what I call a solid grading plan. Back a month ago, we didn't have the grading plan. And so now we have that and Riverstone has done a good job to incorporate the wetlands, the parking and the retention pond in with the grades that we have out there. Confirmed that wetlands was category one. The size of the playground was brought up, so we have some information back for that.

District 6, the building orientation, the architecture, we have some feedback on that. A little bit, not much tonight. But when we come back for the formal site plan review, we'll address a lot of the architecture items. And lastly, we recognize that this is not a meeting for the conditional use approval. However, last month it was brought up during the last meeting about a concern about conditional use.

So we would appreciate a little bit of discussion about that because we're getting ready to enter some heavy design cost, as you all know. And we'd really like not to spend that money if things aren't So some feedback on that would be great. Regarding the traffic study, I'll introduce you to Mr. Mike Schweikert, our traffic engineer, for specific questions. He has done a really neat job updating his study to address your third party engineers concerns.

He's taken some feedback that we got from TLE on the hours PM, AM peak hours of traffic going in and out of the school for pickup and drop off. From that, he's used that data and added some needing turn lanes, median cuts, and has generated a very interesting traffic simulation that showed the impact of the traffic the traffic light timing. Mr. Rapp, city engineers, reviewed this work as well. At this time, we don't believe the traffic will be a problem.

The Canes are on board with that. TLE corporate is on board with that. As you all, it's priority one for you all, it's priority one for us to have safety. If we have accidents, people getting hurt, can't get in and out of a site, it's no good for anybody. So it's important for us as well.

So that's why we spent the time and money on the traffic study and the simulation to make sure the site's going to work for everybody. The location of the pond and overall site plan changes. The building was moved to the north. When we did that, we were able to move the playground around to the south side of the building. I want to make sure we stayed aware of your concern about noise to the residents.

With that location of the playground, we're still 100 feet away from the residential properties. And we're still on the site plan. Do you have another site plan that shows the trees? Or is this the only one you have? So you'll see the Xs indicate where the proposed tree removal will be.

We don't show any removal of those trees on that south or mostly west, a little bit where that retention pond will go. By moving the building to the north, building the playground around to the south, allowed us to move the retention pond that was shown all along 303 along the frontage north side of the property. We were able to move it around to the west and wrap it around to the west and a little bit on the north. So that, again, in keeping with the concern about the entryway to the city, making it look nice and presentable and first class and professional. Again, you'll see we're maintaining a lot of the trees.

You'll see a nice landscape yard along 303 and the building will meet your District 6 architect requirements. We've already given those to our architect and TLE. We mentioned last month for those that weren't here, TLE does have some prototype standards on their building. But things like this, they're very flexible and willing to work with the communities and make sure the buildings fit in with the look and feel of the communities. We've maintained the 100 foot setback, as I said, from the residential areas, maintained the mature trees on the lot.

We do have 41 parking spots where there are 42 are required. One of the things I might point out that we ended up changing, there's nine parking spots that do face 303. There were a number of parking spots that faced Terex. But when we realigned the site plan, we got rid of those parking spots that were facing Terex. So we're trying to honor and respect y'all's wishes of not having cars facing the street frontages.

As far as the category of the wetlands, Ben with HZW Environmental is here and can answer any of those questions. So we have Ben and Mike. And then we also have Jeff Jardine with Riverstone Engineering, Civil Engineering here, who can answer any of your civil questions upcoming. A couple of other things before I wrap up. One was regarding the playground size.

From our understanding, the definition of daycare, TLE fits that definition. They service children from six weeks to five years old. And there's not a set pickup drop off time as with a school or preschool. And so under the definition of day cares, the state licensing requirements are the total capacity. So total capacity of the school is expected to be around 170 kids.

The math formula for the playground area is 33% of that 170 multiplied by 60 square feet per child. That comes up to about 3,300 square feet of a playground, but TLE prefers to have a 5,000 square foot playground. So that's what we have in plan. There's some discussion questions, observations regarding the District 6 and the orientation of the building. One thing I didn't do a very good job pointing out last month, and we still have it oriented this way, but I didn't point it out last month, is we have a corner entrance to this building.

What it does is a nice presentation to the three zero three frontage and a presentation of the Terex frontage. And it's a place that allows the parents to a closer drop off place for the kids instead of having the front door all the way over in the middle of the building. So it's a nice layout that works for TLE, works for the franchisees, and I think will line up well for your District 6 requirements. The last thing I wanted to talk about was just this conditional use criteria. We've gone through and identified why we think we've meet that criteria.

And I don't know if you have that in that letter, right? Did you, Nick? So you all have all those notes that we made. So we don't need to read all those in essence of time unless we want to go through those. So that's all I had for our presentation. Open any questions from myself or the Kanes or any of the consultants on this project.

Thank you, Mr. Durbin. I will begin then initial applicant comments I'm sorry, initial questions from the commission beginning with Mr. Nystrom.

Thank you. Mr. Durban, I apologize I wasn't here at the last meeting. So may I ask you some questions you've already previously responded to? You're with Crosslands. What is your role with Crosslands?

Well, own the development company and the construction company. Oversee the site on And the development side, I oversee the site acquisition, working through the leases with the tenants and then doing the financing for the projects as well.

Thank you. Sure. When I look at the site plan, do feel that you've done a pretty good job of trying to be as creative as you can to avoid the wetlands?

I think so. I think Riverstone did a nice job of trying to overlay the retention pond in the areas where the wetlands are. And then where the one on the south is, is to minimize any disturbance down that direction. So I think so. When you say creative, we try to make sure we overlay, for example, where the building is overlaid into the site, it's also minimizing the tree removal. So I think we have, yes.

The reason why I asked that is if I take a look at the site and if we thought about sliding the building pad a little bit west, a little bit southwest, I'll say, and moved the majority of your parking to the Northeast corner, we could really stay out of all the limits of the wetlands. You wouldn't stay out of the setbacks, but you could avoid all limits. Now if you did that, obviously, you'd encroach upon where you have that pond, that retention pond. Now you could did you consider if we did that, you could also install some underground storm retention like a contact chamber system?

As you all know, these are really expensive projects anyway. And so we've discussed it. And we could look at the cost. But we're just trying to we've got 2.6 acres. And generally, a TLE, even with on-site detention, we can make it work with 1.2 acres. So with all the land we've got on this and we don't have any future, you can see we're not subdividing this and creating another lot to put another use on there. So we're trying to use the land as we can as best we can.

This land's got a lot of issues between the wetlands. And I'm sure you took a really good look at the geotechnical report.

Yes, sir.

The undercutting and the foundation issues. So there's a lot the layout's one, but it's already a very expensive site.

Yes, sir. Is. Well, and then add into that the utilities and the roads and the median cuts. Yes, sir. We're aware. But thank you.

No worries. I'd just like you to consider this is a very difficult site. You're going to be very creative in order to make this thing work. When you bring up the utilities, can we bring up plan sheet C4.01?

You guys mind if I bring up Jeff Jardine with the civil?

Mr. Jardine's been here before, name and address when he gets there.

You recognize him?

In a good way.

So if you all have checked out our website, we have a phrase on our website, we actually try to

live Wherever you're comfortable, Mr. Jardine, if you'd like to sit, feel free.

We try to live by, we say we wanna do good work with good people. So I'm glad to hear you say that about him, yes.

Good evening, Jeff Jardian with the Riverstone Company, 3800 Lakeside Avenue, Suite 100, Cleveland, Ohio, 44114. Right, Mr. Nysterman, you had a question about the utilities?

Yeah, if you don't mind, I see a 12 inches HDPE shown crossing the site. What is that?

That is a good question. It shows up on just about every map and GIS stuff, but nobody can actually indicate what it is. If you look at the GIS map from Summit County, and I believe the city of Hudson as well, it looks like it is a line that comes from over where Christchurch is, through the wooded area, underneath and around. It may be rerouting a stream of some sort. Really, it is unknown what's there. We will have to relocate it a little bit so it's not at least underneath the building footprint.

Being HDP can't be that old.

It's been HDP has been around for a while. But yes, we do see it there. It will have to be relocated at least from underneath the building footprint. Right now, it does come out and it discharges towards that area, actually within the right of way in that ditch area between our property and 303 there. Okay.

Another question. I know there's a sanitary forest main run up along 303. So you'll have to pump to a manhole. Where is the closest forest main manhole servicing?

That's question. I don't see it on here. We will obviously work with the city and the county on that one. We actually you are able to tap directly into forest mains. So we would possibly be able to tap into the force main and actually put a manhole at that point. And really the manhole is acting as a vessel to be able to see the connection. It's actually not an open manhole because you need to maintain that pressure, but you can actually see and inspect that connection point there. So we're going

to want to see that sanitary connection. Next question is, is the intent that this building's gonna be sprinkled?

Yeah. Yeah.

Okay. So if it's gonna be sprinkled, you're gonna have what, probably a four inch fire and a, I don't know, a three inch domestic going into that building?

Something like that, four inch or a two inch domestic with the four inch fire. We'll rely on the fire suppression designer to tell us what size.

Do you have

confirmation that that existing main along Terex is sized properly enough to service that?

I have not asked for a flow test, but I will ask for a flow test to ensure that we got

the correct flow for it.

Do you know what size that existing main is? I didn't see it on the drawings.

Left my glasses at home. Let's see here. It looks like it's either a 12 inches or a 16 inches wire line over there. 16 Yeah. Inches is If you go to 2.01, it shows it up in the right corner. And again, apologize. I don't have my glasses with me today. It's really hard to see, but yep.

Just briefly viewing the GIS. Yeah, there's a 16 inch. 16 inch.

16 inch, you've got plenty. Yeah. Okay. Next question would be for staff. The conversation regarding the playground size, okay. If this was determined to be a preschool or provide preschool services, what size would the playground be required to be?

Yes, we've been tracking as a daycare. I I can pull that up. 6,000 square feet. So they have to increase by 1,000 square feet from what's shown.

Does the applicant have any issues with increasing it to 6,000 square feet?

That is the only issue you all have. No, I'm kidding. No, we don't. I was sitting here just thinking to myself and I didn't know if I should interrupt or not but I'll share with you now. There's a minimum that TLE likes to see which is 5,000 feet. Depending on licensing, we've done projects in Arizona that for the same 10,000 square feet, their state licensing requires a 9,000 foot playground. So the flexibility is there, yeah.

I'm ask you a stupid question. With all the issues on this site, especially I'm going back through that geotech report, what makes this site so special for this building?

Carson Kane, 27 Hickory Lane. I actually live about a mile from the site. We've been working with TLE for the past three years to find a site. And it actually all spurred from my desire and my visibility into the community and the childcare availability as a foster parent and the lack of access to care in this area. And so we've been looking at the Hudson area somewhere in that side of town versus on 91 where there's a cluster or where there's a tremendous amount of traffic downtown, etcetera, something to service that part of the community.

And so that's how we identified that site, which, like I said, is only like a mile from where I live. So instead of driving to Twinsburg to find care for my kids and going through Downtown Hudson, there would be an option there right in my part of the community. It also has great access to Route 8. And so as parents drop their kids off for care there in that location, they would have easy access to Route 8 to get wherever they need to go or for other people from other surrounding areas to leverage that site as well.

So my last question would be what have you ball parked for your site improvement costs on this project?

That's gonna be a Jeff question.

Other Jeff.

That's a great question. I didn't bring our budget with us but I think it's around 1,200,000. Generally on sites that are prototypical that don't have all these issues, we'll have site costs of around $700,000 And so we've added another 500 or $600,000 for this one.

They're gonna be above that. But thank you, I appreciate That's your all.

You Mr. Neistra. Ms. Obert.

My question was about the playground square footage. We got that. It wasn't labeled on the map which is why it was a question for me. Oh, so on your sketch, the entrance door is facing 303, not facing parking lot, is that correct? There's no doors on the parking lot side?

There's entrance door's here and entrance door's here.

That was it. I think you covered the questions that I had at this time.

Thank you Mr. Sugar. And Mr. Durbin, you can just, yeah, for the benefit of the AV, just repeat your comment about where the doors are located so that the audio will pick it up.

Sure, so there's actually two front doors. One is at the, we'll call it the North Northeast Corner and the other one is at the North North or North Northeast and North North North, I don't know. North Corner.

Just north. Yes.

Yeah. Yeah.

So on both sides of that corner.

Correct.

Is that all Ms. O'Keefe?

Yes, that's all I have

right now. Thank you. Ms. Smith.

I wasn't at the last meeting, I apologize. So I do have several questions. I I did read the staff report, and, you know, I drive by the site many times. So, I do have some questions for miss Kane, but I'll start with the architectural questions for you. This site seems very compact. I understand why you need the retention pond because of the wetland concerns, but my concern is the retention pond is still on a campus or a land with children. And a best practice of retention ponds when children are around is fencing and signage. Will

there

be any fencing in this retention pond? Can you talk to me more about the retention pond?

I'm gonna hold the microphone and Sure. Stand Right now, Jeff can clarify this for me, right now the code's rules don't require a fencing around the detention pond. What the fencing is around daycare is for, there's a six foot vinyl fence that goes around the playground area, TLE prefers vinyl so that people can't see the kids, it's a security thing. That vinyl fence turns into a four foot vinyl fence that runs the perimeter of the building and around to the corner and probably to about the middle point of the building. And so that's for egress or emergency exits out of the classrooms, so that they can get out and exit this way or so at this point we don't have one there.

Again, because of all the fencing that we do have in place already.

Do realize that it's the best practice of retention ponds at schools and parks and facilities that where the drowning could occur for signage and fencing to be there for children?

Yes ma'am, one of the things that we're flexible and we'll work with you all. Last month there was a big concern that there was fencing that was gonna be right at the entrance because, and you didn't, I don't know if you saw the last month's site plan, the detention pond ran the length of three zero three, The vision was fencing around it, not desirable. But again, you all let us know.

Yeah, child safety, because that's part of our code as well. Playgrounds are part of our code as well. So should you go to that next stage where you're doing development, we would like to see the actual playground. So for example when Hudson Inclusive Playground came, they were able to bring their playground inspector and they brought their application. They showed us the fall zones and all the safety things around the playground because it's very important.

Oh, yeah.

My other concern is the parking lot. If you could talk to me about that because it's very close to the road. So, you know, I'm thinking, you know, I'm a mom. I've had kids in day care. You've got the baby. You're putting the baby in the car. You turn around. The toddler, the little one is off. You know, is there gonna be any fencing, like, around the near the road to protect children from going across that parking lot into the road?

When you say road, what you're talking about this road? Yes. Terricks?

Yes.

We really don't anticipate any fence. Again, with our program, the parents take the kids in, drop them off, and come back out and leave and park. So it's not a open the car door, let them run-in on their own

If you look at a lot of the day cares in the area, they're not up by the road like that with parking. They're set back somewhat. Did you know that there's two day cares in this area? There's two across the street.

Yes, ma'am. One here in the strip center, then where's

the Three Kittles is across the street.

Right.

And that's a very large daycare facility. There's more setback. They have a playground. And then across Terex, right across your other neighbor, is the large church. They have a large day care, and they do large summer camps as well. Lots of kids are there as well.

Right.

So there's two, actually two in this area.

Right. And we're aware of that. Is is the church an actual day care, or is it more of a Mother's Day out?

It is a day care.

Full daycare?

Yes. They're part of the we know that because they came here to expand their daycare, right? They had an application to expand their children's facility. We saw them several months ago. Ago. And that was a conditional use as well for that church to expand, which is a question I have for staff, which you can talk to me about.

I don't think that particular address was expanded. The Sweet Kittles?

No, not Sweet Kittles.

Oh, said Sweet Kittles. The church.

Remember he came for the soccer field and expansion of his children room.

That wasn't part of that application. A play you said the playground? No. Or a daycare?

There's a daycare at the church, and he came with the application for the soccer field, but also to expand his classrooms for the children for children's programming. But they're on the website as a daycare. First Congregational Church is on the Ohio Department of Children and Youth. It's a licensed daycare.

Wait, First Congregational Church is downtown, not Christ Community Church.

Correct, yeah. They are day care.

Thank I was a little confused about Is it

just Sunday's then that they have it, or?

I'm not aware of exactly what.

I know they have a lot of summer camps.

They have a lot of summer camps that we can say, but I don't know how much, I recall how much their programming extends into the school That's fine.

But I

know there's kids over there because I see them and they keep trying to create my kids for their camps. Anyway, okay. So my other quest so that's so that's something to take into consideration. Yes, park is right up on this you know, child safety is very important. I just don't want a child to get hit by a car. So that's

Sure. Yeah.

You know?

Nor nor do we.

Yeah. Retention pawn yeah. Retention playground, fencing. Yeah. I just I I'm I'm not opposed to it. I mean, I think that I do agree with miss Kane that more more options for childcare in the community are important. I think it's just how you do it and how you build it and building the safety and taking into consideration the traffic on Terex because there are a lot of people going in and out of that church. So much more I mean, know this is not on the weekends, but they have to have a high hire police officers

Mhmm.

On the weekends for that traffic, and there's just a lot going through.

Right.

Yes.

So I think if you set it up the right way and, you know, child safety is a priority, I think, you know, it it could it could be something really good for the community. But I do think, like, I echo what mister Nystrom said about the playground does seem small to me for 170 kids. I mean I know they're gonna go out at different times, it does seem it does seem very small compared to a lot of the playgrounds I've seen at these types of facilities in Hudson.

Sure. Yeah. We we we can consider that as well. Again, keep in mind, so on our site plan we did have, we had some pull in parking over here on this side, we've taken that away. We've still got all the rows of trees. Whoever's got control of this unit. The survey we had done recently identified all the trees in the area. So again, to suggestions, and we're concerned for safety as well. But from the operations of the school, also TLE approves the site plan as well. And they operate 500 plus schools. So we'll ask for their feedback as well if they have a concern.

Ms. Smith, I will note there is about 20 feet from the road edge to the parcel line. So there's a pretty wide right of way. But we can can further look at that with the applicant.

It's just a really busy Yeah. That makes me nervous because it's on a busy corner. It's not just a busy street. You've got a busy road going this way and a busy road going the other way. And I just I just don't want an an accident happen to a child.

Because the plant buffers would probably do a lot too. Plant buffers.

It only takes a second. I mean, you turn for a second and they're gone. So Okay.

Thank you, Ms. Smith. Mr. Romano? Yeah.

My comments are going to be focused on just the traffic again and specifically the changes on Terex Road. I just want to confirm. So the changes to Terex Road are going to be incurred by applicant, is that right?

Any changes to the right of way will be, yes.

Okay. And then is there any difference to the city for upkeep of that? Like if for repaving or anything like that, will there be any concerns going forward or any changes on something like that?

Mr. Rapp's here from our engineering department to help speak on this. Sure.

He's already smiling.

Both engineers are moving towards their stations.

David Rapp, Assistant City Engineer. Sure. Yes, once the changes are made, there's restriping to be done we put into our program. The turn arrows, anything in the right of way.

Any idea of what the increased cost would be for the residents?

No, I think it's minimal. We stripe miles and miles of roadway every year.

And then as far as like the median changes that that won't cause any issues for snow snow removal or anything like that? Anything along those lines or paving even?

Once the final design's done, depending on how that's put together, we're hopeful that it'll actually improve the turning radius going south and make that turn every morning. And you have two lanes that merge into one, so there's always a potential that one car's gonna slide over where the other is. Their current alignment is meant to make it a straight through lane so you don't have that merge point. But if you need to turn into the daycare, you would have that right turn availability.

But as far as additional costs for upkeep going ten, fifteen years down the road, you see it being minimal? Yeah. Okay. Yeah, believe so. And then from a standpoint of the traffic light, I know that you said there I think there's something interesting that was going on with that that you were able to factor in making the changes. I'd just like to hear about that too.

Yes, because of the length of time since it's last been retimed and now with more development, it's now time for some optimization of the signal timing. And our computer models have shown that if we can do that with that corridor down through there, it'll work much better than it does right now. Those are minimal costs.

Okay. Who do you work with on that?

You work with engineering firms like myself.

Okay. Who from the government though? Pardon me? Works with it? You work with Hudson on that or? Yes. Okay. I just wasn't sure if there was another ODOT or something that had to

No, no. Those are all, we have home rule here in Ohio, so those are all under maintenance of the city.

Okay. Just for the record, would you say your name and address please?

I'm so sorry.

No problem. This is why I'm here to help you out.

Thank you.

I'm about to remind you.

I'm Michael Schweikert, TMS Engineers, Twinsburg, Ohio, 2112 Case Parkway.

Thank you, Michael. I appreciate it. I I don't have any further questions.

Thank you, Mr. Romano. Mr. Intermarado.

Thank you. What's the budget for this entire project that you have, that you're carrying?

Including land and soft cost everything?

Whatever you have.

Around $53,000,000.

How does that compare with your typical facility?

We have worked out a really nice price for the land with Premier or Prestige, the landowner. And so it's helping making our economics work. So that price is about similar to our other projects, but land price is much less on this one than on others.

Okay. As I stated last month, I think Mr. Nystrom reiterated the concerns I had, the site improvements. How much money are you carrying for that? I don't think you're carrying enough. And that's no good for anybody.

Well, and we're not going to do this project if it's not within our budget. So, we've done some preliminary costs. We already have the geotech. Our estimators run the numbers. I mean, frankly, we all may think this dirt is really bad. It's really relative to what we deal with on all of our other projects. About what we deal with on all of our other projects. I quite frankly thought it was going to be a lot worse. I thought we were going to be looking at caissons and all kinds of things and that didn't come back that way. So, yeah, no, I appreciate the concern and you all thoughts on that.

But no, we run budgets and we know what the building cost because we've built a lot of them. We're going to probably have a little bit more extra cost on the exterior just for y'all's requirements for your District 6. But then for all the utilities, for the street widenings, all the sanitary storm, geotech, it was nice we got the geotech reports as we know. That's why we do that. That's why we get it so soon. I understand.

How much money are you carrying for modifications to Terex Road?

I don't have all that detail with me tonight. We can bring it next time,

but yeah. I guess my concern is if this ends up being a $6,300,000 project,

not do it. Well, I'd say it a different way. I don't think the Canes would want to pay the rent on $6,300,000 Okay.

I just still think this site is too small for the volume of cars and building you have there. I mean, I would it's nice to have that land developed for something better than what's there, but did you ever look on Old 8 if you wanted to be near 8? There's I think there's better, the desire for daycare in Hudson, I understand, I just don't think this site is appropriate for the volume of cars your facility is gonna take. Now we do have concerns and the engineer still has them for that's a busy busy area of town, 303 and Terex Road. There's a lot of lot of traffic turning onto Terex Road and there is I'm still concerned, like I said last month, about the queuing back to 303.

Now we're gonna introduce a single lane designated just for entering your parking lot, right? Right hand turn only?

Yes sir.

I just see then cars not wanting to go into that facility. There's no time to see. You're just turning right. Suddenly you have to get out of that lane and get into the main. I just think this is not safe and it's not good and it's been a big concern for this community of traffic. And that's already a pretty busy place as you well know. And I just think it's the wrong location honestly.

And all due respect, we heard you loud and clear last month. Of you loud and clear. And so the engineers took that serious. We all take it serious. We don't want a bad site. Nobody wants a bad site. And so the Kanes are investing a lot of money into the franchisee. We're investing a lot of money into the site. So we want it to work.

I would say the next step is a detailed cost estimate. I mean you're wanting to go, you're worried about going down a path and then getting comments from us and I I strongly suggest a better, more robust estimated cost to to make sure you can afford this project. I I just see a lot of things in there. But that's your business.

Sure, yeah, no, I appreciate it. And we'll be happy to share that with you. This is a preliminary site approval. So again, we haven't gone. I haven't spent the money with my man Jeff back here yet to do a lot of the detailed design. But we know enough of the design to know where the water lines are. We've done

some

preliminary estimates with local contractors to understand the budgets. So, but I appreciate what you're saying.

Okay, that's all I have.

Thank you, Mr. Inamorato. Before I get to my questions, Mr. Pitchford, did you have a conclusion for us on what our action this evening is? Or did you want me to loop back around to you on that conceptual plan and decision whether we need findings of fact?

Short answer is we would need findings of fact.

Yep, okay. We haven't done it that way before, which is why I'm looking at you funny.

So I understand and can reassure everyone we're working in my office to correct this issue for issues going forward. I'd be happy to walk you through at the now later the thought process as to

No, that's fine. I'll take your representation on that. I just wanted to sort of know where we're headed since I'm gonna be wrapping up the question part here. Yep, so the Okay. Yep, that's fine, thank you.

Mr. Durbin and company, I do just want to say you've been really a delight to work with you all. You've been very responsive to the suggestions we had, and they were pretty powerful ones, and I'm encouraged you came back the following month, which is a sign that you were really very motivated to make that happen. Having said that, I'm really glad that you brought up the conditional use issue, because our question this evening is a very limited, and in my opinion, it's a very misguiding decision to make. We have a very limited review that basically asks us to look at five or six or so, check marks, how do we get through to say conceptually thumbs up or thumbs down, but my concern is that if we gave you the thumbs up tonight, I actually don't think you're surviving a conditional use review, and I don't think that's fair to do to you.

So to that extent, I did go a little bit beyond what my initial, view is. When you bring back, if you were to bring back final plans to us, we would be obligated to review the application with the full test of site plan review, as well as conditional use, so that's all of 12/2007 as modified by 1,107.18 for District 6, which is special, so we're your design review authority instead of sending you to the ARC board, and all of the conditional use standards that are in 01/2002 as well as the architectural design standards in Appendix D. So, I share your concern about investing on what is tantamount to a limited review in that regard. Moving on, have you discussed the conditional use standards with staff thus far, And do you have any concerns about whether you would be meeting those?

I think, I'm looking over at Nick, I think you and Kim have discussed it or there's been some, the documentation we sent over

Yeah, with the we reviewed in the pre application meeting and they have some responses in the letter.

Right, I saw the, I did read the letter, so okay.

Yeah, to answer your question, based on those responses, we think we've reviewed them and we think we comply.

Okay.

Yeah, so that's why we, again, I appreciate your comments because let's air them out.

Well, and I wanna be fair about it. Here's where my concern is. My concern is about 1,106.02 b and that is a requirement that your proposed conditional use be, and this is a quote from the Land Development Code, physically and operationally compatible. If you just put your finger there, when we look that up in our definitions, compatibility talks about the harmoniousness of the new use with the things that are going on around it, alright? And the rest of this in 1,106.02 says, with the surrounding neighborhood and surrounding existing uses.

This is my concern. Whether we like it or not, the Martin Drive area has remained residential, notwithstanding that it got rezoned somewhere close to thirty years ago, and it has not turned into light industrial flex or office or gateway or anything. Your nearest repurposed building that is an office, I think it started out as a house, I could be wrong, it predates my moving here twenty six years ago, but at GNCo just to your west, And I would like you to not build a building like that, please.

We'll get to the architecture a little bit, because I was curious of what y'all's interest was, because I saw a lot of driving.

And I say that both with serious but also with real concern because that is what your surrounding neighborhood is. That is the compatibility, the harmoniousness that we're going to be looking for. And the district ends right there at Terex Road, so you're the edge of the District 6, you're at the edge of the Western Gateway.

You're just curious on the on the term harmonious, is it harmonious look, harmonious business, harmonious what? You knew I was gonna ask that,

didn't you?

That is fine. I will look it up for you because I'm glad to. Compatible or compatibility, and I will read you what it says in our code because it does matter what our code says. 1213.02Number 67, compatible or compatibility, show me the characteristics of different uses or activities or design, D, all of the above, which allow them to be located near or adjacent to each other in harmony. Some elements affecting compatibility include height, scale, mass, and bulk of structures.

Other characteristics include pedestrian or vehicular traffic, circulation, access and parking impacts. Other important characteristics that affect compatibility are landscaping, lighting, noise, odor, and architecture. Compatibility does not mean the same as. Rather, compatibility refers to the sensitivity of development proposals in maintaining the character of existing development with respect to lot size, building setbacks, location and use of driveways, location and use of open space, preservation of historic resources, which does not apply to you, and preservation of natural resources, which does, so as to be harmonious with and not at variance to nearby existing development. Okay.

So it is, I think it's wide, I think it's all encompassing, and I also feel daunted by having to impose that. I I feel like it's probably something that we know it when we see it, and we know what it's not when we see it as well. And I'm not going to accuse that you are not harmonious. We don't have enough information to know that right We have a flat idea on a piece of paper and it's

I may interrupt as far as harmonious for where we are today, I really think the civil engineers and the architect who did the site plan have done a good job in laying out physical facilities to minimize tearing out trees, to minimize curb cuts. We only have one curb cut. We're not taking any curb cuts off of 303.

You only get one curb cut.

We only need one. Right. Okay? Right. It's not like a use that needs two or three curb cuts and we're asking for variances for curb cuts.

Yes.

I mean, can't imagine anything much more harmonious. I mean, as I drove in tonight, I mean, we've done a lot of daycares. I know how they lay in, I know how they look. And I know the architecture that we can do on that building. And quite frankly, was curious, do you want it to look like the Janko Building or do you want it to look more like other buildings that are here in downtown? Don't know, somebody needs to tell us.

And we will because in the architectural review process that will be part of our thing. I encourage you, if you have not noticed our McDonald's, it's a very unique McDonald's. That's one word.

They have a fireplace inside.

Yes. I'm sorry, they what? Have a fireplace inside. Nonfunctional, but it's still it is it it was designed to to do exactly that, and and I was just remarking to mister Nystrom this evening, there's a church at the corner of Boston Mills and 303 that if you aren't from here and you don't know better, you might think it was from the eighteen hundreds. Oh, no. It's from the nineteen eighties, and that was surprising, and it is surprising to a lot of people, but that is that is something that probably we would be looking to do. I don't think it would be appropriate, for example, to have stucco

in Well, no, no. If some of what we're talking about on the architecture is gonna lay in to the conditional use approval, let's chat about that. Because as I drove in, I was trying to get a feel for what materials, what finishes, what looks because there's some homes that have stucco and siding. I'm stone Stone and siding, some have stone and brick. And we can do all that.

Matter of fact, our architect, he sent me over some elevations to bring tonight. And it had elements of brick and stone. And before I drove up here tonight and saw the stone on the residence, my first thought was they will have a come apart if they see all this stone on here. That may be But And something you

again, would say to you that we're looking at really three different parts. One is site plan, one is conditional use, then the third for us uniquely to D6 is that we would be looking at the architectural standards. And those are, in my mind, are three different probably architectural fits into site plan in a neat little way, but not necessarily related to conditional use.

May I jump in on the Sorry, Just on the compatibility while we're on that. So there's a little bit to that, 1,206.02 B2. And I'll read it in full. The use is physically and operationally compatible with the surrounding neighborhood and surrounding existing uses. Conditions may be imposed on a proposed conditional use to ensure that potential significant adverse impacts on surrounding existing uses will be reduced to the maximum extent feasible.

And then it says including but not limited to conditions measuring and then we talk about location of the site activities, lighting, things like that. So review this and review a lot of applications. Those could be addressed like, for example, the building and site activities are located 100 feet from the residences instead of 50. Things in there or the lighting is reduced in the rear of the lot. Those are the types of conditions that can help make this compatible and meet this requirement.

Agree with you Mr. Sugar, that was the next part of my thing. So I appreciate you jumping right in, folds in perfectly with that. And Basically, bottom line is I'm telling you this. I think that you have significant efforts on your part to get past concerns especially related to noise in a residential area. I know that there is a large race highway going by on this, but this is now a playground for children. I swear to it because I don't actually know. Google AI says it's 70 to 90 decibels depending on the age of the children who are there, and we learned a lot about how decibels multiplied to each other, not with So straight

we shouldn't have a pickleball court with that? Refrain.

Yes, and related to privacy concerns. So those are there. All right, is there any issue with the one way on-site traffic circulation per staff? Is that acceptable to you?

I think we just need to look at it and see if it's gonna work for TLE. We need to feed that back to them. And quite frankly, I guess it would be a striping thing, yeah. So I wouldn't disagree with it right now, no.

Okay, can you clarify for me? I tried to write down what Mr. Sugar said. On the wetlands, did you get a letter that has confirmed that these are category one?

Yes ma'am.

Okay.

The author of that letter is here if you need to hear from him. He made a trip just tonight.

You. And then did you study ahead on the terms and purposes of the natural resource protection found in 12.7.18b? This is a special section related to District 6 standards. The purpose there The purpose of this section says the city encourages site design techniques that promote, preserve, and enhance the important aesthetic, biological, hydrological, recreational, educational, and energy saving functions that extreme corridors, wetlands, and wooded areas provide. So related to that, part of it is to minimize the site disturbance to the maximum extent feasible, and you've made significant changes, but I I gotta be honest.

I looked at this tree map, and there are some really big trees, really big trees that look like they're coming down. I would love to be corrected if I'm wrong on this. For this parking lot, it looks like we've got a 48 inch tree. That is significant. I'm looking at C3.02, Mr. Sugar.

Oh, I'm sorry.

Yeah. If you can zoom in on the parking lot area. So that that one that is yes, sir. Right there.

Right.

That is a 48 inch tree. We have a 20 inch tree that is just to the south of that, Southeast. Twenty, twelve, fourteen, twenty inches trees. Our land development code says a significant tree is nine inches DBH. That's in 01/2002, definition 03/1933.

So I this is a situation where I kinda lean towards mister Nystrom's suggestion that you might not save all of these, but I think you have more to save, and I'm not sure how that works out at the end of the day. It may be that instead of rectilinear building, you have a much more interesting building with more windows and fluctuation in articulation in the facades, so they're not perfectly straight, so that you build into an area where that makes it very architecturally interesting as well that allows you to build around some of those trees. So I'm concerned about that, and that's part of our future review. It's not tonight's review.

Okay. I will share with you Sure. Back to mister Nystrom's, I think had the question about have we looked at any other sites? Yes. We've looked at a lot of sites. And I will tell you, you all are, in a loving way, you all are very restrictive on where we can put a building, because of your massive setbacks. There's a lot of corners, lot of sites we love, but we couldn't fit. We had to go find 2.6 acres to make it work. 50 foot setbacks, 100 foot setbacks, wetlands. I mean, you all know.

Yes. And so it's kind of a prioritization that we'd look for you all to help us with, is it more important to save these two trees? And we can encroach on this wetland back in here. Jeff may be kicking me under the table. But I mean there's some things we can do, but it's what do we prioritize?

Right, that's right. Because again, we've got a lot of

room to use. We just squeezed one of these in, I won't even mention the state. We squeezed one of these in a little bit over an acre site, playground, parking, and we've got 2.6 acres. So we can work with it, we just need to understand the priorities.

Right, well and I would say that our priority Hudson is a really unique town that's retained this intangible sweet charm and the reason is because we don't have very short setbacks, we don't have very casual approaches to our built environment.

That would drive you all crazy. If you ever drive through Aurora, Colorado, you will throw up.

I'm just saying.

It's the anti Hudson. Just saying.

Yeah, Denver is hard for me to drive through now since I was there once in

the 80s.

Woo, yeah,

all right.

Mr. Sheriff, I may add. Yes. We held a preliminary review with the arborist on-site. We're happy to do a very detailed

a short version, Sugar, what did the arbor say about these?

We were surprised some of the larger trees showed some evidence of dieback and deterioration. I'm not saying all the trees

the arborist were showing mention if that was due to the demolition of the house or is it due to the saturation of the land because it's a very wet parcel?

We weren't able to get that deep into it. But I believe the house was a little further north. His overall recommendation was to focus retainment at the northeast portion of the site. So we did see some nice mature trees there that could be supplemented by additional plantings and have a nice corner. But we're happy to hold another visit and have detailed comments for these trees

helpful. And really, the arborist would go a long way into assuaging the concerns of the Planning Commission, just so you know, Mr. Durbin. We have not always held hands with the arborist as we're making these decisions, and we have paid the price for not doing that. And so we were really working hard to engage.

I mean, we have an arborist. We need to use his expertise and and use that as a guidance for us. So I'm not telling you you have to save every tree. I am asking you to be sure that the arborist is justifying the decisions that you have to make and that just makes us feel better as far as being able to address public concerns on that. Related to your playground, we have in our code you may have a distinction between preschool and daycare that comes from Ohio Revised Code.

I will not debate that with you. In our code, they are lumped together under daycare centers, and so whether you are a preschool or a daycare, it does require the 6,000 foot playground area. If you feel like this is an impossibility for some reason, and staff correct me if I'm wrong, I do believe you'd be able to get a variance for that. Would that be something that could happen? So you can consider that. We would want to know if you need variances to the law in that regard.

And I did review the different special conditions between the daycare preschool. That seemed like the only one that would require a site adjustment. Just a note.

Staff had recommended that you create 45 parking spaces. Did you have a problem with that? Do you have a place for that to happen?

It seems like angling the parking based on our other recommendation could free up a couple more spots for that to occur. I

don't know where they would go, but our architect has told us we could.

Okay, okay. I just wanted to know if you had a strong resistance to that or not. An important question in Northeast Ohio is to know where your snow storage is going to go, because it can't be on the parking spaces. Have you thought about that yet?

I have not, but we know snow in Colorado, so we'd Add be happy to

it to your list there?

Happy to do that. Do you

have any issues with the recommendations to screen the parking with additional plantings and trees? Any issues on that?

You're talking about those nine spaces.

Yeah. Then here's the place I get to, which is sort of putting the horse behind the cart here. I'm struggling with reviewing our comprehensive plan for this specific district. On page 52 of our comprehensive plan, it says existing residential properties that are currently zoned for light industry or office are being called on to continue as residential, such as on Martin Drive, and it says that specifically. And as I mentioned, it's been a very long time since it was rezoned for something else, and here we are with a very thriving, happy neighborhood of people.

On page 56 of the comprehensive plan, the future commercial uses overview specifically have this parcel highlighted in red, and it says commercial uses include office retail service businesses and other similar nonresidential development. The land use is intended for commercial uses that serve the immediate residential neighborhoods as well as the greater community and should have a distinct presence from the street and be highly attractive. I do feel like I know how to implement those words. There's another aspect to that, that the buildings should face the street with the pedestrian connections, and you have a corner here, which is technically your address is 303. Truly, with your entrance being on Terex, your orientation almost shifts, So if you go forward and this body gives you a conceptual approval, would encourage you to think of things that appear to be facades, front entrances, that face 303 that aren't actually designed to be used as main entrances because I will tell you personally, I am not a fan of that quarter entrance.

Great design solution. Creativity? Yes, you brought it, but when I look at the layout of this parcel of land and the building, it almost feels like it should be at the Southeast Corner, not the Northeast Corner because that's the place that's closest to So the rest of for your consideration, I offer that. The other part of the comprehensive plan indicates that public amenities such as outdoor cafes, plazas, and green space should be integrated. The place I'm going to get to ultimately is my concern is that you have brought us a conditional use in this zone, and it would be so much easier for us if we were dealing with the use by right.

If you were, for example, a bank and you're not a bank. I know your company doesn't build banks but if the proposal to us was a bank, less parking would be required, traffic would be mitigated. It's a use by right. We don't have to go through the conditional use review at all. If it was an office building, I don't know, for a lawyer or an accountant, also less parking required under our code. Use by right don't have to go through conditional use. A personal service much less parking. A workshop I don't know what that would be. I'm really not sure if that's shoe repair. I'm pretty sure it's not a blacksmith shop, but it's a far less intense use.

A retail location of 10,000 square feet requires less parking than the day care does. That may seem strange. It may not be correct, but that's what our law says. Says. And a restaurant which would incorporate that outdoor amenity.

And so I feel like we have a very odd grouping of things to juggle with this, and I think you've done as good of a job with the things you have to juggle. I still have serious questions about whether this is the best use of this land at this place. So, that wasn't really a question, but I'm I'm sharing that with you. Again, I don't know how this body will end up voting on the conceptual plan. If it goes forward, I share those for your edification and hopefully inspiration.

As you all have read all the codes, and I get the concerns about the working within the residents or working closely with the residents. And I don't really know of a better use than this. They're open 6AM to 6PM Monday through Friday. They're not even open on the weekends. There's a lot of daycare companies that actually put their daycares in the middle of residential areas.

And we've got 100 feet separating us. We've got lots of trees separating us. I could get with TLE and we could do some decibel readings in between the vinyl fence and the 100 feet. I don't think we would come close to 70 to 90 decibels, come close. And lighting, as far as night lighting, they might have some site lighting for security.

And around here when it gets probably dark at 04:00 on a winter evening. Right, right. But we can either shield that or they can be timed to go off at 8PM, 9PM. I can't imagine a better use around a residential area than this one. You talk about banks, they're open on Saturdays.

We could do a dialysis clinic but that's a lot of traffic and a lot of folks that may or may not be what you want to look at when you come through the front entrance of Hudson, Ohio. So again, of course I like the use and I think architecturally we can make it look like something you all like and be proud of and look sharp at that corner. So that's where we are.

All right, thank you. Those are all of my questions. Steph, do you have anything to add on any of the questions that have been asked so far this evening?

No, just I think we covered it, but just to note there are no setbacks for these wetlands based on the category. But that's not to say we shouldn't be preserving wetlands, but I just wanted to make that note.

Right, thank you. Yeah, did look that up myself and scratched through all those comments I had. Alright, we will move on then to the next item in the order for public hearings, which is comments from individuals withstanding. If you're a person who received a notice about this public hearing this evening and you would like to address the Planning Commission, you have fifteen minutes to let us know what your thoughts and ideas are. Anyone withstanding who wishes to address Planning Commission?

Seeing none, we will move on to comments from the public. These are individuals who did not receive a specific notice about this meeting, but would like to address the Planning Commission on this topic. Do we have any members of the public who wish to talk about the day care proposal? Seeing none, we will move on to final questions from the commission and I will begin with Mr. Nystrom to my left.

Just a question for staff. If I go back to city engineers markups on C 3.01. Have we done this before for another single entity as far as taking up an existing lane to make it solely a turn lane for a business?

Not a

major This

thing lane would be hard for me to come up with that example. No. The daycare across the street, there was a turn lane added, but there weren't I

guess that's exactly where I'm going from. Why aren't we just adding a turn lane?

Adding a turn lane versus converting the existing.

I've been with Hudson for four years, I haven't seen everything but in this case we don't have two straight through lanes. We have two lanes that are merging two into a single lane. And that in itself has a little problematic. It works and people make it work, and that's only reason that I sat down with Brad Kosko, the city engineer, and we looked at what was being proposed, and it seemed to be a good fit. Could they add a turn lane on their side of the right of way to get the people off the road?

They probably could. We know that coming around that curve, if you slide them over into that one lane that goes straight through, I think there's less chances of an accident. Now if somebody got over in the lane to turn into the daycare and didn't want to go there, yeah, it's going be the same situation as we have now.

Can you tell me an instance since you've been here in the last four years that we've done this for another business?

Not that I'm aware of.

That's all I have, thank you.

Thank you Mr. Nystrom. Mrs. Oberg?

I have a question for staff. From the comprehensive plan Martin Drive, we said we're going to allocate that or zone that street back to residential. Right?

Correct.

Where are we in that timeline?

We met on that briefly but we were trying to definitely get that going this year for sure.

How does that affect the other two? I think there's two existing buildings there that are on 303?

Those would remain zoned as District 6. The Janco to the West and these parcels which were identified as commercial in the comp plan as well.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you Ms. Obert. Ms. Smith?

I have no questions.

You, miss Smith. Mister Murano?

Is Murano or Romano?

Romano. Oh, sorry. I I slurred

No no questions. Thanks.

Mister Innamurano?

No questions.

Thanks. I don't have any further questions. Final applicant comments. Anything else you'd like to add, mister Durbin?

I I don't think so. No.

Then I'll move us on to the time for the commission to to have discussion and action on this. I And will open the floor to anyone who wishes to get us started in that direction. I can I can get started? Miss Smith?

You know, I I remember driving past when that house was there on this property and seeing I remember I told my husband the house is flooding because the water was like the house was flooding. The water was huge and I just I think, you know, if they own the property and they wanna do a use that's good for community, I think we need to help them do that. Now I do think the plans need a lot of work because it's hard to build in this compact of an area. I I again, I have my biggest concerns are the concerns for the safety of the children because we have that, you know, that's our duty. You know, we wanna make sure that it's publicly safe.

So my biggest concern is retention pond, the parking lot being close to the road, small playground. I mean, these are children. You need to give them space to play or they're even more loud. So I I think that if you do those things and make these tweaks, we're we're gonna lose some trees, but we're gonna keep some trees like Nick said. It's not gonna be perfect, but I think it's a much better use for the community of the land than what's there now. And I think it could it could really be something really positive for the community. So I'm for it, but I think that a lot of changes need to be made to the plans. The other thing I think about is the church across the street was a con I I don't know the name of that church. What is it about?

Christ community.

Christ community. It was a conditional use. And we gave it to them, and it's not like we're giving a conditional use in the middle of a residential neighborhood. It is on a busy street. It is on a corner and it's really hard to develop corners. So I'm supportive of it but I just do think the plans need some work and then it could be really something special. Thank you.

I agree with Ms. Smith. I think as far as conditional use, I know that's not necessarily what we're talking about. But I do think that this would I think it fits for where it's located. And I think it would be a good use. I do have concerns about the traffic. But I feel like they've been very transparent in the process for two meetings in a row. And they've been on top of things, getting things if you're going to be working with somebody and trying to make a conditional use and a better use, they've made a good impression on me, at least, for two meetings in a row. And it's not a perfect piece of property. I don't know what you put there.

I don't know that an accounting office or a professional service office is realistic. You've got a commerce park right across the street, right? So there's other opportunities for that. I think that we're talking about that kind of weird emerging lane. It's been in the twenty one years I've lived here, I've always thought it was kind of an odd situation.

It seems like a weird place to have two lanes, but it kind of syncs up with what they would need here already. So it's not perfect, but I also feel like they're trying to figure things out as well. It sounds like they've crunched some numbers and are optimistic that it can work. And from my standpoint, if it doesn't work for them, then, Okay, there's nothing left to approve. But if they're trying to make it work, I would say this might be a good project to go forward with. It's just my thoughts.

Anyone else?

Additional use aside. I'll save that for later. I think that I would have a hard time approving this conceptual site plan until it got modified. I think there is something can be laid out properly. I think it can be laid out creatively, which are going to have to be on this site.

I did the math personally. I can get the same square footage in the parking lot laid out there and not encroach within the existing wetlands in saving that big 48 inches tree. So if I can do it, and I'm just a guy sitting up here, I know that your staff and I know Riverstone is excellent. They can come up with a solution there. So I would personally, I'd like to see this extended to the next month, give you a chance to take a look at that, perhaps eliminate the need for the pond.

There's your safety issue by using underground retention and you could slide that parking up a little bit and move the building over a little bit. And I think you can accommodate that difficult site. Just my thoughts.

Thank you, mister Nystrom. Mister Intermarado?

Yeah. Agree with a lot what mister Nystrom said, but one solution is clearly just to add a lane. And I think a lot of the problems, concerns go away. I I think it is just not safe to create a lane that's only for their purposes, really, and there's such a short distance from 303 to that entrance, and then suddenly you're in the wrong lane and you don't know it and you have to jump out of that lane, it's worse than existing. I understand that what's existing is narrow, but this makes it even more unsafe.

And you know, if you're gonna proceed with this one, better check your budget and two, I would like to see an additional lane added and I'd feel a lot better about approving this.

Are you saying in addition to the two lanes that are there now, you want a third lane that's dedicated turn only into this parking lot? Because there's two lanes there now.

The it is, yes, that's what I'm saying.

Okay, I just wanted to understand. Said this before, I had this lot listed a long time ago when the house was on there. It was difficult then, it was flooding then, it was a mess then, it's still a mess. It's a big undertaking for you all to take. I agree with a lot of the members up here.

You've been

forthright in what you're trying to do. You're putting forth a lot of effort. I think it's a difficult use with the amount of traffic that your business will be for the road use that's there. At the end of the day, I think it could be beneficial. It could be a successful opportunity.

At what cost is for the applicant to really decide if it's worth it for them. I personally think that our Cindy engineers offering to make that or suggesting that just becomes a turn lane clears up the confusion that exists currently. I think it'll make it better. But I do think that we need some more buffer trees. I think the sound coming out of the playground, we should be suggesting that they add buffer trees on the backside when they're finished construction.

Think some sort of buffer trees for safety towards Terex for the children not getting out to the road. I'm in agreement that I think some creative location and positioning on the lot will probably end up being easier better in the long run for the applicant as well. In general, I'm in favor of it. I think there's just some more work to be done.

I'm struggling because again, you've been a delightful applicant to work with and very responsive to our needs. But when I look at the greater picture and what our job is as the Planning Commission, we don't always like the way that the Land Development Code is written and provisions that are in it. We don't always like where the lines are drawn on the map. When we have the opportunity to change them, we try, but the reality is we really just have to enforce what we're given, And I really challenge whether or not this is fully in alignment with the comprehensive plan. I think that it's going be very difficult for the applicant to get through conditional use.

Not impossible, but very difficult to get through the conditional use review. And then we get to the point where the applicant is going have to bring us a beautiful piece of architecture. I frankly didn't know that a day care center could cost $5,000,000 so count me surprised on that, but I am then therefore concerned about whether or not I have room for beautiful architecture at the gateway to our city, and very frankly, this is really the first visible development that's happened in that district. Everything else is up over the hill to the north where the Commerce Park is and you really can't see it from 303. So did you have a comment?

No, go ahead.

I'm sorry.

So I feel confident you're not going to bring us a pole barn with the logo on the outside, okay? I feel good about that part. Is that an option? No sir. But as Mr.

Nystrom said, I think there's just a lot of work here, and I'm mindful that in Hudson, in the in the twenty six years that I've lived here, I know of two preschools that closed. They have only opened or changed names otherwise. One was missus O's Country Day School down here, a block at the spiritual life center, and the other was the early childhood center at Hudson Presbyterian Church, and otherwise we have added. And so when we when we go forward with this and the applicant's own testimony indicated this last month with over 400 franchises, they've only had two that have defaulted on a lease or closed shop or what have two. I'm sorry, 2%?

Okay. You're still It's a fine point. Major League Baseball, you're an all star. It's a very minimal amount. And so what we're looking at is saying yes to a use that will probably outlast Janco. And and that is something that is that weighs on me. That weighs on me. So I'm I I have reservations, and that is that is the end. My

question for you in thinking about this, yes it is gonna be that Western gateway, but I look at the proposal that they have here is a nice transition from the existing business that is next door to the church. This is like a step in the right direction, if we will, and a nice transition from that. And I think that if the applicant can focus on some beautification of the corner and architecturally appealing from the street, feel like it could fit and it could look great.

Me say what I said another way. This development is going to set the tone for the Western Gateway when that comes around if we leave this zoned as Western Gateway. If that's a thing that we're gonna do, this is setting the tone for it. So it's a very important development.

I agree. I'm in agreement with that completely. My biggest concern is making sure that we're not setting up the applicant to fail when it comes time for them to actually bring the application forward. So I'd love to see staff take the extra time to spend with them. I don't want them to spend their hard earned money going through this process if we can't actually make it work for them.

And if it helps the board, I've been tracking comments tonight that could be added to these recommendations. And I can read them real quick. Provide additional analysis of on-site trees with recommendation from the city arborist, meet the conditional use requirements for preschool uses including expanding the playground. Number six, with the engineering review can be added, engineering department to provide recommendation modifying the existing turn lane versus adding an additional lane, and further study potential to reduce wetland and tree impacts.

I would add the playground, similar to how the Hudson Inclusive Playground

Provide detailed design of the playground.

Design and safety and all of that. Specifications. Specifications. And in my I I had a I kinda was going with where you were going with the conditional use because my point about other daycares being around is these clusters. Right? Because 91, Darrow Road, have Primrose, you have the Nest, you have Goddard. Over here, you're gonna have sweet kittles. They do a lot. There's a lot of kids over there. I don't know what they're doing at that church, but they are busting them in.

There's a lot of kids over there, a lot camps. So this is kind of like a child in my mind, a childcare area as well. You've got the child dentist who's right next to sweet kittles. So I thought developmentally and conditional use wise, it all fit because it was, like, all on the main road similar to how it was on the Main Road in '91. And there is one more day care that closed, and I know because I'm a mom. And I was looking at putting my kids in this because my kids have been a husband day care, you know, for years, and it was the KinderCare Close because there were two KinderCare's. The KinderCare Close, and it's now the brewing company. Yes. Love Right? To be the day care, and it's beautiful. It was the it's the brewing company that's downtown.

Yeah.

But when you call as a parent, I know this experience, and every place is full, and you can't and you're a working parent, you have to go into work or you're a health care worker, and you can't find a spot, and you have to go to Twinsburg for care because you live in Hudson, or you have to go to Stowe for care because you live in Hudson, that's daunting.

By the same token, the national birth rate is tanking. Mr. Romato, you had a It

is tanking, but also you're almost not able to buy a house unless you have two working parents. So almost every household needs to have daycare. Fair point. They're not going be generational living, which we may be doing generational living, which is fine. But I would just echo Ms.

Smith's comments again. Think this is the right place for this type of project. Whether it's economically feasible is for them to decide. But I hear everybody on wanting to make sure that it's set up right. And I know we weren't trying to put the cart before the horse, on the conditional use, I just want to say that I think I would be very much in favor of this use for this piece of property if it works and it makes sense to everyone on the safety side. I I think the community would embrace it quite frankly as far as it being right next to Route 8. I think it's, again, the perfect location for something like this. I think it fits the neighborhood perfectly.

Tough lot to work with.

Yeah. Yeah. For sure. Yep.

Steph Steph recommended that we would approve the concept site plan application and offered the findings of fact, which are on page four of the staff report, and Mr. Sugar has identified that item number I'm confused, Mr. Sugar. You added trees a statement about

the trees Those and arbors, but that would number findings include these recommendations be included with the formal site plan review.

In addition to the comments that we have tonight. You're saying to

add? Then I made those four additional comments to

To be added to this add it to the recommendations.

So if you accept those findings in fact, they will include these 11 recommendations and then we can add any additional items.

I'm sorry.

You restate the four? The four?

I'm tracking provide additional analysis of on-site trees with recommendations from the city arborist, meet the conditional use requirements for, we would probably say, both preschool and daycare uses, including the expanded playground requirements. Adding to number six, the traffic impact study engineering department to provide review and recommendation on modifying the existing turn lane versus adding an additional lane. Provide detailed specifications for the playground, and further study potential to reduce wetland and tree impacts.

Would say that we're just looking to fencing or some type of safety for the retention pond because while you do have fencing around the playground, things happen and children can accidents happen. You can turn and the child is gone or something could happen. It is a best practice if it's on that land that, you know, there's potential for drowning, that there's some kind of safety mechanism or fence or something. I know it's not as pretty, but I'd rather not have a drowning Right.

But I'd I'd rather have the applicant go through the process that's called for in our code to show us how they're using other non structural ways of dealing with the storm water runoff instead of having a pond in the first place.

Okay. That's good. Alright. Yeah. I like that. Okay.

Yeah. I I don't know where that water's going. That was one question I wrote down. I didn't ask anybody. Where is all this water going? But Are we prepared to move forward with a motion then? That would need to be a motion that is adopting the findings of fact as presented through the staff report, which we have had no amendments for, as well as the recommendations of staff on page five of the staff report as amended by Mr. Sugar.

With the addition of the comments tonight, so moved.

We have a motion to adopt the preliminary findings of fact as reported in the staff report on page four along with the recommendations of staff on page five with the additional comments from tonight's meeting. Do we have a second? Second. Thank you, Mr. Romano. Any further discussion on the motion on the floor?

There's no value to seeing a revised site layout plan before we approve a conceptual site plan?

I'm willing to consider it notwithstanding that I seconded. Mean, I would other thoughts on that.

I I appreciate where you're coming from on that, and I I think there are many ways to move those Tetris pieces to make them fit on there. Ultimately, the applicant has to come to us with the winning design, and I don't know if they are interested in seeing what you have mapped out as a place, you know.

I'll leave it up to them to

make their own decision. But I don't I don't feel like that's for me, that's not gonna sway my decision on this. I don't know how the others feel.

Like you like you do, mister chairwoman. I I I think that they've shown the ability to adapt and the transparency to want to work with us and address those issues. I know you didn't have the benefit of being here last meeting. You also didn't get to hear about Bubbles, which I'm a little disappointed in. Bubbles? Bubbles is her mascot. Grand

finale.

Okay. It's a big blow up.

Can he come?

But I I do think that I mean, I think from what the applicant's concerned about, your point is valid. I mean, want to air everything out. And I think to your point is, well, we're going to air everything out, why don't we get a little closer to what it might look like? Because it better fits them.

Thinking coming back and getting a site plan that doesn't show those.

Right. And I don't know if we can at this point in the process Mr. Chairwoman, I would, I guess, defer to you to get a thought of what the applicant might prefer. Because the risk of doing what we're doing with the motion I just seconded is that we're encouraging them to go forward with something they may not ultimately get approved. I guess what

I'm saying is I strongly believe, and I think someone's got the experience to do it, that there's a way to accomplish what you're trying to do. I'm just asking for a more creative site layout plan when you come back.

May I speak?

Forgive me. I'm not inclined to entertain that right now only because

Proper procedure, Robert's rules.

A combination of things. You've answered things very well for us and provided really important information, and I think what we're struggling with right now is that question of whether we would send you forward and you figure out if you can afford this, and maybe we approve you and maybe we don't at the final end of the day on the final plan, or do we give you more opportunity to explore this now when it's fairly low level cost? Is that sort of where you're saying? Yeah. And I'll I'll yield to the will of the planning commission. I've it's not gonna affect my my opinion on

this.

It's positive because they're more likely to get approved if they come and show us a concept, and then, it's gonna be less risk for them having invested significant amount of money, you know, in a in a final and then having to change it. I think it's reasonable.

So here's my question. Are they bound if we give them approval tonight, are they bound to that? Can they not just come back with another conceptual plan anyway if they so choose?

I suppose theoretically they could develop a completely brand new concept plan, but they would otherwise be yes, they would otherwise be bound to this How does this work, Mr. Sugar? Do applicants actually withdraw an application and say, we're not going that direction, we're doing something completely different? Has that happened before?

Yes, it doesn't seem like it would be completely different. It might be confusing to the public if we have a new application that's essentially just a tweak of this.

My thoughts are that they've heard what Mr. Nystrom and Mr. Anamorato had to say and the rest of us had to say. I think you guys have a pretty good beat on what the issues are. From my standpoint, I second in the motion.

If it doesn't pass it doesn't pass but my thought is they know where our thoughts are and that's the main point notwithstanding we have to give finding the facts. We've done this before where we're really trying to give exactly what you're wanting like a back and forth of what we think we might approve. We can't answer that because it's hypothetical, but you're hearing our comments, you're hearing the concerns the second time around. I mean my thoughts are let's just keep it moving forward. I think they've got enough direction.

All right. To that end then, we have a motion that's been seconded on the floor to adopt the preliminary findings of fact as reported on page four of the staff report and the recommendations of staff as amended on page five with other suggestions from this meeting. Any further discussion? Are we ready to vote then? Mr. Sugar, please call the roll.

Yes. Mr. Inmarado?

Yes.

Mr. Nystrom? Yes. Mr. Romano? Yes. Ms. Smith? Yes. Ms. Obert?

Yes. Ms. Norman? No. The motion carries five to one, and you have a conceptual site plan review, and we will see you with beautiful architecture at your convenience. A playground. Yes, sir. I will remind you if you are still engaged with Prestige as the owner of this land, we will probably ask for a court reporter to be at the proceedings just to cover all the bases, you're prepared to bring all your people and bring all your drawings. That is all. Have a good evening, sir.

Thank you all very much.

Alright. I know miss oh, yeah. Miss McCoy is not here, so if we need a quick break, we can take a let's take a five minute break for the convenience and comfort of the Planning Commission. We will reconvene at 09:30 thirty. Albert, are you out there?

Somebody replied on. One of the coaches for his team.

Oh, that's funny.

Yeah. It was That's funny. Something to remember.

Sorry. The kids both both those kids were, like, two of the better asses in their class.

Alright. We will reconvene this meeting of the planning commission this evening, and our next item on the agenda is item c under old business District 11 discussion. Staff, do you wanna tee this up for us?

Yes. Just for some brief background. So at our last meeting, March 9, the Planning Commission discussed the proposed District 11 Text and Map Amendment. The review concluded with a request for staff to prepare a written summary of the discussion items that could assist the Planning Commission in preparing communication. So we have prepared such, and that is in the agenda and on the screen here. So we request the Planning Commission further edit, expand as needed in preparation of the desired communication to counsel. And we recommend the Planning Commission make a formal motion that would direct staff to finalize a letter to counsel for review and signature by the Board Chair on behalf of the overall Planning Commission.

You, Mr. Fleisher. Okay. This is a discussion topic, not a public hearing, and we had already taken our final action on this, and it's sitting right now in the hands of counsel. They do have a public hearing scheduled for May 5. Is that correct, Mr. Hannan? Thoughts or comments from Planning Commission members related to the recommendations as they have been enumerated by staff?

I'm at a state of mind that we should just vote on if there should be a District 11 or it just remains District 8 and just mean, if we if if we were in agreement to keep it remain District 8, we should just state that,

and

we're done with this as far as I'm concerned.

I think

that's counsel. This comes from counsel. Right?

They're looking for our recommendation. Mean, we just

Well, we we gave them a recommendation which had, specific changes to the legislative wording. Okay? And basically got our blessing. We did not deny it. Am I correct, staff, remembering that, that we passed that to them?

That was a recommendation. Right.

So to make it with those changes. So we'd essentially be giving them a contrary recommendation, and I do feel like it would be important for us to enumerate those reasons, and that was the reason why I asked staff to go through our meeting last month and and track those specific objections?

Well, I'm uncomfortable. I I have very low confidence that a lot of our recommendations would be utilized. And then this board's on record for recommending approval of District 11 with amendments of which I don't have any confidence our significant input is gonna be really considered. So I would rather be on record for the community to just oppose the whole process, and I feel better about it. Just remain District 8 at this point in time because it doesn't follow the comprehensive plan, and I think a lot of comments by the public has been well founded and I mean, that's where I'm at.

Okay.

I wanna I I just wanna keep it District 8.

Okay. Thank you. Any other comments?

I have a topic because I was in the last meeting. Sure. Miss Smith. Did read this. I think I think the first bullet, I don't I don't think is reasonable because I think it's such a large piece of land. I don't I think council has so many differing views on this. I think I understand their vision for plan development that they want residential to be part of it. I think it should be limited. I think the planning commission should work with council on a plan that is good for council, the developer, the community. We need to find a common ground.

I don't think if the develop you know, I I I think there could be residential there. I I was opposed. If you look at the videos from the last meeting, I was opposed. Then you said, because you're a realtor, you talked about Valor Acres and that people will buy it, and it could be high end, and it could look nice, and it could look like, you know, downtown if you look at the video, it could look like Downtown Hudson, and I and then I was swayed. I said, well, it could be because I was the first opposed.

So I think that I think the lens, this is my personal opinion, that we need to look through with this District 8 is or District 11 is is is limiting residential or limiting the footprint of commercial to really make it something special that that that doesn't take away from downtown, doesn't take away from the business, but still tries to accomplish because the there there's, there's valid points on both sides. We do need revenue.

That's that's an opinion, and that's not per the comprehensive plan. It's clearly residential is not in the comprehensive plan.

I think that Let's let miss Smith finish.

That this was never this this this idea of a plan development in District 11 was never in front of the comprehensive plan. I mean, I know that they were think still thinking Joann's was there. My per my opinion is of the comp large because I I I've been seeing a lot on social media. Well, let's just get another large company. There's no more large companies. You know? They're very they're few and far between. People work at home. I think it's a very different world, a very different environment. I think we have to reenvision it, that land.

This is an opportunity. But I think we need to take that opportunity instead of not working with council or the community. I think we all need to come together and work to, to make something work together that that most people will be proud of and happy with, like the planned development that is in Downtown Hudson. That's my personal opinion. It's coming together and working together to limit the footprint and make something because I think if we go in there, say no no residential, I don't think that's reasonable. I just don't. I think we it needs to be limited. I I do think we need to give the landowner some opportunity and choices to create something unique like Valley Valor Acres or something, you know, unique.

Anyone who's not spoken yet, mister Nysterman?

I wouldn't keep bringing up Valor Acres. That is I drive past it every day. It feels like I don't know. It's so intense. It's so high density. The the minimal amount of attached and, I'll say, cluster homes, those are struggling. There's not a whole lot through there. What they do have going up, I think, are six story plus apartment buildings. In general I wasn't here last week but reading through the recommendations I'm in complete agreement.

Mr. Romano anything?

The recommendations or with mister Indomorato? The the recommendations put together. I was out at a restaurant here in Hudson over the weekend, and and a conversation came up about this in front of me without either person knowing I was on the Planning Commission. So I left it that way, to hear, get the thoughts. There's been some clear politicking going on because there was one person there that was very, very much in favor of District 11 that when I asked him a few questions, had no clue what he was even talking about.

He was just repeating what he was hearing from some political people. And that gave me pause. It didn't just give me pause. I mean, the person who was making counterpoints was not well received. I'm not blaming that on whoever was in his ear politically, but it did give me pause for what Mr.

Amarado said that I do think that the I don't know how many people in the community are watching these tapes or paying attention to what Planning Commission is doing, but I do think that it could be misconstrued what we're doing here and making recommendations that probably are going to be disregarded and overall political line is going to be, Oh, there's no planning commission, and you heard what the public comments were at the very beginning of this evening. Oh, it was the past. It was the past. And I'm not here I don't if someone wants to blame me for something, I don't care. But I do want to do what's the will of the people.

And the will of the people is in the comprehensive plan. And it seems like we're varying from that. I'm not necessarily saying this is, that the District 11 idea is going to veer from that. My question, the last sentence though pretty much sums it up. Yeah, that's a fair point. Is that going to be heard though? Is that going

to be heard? Yeah, let me let me

Is it going to be manipulated?

Let me jump in to say we can only do what we can do and we can point out specific things. These were all discussion points that got brought out. These are specific non opinion related things. The the fact that the plan definition of a planned development is vague is a cry of distress from us that we're the ones who are going to have to enforce this and we're not sure how it's gonna fly. True.

And a recognition that we could be opening up the city for legal liability if our law is so open to interpretation that we would interpret it one way and council would interpret it another, and we have no way of reconciling differing conclusions between Planning Commission and council.

Sure.

So not to jump into ahead on that, but I do just wanna say that we will I I think we should do our best. I think we should provide counsel with the best help that we can, and if they choose to grab ahold of the life ring we are throwing them, so be it. And if they choose to ignore us, that will be upon them. They they're the the responsible parties for accepting or rejecting our assistance.

My concern is you're you're gonna what's gonna happen is the public's gonna hear that the planning commission approved it without hearing any of these details that we're objecting to, and I'm uncomfortable with that. I'm not gonna do that. So

The the person who was speaking on Saturday knew that it hadn't been approved but was already concluding it was getting approved.

But doesn't council approve it?

I think Yeah. No. No. Yes.

No. No.

We just gave recommendations to council. If council approves it. We have really no power. I mean No

no doubt.

We're just making recommendations. And I, personally, I wouldn't vote for something like this because I would wanna make a recommendation that's likely to get accepted or I wanna be part of part of because I think they're likely to they're going this direction. So I I think I I don't know. I I wanna meet them somewhere in the middle and come together with less density, the 15 units, limited footprint on residential.

But meeting in the middle is not in accordance with the comprehensive plan.

Let me let me call on miss Obert. She hasn't spoken yet. Miss Obert?

I think there's a lot of pieces at play in District 11 in making this change. I, for one, with intimate knowledge of the comprehensive plan, there are a lot of aspects that are being proposed that are not in alignment. I have met with city staff on multiple occasions to go over some of the marketing material, I'm calling it that specifically, that has been presented to the public both on the city website, on the storyboards that were presented Thursday night at the open house, yes I did go. The flyer that was circulated, however it may have been a preliminary draft. I have met with city staff about my concerns regarding the comprehensive plan.

As it comes to Planning Commission, I feel that what came before us, we sent back to council with questions, concerns, comments, and we have multiple cans that pertain to this District 11 change that we still can't answer. We have not fully had our discussions about density. We don't know where we stand on limiting the large scale living facilities within one mile of emergency services.

Mhmm.

We have we have we have no feedback from council on that. Mhmm. I I have personally asked city staff four times now for what is our infrastructure threshold for traffic. That is our number one concern out of the comprehensive plan has been traffic. And I I in good faith, to your point, mister Armando, how do we make recommendations when we still have questions that are outstanding from staff and from city council?

It's like we've been asked to do we've been asked to answer these questions, but we can't get all the answers back that we need to make them. And I have expressed this to city staff. They worked really hard for that open house, but there were a lot of pieces that I thought were, let's just say inappropriate. If we talk about one of the maps that was up there, if you could pull up the flyer, and you might have it, that shows the yellow carved out block. It's a yellow block on the future land use map and it has black dots on it representing residential.

Could you pull that up for the commission? Flyer? I'm assuming it's on the city website now. It was not on the website last week, but it was what was presented Thursday.

Computer and then I'll So see if I can

the future land use map that was created for the comprehensive plan then showed up on the under plan developments for District 11 with an added block to it for residential. So it was like you took off somebody took the future land use map, modified it, but then put no footnote to say, oh, by the way, we modified the comprehensive plan map. I took an issue with that. It it when you when you quick glance at that as a person of the public who's not listening to all of these meetings, you're you're saying, oh, yeah. That's the future land use map.

I've seen that before. But it's not because there's been changes to it, there's been no identification of that. So I feel like we have a lot of pieces of the puzzle and different conversations are happening. I don't feel like planning commission has got a full picture of all of the information at hand that we need to best make these decisions, and to make the best recommendation to that we can to city council. We're still waiting for information back from them.

We don't know why some of our recommendations have been tabled with no explanation back. Mhmm. We don't know. Part of the discussions that we were supposed to be having were supposed to happen over our hundred our ninety day moratorium that we never actually got. So while we've quote unquote had District 11 for a hundred and twenty days, we are still waiting for more pieces to come back to fully respond and make a full recommendation.

Do I think staff's recommendations that they provided us for this meeting are good? Yes. However, I feel still think there's a lot of irons that or not of work to be ironed out that we still need to address. And I there's a lot of conversations, I think, that are happening from council's perspective that don't line up with what's been presented to us. We have a council member that is specifically calling for affordable housing.

Well, what does that mean? We've not seen anything come to us saying affordable housing. So why is somebody out there promoting this is going to have affordable housing when that's not what we're being told? It's my understanding that from city staff that the building is not coming down, that the Joann's property is going to remain. Okay?

Then why did somebody on Thursday night say that IRG presented plans showing an entire new development? So we have conduct contradictory things coming here, and I, for one, would like a question and time to finish the work that we have that are the prerequisites to give a full response. And I would like a full and complete picture of what the plan is. What are we working towards? Because is the building coming down? Are we looking for affordable housing? Because the comprehensive plan says this should be income generating. Residential is a loss for city income. So there's a lot of there's a lot of contradictions here. And and, again, the recommendations are good, but that's not all of it.

A lot of the things you're mentioning, I mean, they're not showing up by accident. They're intentional. And waiting for the counsel to address all our concerns, I just, quite frankly, it's not gonna happen. Don't? That well and and if we are on record for approving a creation of District 11

We don't approve it though.

Doesn't matter. And and but public's gonna hear it's approved, and then we're gonna list all the amendments that are part of the comprehensive plan. And all consul's gonna do is it was approved, and we endorsed it. I don't wanna be used like that.

So what is the next step if we

don't want?

Well, let's

let's District 8?

Is one I

mean the process.