OpenPublica

Accountability starts with access.

© 2026 · Filed for the public record

Use casesAboutAPIPrivacyTermsLinkedIn
Home/Hudson, Ohio/Planning Commission
OPENPUBLICA · PUBLIC MEETING RECORD
Record of Proceedings

Hudson Planning Commission Meeting - February 10, 2020

Planning Commission — Monday, February 10, 2020
BodyHudson, Ohio
SessionPlanning Commission
DateMonday, February 10, 2020
StatusFILED
Video Record
0:00 / 34:45

Original source
Transcript — VerbatimClick a timed line to jump · ⧉ to share it
0:03

The meeting of the Hudson Planning Commission for the 10th of February in 2020 will come to order.

0:10

Mr.

0:10

Campbell, will you call the roll, please?

0:13

Yes, sir.

0:14

Mr.

0:14

Lehman?

0:15

Here.

0:16

Mr.

0:16

Nystrom.

0:17

Here.

0:17

Mr.

0:18

Chaparkov?

0:18

Here.

0:19

Mr.

0:19

Engelwitz.

0:20

Here.

0:20

Mr.

0:20

Harvey.

0:21

Here.

0:24

Okay.

0:25

First item of business is to swear in those individuals who plan to say something tonight.

0:33

So if you um plan to talk, if you stand and raise your right hand, please.

0:39

Do you solemnly and truly declare and affirm under the penalties of perjury that the testimony you're about to provide is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

0:49

I do.

0:50

I do.

0:55

Excuse me, Mike.

0:57

Okay.

0:59

Um has anybody on the uh commission received any correspondence related to any commission matters that should be disclosed to the group?

1:10

No.

1:11

Um the the next item is public discussion, which means that if there's anybody here who plans to talk about something other than the item that's on the agenda tonight, this would be the time to raise it.

1:24

So I take it that's not what's going to happen.

1:27

Um, I'll disappoint you.

1:29

I have one quick question that's unrelated to tonight to staff, and that relates to the 91 construction, adding the turning lanes from I think it's like Randy Wayne to Middleton.

1:42

Yes.

1:42

Um I thought that that was a like a one-year project that would be starting this year, but we got an update, you know, mailed to us because I must live within the close enough.

1:54

But it if I read it right, it made it look like it's going to be a two-year project.

1:59

Is that it probably is, but I don't know for a fact because I thought it was a one-year as well.

2:04

I can certainly check for you and get back to you much of that.

2:08

Yeah, that might be interesting because it looked like, and I shared it with my wife that it you know, moved to two years, and when I divided the foot length of the project by days, it's like 21 feet a day, which seems like a slow process to add a couple turn lanes.

2:23

I will check with engineering and get back to you today.

2:26

Okay.

2:26

What about 271?

2:28

How many feet a day was it?

2:33

Um first item is the approval of the minutes.

2:39

Are there any uh comments to the minutes from the January 13th meeting?

2:45

If not, I'll entertain a motion.

2:47

I've had one quick question, uh, Mr.

2:49

Chairman on that.

2:50

And I don't know if it's the way I downloaded into to good notes, uh, which is what I use for because I can mark it up and stuff, but I got like three of the last page.

3:00

Um did it was the when I downloaded it, was it in the download, or did I somehow replicate the last three what do you mean by three?

3:10

Uh the last page, which is page five, uh, is there three times in my PDF of the draft minutes?

3:22

It's not in.

3:23

I'm still not must be how I download it.

3:26

Okay, so it's not on I don't have it in mind then I don't have it in mind.

3:30

Really?

3:31

So it must have been the conversion to well, better to add a page than skip pages, I guess.

3:36

I wondered if it was the uh converting.

3:39

Are there any other comments?

3:40

Questions?

3:41

In that case, I'll entertain a motion to approve the minutes.

Discussion Breakdown — Share of Meeting
Miscellaneous█████████████████████████25%
Planned Development████████████████████████24%
Procedural██████████████████████22%
Stormwater Management████████████████████20%
Engineering And Infrastructure█████5%
Traffic Management████4%
Summary of Proceedings

Hudson Planning Commission Meeting - February 10, 2020

The Hudson Planning Commission met on February 10, 2020, at 7:30 PM in Town Hall. The meeting was called to order at 7:32 PM by Chair Thomas Harvie, with five members present (Anglewicz, Chuparkoff, Harvie, Lehman, Nystrom) and two absent (Stolle, Vitale). The primary business was a site plan review for a building addition and parking lot expansion at 1800 Georgetown Road, which was approved with conditions. No public comments were heard on agenda items.

Consent Calendar

  • The minutes of the January 13, 2020 Planning Commission meeting were approved as submitted by a 5-0 vote (motion by Anglewicz, second by Lehman).

Public Discussion

  • Chair Harvie opened the floor for public discussion on non-agenda items; no members of the public spoke.
  • Commissioner Lehman inquired about the timeline for the Route 91 road widening project (adding turn lanes from Randy Wayne to Middleton). Staff agreed to follow up with the City Engineer.

Discussion Items

  • Site Plan Review – PC 2020-27 (1800 Georgetown Road): The applicant, Jason Kekic of Hejduk-Cox and Associates, represented property owner Nathan Zampelli (Zampelli Family Limited Partnership). The proposal was to add 7,000 square feet to the existing 17,924-square-foot building (total 24,924 sq ft) and expand the parking lot by approximately 60 spaces. The building is occupied by Leaf Filter, which requires additional space. The use (warehousing/office) is permitted by right in District 8 (Industrial/Business Park).
    • Traffic Study: A traffic generation report submitted by TMS indicated only one additional vehicle during peak morning hours. The report was received but had not yet been fully reviewed by the City Engineer. Commissioners expressed curiosity about the methodology, noting the seeming disconnect between the parking expansion and the minimal traffic increase. Staff confirmed the report would be reviewed and accepted as a condition of approval.
    • Stormwater Management: Commissioner Chuparkoff requested more detailed stormwater information in future applications, particularly regarding impervious area calculations and retention pond capacity. The applicant explained that the retention pond was designed to serve the entire business park at full build-out, and that current regulations have been met or exceeded. A color-coded map in the staff report illustrated drainage patterns. The Assistant City Engineer’s preliminary comments were accepted, with final review to occur later.
    • Gas Well Protection: Commissioner Nystrom asked about protection for an existing gas well now located near the expanded parking area. The applicant stated they had met with the Fire Chief, who requested concrete-filled bollards; the applicant agreed to install them.
    • Fire Marshal Approval: The Fire Marshal had given preliminary approval, but the commission added a condition requiring final approval of the site plan by the Fire Marshal.
    • Industrial Design Subcommittee: The subcommittee met before the meeting and approved the architectural design, which matches the existing building.

Key Outcomes

  • Motion to Approve: Commissioner Anglewicz moved, seconded by Lehman, to approve the site plan for Case 2020-27 subject to five conditions:
    1. The traffic trip generation report shall be reviewed and accepted by the Assistant City Engineer.
    2. Planning Commission accepts the Design Subcommittee’s recommendation of February 10, 2020, for architectural design.
    3. Comments from Assistant City Engineer Nate Wonsick, per his January 29, 2020 correspondence, must be addressed for final plan approval.
    4. Final site plan approval from the Fire Marshal Shawn Kasson.
    5. Satisfaction of the above conditions prior to scheduling a preconstruction meeting with city officials; no clearing or construction shall commence before issuance of a Zoning Certificate.
  • The motion carried 5-0 (all present members voting aye).
  • Adjournment: The meeting adjourned at 8:14 PM following a motion by Anglewicz, seconded by Nystrom, passed unanimously.

Staff Update

  • City Planner Kris McMaster reported that no cases were confirmed for the March meeting, though the Kilbourne Road case (previously discussed) may return, possibly as a two-lot development.

Meeting Transcript

The meeting of the Hudson Planning Commission for the 10th of February in 2020 will come to order. Mr. Campbell, will you call the roll, please? Yes, sir. Mr. Lehman? Here. Mr. Nystrom. Here. Mr. Chaparkov? Here. Mr. Engelwitz. Here. Mr. Harvey. Here. Okay. First item of business is to swear in those individuals who plan to say something tonight. So if you um plan to talk, if you stand and raise your right hand, please. Do you solemnly and truly declare and affirm under the penalties of perjury that the testimony you're about to provide is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. I do. I do. Excuse me, Mike. Okay. Um has anybody on the uh commission received any correspondence related to any commission matters that should be disclosed to the group? No. Um the the next item is public discussion, which means that if there's anybody here who plans to talk about something other than the item that's on the agenda tonight, this would be the time to raise it. So I take it that's not what's going to happen. Um, I'll disappoint you. I have one quick question that's unrelated to tonight to staff, and that relates to the 91 construction, adding the turning lanes from I think it's like Randy Wayne to Middleton. Yes. Um I thought that that was a like a one-year project that would be starting this year, but we got an update, you know, mailed to us because I must live within the close enough. But it if I read it right, it made it look like it's going to be a two-year project. Is that it probably is, but I don't know for a fact because I thought it was a one-year as well. I can certainly check for you and get back to you much of that. Yeah, that might be interesting because it looked like, and I shared it with my wife that it you know, moved to two years, and when I divided the foot length of the project by days, it's like 21 feet a day, which seems like a slow process to add a couple turn lanes. I will check with engineering and get back to you today. Okay. What about 271? How many feet a day was it? Um first item is the approval of the minutes. Are there any uh comments to the minutes from the January 13th meeting? If not, I'll entertain a motion. I've had one quick question, uh, Mr. Chairman on that. And I don't know if it's the way I downloaded into to good notes, uh, which is what I use for because I can mark it up and stuff, but I got like three of the last page. Um did it was the when I downloaded it, was it in the download, or did I somehow replicate the last three what do you mean by three?

SUMMARIZED BY OPENPUBLICA AI
TRANSCRIPT VIA PUBLIC VIDEO
openpublica.com