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

City of Hudson Planning Commission Meeting - December 12, 2022

Planning Commission — Monday, December 12, 2022
BodyHudson, Ohio
SessionPlanning Commission
DateMonday, December 12, 2022
StatusFILED
Video Record
0:00 / 5:33:48

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

I'm calling to order a uh scheduled meeting for the uh industrial design subcommittee, and this is to review the design elevations with respect to the standard shop company, it's PC case 22-931.

0:23

We'll be reporting on the results of this later.

0:26

We'll kind of try to move this along.

0:28

Uh of course I wish everybody was here to attend the design subcommittee meeting, but I think they're here for a subsequent um uh meeting with the planning commission.

0:40

So Mr.

0:43

Sugar, would you like to uh start it off?

0:47

Yes, thank you, Mr.

0:47

Chair.

0:48

Uh give a brief update.

0:50

Um the industrial design subcommittee previously reviewed uh the the elevations, the proposed design on this project.

0:57

Um there were some some comments from the design subcommittee members and the applicant was asked to um further refine and study the design.

1:06

Uh just a brief update.

1:07

I have the uh current proposal, the revisions up on the screen here.

1:12

Um a few a few notes, uh additional details were added, uh front gables, larger window openings.

1:19

Uh note the stone base was changed to brick and applied at the building corners.

1:23

Um there are bay ends added.

1:28

Um you can see here on the side elevation, those are projections that that um extend out.

1:34

Um I would note there are l there's less repetition in the doors and windows.

1:39

Um that's one of the items the subcommittee requested.

1:43

Um some of the auditing designs have been changed up.

1:46

Um in that in that respect as well.

1:50

Uh as far as our staff comments.

1:55

Uh we have the full report in front of you, um, but still keeping the comment to apply additional masonry to the center main mass.

2:04

Um we did comment uh that suggested to remove the corner banding on the buildings.

2:11

Um suggested larger window openings along terracks, so that would be your rear elevations and uh applying suggested applying additional bump out masses, um, so they would be applied to hypothetically B D and A, buildings B D and A, um uh which would kind of enclose the site on the east and west west ends.

2:36

Um those are my updates for the subcommittee.

2:38

I don't know if the applicant would like to make some comments.

2:41

Thanks, Mr.

2:42

Sugar.

2:43

If you could like give your feedback to those, and then we'll turn it over to our members to follow up with any questions or comments.

2:50

Actually, do uh why don't you give your names and stuff for the record since we're recording this?

2:55

All right, uh good evening.

2:56

I'm Dave Palagra.

2:57

I'm an architect.

2:58

I just kind of joined the team here within the last 10 days and and actually had the opportunity to meet with Nick and talk a little bit about the project.

3:06

Uh my uh address is 2231 Broad Boulevard in Cago Falls.

3:11

Thank you.

3:12

Uh my name is Adam Stone Street, the owner and developer.

3:16

Uh address is 9690 42nd Street, South Fargo, North Dakota.

3:21

Thank you.

3:23

So uh, you know, let me let me just kind of do a cursory review.

3:27

Um, like I said, Nick was kind enough to kind of sit down and go through the list.

3:31

I think we're all basically the majority of the items have no questions about taking care of them.

3:37

And there's some things that I looked at and Nick and I talked over, for instance, uh the masonry corners.

3:44

I think in lieu of doing the masonry corners, uh, a better solution would be doing more of a water table going around the building.

3:51

It would be about 54 inches high, and it'd come to help break it up the the overall appearance in a more consistent approach.

3:59

Um I also talked about I think the center mass right now.

4:04

I think one of the things that we should probably look at doing is having a different color, another different earth tone to kind of break that up from the others, so it helps differentiate a little bit of that appearance of the overall building.

4:16

So we've also uh I've done some uh some basic sketches, which I can show the board here in a few minutes, but uh there's also some uh inconsistencies that we tried to clean up as far as some of the alignment of some of the windows and doors um along the street side.

4:34

So that was kind of all the things that we looked at.

4:37

So all right, thank you.

4:40

Uh let's uh open it up for questions and comments, Mr.

4:44

Werkley.

4:44

Do you want to start off?

4:46

Um you're suggesting instead of the brick on the center mass to do a separate color at this point?

4:53

Um no, the brick would be consistent all the way around.

4:57

Okay.

4:57

All right.

5:00

Now but my suggestion is the color of the siding.

5:02

I would look for a different siding color, and that would probably do for both the siding and potentially the overhead doors, so it helps break it up a little further than the current design.

Discussion Breakdown — Share of Meeting
Land Use Regulation████████████████████████████28%
Procedural█████████████████17%
Zoning Code█████████9%
Planned Development████████8%
Engineering And Infrastructure██████6%
Planning Commission█████5%
Public Comment████4%
Community Engagement████4%
Affordable Housing████4%
Summary of Proceedings

City of Hudson Planning Commission Meeting - December 12, 2022

The City of Hudson Planning Commission met on December 12, 2022, at 7:30 PM at Town Hall, 27 East Main Street. The meeting included public hearings on two major applications: a conditional use and site plan review for Hudson Community Living (HCL) and a site plan review for Standard Shop Co. The meeting was preceded by the Industrial Design Subcommittee meeting at 6:45 PM. The meeting was adjourned at 12:18 AM on December 13, 2022.

Consent Calendar

  • Minutes from November 14, 2022: Approved as corrected (6 ayes, 1 abstention).
  • Minutes from November 28, 2022: Approved as submitted (unanimous).

Public Comments & Testimony

  • Hudson Community Living public testimony (12 speakers):
    • Support: Many residents, including parents of special needs adults, local business owners, and advocates, expressed strong support. They emphasized the need for inclusive housing, the project's compatibility, and the community's ability to thrive. Notable supporters included Amy Nichols (Hudson shop owner), Dave Grunenwald (developer), Audren Susz (caregiver), Leslie Burke (parent), Dave Bateman (residents' father), and Cordilla Feynman (parent).
    • Opposition: Speakers like Dan Wright (83 S. Hayden Pkwy.), Wellborn Jack (28 Fox Trace Ln.), Mary Beth Miller (68 Fox Trace Ln.), and Rene Comeriato (35 Pinewood Ln.) raised concerns about density, compatibility with the neighborhood, potential flooding, lack of a traffic study, and legal issues regarding the Fair Housing Act. Some requested relocation or reduction in unit count.
    • Neutral/Caution: Lauran Green Hall (Fair Housing Contact Service) and Venessa Bean (Fair Housing Agency) expressed support for the project but warned that restricting occupancy to only developmental disabilities could violate fair housing laws.
  • Standard Shop Co. public testimony: No members of the public came forward to speak.

Discussion Items

  • Hudson Community Living (PC 2022-822): Continued from November 14, 2022. The applicant, represented by Chris and Patti Gurreri, attorney Majeed Makhlouf, and Greg Soltis (Cleveland State University), presented responses to previous commission questions: the use is a supportive living environment for special needs adults, a landscaping plan was submitted, a wetlands variance will be sought, and a revised deed restriction was provided. City Solicitor Pitchford confirmed that outside legal counsel found no Fair Housing Act or ADA concerns. The commission discussed density (proposed 4.75 units/acre vs. surrounding 4 units/acre), stormwater management, the need for a utility easement, and the definition of institutional residential vs. residential. Public testimony followed, with strong community support and some opposition. After deliberation, the commission voted to approve with conditions, including a maximum of 16 dwelling units (amendment passed 4-3) and other technical conditions.
  • Standard Shop Co. (PC 2022-931): Continued from October 10, 2022. The application sought site plan approval for an industrial business park at 5682 and 5698 Hudson Drive, with revisions removing self-storage. The Industrial Design Subcommittee reported recommendations (e.g., 54-inch water table, different colors for center masses, larger windows). The applicant, represented by Matthew Weber (engineer) and Adam Stonetree (owner), addressed landscaping, parking (50 external spaces; need for 75 per code), and the handling of a defunct oil/gas well. Discussion covered parking requirements, stormwater, pedestrian amenities, and buffer yards. No public testimony was offered. The commission voted unanimously to approve with 10 conditions.

Key Outcomes

  • Hudson Community Living: Approved for conditional use and site plan review (unanimous vote after density amendment). Conditions include: 1) Site plan revised for maximum 16 units, with building footprint not increased and limits of disturbance unchanged; 2) Deed restriction reviewed by City Solicitor; 3) Variance obtained from Board of Zoning and Building Appeals for wetlands; 4) Address comments of Assistant City Engineer David Rapp.
  • Standard Shop Co.: Approved for major site plan (unanimous vote). Conditions include: 1) Lot consolidation; 2) Change of use certificates for each tenant; 3) Confirmation of oil/gas well removal prior to zoning certificate; 4) Landscaping revisions (buffer yards, street trees, interior parking lot landscaping); 5) Add 10 parking spaces via land banking and revise drive aisles to meet minimum standards; 6) Incorporate Industrial Design Subcommittee recommendations (water table, colors, windows, louvers, bump-outs); 7) Address city engineer comments; 8) Address fire marshal comments; 9) Provide distinguishable internal sidewalks or paved paths; 10) Include Industrial Design Subcommittee recommendations as specified.

Meeting Transcript

I'm calling to order a uh scheduled meeting for the uh industrial design subcommittee, and this is to review the design elevations with respect to the standard shop company, it's PC case 22-931. We'll be reporting on the results of this later. We'll kind of try to move this along. Uh of course I wish everybody was here to attend the design subcommittee meeting, but I think they're here for a subsequent um uh meeting with the planning commission. So Mr. Sugar, would you like to uh start it off? Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh give a brief update. Um the industrial design subcommittee previously reviewed uh the the elevations, the proposed design on this project. Um there were some some comments from the design subcommittee members and the applicant was asked to um further refine and study the design. Uh just a brief update. I have the uh current proposal, the revisions up on the screen here. Um a few a few notes, uh additional details were added, uh front gables, larger window openings. Uh note the stone base was changed to brick and applied at the building corners. Um there are bay ends added. Um you can see here on the side elevation, those are projections that that um extend out. Um I would note there are l there's less repetition in the doors and windows. Um that's one of the items the subcommittee requested. Um some of the auditing designs have been changed up. Um in that in that respect as well. Uh as far as our staff comments. Uh we have the full report in front of you, um, but still keeping the comment to apply additional masonry to the center main mass. Um we did comment uh that suggested to remove the corner banding on the buildings. Um suggested larger window openings along terracks, so that would be your rear elevations and uh applying suggested applying additional bump out masses, um, so they would be applied to hypothetically B D and A, buildings B D and A, um uh which would kind of enclose the site on the east and west west ends. Um those are my updates for the subcommittee. I don't know if the applicant would like to make some comments. Thanks, Mr. Sugar. If you could like give your feedback to those, and then we'll turn it over to our members to follow up with any questions or comments. Actually, do uh why don't you give your names and stuff for the record since we're recording this? All right, uh good evening. I'm Dave Palagra. I'm an architect. I just kind of joined the team here within the last 10 days and and actually had the opportunity to meet with Nick and talk a little bit about the project. Uh my uh address is 2231 Broad Boulevard in Cago Falls. Thank you. Uh my name is Adam Stone Street, the owner and developer. Uh address is 9690 42nd Street, South Fargo, North Dakota. Thank you. So uh, you know, let me let me just kind of do a cursory review. Um, like I said, Nick was kind enough to kind of sit down and go through the list. I think we're all basically the majority of the items have no questions about taking care of them. And there's some things that I looked at and Nick and I talked over, for instance, uh the masonry corners. I think in lieu of doing the masonry corners, uh, a better solution would be doing more of a water table going around the building. It would be about 54 inches high, and it'd come to help break it up the the overall appearance in a more consistent approach. Um I also talked about I think the center mass right now. I think one of the things that we should probably look at doing is having a different color, another different earth tone to kind of break that up from the others, so it helps differentiate a little bit of that appearance of the overall building. So we've also uh I've done some uh some basic sketches, which I can show the board here in a few minutes, but uh there's also some uh inconsistencies that we tried to clean up as far as some of the alignment of some of the windows and doors um along the street side. So that was kind of all the things that we looked at.

SUMMARIZED BY OPENPUBLICA AI
TRANSCRIPT VIA PUBLIC VIDEO
openpublica.com