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 - January 13, 2025

Planning Commission — Monday, January 13, 2025
BodyHudson, Ohio
SessionPlanning Commission
DateMonday, January 13, 2025
StatusFILED
Video Record
0:00 / 2:52:57

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

Call this meeting to order.

0:04

Yes, we'll begin the um Monday, January 13th, 2025 Industrial Design Subcommittee meeting.

0:12

We have one item on the agenda, PC 2024 1339, and that is the industrial design subcommittee we'll review case 24139 for Chaya USA.

0:26

This is a in uh industrial edition.

0:29

Um here's the the existing building, and it's a it's a rear addition.

0:52

Oh sorry, I'm not wrong.

0:55

And um in our staff memo, um if everyone got a chance to read that, we just we had a few comments.

1:03

Um one had to do with the uh overall massing, um, which is two A efforts must be made to reduce the overall visual impact for large industrial structures.

1:12

Um we noted some ways that can be accomplished.

1:15

Um variations in color, roof line modulation materials, increased landscaping or vertical facade breaks.

1:23

Um, and then we had some recommendations for um the item B regarding uh fenestration placement on the building.

1:32

So had a couple comments.

1:34

Uh everything else appeared to meet the design standards uh for reference.

1:39

Those standards are a bit more streamlined in this zoning district for industrial buildings, districts six and eight, um, compared to our full architectural design standards.

1:48

So those were my staff comments.

1:50

Um if you'd all like to come up and and speak if you want to add anything or if you've had a chance to digest the staff comments, um we'll turn it over to the board for for comment.

2:16

Um I'm Jeff Surto, uh architect for the project.

2:21

So the uh the intent of the building really was to just continue the existing appearance and the massing at one point.

2:29

This building was anticipated to be this large uh in built-in phases like this.

2:34

So we've continued with the same materials, same color scheme landscaped um the site in accordance with the ordinance.

3:05

Yeah, so I'm happy to take any quick questions.

3:11

Any questions, John?

3:13

Yeah, on the site plan that was submitted.

3:15

Is that the landscaping plan?

3:17

There is a separate landscape plan.

3:20

Yeah, there's some buffering requirement along the property line.

3:24

Yeah, there's another pretty well landscaped currently.

3:34

Um the portion that wasn't was down here.

3:50

Landscaping the side of the building itself.

3:55

Um the staff comments noted that um just elevations were less windows, and wondered if you could add more either more windows or more trees.

4:11

Uh well, could we?

4:12

Yes, we could.

4:13

Um it's production space and warehouse space, so there isn't really a lot of uh people, I guess was the intent.

4:23

Um there's not a lot of offices on those faces.

4:29

Okay.

4:36

We provided some clear story windows across the top of that to get some natural light into that space, uh, similar to what we had in the original building.

5:00

So, yes, so for reference, we for the staff comments we recommended um the north elevation was kind of tied to our planning commission commission recommendations for the site plan, which we'll get into after after this um subcommittee meets, but it would it would be a um uh additional landscaping evergreens um along the fascia of the building and the west elevation here.

5:14

We recommended uh penetration every third bay, you have it you know depicted as every fourth bay just to add some more uh penetration to that side.

5:22

Okay, just to recap those staff comments.

5:26

Yeah, so so basically you've got 10 windows on there, uh you know that would go to 13 windows if you went to three, sure.

5:33

Um and then the suggestion was uh a tree every between every window to accommodate the windows on every spaced, like on the east side.

5:44

Okay, so that would put you like at 14 trees, then you got seven right now.

5:49

That's fine.

5:49

Um I guess the same thing on the north elevation, so the west and the north both spacing entries.

5:56

Um the the trees are they about you know 30 feet off the building?

6:11

Is that what the intent is?

6:15

Uh they kind of look like in plan.

6:17

Yep, yeah, 30, 50, you know, with the base 50 or so.

6:23

We don't want them so close that they're growing into it.

6:26

Correct.

6:26

Yeah, yeah.

6:27

So I think that's a good location.

6:29

Okay.

6:30

Um if you have to pop them on this um what is the bottom right side?

6:36

That's the northeast side.

6:38

Correct.

6:38

Um pop them on the outside of that track.

6:40

I think that would be fine there, because you're kind of limited in trees there to the coverage to the residential on that that particular corner because of the wetland behind that little area.

6:51

So I have one.

6:57

Alan, anybody?

Discussion Breakdown — Share of Meeting
Land Use Regulation█████████████████████████████████████████████53%
Public Comment████████████14%
Planned Development██████████12%
Procedural██████7%
Public Safety█████6%
Historic Preservation███4%
Public Engagement██2%
Personnel Matters██2%
Summary of Proceedings

The Hudson Planning Commission convened on January 13, 2025 at 7:30 PM at Town Hall, following an Industrial Design Subcommittee meeting at 6:45 PM. The Commission elected new officers, approved minutes, and considered two new business items: a major site plan for a 179,888 square foot building addition for CEI USA (Case 2024-1339) and a request to modify previously approved fence material from wood to vinyl for Hudson Community Living (Case 2022-822). Commissioner Ron Stolle announced his resignation effective January 14, 2025 after eight years of service. The meeting adjourned at 9:38 PM.

Election of Officers

  • Chair: Sarah Norman was elected Chair by a vote of 5-0-1 (Abstain: Mr. Stolle).
  • Vice Chair: Angela Smith was elected Vice Chair by a vote of 6-0.
  • Industrial Design Subcommittee Representative: Fred Innamorato was elected to the IDS by a vote of 6-0.
  • IDS Alternate: Matt Romano was elected as alternate by a vote of 6-0.

Approval of Minutes

  • December 9, 2024 Minutes: Approved by a vote of 4-0-2 (Abstain: Mr. Romano and Mr. Nystrom, who were not in attendance).

Public Comments & Testimony

  • General Public Discussion: No members of the public spoke during the open comment period.
  • Case 2022-822 (HCL Fence): John Wortendyke, 25 Edward Drive, expressed support for the vinyl fence, citing proper installation as key to appearance.

Discussion Items

Industrial Design Subcommittee (6:45 PM)

  • Reviewed Case 2024-1339. The Subcommittee recommended approval with conditions: add a window every third bay on north and west elevations, and plant trees between windows. Motion passed unanimously (Marzulla, Workley, Innamorato).

Case 2024-1339 – CEI USA Major Site Plan

  • Proposed 179,888 sq ft addition to existing metal detection equipment manufacturing building at 6336 Hudson Crossing Parkway.
  • Applicant (Jeff Certo, architect) agreed to staff conditions, including revising limits of disturbance to avoid 100-ft wetland setback, adding evergreen screening, and addressing lighting standards.
  • Discussion: wetland delineation, stormwater management, fire access, lighting, and missing manhole numbers on plan sheet C4.1.
  • Approved 6-0 with 8 conditions (including Industrial Design Subcommittee recommendation and additional condition to add rim elevations and numbering on sheet C4.1).

Case 2022-822 – Hudson Community Living Fence Modification

  • Request to change approved six-foot wood perimeter fence to vinyl, citing safety, durability, and donation of materials (valued at $60,000–$70,000 vs. $40,000 for wood).
  • Applicant argued vinyl is safer (no splinters), lower maintenance, and resembles painted wood; neighbors Mr. Wortendyke and others supported.
  • Staff noted no precedent for allowing vinyl in or near the Historic District.
  • Commissioners expressed concern about compatibility with Historic District, precedent, and the claim that vinyl closely resembles wood. Several noted that if vinyl had been proposed originally, it would not have been approved.
  • Vote: Motion to deny passed 5-1 (Aye: Norman, Romano, Nystrom, Innamorato, Smith; Nay: Stolle).

Other Business: Council Check-In Memo

  • Finalized memo for January 28, 2025 Council Check-In. Highlights: Planning Commission's 2024 work (including annual comprehensive plan recommendation) and 2025 objective to re-engage on Land Development Code rewrite.
  • Angela Smith and Sarah Norman will represent the Commission.

Staff Update

  • Chair Norman suggested a February meeting to discuss revisions to Appendix A (submittal requirements). Commissioners asked to review and submit recommendations by January 31.

Key Outcomes

  • Case 2024-1339: Approved with conditions (vote 6-0).
  • Case 2022-822: Denied (vote 5-1).
  • Officers elected: Chair Norman, Vice Chair Smith, IDS Rep Innamorato, IDS Alternate Romano.
  • Minutes approved (4-0-2).
  • Commissioner Stolle's resignation: Effective January 14, 2025.
  • Next meeting: Planned for February, date TBD, to discuss Appendix A revisions.

Meeting Transcript

Call this meeting to order. Yes, we'll begin the um Monday, January 13th, 2025 Industrial Design Subcommittee meeting. We have one item on the agenda, PC 2024 1339, and that is the industrial design subcommittee we'll review case 24139 for Chaya USA. This is a in uh industrial edition. Um here's the the existing building, and it's a it's a rear addition. Oh sorry, I'm not wrong. And um in our staff memo, um if everyone got a chance to read that, we just we had a few comments. Um one had to do with the uh overall massing, um, which is two A efforts must be made to reduce the overall visual impact for large industrial structures. Um we noted some ways that can be accomplished. Um variations in color, roof line modulation materials, increased landscaping or vertical facade breaks. Um, and then we had some recommendations for um the item B regarding uh fenestration placement on the building. So had a couple comments. Uh everything else appeared to meet the design standards uh for reference. Those standards are a bit more streamlined in this zoning district for industrial buildings, districts six and eight, um, compared to our full architectural design standards. So those were my staff comments. Um if you'd all like to come up and and speak if you want to add anything or if you've had a chance to digest the staff comments, um we'll turn it over to the board for for comment. Um I'm Jeff Surto, uh architect for the project. So the uh the intent of the building really was to just continue the existing appearance and the massing at one point. This building was anticipated to be this large uh in built-in phases like this. So we've continued with the same materials, same color scheme landscaped um the site in accordance with the ordinance. Yeah, so I'm happy to take any quick questions. Any questions, John? Yeah, on the site plan that was submitted. Is that the landscaping plan? There is a separate landscape plan. Yeah, there's some buffering requirement along the property line. Yeah, there's another pretty well landscaped currently. Um the portion that wasn't was down here. Landscaping the side of the building itself. Um the staff comments noted that um just elevations were less windows, and wondered if you could add more either more windows or more trees. Uh well, could we? Yes, we could. Um it's production space and warehouse space, so there isn't really a lot of uh people, I guess was the intent. Um there's not a lot of offices on those faces. Okay. We provided some clear story windows across the top of that to get some natural light into that space, uh, similar to what we had in the original building. So, yes, so for reference, we for the staff comments we recommended um the north elevation was kind of tied to our planning commission commission recommendations for the site plan, which we'll get into after after this um subcommittee meets, but it would it would be a um uh additional landscaping evergreens um along the fascia of the building and the west elevation here. We recommended uh penetration every third bay, you have it you know depicted as every fourth bay just to add some more uh penetration to that side. Okay, just to recap those staff comments. Yeah, so so basically you've got 10 windows on there, uh you know that would go to 13 windows if you went to three, sure. Um and then the suggestion was uh a tree every between every window to accommodate the windows on every spaced, like on the east side. Okay, so that would put you like at 14 trees, then you got seven right now. That's fine. Um I guess the same thing on the north elevation, so the west and the north both spacing entries. Um the the trees are they about you know 30 feet off the building? Is that what the intent is? Uh they kind of look like in plan. Yep, yeah, 30, 50, you know, with the base 50 or so. We don't want them so close that they're growing into it. Correct.

SUMMARIZED BY OPENPUBLICA AI
TRANSCRIPT VIA PUBLIC VIDEO
openpublica.com