Hudson Planning Commission Meeting Summary – April 13, 2026

Chair Sarah Norman called the regular meeting of the Hudson Planning Commission to order at 7:30 p.m. on Monday, April 13, 2026, at Town Hall, 27 East Main Street. The commission conducted a public hearing on a daycare center, tabled a Western Reserve Academy site plan request, and discussed density and the District 11 text amendment. All those giving testimony were placed under oath. The meeting was held under Ohio Revised Code Sunshine Law requirements.

Consent Calendar

• The Planning Commission unanimously approved the minutes of the March 9, 2026 meeting, as amended (motion by Member Romano, seconded by Member Obert).
• No other consent items were considered.

Public Comments & Testimony

• A member of the public discussed the proposed density and text amendment for District 11, expressing concern about the number of apartments (up to 200 units) that could be constructed under the current proposal, and argued that residential use was previously approved only as limited and secondary. The speaker also questioned why the public is being told the project will include affordable housing when the commission had not been given that information.
• The speaker noted IRG owns multiple properties, including Joanne's site, 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, framing the proposal as one piece of a larger portfolio.
• No public comments were made regarding the Western Reserve Academy application or the daycare center application.

Old Business

PC 2026-72 – Western Reserve Academy Wang Innovation Center Addition (Conditional Use and Major Site Plan)

• The application was continued from the March 9, 2026 meeting at the applicant's request. The applicant asked for additional time to respond to comments.
• Member Romano moved to table the application to the May 11, 2026 Planning Commission meeting, and the motion passed unanimously.

PC 2026-73 – Conceptual Site Plan Review for a Day Care Center (Continued from March 2026)

• Staff reviewed updates to the site plan, traffic study, engineering report, and other supporting documents.
• The applicant's wetland consultant submitted a letter certifying the wetlands are Category One; this letter was received after the agenda was issued.
• The commission discussed the conceptual nature of the review, noting the decision is not final or appealable and does not guarantee progression to the formal site plan and conditional use review.
• Concerns were raised that the project (estimated at $6.3 million) may not survive a conditional use review if the applicant returns with final plans without addressing the full site plan and conditional use standards.
• Commissioner discussion noted that in the 26 years one member had lived in Hudson, two preschools had closed, and emphasized the need to not set the applicant up to fail.
• Staff recommended approval of the concept site plan application and offered 11 findings of fact and recommendations, including:
  • Providing additional analysis of on-site trees with recommendations from the city arborist
  • Meeting conditional use requirements for both preschool and daycare uses, including expanding the playground
  • Incorporating all relevant recommendations into the formal site plan review stage
• Members discussed the need to add conditions regarding architecture (e.g., concerns about stucco) and site logistics, and discussion occurred regarding the City Engineer's plan showing removal of an existing traffic lane.
• Staff and the commission agreed that additional items (including an expanded playground and conditional use compliance) would be incorporated into the final site plan review.

District 11 Discussion (Old Business)

• Staff presented a written summary of the commission's prior discussion regarding the District 11 text and map amendment, which is ultimately a City Council decision.
• Members expressed concern that Council may not follow the Planning Commission's recommendations, particularly given that no Council members were present at the meeting.
• A member noted the commission had not received feedback from Council regarding the prior recommendation and raised concern that the public may hear that the Planning Commission approved the matter without hearing the details the commission objected to.
• A member expressed concern that the current draft text allows up to 30 units per building, 20 units per acre, 200 units per development, and no more than 20% of a planned development for residential uses.
• Multiple members noted the legal basis for limiting residential density to 15 units per acre derives from previous testimony regarding Hudson's most dense existing residential area, and that the staff-recommended 20 units per acre was presented to Council as a recommendation but the commission was not in support of that outcome.
• Members discussed the need for a conditional use requirement to place the proposal under extra scrutiny, and noted the review standards for plan developments at the preliminary and final steps either do not exist or are minimal and ineffectual because the standards are not articulated.
• The commission approved a motion to table the Staff Report to a future meeting and forward the commission's concerns to City Council, noting the February 25, 2026 District 11 text and map amendment draft may open the city to legal challenge and needs to be aligned with the comprehensive plan. The motion passed with Member Nystrom's motion to table and a second by Member Romano.
• A member highlighted that the comprehensive plan's statistically valid survey found about 50% of the population believes Hudson's growth is fine as is and does not want additional growth, and that Council is calling for more first-floor master bedrooms and affordable housing while the commission has not been told that the proposal includes affordable housing.
• A member noted that the comprehensive plan discussion includes roughly six key questions about housing, including what types of housing and how much development the city wants.

New Business / Other Business

LDC 2026 – Planning Commission Discussion Topic: Density and Use Table

• Staff presented the updated Use Table, noting there were no changes from the prior meeting. The table shows proposed potential uses for plan development applications.
• The commission discussed the lack of clarity in Section 12.04.02 of the Codified Ordinances, which provides little guidance for reviewing plan development applications.
• Members discussed what happens if the Planning Commission and Council (which must both review all plan development applications) disagree on interpretation of the code.
• A member noted the commission has not received feedback from Council regarding the prior recommendation and that staff's summary should not state the commission is not in support of the District 11 text amendment and map, as that would be an inaccurate characterization of the discussion.
• The item was continued to the next meeting.

Key Outcomes

• Motion to approve the March 9, 2026 minutes, as amended, passed unanimously.
• Motion to table PC 2026-72 (Western Reserve Academy) to the May 11, 2026 Planning Commission meeting passed unanimously.
• The conceptual site plan review for the daycare center (PC 2026-73) was continued to a future meeting, with the applicant to return with final plans addressing the 11 findings of fact plus additional items (including expanded playground and conditional use compliance).
• The Planning Commission voted to table the District 11 Staff Report and forward a written summary of concerns to City Council expressing that the February 25, 2026 District 11 text and map amendment draft needs alignment with the comprehensive plan and may open the city to legal challenge.
• The commission will continue discussing the Use Table and Section 12.04.02 review standards at the May 11, 2026 meeting.