Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council asks Planning Commission for further review of proposed Zoning District 11 on South Darrow Road
Summary
Staff presented draft land development code amendments to create Zoning District 11 along South Darrow Road to prioritize office/light industrial uses, allow limited outlot retail and provide a planned development option capped at 20% residential and 200 units. Council moved to request additional Planning Commission review of density, setbacks and buffers before the public hearing.
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
City staff briefed Hudson City Council on Jan. 27 about draft amendments to the land development code that would create Zoning District 11 along the South Darrow Road corridor. The changes would prioritize office and light industrial uses, permit limited outlot retail and service uses, and include an optional planned‑development pathway intended to enable larger‑scale, mixed‑use projects under a higher bar of review.
Staff said the proposal would limit residential uses within a planned development to 20% of total acreage and cap multifamily/townhome development at 200 units per planned development. Among staff‑recommended edits to address Planning Commission concerns were increasing the minimum acreage for a planned development from 10 to 50 acres, reducing multifamily density from 30 to 20 units per acre, and adding a buffer yard (Buffer D) along Terex Road frontage to protect adjacent residential properties.
Planning Commission previously reviewed the draft and asked staff for additional analysis on density, setbacks and buffer yards. Council moved, and a second was recorded, to ask the Planning Commission to review staff recommendations on those three topics at the Feb. 9 Planning Commission meeting and forward any additional comment before the council’s public hearing currently scheduled for Feb. 17. The motion passed on a voice vote with at least one member indicating opposition during the roll call.
Staff noted the planned‑development option would still require planning commission review, council review and likely a development agreement with performance standards. Council instructed staff to pursue the additional Planning Commission review as a near‑term step before final action at the public hearing.
