Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Good morning everyone. Welcome to the Tuesday, March 10th, 2026 Yria Planning Commission meeting. This time I'll call the meeting to order. Roll call. Mayor Brewbaker here. Director Panowski here. Sam Battle here. Tom Maiden here. Derek Tedro here. Barry Huard here. And Miss Rivera has stated that she will be out today. Uh, with that being said, I'll entertain a motion to approve the minutes of January 13, 2025. So move.

Moved. And do we have a second and second? Any further discussion? All in favor? Uh, approved by I. I oppose. Nay. Motion carried. Uh, there does not appear to be any miscellaneous correspondence. We do have one piece of old business that was tabled at the last meeting to appoint the planning commission secretary for the balance of the 2026 year which will take us to 1231 2026. I'll entertain a motion to approve Mary Tomsky as the secretary of planning commission through 1231 of 26.

I got a move and a second. Any further discussion? All in favor? I. I oppose. Nay. Motion carried. Thank you. There is no new business and we have three public hearings this morning. Um all of them are relative to the same project. Uh the first one on the agenda is public hearing 2026-0000005. Uh LNL Ayria doing business as Love Retail Development Inc. 38550 and 38530 Chestnut Ridge Road, Ohio. Requesting for a reszone from R-LDD to B- AO. Is the proponent here this morning? Would you like to come to the microphone and kind of share your project, please?

Morning, Mayor, Planning Commission. Uh, my name is Mark Lutner. I am the principal of Love Retail Development. Um we are uh grateful to uh to finally be here today. We spent a lot of time on this project thus far and we're hoping to um start to move it forward. Um Aaron, if you want. Good morning. Aaron Appel with Bram Hall Engineering. We're the civil and surveying consultant for the project. Thank you. Would you like to discuss your project here because I know all three of these are tied together, Mr. Letner. So,

sure. Yes. Um, we have a 10acre parcel uh in which we have um five national recognized retail users. Um, and um should bring a lot of vibrancy to the area. Um, Chick-fil-A, Chipotle, Take Five. um oil, Panda Express and uh Circle K. Um currently, obviously, we are zoned uh residential after being annexed into the city of Valyria. Uh we are looking to reszone it to BAOO um for the purposes of all of our current users. Um and with that we are also um here to discuss the uh subdivision approval for the six parcels that we um are looking to create within the uh development. Just a little background on the site. Uh uh proposed uh road improvements uh on the site are private. I've got some public sanitary improvements proposed. Uh the water line is in the rural Lorraine County Water Authority area. Uh so we've done some coordination with them on uh extending that. Uh the project does also contemplate some improvements along the frontage of uh Chestnut Ridge. Um traffic signal would be installed at our access points and uh happy to answer any questions about any of the details. Uh yeah, and I want to add in there too, we we understand the um importance of um solving for some of the traffic issues here that have um a lot of you

know residents concerned. Um and we are very much um and have been working towards um you know a roadway improvement plan that will um you know assist in in making you know traffic uh uh better go you know going forward. So um staff reports Mr. Shing city planner.

Thank you Mr. Chair. through you. The applicant has indicated a desire to change the zoning from residential low density with the existing code or residential one with the proposed zoning code to a business automotive oriented uh district with the existing code or what would be considered commercial with our proposed zoning code. Uh as indicated, the property at the northwest corner of Chestnut Ridge and State Route 57, which was recently annexed into the community, um is the project site. Uh the existing property does have residential low density as it was brought into the community as of last year. Um an analysis was completed uh of the proposed site plan that was provided by the applicant. Um as our proposed zoning code is in draft form and has not received final approval by city council at this time, the subject properties would assume a zoning designation based on the current zoning code. Going through our analysis here, we uh indicated that all uses that were proposed by the applicant would be principally permitted. Um there is a caveat, however, with the convenience business definition as what is indicated on the site plan would exceed 5,000 square ft per our existing zoning code. Uh this would be further analyzed at a later time during the design review process as uh these projects can deviate from what is uh provided on the preliminary plan and as also indicated the proposed zoning code uh would remove this requirement. Um going through all the requirements for setbacks and lot area and width all of those were met based on the site plan that was provided. uh off- streetet parking and loading that analysis will be provided at a later time related to parking screening buffering land use intensity as all those would be required to go through design review singularly uh for

each out parcel. Uh moving forward here uh essentially all requirements from a zoning perspective have been met uh with the exception of a fence that is a considered an accessory use on a vacant lot. um that would be addressed at a later time uh during this meeting. Uh going through our analysis here um as a proposed project may be approved following adoption of this proposed zoning code. An analysis of the requirements of the uh commercial zoning district was also provided. Uh as indicated all in the previous uh report or previous instance all uses would be permitted in the zoning district. all setbacks and height requirements would be met um contingent that all design review requirements are uh brought forth at a later time. Uh the you know the reasonzoning was submitted to various city departments through uh the city engineer, fire marshall and wastewater for further uh comments that they might have. Overall uh in terms of the zoning proposed zoning classification uh the subject is subject property is bounded to the northwest and a portion of the south by zoning of RLD residential low density. To the south there is business neighborhood and to the east uh there is business general. Uh majority of properties immediately adjacent to the proposed resoning are residential in nature. Um, moving forward here with the uh proposal here, staff does recommend approval with the cont with the condition that it is contingent on the approval of the subdivision which will be heard next as case 20260000001 uh for the Chestnut Row subdivision. Overall, the proposed uses provided on the preliminary site plan are principally permitted uses within the BAOO zoning district and the

requirements listed in chapter 1162 are met. Additionally, the proposed uses provided on the preliminary site plan are uh proposed uses within the commercial district of the proposed zoning code. Uh any variances pertaining to the proposed out parcels will be addressed during the design review phase as there's potential for each out parcel to deviate from the preliminary site plan that was provided by the applicant. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Shoning. Engineer Schneider Pensioner has no comments regarding the U resoning. Fire Marshall.

Thank you, Chair. While we're in the the preliminary planning um in zoning aspect here, uh plans have indicated, preliminary plans have indicated the name of Chestnut Row. And I think that maybe this is a good time that under the blurry codified ordinance 11207 street names um the name should not be duplicated or similar to existing or dedicated private streets or other within the city. Um for all proposed streets, this is item B, both public and private. The street names and modifying terms shall be subject to the approval of the planning commission. So a proponent here is listing Chestnut Row. It's a very common name for a number of other streets within the city. Is our recommendation that that they look at a different title. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Fire Marshall G. Are there any questions from the commission? If I understand it at this point, what we're looking at is whether or not this should be zoned business. Correct. Should

be should be zoned, Mr. Shying. It' be business automotive oriented with our existing code. Uh if it does fall under the purview of our proposed zoning code, it would go under commercial. Uh, so I guess the the question that I would have is even in looking at this as a whether this should be zoned business, do we I I have serious concerns over what the traffic is over there at this point and switching the nature of this even to business I think is going to impact the the traffic. um and particularly in concern with several of the other already proposed or approved u uh new developments on the other side of 57. Uh I I guess has there been any analysis with regard to even the resoning of traffic implications or of of concerns?

Mr. Schneider.

Uh thank you through you, Chair. Uh so yes, a traffic study was completed by the uh proponent. Um it largely reflected the traffic on the west side as well as 57 and the west side of 57. Uh the city currently is in uh having a traffic study completed for ourselves. Um, one of my main comments, which will come in the subdivision portion, is that the new traffic light, the 57 traffic light and the Chestnut Common traffic lights need to work in harmony in order for this to, uh, product to work, uh, properly and be safe. So, um, we currently do have a traffic study being completed as we speak right now. Uh it'll probably take another month and a half before we see anything on that. But uh yes, we do have a traffic study.

Do you know in the initial um traffic study that was submitted even on the west portion of Chestnut Bridge, if I'm if I'm understanding right, that the traffic study that was originally submitted was dealing with the west portion of Chestnut Bridge. uh do you know if in in any way that considered uh an expected increase in in just overall base traffic uh due to all of the residential housing that we've talked about being added behind Walmart? I guess the concern that I have is in looking at that traffic study even it looked like it was computing a certain number of like bypass routes uh diverted routes those sorts of things and if we have a significant amount of increase in base um with already contemplated and in progress development how do we even trust the the west portion let alone anything else that's happening I mean there's a number of additional housing units that I think would probably make use of a Chick-fil-A and Panda Express and and all that stuff over here.

So, uh do you chair? Yes. The uh typically when you do a traffic study, you're doing it uh you're forecasting out 10 to 20 years depending on uh the uh traffic study person. Um typically with ODOT, it's 20 years. So, if if the traffic study you're referring to to the west side, uh TMS is here. They they did do the traffic study u for the proponent. So I mean they would probably better to answer any as far as what they've included. Uh they did go out and do traffic counts. So they did get live data as in how it was the day they took the counts. So uh a lot of those subdivisions had been started and completed and and whatnot, but obviously it continued to grow and grow in many areas. So

one second. Would you like TMS to come up and talk about their study? Mr. I would be curious. Okay. Are there any other than traffic? If you could state your name and address for the record, please. You can talk about it.

Good morning. I'm uh Michael Schweikart, TMS Engineers, 2112 Case Parkway, Twinsburg, Ohio. And we were the author of the uh traffic study for the applicant. to answer the one question that you had asked uh did we provide uh growth based upon the development that's occurring in this area and yes we did uh according to the Ohio Department of Transportation uh this area is growing at a rate of about 1.2 1.9% per year and that was added into the actual traffic counts that uh we had taken. So I guess the concern that I have is there's a very specific development uh proposed which is I think relatively medium or high density housing to be added directly behind Walmart. Was that specific development factored in not just the general? Uh

no we just did it in general. Okay. I'm just thinking since we already know specifically that there's additional housing going in back there.

Mr. Schneider is ours cons taking that into consideration. I'm sorry my microphone wasn't on. Um so they definitely are doing 24 20 year forecasting on that traffic study. Um so if they aren't I will make sure they are. uh they they just went out and got the uh uh latest traffic counts about a week week and a half ago. So, uh they are still early on in the overall process. So, um I can reaffirm to them, but they do know that's there. They were the actual designer of that subdivision, uh at least laying the road out as far as what's going in there. I don't know if they're 100% as far as the the future development as it uh is laid out today. So, but yes.

Thank you, Mr. Schneider. Mr. Hubard, any followup at this time? Mr. Battle, um I know traffic is has been a big concern. Uh are there any other residential concerns that is going to be brought up or other than traffic? He said something about residential concerns that we're aware of. I believe they were referring to the development at DBR behind Walmart, the housing that is going in there. There is no other proposed housing in that area. Anything else, Mr. Battle? No, that's it. Mr. Aiden,

so uh the um the single family residential that that land is currently zoned. I think that changing it to a business uh general really or whatever the new zoning is going to be considered really impacts the residents that that bought there and live there for quite some time. You know, they bought it with the idea that the property behind their backyard was going to be single family residential even though it hasn't been developed as of yet. Uh so I'm very concerned about that. Thank you. Thank you. I Mr. Hubard do have one more question. And I don't I believe probably for for you

uh am my understanding that the intention here um I guess this this probably goes more towards the subdivision ultimately but are we talking about putting a traffic light at the the exit of that that subdivision an additional traffic light on Chestnut Ridge? Not that I'm aware of. Mr. Schneider. Uh yes. So, if you're talking for the proposed road, yes, that the intent is to put a traffic light there so they can get in and out of the new subdivision.

That is correct. Any other questions from the commission? Okay. Any other proponents? Any proponents? Any proponents? Any opponents? Any opponents? I know you know the drill. Mr. S worker name and address for the record. Mary Sworker 119 Fresno Court. I have been and continue to be opposed to this project. The traffic study has to solve the problem first. The chicken sandwiches are not worth the traffic. I just went through that intersection yesterday. It was 11:00 in the morning. There was nothing special going on. There was no funeral. The car wash was kind of busy. The traffic was backed up all the way back to win from the light at 57. There is no way that a traffic light at their driveway is going to have enough stacking capability to the intersection of Doohurst andor 57 and we don't control it. It is still in the township. And back to the question of the traffic study, the traffic study for ABC Development, which was for the Aldi's, was done before the church was sold, was done before the car wash may have started, before thriv study was done just for the other side to your question, Mr. Hubard.

And you're right, all the housing, there's another 400 homes in Fieldstone on the other side of 57. And that does not take into consideration whatever the development is for Mr. Reese's property. There is just not enough room there on 50 on Chestnut for a lane in and out. And if the fire department would advise if the roadway is more than is it is it more than 750 ft back to the back of the property? It's one way in and one way out. In the original plans that I was shown, it was over 800 feet, which is against our regulations, or it used to be at least. So again, we have the same situation that we had over at Chestnut Commons, and that's why the emergency exit was put in, good or bad, I'm very familiar with all of that. And there is just not enough room to go in and out. And I feel sorry for people who live on Idaho, Defiance, California, Tennessee, Carol Lane, because I don't know how they're going to get in and out. So, I would strongly strongly encourage planning commission to slow this down and to really come up with some long-term solutions. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Sorca. Any opponents? State your name and address for the record, please.

Hello, my name is Ed Dhoni. I am the third third ward representative and which this is located in. My address is 3881 Chestnut Ridge Road. We all know we need the economic development in the city of Yria, but we also need to protect the third ward residents. I'm not here today to approve or disapprove the idea of this development coming in. That's not my job here today. I'm here to express my concerns that my residents needs are met. The reason that these properties are reszoned to the most restrictive classification is to make sure that when the businesses come into town that the needs are met for the current residents that are there. If this project goes to council committee, we would need absolute assurances that the traffic would be taken care of, that the buffering would be installed that's going to protect the adjacent property owners from the light, the sound, and the nuisance that the business would provide. I have heard from no less than 50 residents just in the week that this was announced that this is going to planning commission. uh they have all been negative. My intention this weekend is to go visit the 16 residents that are adjacent to this property to get their opinions and their take on this because this project will directly affect them and my job as a ward representative is make sure that their maj needs are met. Also, again, I'm not against the economic development. I'm not here to talk about numbers and how this could positively affect or negatively affect the city. I'm just here to represent my uh my ward. So, thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Dhoni. Toich.

Hello. My name is Gary toy. I live at 737 Carroll Lane and uh you can't get out of Defiance Road between 3:30 and 7:00 every day. That light at Abbey Road, it just a ridge was supposed to delete some of this problem we have, but it doesn't do any good. None of these lights are in sync with each other. And if you put up another light, what the heck we're going to do? We can't get out now. I think that problem should be resolved first before you leave anything else come in up there at Chestnut 57. That's all I got to say. Thank you, Mr. Toyich. Because the traffic is the biggest issue and I the main issue and I know the second uh public hearing here on the new subdivision uh possibilities um starts to address that but I think it would be prudent uh Mr. Schneider if you can share kind of the conditions um that will come up in the subdivision that uh you Mr. Showning and Miss Calbert have come up with along with the proposed developer.

Thank you Mr. Chairman. Uh so in regards to the traffic, obviously engineering does uh believe it's it's a it's a main concern of the overall subdivision. Uh and it has to be done right. That's why we commissioned our own uh traffic study to make sure not only this side of the the west side of the road is taken care of, but the east side of the road is taken care of. That's that's the main intent of our of our traffic study. So uh it's it's ongoing u as part of the overall subdivision itself. Um, as stated by the proponent, the subdivision is largely a private subdivision. Uh, private road, private properties in there, private uh retention pond. Um, just a few items as far as the utilities are will be uh some of them uh public whether it's rule water or the city of for the sanitary sewer. So, in regards to Chestnut Ridge Road though, the uh uh that that is our main concern. So, that's what we're looking at. Uh we would not recommend that it not move that that we would move forward without making sure the improvements on Chestnut Ridge are a part of the overall subdivision approval. Um and with that it would be uh according to the uh traffic study that would be completed. Um as also for the commission itself uh the plans before you once again the the private property area will be all constructed by the developer. the Chestnut Ridge portion. Uh the proponent has asked the city to uh complete the improvements on 57 on Chestnut Ridge. So all those improvements would be done at this by the city. Um I would stress that they'd be done concurrently or together. Um if for some reason, not that it's going to happen, the subdivision was approved without that being done, uh one of the things I would look at would be to make it a write out only. I would not allow lefthand turns coming out of there, I think it's a it's going to

create an issue at least at certain times of day, but uh I think with the improvements on Chestnut Ridge when those are made, I think that will help alleviate the issue. Um the engineering's main concern when it comes to the traffic will be safety. Uh and when I say safety, I I the uh the tra the new the proposed traffic light uh in relationship to state route 57 is pretty close. Uh so that is probably my main uh uh concern when it comes to the overall safety uh of of of the traffic uh backing up at certain times a day. Yes, it happens. um you you can't expect to solve every traffic issue uh or else we would stop building in this in this world. So but the the safety concerns are the most important things. So, uh, in order to move forward, it would be engineering's recommendation that the, uh, if planning commission were to move to approve would be that it would be contingent on the improvements on 57 and Chestnut Ridge, whatever is in the traffic study, uh, would be completed as well. Obviously, we do this has not gone before council yet, and they would still need to approve any, uh, cost to complete those improvements. So,

thank you, Mr. Senator. Mr. Shony, any additional comments?

Mr. Chair, through you. U if we're skipping ahead here to the subdivision recommendation. Um as indicated in the resoning, it was approval with condition that the um let me just go back through this to get my exact words, but approval with condition that the uh rather contingent on the approval of the subdivision. So tying into the subdivision portion of this piece, uh my recommendation is that the concerns provided by the city engineer pertaining to traffic and the implementation of traffic improvements are addressed. Uh as a determination made by the staff's only recommendation, I will defer to the planning commission for their recommendation to city council.

Thank you. And again, the comments that were just made are actually relative to 00001, but I think it's important to understand that as you how you choose to vote on the reszone, uh, some of those things are going to be addressed as a part of the subdivision. Uh, Mr. Craig, can you talk to the process before we go to the vote um between planning commission, community development, and city council? through through the chair. Today's decision, whether it's positive or negative, will then move forward as a recommendation to city council and it'll first go to the community development who will hear it at their next meeting after which they'll make a recommendation then to city council and then it will need at least three readings before it would be approved. So you're looking probably at 8 to 10 weeks before any decision would be made. In the meantime, there are other considerations such as the fact that you've got a traffic problem on on that intersection that hasn't been addressed yet and the city's looking for funding mechanisms in order to help address that. Part of that would be that this development would allow the city then to tiff the improvements which would provide uh the resource so that you could pay for the city's portion of those improvements.

Right. Thank you. That would happen through a development agreement of course. Then the development agreement would would include financing and any type of engineering considerations that we would need to be met and that would ultimately be a part of a development agreement approved by city council right through through you. Yes. So the subdivision approval would be contingent upon approval of a development agreement that addresses those concerns but also lays out how the improvements would be financed.

Great. Thank you. Any other questions from the commission? Keep in mind we will only be addressing even though we've talked about the second one, we'll only be addressing um the reasonzoning itself. So I will go ahead and read that. Um I'll entertain a motion to approve 2026-0000005 LNL Yria DBA Love Retail Development Inc. 38550 and 38530 Chestnut Ridge Road, Ohio 44035 requesting a reszone from R-LDD to B- AO. Do I have a motion to approve?

So there is no motion to approve. Mr. Craig, does it die here or? Well, through through the chair, I'd like to remind the commission that just making a motion just puts the issue on the table for a vote up or down. Making a motion to approve does not indicate that you have to vote for it. Hold on. Hold on. Question to you, Mr. Craig, through you. Uh, Mr. Chair, uh, not making a motion to approve accomplishes the same thing. Correct. That's the ultimate outcome is that it doesn't pass. You you can't pass it without a mo without a a motion to approve that's been passed. Right.

I understand. But not nobody making a motion accomplishes the same thing and and it doesn't pass as well. So you're suggesting you can make a motion to approve and we can vote to to deny it. But not making a motion accomplishes the same thing. Then what would happen is that this would move forward to city council with no recommendation from planning commission. Things how there is no motion. So well if if I understand then uh Mr. Craig uh if we do not make a motion at all this goes forward without any recommendation from this board where if we vote if we move to vote on it we have the opportunity at that point to make the recommendation to to the further bodies

through the chair. That's correct. So in that case I would move to I would move to approve. I have a motion. Do I have a second? A second. All in favor say Do we have discussion as well or hold on one second, Mr. Craig? Thanks. Point of order. Are you making the motion to approve subject to approval of the subdivision, which was the recommendation of the staff, or you just outright move to approve the zoning? There's a big difference between if the zoning is approved without any contingencies, they start building right away. Right. So, I just want through you, Mr. Craig. The idea was to approve it with the contingencies as recommended by staff. Does the second or the motion concur? Yes. Does the second concur? Any other? Yeah, Mr. Hard.

And then just as other discussion, I just I understand that the idea is that we are looking at the other traffic things uh the traffic studies and that, but this is not a minor issue to be addressed. I I would love to see this development there personally. However, I don't see how it can be with with the traffic that the way that it is. And I living that intersection multiple times a day. I I don't have the creativity to come up with a traffic solution that would make that work. Uh that I have serious reservations going forward on even starting this process without having at least some of those solved enough that we can say okay we can envision a world where traffic would not be a problem there. Uh approving these things contingent on on assuming that we can solve a problem that for years has only gotten worse uh seems just kind of silly. M Mr. Pinowski.

Thank you. Through you. Uh at this intersection currently and for years, there's been a traffic issue. It's not speculative. It's real and residents are dealing with it every day. Uh to add all of this um or to start the process to add all of this, which I'm in favor of it. As I've said to many people, something's going to get built on that land. It's too prime a piece of property. So, something's going to happen there. Um, but to add all this without having the information about the traffic from the traffic study and a plan, um, sitting with here in my seat with one vote, I'm uncomfortable essentially voting blindly. And we put these conditions on, you know, they're monitored, but I think sometimes those things for the sake of getting development um, maybe um, aren't everything we intended them to be. So, uh, I would rather have the information to make an informed decision. And if you don't have information, you can't make an informed decision. So, um, that's my hesitation. Um, overall,

anything else? Mr. Mayor, can I say something? Mr. Greg, was that allowable? It's at your discretion. Yes, please.

I I just wanted to point out one more time that um we did commission our own traffic study uh separate from the one that may have been done um by ABC Development several years ago. Our traffic study did account for as Michael Mike Schwiker mentioned all of the current traffic and future projected traffic in this area and um we had shared that with the city previously. We had discussed it with the city um multiple times and we do feel we have a solution um which takes a lot of the failing grades that are currently at that intersection and makes them non-failing. Um we have however been um requested and we approve we we agreed we allowed we said the city can go ahead then and uh they also wanted to have their own traffic study done um in addition to ours. So, and that part of that I think um goes to the um other side of 57 um by the Walmart. So, it'll be maybe even more comprehensive. Um but we do currently have a solution for the traffic. Um it's just uh the city wants to have a another look at it and additional um review of it, which is why they commissioned their own study as well. So, I just wanted to make that make that point.

Any other comments? All right. So, we have a motion and a second on the floor. All in favor signify by I. Those opposed? Nay. Nay.

Motion fails. The next item on the agenda is 2026-0000001 LNL Aya DBA Love Retail Development Inc. 38550 and 38530 Chestnut Ridge Road. Request for a new subdivision. Uh this is a major subdivision. Six lots proposed including a private road. Mr. Lutner, is there anything addition you want to add? I know you explained the project prior on the previous one. Um I don't think there's um anything additional to add.

Thank you. Are there any other proponents? Are there any proponents? Are there any proponents? Okay. Oh, let me go to staff here. Mr. Shingy.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Through you, uh, the request for the subdivision uh, for the BAO district, uh, it was routed to various city departments as with the previous reszoning to engineering, fire marshall, and the water reclamation. Uh overall the findings indicated that all parcels that were proposed uh meet the requirements of lot width as well as the square footage requirements for both the existing the proposed zoning code. Uh the developer has provided a breakdown indicating the scope of work for both the city and themselves pertaining to the public improvements that was provided in exhibit E of your report. As previously indicated, staff does recommend the concerns provided by the city engineer pertaining to the traffic and the implementation of traffic improvements are addressed. As the determination made made by staff is only a recommendation, I will defer to the planning commission for their recommendation to city council. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Zoning Engineer Schneider. I I don't think I have any anything additional to say other than what I said earlier. Uh, I guess one question I would have though would be more so to uh, Mr. Craig would be uh, if the zoning has been passed, can we even vote on this? You can, but it has to the zoning would have to be approved still. So, the subdivision can't go forward without the proper zoning. Uh, no additional comments to assist Chief Gaul. No additional comments. Okay.

Any questions from the commission? Are there any other proponents? Are there any proponents? Are there any proponents? Are there any opponents? Mary Sora 119 Fresno Court. I just had a couple additional questions. Um, if the city has done any financial analysis of the total cost of what these roadway improvements would be in order to accommodate this development versus the amount of income taxes or any other revenue sources that would come from mostly part-time, a few managerial jobs of a commercial development. Um, so I think that that would be helpful to know in the future as you contemplate to take a look at that. Um, I would just reiterate that the stacking distance at Chestnut Commons and 57 has been wrong for probably 30 years. We all knew that it was wrong. It still went through when that 114 acres was annexed back in the late 1990s. I just don't want you to make the same mistake again by developing this without a comprehensive plan, especially with two intersections that you do not control. Thank you.

Thank you, Mrs. Sorca. Are there any opponents? Are there any opponents? Are there any opponents? Mr. Craig seems that the item 005 did not pass and we should not proceed on this one without the um zoning in place. I'm going to pass on taking a vote on this because unless we're just going to send it to council as is through you. Since council has the last vote on the zoning itself, you might as well make a recommendation to them with regard to the subdivision. Okay, great. Thank you. Mayor, may I put one thing on the record?

Yes. Uh as it relates to the uh financing um we have you know provided and come up with um projections for uh the development. Um and it's plus or minus $2 million of of proceeds that will come uh through a tiff. Um and you know our project you know per the traffic study um we only create about 11% of the total uh traffic increase in the area. So we we would be a significant um part of the solution to the actual improvements that need to be done. I would just also add as it relates to the plat um the plat that's been prepared does provide for additional land for easements as part of this big picture part of the traffic study. There's turn lanes that are required. There's utility relocations that are required. So, this plat places um placeholders on easement areas that will be needed for turn lanes, additional pavement widening out there. Uh so, just wanted to make you guys aware of that.

Thank you. Any other questions or comments from the commission? At this time, I entertain a motion to approve public hearing 2026-0000001 LNL Aya DBA Love Retail Red Retail Development 38550 38530 Chestnut Ridge Road, Ohio 4435 requesting a subdivision new subdivision. This is a major subdivision. Six lots proposed including a private road. And I will also include the same contingencies that upon approval uh of the zoning that the subdivision is contingent on a development agreement that also takes into consideration the engineers concerns uh up to and including traffic and the financial ramifications of that. Do I have a motion?

So moved. Moved by Mr. Hubard, second by Mr. Aiden. Any further comments? All in favor? I oppose? Nay. Nay. Motion fails. Mr. Craig, do we still need to do the variance for the fence? That does not go to council, I don't believe. Correct. That's correct. Through through you, the variance is a separate application should be decided. But the other two did not pass. So should we table this sit on this or just take the vote on it? Just take the vote on it.

Okay. Uh so we have hearing number 3 2026-000000006 LNL Aya DBA Love Retail Development 38550 and 38530 Chestnut Ridge Road Ayria requesting for a variance from section 1162.02 of the LI codified ordinance for the installation of fencing. Uh proponent any comments on this? No additional comments.

Thank you Mr. Shing. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Through you, uh, the applicant is requesting a variance from ECO 11620 requires that accessory uses or uses be located on a parcel that has a principally permitted use. On block A of the site plan that was provided by the applicant, the project uh indicates a storm water management, utility and access of easements parcel that contains privacy fencing and landscape screening both classified accessory user accessory uses as there is no principal use. The variance would be needed. Uh staff does recommend uh provided that the uh as this is tied into the other previous two cases um that uh any concerns provided by the city engineer pertaining to traffic and the implementation of traffic improvements are addressed as the determination made by staff is only recommendation I will defer to the planning commission for their recommendation to city council. Thank you.

Thank you Mr. Shony. Any comments from engineer Schneider? Engineer has no comments on this item. Any comments from Assistant Chief Gaul? Fire Department has no comment. Okay. Are there any questions from the committee? Are there any proponents? Are there any proponents? Are there any proponents? Are there any opponents? Are there any opponents? Are there any opponents? I will entertain a motion to approve 2026-00006 LNL YA DBA Love Retail Development Inc. 38550 and 38530 Chestnut Ridge Road Yria requesting for a variance from section 116202 of the Ly codified ordinance for installation of fencing. Do I have a motion?

Moved by Mr. Powski. Second by Mr. Battle. All in favor signify by I.

I oppose. Nay. Nay. Motion fails. The next items on the agenda agenda are planning commission. We have one case 2026-100025 B next Awning and Graphics Inc. 519 Clark Avenue, Cleveland, Ohio 44102 for 250 Broad Street, Ohio 4435 requesting a waiver of the designer view guidelines for the installation of an ovalshaped cabinet sign internally illuminated with LEDs for the brand total wireless. Please state your name and address for the record. Aldo Dur 5109 Clark Avenue.

Please share with us your project. Yes. Um this project is um a channel letter sign. You guys can see the drawing. Um it's internally illuminated and the sizes are described on the drawing. Um it's pretty straightforward. Um you see signs like these every everywhere in the city. Great. Thank you, Mr. Shony.

Mr. Chair, through you. Uh the applicant is indicating the desire to construct a cabinet sign that is internally illuminated with plastic acrylic material uh per our downtown design review guidelines. Uh this would not be permitted for cabinets or uh any sort of internally illuminated plastic sign. Uh staff is recommending approval of the design review waiver as these design review guidelines will shortly be updated uh under our uh following our zoning code update. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Shony. Any comments from Engineer Schneider? No comments. Any comments from Assistant Chief Gaul? No comment.

Any questions from the committee? All right. I will entertain a motion to approve uh planning commission case 2026100025 V- Next Awning and Graphics, Inc. 5109 Clark Avenue, Cleveland 44102 for 250 Broad Street, Alyri, Ohio 4435. and a request for a waiver of the design review guidelines for installation of an oval shaped cabinet sign internally illuminated with LEDs for the brand Total Wireless. Do I have a motion to approve?

So moved by Mr. Tedro, second by Mr. Aiden. Any further questions? All in favor? I I post nay. Motion carried. Thank you, sir. Thank you very much. Item number nine is the design review applications that have been approved by city staff. If there are any questions on that, um, you can certainly address those to staff. There are no staff commission reports. Our next meeting is April 14th, 2026, 11:00 a.m. At this time, I'll entertain a motion to adjurnn. Moved by Mr. Battle, second. Second by Mr. Huard. All in favor? I. I. Oppose. Nay. Motion carried. Meeting adjourned. Thank you, everyone.