Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Good morning, everyone. Apologize for the delay. Welcome to the Tuesday, July 7th, Elyria Planning Commission meeting. Call to order. Mayor Brubaker here. Director Panowski here. Sam Battle here. Tom Aden. Derek Tedrow. Barry Hubbard. Maggie Rivera here. At this time, there are no approval of minutes from the previous meeting. There's no miscellaneous correspondence. Item six, no old business. Item seven, no new business. We are going to, courtesy of the individual, for item number nine, we're gonna jump to item number nine first, which is two Planning Commission cases, 2026-100071, SB Holdings, LTD, two Berea Commons, number one, Berea, Ohio, requesting for approval for the next phase of the subdivision plat number three for the enclave at Fieldstone Lakes. Mr. Schoening. Oh, for the record, Mr. Aden is here.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Case number 2026-100071 is for approval of plat number three of the subdivision for Fieldstone Lake subdivision. As I was out of the office at the time, our building official acted in an interim capacity. As per his review, the proposed next phase is consistent with past submittals for this portion of the subdivision. individual housing units will undergo a separate zoning review at the building permit plan submittal. And that's all I have on that topic. Thank you.

Thank you. The proponent, please.

Oh, got it. Okay. Thank you. Continuation of the Fieldstone Lakes subdivision. This particular section, the enclave at Fieldstone Lakes subdivision number three includes the last leg of Fieldstone Drive as we've worked to the west.

And it's pretty much, it really isn't much to say.

It's just phase three of a previously approved site.

Great, thank you. Engineer Schneider, any comments? Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The proponent is asking for the city to actually approve something which at this time is not constructed. Typically, we've always required it to be constructed or to have an agreement in place. BECAUSE A PORTION OF THIS PHASE IS ACTUALLY GOING TO BE MAINTAINED BY THE CITY. IT BASICALLY BECOMES OURS. THE PORTION INSIDE THE DEVELOPMENT IS PRIVATE. not approve these because of the component of it being a public road that hasn't been approved and does not have an agreement in place at this time. So I know this is one of the issues we've always come up across in regards to with City Council as far as the summer sessions and the timing and everything. So if Planning Commission wants to move forward with this and approve it, on the condition that everything's built to our standards. We will hold PLATS until such time, but that's traditionally how we've done this.

Okay, thank you. Fire Chief Gall, Assistant Chief Gall.

Fire Prevention Bureau. Through you, Chair. I thought he raised his hand.

I did. Just to address engineering, I did talk with Kathy in engineering. Everything's done. All the undergrounds are done. The paver has moved in. We'll be paved next week.

So having the built-to-standards condition in there, if we were to move forward, this would be okay? Yes. Okay. Yes.

Thank you. Through you, Chair, Fire Prevention Bureau approves the plans as presented and for the initial phase to continue.

Great. Thank you. Any questions or comments from the Commission? All right, seeing none, I'll entertain a motion to approve Planning Commission Case 2026-100071 with the conditions as proposed by the engineer as they are built to our standards. So moved. Moved by Director Bronowski, second by Ms. Rivera. Any further discussion? All in favor, aye. Aye. Opposed, nay. Motion carried. And the second item on this is Planning Commission Case 2026-100072, SB Holdings, LTD, 2 Berea Commons, Number 1, Berea, Ohio, requesting approval for the next phase, Subdivision Plat 2, for Southridge and Fieldstone Lakes Subdivision.

Same situation. There is no public street portion of this, but this is a second phase of a previously approved subdivision. All the underground work is completely finished. All this paving at Fieldstone Lakes is happening next week. Prep is going on now. Proof rolls tomorrow or the day after. All the pavement goes down next week over the course of two days. Great. Thank you, Mr. Schoening.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Case 2026-10072, same and consistent with the previous submittal case number. It is consistent with the past submittals for this portion of the subdivision. Individual housing units will undergo a separate zoning review at building permit plan submittal. No further comments.

Great, thank you. Engineer Schneider. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

As the proponent said, this is very similar to the previous one. The only difference would be that this is actually a private road, so the road being constructed is not going to be maintained by the city. So I would just, with the same comments as before.

Okay, great.

So having the conditions as built to our standards, is that appropriate?

Standards, I mean, we still have standards, obviously, but it's, yes, it's not going to be ours, so we're not going to be maintaining it, is all I'm really saying. Great, thank you.

Assistant Chief Gall?

The Fire Prevention Bureau has no objection to this phase. Just continue what the original plans has presented.

Any questions from the commission?

Seeing none, I'll entertain a motion to approve Planning Commission Case 2026-100072, SB Holdings. Do I have a motion? So moved.

Moved by Director Podolsky.

Second. Seconded by Ms. Rivera. Any further discussion? All in favor, aye. Aye. Opposed, nay. Motion carried. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

And we'll jump back to item number eight, and I appreciate the proponents' patience on this, but we have three public hearings this morning, all dealing with the same area. The first one on the docket is public hearing 2026-100039, Villas of the Valley, LLC slash Maple Waffles Land, LLC, 1100 Golf Road, Elyria, Ohio, requesting for a preliminary subdivision. Good morning, Ms. Wang, how are you? Good. Good to see you. Good to see you.

Good to see everyone.

Please share your process.

Sorry? You want to go first? Sure, well, yes, my name's Mike Meyer. I've been involved with the project for a while. I'm the project architect, and I'm here to kind of answer any questions that the board may have about these two variances we're seeking this morning. So I don't want to give, I mean, you've heard the project before. It's been approved previously. I'm not sure we need to go through every portion of the project. Just talk about the variances this morning.

Okay. Mr. Schoening.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Case 2026-100039 is for approval of a preliminary subdivision. Per my staff report that was issued May 11, 2026, this was withdrawn at the time by the applicant. There was a previous approval granted for Case 2024-100036 on May 7th. under the previous zoning code. Unfortunately, the project did not proceed in terms of the requirements of the code for completed construction at that time. However, a variance was approved for open space requirements that was a separate case number 2023-100098 on the same date for Planning Commission, May 7th, 2024. As we all know, variances are laid with the land and they are in perpetuity essentially. So that was granted previously. The project in front of us, there are a couple issues noted by the interim zoning administrator, namely regarding the requirement for a lot split and consolidation. For clarification with the commission here, morning, there was an email sent by me back in May regarding that a conditional approval may be granted to the applicant contingent that this lot split and consolidation is completed prior to the final plat. Having worked with Attorney Craig as well, I just wanted to clarify that that conversation did occur back in May, on May 14th. Outside of that, the variances I know are separate case numbers, so they can be discussed at a later time here. And no further comments.

Okay, Engineer Schneider. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As proponents stated, this subdivision had been previously approved. Not a lot has changed from the original. So all my previous proposals correspondences in regards to the base flood elevation and the requirements in regards to state permits, things of that nature are still applicable, but I don't see any reason not to move forward at this time.

Thank you. Assistant Chief Gall. Through you, Chair. I provided you with the comment for Fire Prevention Bureau. Areas that in particular to the code were highlighted in blue in the copy that I provided to you. Of within my comments, there were three areas I really want to stress with the proponent. Hydrants and water mains. Lyria Codified Ordinance 131903. Architect Meyer has stated on page 10 that hydrant locations shown on the drawing are approximate. Maximum spacing less than 300 feet shall be in accordance with ECO 131903. Follow the entire ORDINANCE WOULD BE WHAT I WOULD REQUIRE WHILE HE SELECTED ONE OF THE AREAS. THIS ENTIRE ORDINANCE, BESIDES INSTALLATION AND TYPE AND DESIGN, ALSO ADDRESSES MAINTENANCE ASPECTS OF FIRE HYDRANTS. I WANT TO STRESS THAT. On the other page, fire apparatus access roads. In particular, from the Ohio Fire Code Section 503.2.4, turning radius. I request that the architect provide a drawing showing our aerial apparatus, which we refer to as Tower 8, maneuvering in the subdivision. Specs are available through Sudfin Corporation. I provide you our build number. that I want to see those drawings showing our tower aerial navigating through the drives as you have designed. Moving on within fire apparatus access roads, 503.3 marking require all emergency lane access roads to be marked. In particular, if you have a drive that is 26 feet in width or less, there's no parking permitted on either side. Those signs need to be posted. Finally, you're going to use the keyed system on your access gates. Knox Company was referred to in your drawings. These gates need to be not less than 20 feet in width. And they must be the swinging or sliding type operable by one person. And stress for the lock system, city of Elyria, sometimes it's confused with the township.

It's certainly our intent to comply with all these requests and requirements. I don't see, we don't see any issues preventing us from, you know, meeting all our requirements.

I have no other comment at this time.

Great.

Thank you. Any questions from the commission? Mr. Schoening, can you restate what your recommendation is, please, with any conditions that might be involved in that?

Yes, Mr. Chair, through you. The two conditions that, from a zoning perspective at least, that I would be concerned with would be the lot split and consolidation is completed prior to filing for the final plat. That would be the first one per my correspondence with the applicant on May 14th. The second would be the access driveway is constructed first. That was based on the previous approval from Planning Commission in 2024 that the access driveway is completed first from my end. And, of course, any supplemental conditions recommended by engineering or the fire marshal.

So the access road you're talking about, is that the turning lane or is that an additional road coming in from another area?

That would be the, Engineer Schneider, can I ask for clarification? What was the exact wording that was approved, do you recall, in the 2024 approval?

In regards to the access road, the access road is the secondary access that's halfway up the hill that's required. I do remember Planning Commission, the last time when we voted on this, you required that the turn lane be installed as part of phase one. So that's what you. Okay, that's what I was looking for.

I would like to make a comment in regards to that. We will be ready and prepared to install the fire access lane first. And then once when that's completed, then we will be then doing the turning lane for the purpose to keep the golf course operational throughout the construction. Thank you for your consideration. Thank you, Ms. Wayne. Director Panofsky.

Thank you. Engineer Schneider, to the point, to the extent that you remember this, because it was a while ago, I seem to remember the turning lane was required before phase one could start. Am I remembering that incorrectly or is it simultaneously or do you recall? Because one of the questions I have for the proponent is I'm just curious as to, you know, it's been two years. Is there any explanation as far as the timing and the delay and And there certainly can be, but I'm just curious about that because there was this plan that was kind of put in place and these things that were approved with some conditions. And then as far as I know, everything just kind of stopped.

I'm trying to understand that. May I share some additional information? So we have done two separate traffic studies. The traffic study does indicate for turning lane to be installed after the first 80 homes are completed. And part two, that no turning lanes necessary per traffic study that we have done and submitted to the city for approval.

But it's my understanding through you, Chair, that, again, from two years ago, my recollection was that we required the turning lane. Correct. Turning lane would be installed.

Excuse me. I'm sorry.

Whether your traffic study said it was required or not, that was a requirement or a condition that we put on it. So I'm trying to understand the status of that before this moves forward because it was obviously important enough for us at that time. And I don't want to forget it. Sometimes time passes and we forget those things, and I don't want to regret that. So that's what I'm asking about.

Thank you for your clarification.

Any other questions for the commission? So at this time I'll enter, excuse me, are there any proponents? Are there any proponents? Are there any proponents? Are there any opponents? Are there any opponents? Mr. Oswald?

Kenny Oswald, 237 Pepperdine Drive. I am for the development.

Thank you.

I know originally our big problem was just what Chris mentioned, is the turning lane. And I've been very steadfast in saying exactly what Chris said, that we wanted that turning lane done before the houses or anything was done because I've dealt around construction a lot, concrete trucks, excavators, everything coming in and out. That's gonna be just as dangerous as after you get 80 units put in there. So I wanted that safety while it's being built. That's why I think we made that, that we weren't going to GO THROUGH WITH THIS UNTIL WE GOT THAT TURNING LANE. BUT I THINK ONCE THAT TURNING LANE GETS IN THERE, WHICH I KNOW IT'S A COST, OKAY, BUT I THINK TO KEEP THE CITY SAFE, THE DRIVERS, I'VE BEEN DRIVING THERE FOR 66, NO, NOT THAT, A LOT OF YEARS. It's real dangerous trying to maneuver in and out of there and then when you have vehicles like that. And I know there's precautions you can take, but that's all I would say is I think we need to stay steadfast on that. Thank you very much.

May I add to that? May I add to that? So yes, it is our intention to have the turning lane constructed while the houses are being built. But we are not asking for the first 80 homes to be built at this point before the turning lane is installed. we're just asking for the fire access road to be built first so that if necessary, we can divert some of the traffic utilizing the fire access road when the turning lane is being built. So that way we can keep the golf course open.

Okay, thank you. Are there any opponents? Are there any opponents? Please come to the microphone, state your name and address for the record, please.

Carol Holbert. I live in Spring Valley at 440 Olivet Drive. I'm not opposed to this, but before anything gets done, I just feel like road safety needs to be first. I've lived here my entire life. That hill is dangerous. You can't just not put a turning lane or not put something because people are used to just going down that hill and going, and then all of a sudden you're gonna change all this, and I feel like the roads have to be done first. We have to have that in place first, because you're gonna have construction crews going in there, and everything else, plus you've got people golfing, plus you've got, unless you're gonna do it in the winter when nobody's golfing, I don't know. And I just feel like that's my only concern is that hill is dangerous. It always has been. And I'm just worried about the safety. Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Silbert.

Thank you.

And we definitely recognize that. That's why Tony Lynn is going to be installed to help with the safety issue.

Are there any opponents? Are there any opponents? Are there any opponents? I declare the public hearing has been held. So I'll entertain a motion to approve with conditions that the turning lane be put in prior to construction of the homes and the lot split consolidation be completed prior to the final plat being submitted, which is a part of 2026-10039, Villas of the Valley, LLC Maple Waffles Land, LLC, 1100 Golf Road, and the request for a preliminary subdivision.

Conditions have moved.

one second mr shoning uh just to clarify this is singularly only the turning line being implemented or is this the turning lane as well as the fire access access excuse me thank you so the turning lane the access road fire access road and the lot split consolidation be completed prior to the final plat does the motion concur yes do i can get the final plat uh so

You would like for us to construct the turning lane plus the fire access road before the final plat can be issued?

So the motion, Ms. Wang, is that the turning lane has to be put in prior to the homes being built, the access road has to be put in, and then the lot split consolidation would need to be completed before the final plat is submitted, as recommended by the city planner. Is that correct, Mr. Schoening? Yes.

That is correct.

And the motion concurs.

Is there a second? I would second that motion. Seconded by Director Panofsky. Any further discussion?

All in favor signify by aye. Aye. Opposed nay. Motion carried. Next public hearing on the docket is 2026-100048, Villas of the Valley, LLC, Maple Waffles, LLC, 1100 Golf Road, request for a variance from section 1121.04.10 of the Leary Codified Ordinances. Per the plan submitted, the driveway coverage area exceeds 40%. Are there any proponents? Any comments?

Hey, this is a private road which has should have been bearing on us be the driver wins because the possibility or likelihood of a 3 car garage the extra with on the drive apron just seems to make a lot of sense. And it's only I think a 5% increase or whatever that number is on the requirements so. we're asking for that variance to allow three-car wide drive apron for, not for a specific area, but a blanket variance for wherever it may be required.

Great. Thank you. Mr. Schoene?

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Through you, case 2026-100048 is for the requirements of subsection 1121.0410, driveway width for some of the parcels within the property here. Our requirements with the zoning code are for the driveways not to exceed 40% or 20 feet at the lot lines as indicated by the applicant. They plan on having 24 feet at the curb cuts, I believe indicated in their submittal here, as well as 28 feet for three-car garages. No further comments.

Recommendation?

Recommendation of approval.

Thank you. Engineer Schneider? Engineer, he has no comments.

Uh, Assistant Chief Gall? Fire Prevention Bureau has no comment.

Any questions from the Commission? Are there any other proponents? Are there any proponents? Are there any proponents? Are there any opponents? Are there any opponents? Are there any opponents? A declared public hearing has been held. So I'll entertain a motion to approve Public hearing 2026-10048, Villas of the Valley, LLC, Maple Waffles Land, LLC, 1100 Golf Road, Elyria, Ohio, and the request for a variance from section 1121.04.10 of the Elyria codified ordinances per the plan submitted. The driveway coverage area exceeds 40%. Do I have a motion? Move by Mr. Battle. Second by Mr. Aiden. Further discussion? All in favor, aye. Aye. Opposed, nay. Motion carried. And the last public hearing today is 2026-100049, Villas of the Valley LLC, Maple Waffles Land LLC, 1100 Golf Road, Elyria, requesting a variance from section 1119.073 of the Elyria Codified Ordinances for the Development Standards Lot Depth Minimum 100 feet. Any comments from the proponent?

There are two lots that fall in this category, two requests for variances. And I think that although they don't meet the exact specifications in the code, I think that because of the way they laid out, they meet the intent of providing clear space around the lots. You can do the math. The square footage is adequate. It meets the code. It's just because of the way this whole project has gotten laid out, we have a couple of unique situations. Yeah, and so, like I said, I think it meets the intent of the code, but not specifically the code exactly. So I think this is why variances are in the code for exact situations like this. So we're seeking approval for these two kind of peculiar lots that in our mind, don't impact the overall quality of the project. And because of their locations, respect to the other lots, it's not like they're going to be lot lines on the property and someone's going to say, oh my God, that property is non-compliant. I think that, not to dissuade it, but I don't think you grant these variances will cause any degradation of the quality of the entire project.

Great. Thank you. Mr. Schoening.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. The two lots that they are seeking the variance for are lots 111 and 42. Lot 111, the one side has a depth of 110 feet. However, the other side is 89.6 feet. It is slightly over 11 feet deviation of that requirement. However, when considering the layout of the roadways, this is almost unavoidable to meet the setback requirements. Lot 42 is more significant. It's approximately... I don't have it in front of me right now, but it is about half of the size of the lot depth requirement as indicated by code. Once again, this is due to the fact that the road does meander close to that area. rather an intersection is close to that lot proposed lot. And therefore a variance would be suitable as it does. I do concur that it does meet the intent of the code due to the hardship of the road layout. That's why they need the variance. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Engineer Schneider. Engineering has no comments. Fire Chief, Assistant Chief Gall. Fire Prevention Bureau has no comments. Any questions from the commission? Are there any proponents?

Yeah, I would just add, if I would, that on 111, the lot size has been expanded to kind of overcompensate for the fact that the one lot line is not long enough. So there's even more space than would be required. So we've tried to be generous to compensate for the lack of requirement for the side lot line. Are there any proponents?

Are there any proponents? Are there any proponents? Are there any opponents? Are there any opponents? Are there any opponents? Seeing none, I declare the public hearing has been held. I will entertain a motion to approve 2026-100049, Villas of the Valley, LLC, Maple Waffles Land, LLC, 1100 Golf Road, Elyria, for the request for variance from section 1119.073 of the Elyria Codified Ordinance for Development Standards of a lot depth minimum of 100 feet. Do I have a motion? Motion. Moved by Mr. Aiden. Second. Second by Mr. Battle. Any further discussion? All in favor signify by aye. Aye. Opposed, nay. Motion carried. Thank you so much for your time and consideration.

Thank you.

We've already handled item nine on the planning commission cases. Item 10 is design review applications that are approved by city staff. Is there any questions from the commission on any of those? Seeing none, there are no staff commission reports at this time. Our next meeting will be August 4th, 2026. I will entertain a motion to adjourn. MOVED BY MR. PRONOWSKI, SECOND BY MR. AYDEN. ALL IN FAVOR OF ADJOURNMENT? AYE. OPPOSED NAY. MEETING ADJOURNED. THANK YOU.