Committee splits on Chestnut Ridge commercial rezoning; measure still moves to Elyria Council

ELYRIA — A proposed commercial development and the role it could play in existing traffic issues on Chestnut Ridge Road will remain hotly contested even as it is set to go before Elyria City Council in the coming months. On Monday, Council's Community Development Committee voted 2-2 on a proposal to rezone a property at state Route 57 and Chestnut Ridge Road from a residential district to a commercial one. The rezoning would clear the way for a proposed five-unit commercial development on the parcels owned by the former Chestnut Ridge Baptist Church that were annexed into the city last year. The proposed development from Luv Retail Development, of Florida, would be called "Chestnut Row." A tied vote means that the rezoning request fails to obtain a recommendation of approval from the committee, but that it will still move forward to Council as a whole for a final vote. The split vote reflected a tense disagreement among some city officials and Council members: Whether the development was an opportunity to address the existing traffic problem, or if it would simply add even more congestion. In two separate presentations at the committee meeting on Monday, members of Council first heard from Mark Lutner, principal of Luv Retail, about the proposal itself and then from representatives of GFT, a consultant hired by the city to study the traffic issues at the Chestnut Ridge-Route 57 intersection and propose possible fixes. The city has not entered into any specific plan to improve traffic flow in the area, but Finance Director Ted Pileski gave a rough estimate of $5.2 million to fix traffic problems — a figure he said would certainly increase through the process of planning and preparation. Lutner argued that the development of Chestnut Row could be used to provide crucial funding to foot that bill, assuming that the city approves it for a tax increment financing, or TIF, agreement. Under a TIF, property owners in an area do not pay traditional income tax, but instead pay a rough equivalent directly into a TIF fund that is then used to pay for public improvements both in the TIF area and surrounding it, which would apply to the intersection. The city and Luv have not formally agreed to any TIF, but negotiations have revolved around a 10-year, 75 percent TIF that would raise about $1.9 million in that time. Lutner said that traffic from the new development would contribute only 8 percent to 13 percent of the total in the area, and argued that the TIF could provide critical funding to help the city fix the existing issue. "Our position is that this is not just a private development request. It's an opportunity for a public-private infrastructure partnership," Lutner said Monday. "The project would help support the broader modernization of the roadway network. Potential improvements include capacity expansion along Chestnut Ridge Road, improvements on state Route 57, a second northbound left turn lane, signal optimization and a modern, signalized access point serving the development." Councilman Ed Doehne, D-3rd Ward, represents the area that the development is proposed to be built in. On Monday, he said he still didn't believe that the development would do anything but make the traffic worse and upset neighbors. Doehne said that all of the residents of the area that he had spoken to wanted the area to remain residential – a designation it reverted to when it was annexed into the city per city code. He also said that he was unconvinced by the findings of traffic studies from both Luv and GFT that increasing the lane capacity or changing patterns at the traffic lights at the intersection would fix the issue. Susan Paterson, senior project engineer with GFT, said that the company proposed a widening of Chestnut Ridge Road, the addition of more turn lanes throughout the project area and improved synchronization of traffic lights to alleviate traffic. "When we talk about how this development is going to help our current existing traffic problem over there, one thing I am concerned about is we are going to start with six lanes of traffic at Route 57, and then we are going to bottleneck down before we get to Defiance (Avenue) to two lanes, which is what we already have," Doehne said. "So, how is this new traffic infrastructure really helping us if we are just going back down to two lanes of traffic?" Ohio Area Leader of GFT Allen Biehl said that the study found that the expansion of capacity at the Chestnut Ridge Road and Route 57 intersection would have the effect of reducing traffic congestion across the area. "The improvements that we are recommending are really focused on making the intersection of 57 and Chestnut Ridge operate efficiently, because that is what your choke point is," Biehl said. "... It creates all the problems that occur everywhere else in the rest of the area around the site. Again, what we are saying is if you look at the improvements that we are recommending to improve traffic flow, traffic operation at that intersection, a lot of the backups that you are seeing coming out of Chestnut Commons (and) on Chestnut Ridge Road, things like that, those will all be elevated up to the 20-year horizon of the design." Aside from traffic concerns, Doehne said he also took issue with how proximity to a commercial development might negatively impact homeowners on neighboring parcels, particularly those who would abut a proposed Chipotle drive-thru. Councilman Phil Tollett, D-at Large, is not a member of the Community Development Committee, but he was present at the meeting and was allowed to speak, as non-committee members often are. Tollett said that City Council knew that the property was planned to be commercial when it approved the annexation, and that the city should not "go back on its word." He also argued that the proposed traffic improvements needed to be made regardless of any new development, and Chestnut Row presented the most realistic path to funding the work. "Our repairing the Chestnut intersection is dependent on this project," Tollett said. "So, the choice is clear; you vote no against the rezoning without a plan to fix the intersection or you vote yes for the rezoning with a long-term plan in place to fix that intersection and get the traffic moving better." Both Doehne and Councilman Andrew Lipian, I-1st Ward, disagreed with Tollett, arguing that the rezoning did not offer as clear a path to fixing the traffic as Tollett suggested and that the city could find other ways to fund the necessary improvements. "If the development doesn't go through, that means we wait," Doehne said. "We wait and we have a little bit more of a hassle in Ward 3 with the traffic being there, but that does not mean that we have to go into the coffers and take away our savings to do this. It doesn't mean that because this development doesn't go through it doesn't get done, it just means it doesn't get done today." Ultimately, Doehne and Lipian voted against recommending the rezoning request while Council President Donna Mitchell, D-6th Ward, and Councilman Chad Schneider, D-at Large, voted in favor of it. Councilwoman Gina Rothgery, D-at Large, who is also on the committee, was absent from the meeting. Schneider said that the proposed rezoning will have to undergo three readings before City Council as a whole as well as a public hearing before it can be voted on. A number of residents were in the audience who were not given time to speak at the meeting, but applauded Doehne when he opposed the rezoning. Contact Owen MacMillan at (440) 329-7123 or omacmillan@chroniclet.com.