Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council presses D.R. Horton on SR‑104 townhome plan, traffic and CRA implications
Summary
Councilors reviewed a proposed D.R. Horton townhome project behind Glass Fire along state Route 104, raising traffic-safety, buffering and density concerns and asking whether the proposal could receive CRA/TIF benefits.
Council members reviewed a proposed D.R. Horton townhouse development behind Glass Fire along state Route 104 and discussed traffic impacts, buffers between new units and existing homes, required traffic studies for a planned residential district and whether the village’s Community Reinvestment Area (CRA)/TIF provisions could apply to residential units.
Councilors described changes the developer offered, including larger buffers (a 40-foot buffer increased to 75 feet in some places), added mounding and extra spacing between multi-family buildings (council noted an increase to roughly 25 feet between buildings). Concern centered on vehicle access: the project would use right-in/right-out access points on SR‑104 and council members asked if Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT) would require turn lanes or traffic signals. Staff said a traffic study is not required for a simple rezoning to residential but would be required if the project moves to site-plan review or a Planned Residential District (PRD); if a PRD is pursued, a traffic study and any required turn or acceleration lanes would be part of that review.
Several councilors expressed worry about the additional vehicle trips from the project (one councilor estimated up to 220 cars) and urged staff to raise ODOT concerns during review so the state can advise on signals or lane work. Members also discussed how density affects marketability if single-family homes face warehouses or commercial uses across the road, and whether the CRA agreements that exist in the Rickenbacker/industrial area could or should be extended to residential product. Staff said the village’s existing CRA/TIF language appears to apply primarily to commercial property and that village counsel and the CRA agreement would determine eligibility.
There was no final vote on rezoning or site-plan approvals at the meeting. Councilors asked staff to: confirm which approvals (rezoning vs. PRD vs. site plan) would trigger a traffic study, coordinate with ODOT on access and turn‑lane requirements, and get legal guidance about whether CRA/TIF incentives could be applied to the proposed homes. Councilors also suggested the developer consider moving stormwater retention and to maximize buffering and tree screening where homes back up to existing houses.
