North Ridgeville planning commission approves Victory Park development plan; lighting plan withdrawn

The North Ridgeville Planning Commission on March 11 approved a development plan to add two artificial turf fields at Victory Park, 7777 Victory Lane, while the applicant withdrew its lighting plan for later review.

The commission approved the development plan with conditions that each athletic field must have a minimum 15-foot runout and that each field include a double gate for emergency access. The motion referenced outstanding engineering items to be resolved during the permit review and passed unanimously on a roll call vote of commissioners Toth, Havens and Smolik.

Planning and Development Director Lieber told the commission the property is owned by the city and operated by PMJ Park Holdings LLC and that the proposal would add Turf Field 3 and Turf Field 4 to the existing Turf 1 and Turf 2. Lieber said the application included 12 new light poles — 10 at 80 feet and 2 at 70 feet — and that lighting, grading and drainage details remained staff concerns. "This remains probably my greatest concern is to understand the impact of lighting. I don't have concerns about the turf fields themselves," Lieber said.

City engineering staff asked for additional details to be provided during the engineering permit review, including a grading plan and clarification of how the subsurface system for the new turf will connect to the existing storm sewer. The engineer noted the current storm-sewer information in the applicant's plans appears to come from a 2008 proposal and requested verification of what was actually built.

Joe Borky, listed as majority owner and managing partner for Victory Park/PMJ Park Holdings, said the project seeks to complete a previously planned fifth field and convert an existing natural-grass field to artificial turf. "All we wanna do is put in that fifth field and convert the fourth field to artificial grass," Borky said, stressing urgency tied to local sports organizations wanting consolidated space for the coming season.

Applicants provided updated materials to staff on March 7 and an additional staff bulletin on the day of the meeting; several commissioners said those updates arrived late and made them uncomfortable moving forward on lighting without more time to review the photometric plans. One commissioner described the submitted photometric exhibit as lacking property lines and expressed concern about how drivers on nearby roads might perceive glare or the source of the light.

The applicant agreed at the meeting to withdraw the lighting plan and proceed to a vote on the development plan only. The chair summarized: "The applicant is withdrawing the lighting plan and we're just going to be making a vote on the development plan." The commission then voted to approve the development plan with the stated conditions; the chair then asked administration and engineering to ensure open engineering comments are addressed before permitting.

Commission discussion also covered safety and site layout: commissioners and the applicant discussed runout distances from field edges to fences or netting (industry practice cited at about 15 feet), the need for emergency vehicle access (a 20-foot emergency access drive with a T turnaround was discussed), double gates at fields, and spectator/temporary seating. Applicant representatives said the east–west field length had been reduced to 400 feet from a larger earlier plan so a required 20-foot emergency access could fit and to pull playing surfaces back from the pond.

Speakers raised site-specific construction and environmental points: an applicant representative said much of the current surface sheds to the existing pond and that the new fields would tie into the existing stormwater footprint; another applicant raised the presence of fly ash on the parcel and said trenches and piping details would be addressed with an environmental firm during design. A commission member also noted that several trailers and a media trailer on site should be tied down and secure.

The commission recorded the motion and second in the minutes and the secretary called the roll. The motion passed unanimously: Toth — yes; Havens — yes; Smolik — yes. The recorded outcome states the development plan is approved with conditions, and that lighting will be returned for planning commission review at a later date.

What the approval does and does not do: the commission's action was limited to the development plan as presented (with the listed conditions) and did not approve lighting, final engineering, or permits. Engineering comments and required construction details remain to be provided and reviewed before permits are issued. The applicant and staff indicated the lighting equipment lead time is roughly 12–16 weeks, and the applicant said it must balance the timeline for turf and lighting manufacture with program commitments from local sports groups.

Planning staff said additional Victory Park improvements (additional parking and small structures) could be proposed in later submissions but were not part of this approval. The commission adjourned after the motion carried.

Votes at a glance: Development plan for Victory Park (PPZ 2020 53 — property at 7777 Victory Lane, zoned I-2 light industrial) — approved with conditions (15-foot runout minimum; double emergency gates at each field; engineering items to be resolved during permit review). Vote: Toth — yes; Havens — yes; Smolik — yes.