Planning commission issues negative recommendation for Sheetz gas station proposal amid wetlands and flooding concerns

The Stow City Planning Commission voted to recommend denial of a revised Sheetz site plan for a gas station with a drive‑through (file referenced in the meeting as PC2024‑048). The motion to recommend denial carried on a roll‑call vote, with commissioners recording a 4–0 vote in favor of the negative recommendation; the matter will be on the planning committee agenda for March 6 for further review and public comment.

The application sought two conditional uses (a gas station and a drive‑through) and several variances for canopy height, canopy illumination and interior parking‑lot landscaping. Staff and the applicant presented a revised site plan that reduces an interior landscaping island in order to preserve additional wetland area; the revised plan would require an additional variance for parking‑lot landscaping.

Commission staff summarized technical elements of the proposal and the revisions. The plan calls for an underground detention system sized to meet Mudbrook Watershed District requirements and to accommodate a 100‑year storm, and the developer would be responsible for traffic improvements including a southbound deceleration lane on Fish Creek Road, a westbound deceleration lane on Stow Road, an eastbound right‑turn lane on Stow Road and signal timing changes. Staff told the commission that those traffic changes would be paid by the developer and would “slightly improve traffic in this area.”

Sheetz representatives described changes made after the prior (February 11) meeting. Diane Kolta, identified at the meeting as Sheetz land‑development counsel, and Ellen Sully, identified as a Sheetz entitlement manager, said the revised plan moves landscaping from a drive‑through island into nearby wetland buffer areas to preserve approximately 2,700 square feet of wetland. Sully said, “this landscaping hasn't gone away with this new site plan. It was just relocated from the island over to the wetland.” She added the project team had obtained an approved wetland delineation and an AJD from the Ohio EPA and planned to buy mitigation credits within the watershed.

Staff noted the original plan showed 5.3% interior parking‑lot landscaping; the revised plan reduces that to 2.5%, triggering a variance for the interior landscaping requirement. Other variances identified in staff materials included a variance to allow up to about 3.1 foot‑candles at an access drive (where the code limit cited in the staff report is 0.5 foot‑candles at the property line) and variances to exceed allowed canopy height and to permit a backlit canopy; the canopy height shown on the elevations is about 26 feet. The package presented to commissioners also described required building setbacks, a lighting plan, and a landscape plan that staff said had been approved by the city arborist.

Residents spoke at length during public comment, largely opposing the project. Multiple speakers who live on or near Fish Creek Road raised concerns about local flooding, storm‑sewer capacity, wetland loss and impacts on wildlife and neighborhood character. Karen Jesse said, “I don't buy for a minute… that the wetlands conveniently end right where their gas station needs to be.” Erin Mundorff, who identified herself as a water‑resources engineer, told the commission she was concerned mitigation credits would not be purchased within Summit County (the commissioners were told credits would be purchased within the watershed) and that filling wetland area and adding pavement would reduce on‑site storage and likely worsen downstream flooding: “I would expect the flooding issues to become worse in the area even with their underground storage connecting to the municipal water management system.” Other residents said traffic at nearby elementary schools and the performance of existing storm sewers were already problems and said another station would exacerbate both issues.

Commissioners asked clarifying questions on the detention design, the discharge point and the revised landscaping layout during the presentation and public comment period. Staff clarified the underground detention would discharge to the northeast corner of the site into the existing storm system that runs under Fish Creek Road and that the underground detention is designed to be covered (not an open pond). Staff also reminded the commission that the planning commission is a recommending body and that a negative recommendation would go forward to the planning committee for March 6 for further review and public comment.

After public comment the commission considered a motion on the revised plan. A commissioner moved to recommend denial of the revised plan (PC2024‑048); the motion was seconded and carried on a voice/roll call vote. The clerk recorded the supporting votes as Missus Clancy, Mister Wagner, Missus Treptoe and Mister Dukuliaak. The commission’s recommendation for denial will be placed on the planning committee agenda on March 6 for additional consideration. No final municipal council decision was made at the planning commission meeting.

The meeting record includes submitted materials from the applicant and seven emails to the commission, which staff said would be included with the minutes and the planning‑committee packet.