December 30, 2004

Council grants initial approval adopting revised PUD standards

By Robert Mihalek

Village Council last week approved the first of two votes needed to adopt a new zoning district for larger developments.

The district, Planned Unit Development, would accommodate developments on properties of one acre or more and is designed to give builders flexibility when planning development projects.

PUD zoning designations would be acceptable for residential, commercial or industrial developments. It would also allow for a combination of residential and business uses to be built on the same property. The Village’s current PUD standards can only be used for residential uses.

The proposed PUD regulations would allow a developer to accomplish two things at once: rezone his land, with a PUD designation, and receive approval for development plans at the same time, according to Village Planner Phil Hawkey, who helped design the PUD proposal.

At its meeting Dec. 20, Council voted 4–0 to pass the first reading of an ordinance creating a new PUD chapter in the Village Zoning Code. Council member Denise Swinger was absent. Council will hold a second reading and a public hearing on the measure at its Feb. 7 meeting.

Council’s initial approval of the PUD proposal follows a recommendation for passage from the Village Planning Commission. The commission, with assistance from a paid consulting firm, Edward and Kelcey, created the proposed PUD standards, which are contained in a complex, 20-page document.

In addition to creating a new PUD chapter, the ordinance would repeal another section of the Zoning Code, Site Plan Review, chapter 1262, which is used by the Village to approve smaller developments. George Pitstick, who is Council’s representative on the Planning Commission, said that elements of the Site Plan Review process were incorporated into the PUD proposal.

After the meeting, Hawkey said that the Site Plan Review was intended to be a “simpler process for smaller projects,” but in reality was “too complex” and limiting under some development scenarios.

“I think it’s an improvement,” Hawkey said of the proposed PUD district. “I think it’s a good set of regulations. It has the potential to approve a nice set of projects.”

Comments from Village officials underscored how the proposed PUD standards align with Council goals to promote more development in Yellow Springs.

Council president Tony Arnett noted that the district’s guidelines provide room for the Village to negotiate with developers who are seeking creatively designed projects. He said that the process to get a project approved under the proposal could “turn into quite a bit of horse trading.”

For instance, the PUD regulations would require the Planning Commission to review and provide feedback to a developer on his plans, as well as ask for changes to be made. Based on this review, the developer would be able to tweak his project plans before the project is subjected to a vote by the plan board or Council.

Hawkey said that under the proposed PUD “everything is negotiable,” though, he added, it would be unlikely that a developer would get all that he wanted.

The zoning ordinance states that the Planning Commission would not hold a public hearing on a PUD project until development plans “have been approved in principle” or an applicant says no more negotiations are needed. The plan board would hold a hearing on what the zoning ordinance calls “preliminary plans.”

Council would also be required to hold a public hearing and approve the preliminary plans for a PUD project.

The Planning Commission would have to hold a second hearing on what the ordinance calls “Final Development Plans,” which would contain more detailed information, such as engineering work. The commission would have the option to forward “Final Development Plans” to Council for final approval

The PUD ordinance would also allow a developer seeking approval for a subdivision on land he wants zoned PUD to receive concurrent approval for the PUD designation and subdivision. The Zoning Code defines a subdivision as a division of land into two or more lots for the purpose of transferring or developing the land.

The proposed zoning guidelines would allow for three types of PUDs:

• Residential, or PUD-R: residential, educational and recreational uses.

• Business, or PUD-B: retail, service and office establishments, as well as residential, educational and recreational uses; would permit multiple nonresidential buildings on one lot, subject to review by the Planning Commission and approval by Council.

• Industrial, or PUD-I: manufacturing, processing, warehousing and industrial services; retail, service and office establishments; and educational uses; would permit multiple buildings on one lot, subject to review by the Planning Commission and approval by Council.

PUD-R and PUD-B would allow a maximum of eight single-family or two-family homes per acre or 12 multifamily dwellings per acre.

None of the three PUDs contains specific lot-width or setback standards, though yards that border other land zoning districts would have to conform to yard requirements in the adjacent district. The PUD districts would allow lot widths to vary “to permit a variety of structural designs,” and would encourage setbacks to vary.

Each PUD would require a development to contain common open space “fully accessible” by those living or working in the district or the public:

• PUD-R: 25 percent
• PUD-B: 20 percent
• PUD-I: 20 percent

The zoning ordinance would give the Planning Commission authority to approve the location, shape and size, among other elements, of common open space. The proposal would also permit the plan board to waive open space requirements on PUD sites less than two acres, if the property contains “exceptional design” and “significant landscaping elements.”

During Council’s meeting last week, Council member Jocelyn Hardman said that she liked the amount of required open space in each PUD, noting that such standards reflect Yellow Springs values.