March 10, 2005

Zoning, development rules highlights of Council forum

By Robert Mihalek

The key to negotiating developments that are good for property owners and Yellow Springs is not to be confrontational but instead “bring a developer into our tent” and help a developer understand Yellow Springs, Bruce Rickenbach, the chairman of the Village Planning Commission, said during a forum on Village zoning issues on Feb. 28.

The Village can achieve this, he said, by negotiating with developers under the recently revised Planned Unit Development ordinance, which provides much room for the Village to negotiate with developers and encourages creative building designs for the use of land one acre or larger.

“It’s a very effective tool,” Rickenbach said of the new PUD, “that will lead to a cooperative process.”

The PUD ordinance was revised in a “rational way,” he said, to help the Village ensure that properties that are developed are “incorporated into the community.”

Rickenbach’s comments underscored the Village’s efforts during the meeting last week to convince the 20 or so people — about half of whom were public officials — at the forum that the Village wants to encourage development that fits into the community and produces public benefits, such as tax dollars.

For instance, Council member Denise Swinger said that she supports the effort to build a commerce park, called the Center for Business and Education, because it will create jobs in Yellow Springs and keep income tax revenue from leaving the community. She said she worries that Yellow Springs could become a “bedroom community” that threatens the village’s socioeconomic diversity by pushing people out of town.

Ed Amrhein, the assistant Village planner, said that he is optimistic that the Village can negotiate development deals that respect the rights of property owners and the values of the community.

Village officials also emphasized that the Village Comprehensive Plan helps guide them in their land-use decisions and can provide a legal justification for judgments. For example, Rickenbach contended that the Village would never have allowed the Fogg property, on Dayton-Yellow Springs Road, to be developed with a strip mall, as one of the property owners indicated, because the Comprehensive Plan prohibits retail businesses in that area.

The future use of the Fogg parcel will be influenced with how plans for the land “fit into out-zoning and Comprehensive Plan,” Rickenbach said.

The Comprehensive Plan designates the Fogg property as part of a “special planning area” and says it is a likely site for development. “Any development should be closely reviewed with regard to the effective use of land — such as clustering of residences and limiting curb cuts along Dayton-Yellow Springs Road,” the plan states.

Last week’s forum was organized by Village Council as part of an effort to provide the public with information about Village zoning and development, planning documents and Village financial planning. Council agreed to the forums after some Yellow Springers questioned plans by the owners of the Fogg property to annex the land into town.

The forum, the first of three that Council planned, included overviews of annexation procedures and Village zoning regulations that address development.

Council president Tony Arnett, who gave the summaries of annexation and Village zoning procedures, said that annexing land from Miami Township into Yellow Springs is necessary if a property owner wants to build at a high density or wants to open a business because it requires sewer services, which the Village has.

But he emphasized that just because Council approves an annexation request, that approval does not mean that Council has made promises about future zoning or development decisions.

Annexed property enters Yellow Springs with the same zoning it had in the township, Arnett said, and it’s up to the property owner to have the land rezoned, which, he noted, “determines the use of land.” Zoning changes are voted on first by Planning Commission, then by Council. The votes take place during public meetings, and the public is allowed to comment on zoning proposals, Arnett said.

“We’re not just going through the motions, folks,” he said of accepting public comments. “We want to hear what people have to say,” which can influence decisions.

The Village boards must also approve development plans. Arnett focused most of his attention on this subject on the new PUD regulations, which allow a developer to simultaneously rezone property and receive approval for development plans. The regulations allow for residential, commercial or industrial developments, including a combination of residential and business facilities on the same property.

Arnett said the PUD empowers the Village to negotiate development plans with builders in a way that provides “opportunity for people to think creatively out of the box.”

He also said that legislation approved by Council, including annexation and zoning decisions, may be challenged through referendums.

According to Arnett, there are about three acres of open land that is not zoned residential: one acre at MillWorks, one acre downtown at the former grain elevator site, and just over one acre on the south end of town near the carwash.

He also reported that there are significantly sized parcels of open land zoned residential: the 44-acre Glass Farm, which the Village owns; the 23-acre Kinney farm; Birch III, a 20-acre parcel owned by Antioch that a builder hopes to purchase and develop with housing; 19 acres around Southgate; 10 acres of land that was once the Carr Nursery, at High and Herman; eight acres on King Street owned by St. Paul Catholic Church; and the eight-acre G. Stanley Hall Hall property.

All the properties except the Glass Farm, Arnett noted, are privately owned. “Just because they’re open doesn’t mean that anything will happen to them,” he said, adding, “We can encourage property owners to build but that’s all we can do.”

The Village, however, is actively pursuing commercial development with the Center for Business and Education, which is being developed by Community Resources, on land at East Enon and Dayton-Yellow Springs Road. Community Resources is seeking to have the 46-acre property annexed into town.

Most of the input from the audience came in the form of questions. Rick Donahoe, a member of VALID, or Villagers Addressing Land Issues and Development, was one of the few who made a statement.

He said that neighboring communities such as Beavercreek and Fairborn started growing by first annexing land, then rezoning it, followed by “negotiating themselves out of being the community they want to be.”

“It all started with annexation,” he said.

Rickenbach responded: “We have an opportunity to try to get it right and not make the mistakes…Beavercreek or Fairborn may have made.”