Ohio Lake Erie Commission Best Local Land Use Practices South Euclid Technical Assistance Review o f PURD

ordinance and potential development sites K.Date, Cleveland State University D R A F T 1-12-09 INTRODUCTION Background. The Ohio Lake Erie Commission is promoting the use o f Best Local Land Use Practices by local governments in the Ohio Lake Erie Watershed. These practices are voluntary, incentive-based, zoning and planning practices that can help provide a more sustainable pattern o f land development and conservation in a community. Key practices include comprehensive and specific planning; redevelopment and compact development; conservation development; stream setbacks; storm water management and erosion/sediment control; woodland and meadow protection. More information can be found on the Commission's web site at WAVW.lakeerie.ohiO.gov. As part o f the Best Local Land Use Practices program, the Commission has offered the services o f Kirby Date, AICP, a planner and landscape architect, to provide 40 hours o f technical assistance on issues o f concern related to implementation o f the Best Practices. Through this program, the City o f South Euclid has received Ms. Date's assistance i n reviewing their existing PURD ordinance as it may be applied to sites i n the community, and to make recommendations regarding achieving a balance o f conservation and development i n the community via this ordinance. Current Concerns. South Euclid is facing a similar pattern o f development and housing issues to many other first-ring suburb communities. The community is mostly built out w i t h only a few remaining undeveloped parcels, most o f which are small (under 10 acres). Only three parcels have the potential to yield over 25 acres. Existing housing stock is for the most part aging, and smaller, w i t h fewer amenities, than those sought by the typical new home buyer. As the population ages there is a need for "empty nester" housing so residents can remain i n the city as they downsize. There is an increase i n rental properties and absentee landlords, and the associated concerns about quality and maintenance. Existing greenspace i n the community is mostly restricted to active parks, and residents have become attached to the few remaining undeveloped private parcels which provide trees and open space i n their neighborhoods. Euclid Creek is the primary water resource, which mostly winds through developed areas; i t does cross the L i n d a n , property (proposed project located near the Library) and Cutter's Creek (construction partially completed). The primary concern is how to balance conservation and development on the last remaining sites i n the City: to allow for the retention o f remaining greenspace and natural resources to the extent possible, while allowing private property owners their rights o f development, and maximizing the opportunity to diversify and upgrade the housing stock availability i n the city, thereby enhancing the available tax base.

South Euclid TA Memo 1-12-09

The City is currently pursuing a housing study with consultant Zimmerman/Volk Associates, Inc. o f Clinton, N e w Jersey. Questions being addressed include a profile o f the existing housing stock, and a projection o f future housing needs, with recommendations for meeting those needs into the future. The study was completed in November 2008. The City is implementing a citywide Community Reinvestment Area (CRA), which w i l l allow them to offer tax abatement to both developers for residential projects which upgrade city housing stock, and to existing residents who do major renovations to their existing homes. SITE REVIEWS

Review process. The review involved a startup meeting with Cal Caminati, service director. Sunny Simon, city council member, Moe Romeo, city council member, Sally Martin, housing director, and other key city staff. As a foUowup, city ordinances were reviewed, and a site walk-through o f existing and proposed developmerit sites was done on September 11, 2008 by Ms. Date, with Mr. Caminati and Ms. Martin. This^ memorandum summarizes the recommendations that came out o f those conversations. Site reviews consisted o f a 10-minute walk through, with reference to schematic level reduced maps provided by the City. Particular attention was paid to overall site layout w i t h regard to visual quality, development needs and conservation o f natural features. This was not an inspection or construction level review. Completed Projects Monticello Place, o f f Trebisky Road at Monticello Boulevard. 38 units, all single family detached dwellings. Developer Whitlatch. Completed i n 2002, the project envisioned a 3-year absorption, but actually sold out in less than one year. Zoned R-75. This was the first PURD in the City. It is an attractive addition to the neighborhood which has been well received. Residents own fee simple lots, with strip behind it common open space; but residents "covet" the common open space and encroach on it. Chain link fence and other fencing, while generally permitted under current zoning, is not as attractive as it could be due to variety o f designs and some low-quality materials. Fencing options should be carefully considered in future projects; see discussion under "Development Code Recommendations", p. 7. Trees/landscaping are very successful, adding substantially to the positive design impact o f the development on the neighborhood. Again this is an indication for consideration i n future projects. Novicki Court, o f f Ardendale Road at South Green, near St. Gregory's. 15 condominium units with adjacent open space. Zoned R-50. A n early PURD, there was some neighborhood concern prior to construction, but it has turned out to be a positive addition to the neighborhood. Mostly empty nester buyers. A public meeting process was conducted by Dave Wager. Open space at least 30 feet wide. Completed i n 2007. Belvoir Mews, o f f Belvoir Road north of Mayfield Road. Not a PURD project but o f interest due to changing rental/ownership status, and "PURD-like" layout. 4.09 acres.

South Eudid TA Memo 1-12-09

construction completed i n 1980. Zoned R-50 Lack o f strong building standards for exterior renovation/improvements is resulting i n some compromise on matenals/construction quality as housing changes to rental status. This could be handled on this and other projects via revisions the the City's Architectural Standards. Partially Completed Projects Stoneridge. O f f Trebisky Road north o f Monticello Boulevard. 4.56 acres. Proposed project that was taken back by the bank i n 2008. Zoned R-75. Only site clearing was completed. 16 units were proposed; developer was Gus Mastronardi o f N A M Properties. This project could be running out o f time for development on its application time limit. Bank and original applicant anticipate seeking additional extensions on the approvals; there is no limit to extensions per the city code. Back lots have been consolidated into one parcel. Crestview Court. O f f Monticello Boulevard across from Azalea Drive. 3.29 acres. 11 single family detached units. Zoned R-75. Project was stopped for financial reasons after 9 units were built. Developer N A M properties. This project has fee simple lots to the fence line, with common open space i n the cul de sac. Some standards for perimeter landscaping may have been useful. A meadow ordinance, which allows natural grass plantings under controlled conditions, may be useful here. See discussion on page 8. Cutters Creek. A t South Green and Anderson Road east o f the War Memorial. 8.96 acres. 48 units, 24 have been constructed, 7 are occupied. Zoned R-60. Developer N o r m Millstein. Project provides "empty nester" housing in prime location o f f Green Road near the Metropark entrance. There are some lessons learned from this project. While it was i n compliance with City and Ohio EPA requirements at the time the site was developed, encroachment on Euclid Creek frontage is quite close, and would not be in compliance with the City's current riparian setback ordinance, which requires a 75 foot setback for Euclid Creek. Tree cutting as a result o f development was extensive, and could have benefited from an arborist's review to determine the value, health and construction tolerance o f trees on the site prior to design. See discussion under "Tree Preservation", page 6, below. Extensive discussion during project design led to the implementation o f a traditional stonn water drainage basin. As alternative, state o f the art methods have been implemented more extensively i n our region since then, it is recommended that storm water facility design be carefully considered as part o f future projects. It is possible that a more watershed-friendly design could result in less impact to the site, more tree preservation, and lower cost for the developer. Francis Court Gables. Francis Court between Mayfield Road and Prasse Rd. 2.39 acres. 16 units proposed; one three-plex has been built. Zoned R-50. Developer Jim Taresi. This project has much potential for a strong design relationship between units and a good fit into the neighborhood, i f it goes forward.

South Euclid TA Memo 1-12-09

Potential Development Sites Ammon Property, north o f Amnion Road backing up to Richmond Heights (between Parkside and Trebisky). Contains existing nursery property with some potential for back land acquisition up to 30 acres.Zoned residential, R-75. This is the largest o f the potential development sites in the City. Extensive existing trees on the site provide a resource which could be protected, i f o f value, as part o f a conservation development which is possible due to the larger size o f the site. This would require a somewhat different set o f requirements i n a specifically adapted PURD or C D ordinance. Recommend assessment o f tree resources on the property prior to any design or planning. See discussion under "Development Code recommendations", page 6. Lindan Property and Palermo Property. Flanking the South Euclid branch o f the Cuyahoga County Public Library on the north side o f Mayfield Road. The Lindan parcel(s) encompass 5.90 acres (Lindan and Valsi together) and is zoned R-60. A n additional possible .92 acres o f backland would bring the Lindan parcel to 6.82 acres. The Paleraio Parcel is 2.25 acres and is zoned M - G . These sites have much potential to incorporate dual goals o f conservation and creative development, especially i f planned as a block with the library property. The City is currently working with City Architecture to explore the possibilities for a mixed use solution incorporating residential, conservation area, expanded library, parking and possible limited commercial use. Compliance with the City's riparian setback code, adopted in 2007, w i l l require a 75 foot setback along Euclid Creek from the ordinary high water mark. I f project design allows, an even greater setback would be desireable. I n addition, an arborist's review would also be helpful here, prior to design, to determine the health, value and construction tolerance o f tree resources. See further discussion under "Development Code Recommendations", page 6. Young Israel Property, 1.57 acres zoned residential R-50 along Cedar Road west o f Green. City wishes to maintain residential zoning through a PURD; but the owner is considering alternative housing. This would be a good PURD project, but might require somewhat different standards due to high-intensity Cedar Road development area, and possible ahernative housing use. Further study o f the site potential should be considered in reviewing the code. Liberty Dorsh Property, 1.88 acres on Liberty Road at Dorsh Road. Zoned residential, R-50. This project is not a PURD candidate due to small size, but there is the potential for a cottage architecture development, which would fit well with the scale and style o f the neighborhood. There is potential for additional land acquisition to achieve the two acre minimum required for PURD consideration. Existing infrastructure is i n place for 3 sideby-side units. Architect Mark Kearney is looking at site alternatives, using a "cottage village" approach for maximum compatibility with the neighborhood scale and architectural character.

South Eudid TA Memo 1-12-09

DEVELOPMENT CODE RECOMMENDATIONS A brief review o f the existing PURD code, and Riparian Setback Code, was done with regard to the goal o f balancing conservation and development on any future development sites. Riparian Setback Code. This code language is based on standard model language i n use by many communities in Northeast Ohio. It is important to adhere to the extent possible to standard language i n order to reduce confusion on the part o f developers and agencies working with multiple codes throughout the area, and to establish strong standards that are accepted regionally. However, the models were developed primarily for use in suburban areas, and South Euchd's code is one o f the first to be implemented i n an existing, largely developed community with small development sites. The South Euclid code requires a 25 foot setback on watercourses draining less than Vi square mile, and a 75 foot setback on watercourses draining more than square mile. Recent conversation with the Cuyahoga Soil and Water Conservation District has confirmed that this is i n conformance with the current standards in use in the region. The South Euclid zoning code also includes provisions for variances o f the riparian setback under specific conditions. This is important for the effective implementation o f the code in infill and redevelopment projects; it is likely that there w i l l be more situations where the code may need to be relaxed, especially on small sites, to accommodate appropriate use o f the site. P U R D Code. The diversity and small size o f sites remaining to which this code could apply requires that it be as flexible as possible so specific site limitations can be accommodated. I n this way a PURD code can be a better approach to meet community goals for diversified housing and protection o f site and neighborhood resources, than a traditional residential development approach. It should be noted that on smaller sites, the role o f the PURD is not to generate additional open space for the neighborhood, but to enhance overall neighborhood character through quality, flexible architectural and site design. From a smart growth perspective, infill projects are highly desirable to enhance the "walkability" o f neighborhoods and to provide a balance o f housing types within neighborhoods. In general, the PURD code seems to be working well i n this respect, resulting i n three completed projects to date which are positive additions to the community. There are some potential areas where the PURD could be refined to do an even better j o b at meeting these goals: 1) Including landscapinR requirements. The success o f PURD sites to date in the City is at least partly attributable to a developer commitment to quality landscaping. This could be strengthened to ensure similar success for future projects. Buffer requirements at fence lines could be included. While the City might be i n a position to require additional landscaping as part o f project approval negotiation, it w i l l be important to have additional

South Eudid TA Memo 1-12-09

standards i n the code with specific requirements for street trees, buffers along fence lines, and to set a minimum quality standard for the landscape installations. 2) Include tree protection and assessment requirements. There is extensive documentation about the economic value that existing trees bring to development sites. Property values o f the site itself, as well as surrounding properties, can be greatly affected by the presence o f existing trees. There are many situations where the cost o f preserving trees on a site is greatly offset by the value they bring to the completed project. However, there are also many situations where due to tree species, health, location, and tolerance for construction, especially on small sites, it would not be desirable to preserve a particular tree or group o f trees. I f it is likely that the preserved existing trees would be shortlived or would die anyway, or would create a hazard, a better resuh could be achieved by replacing existing trees with young, vigorous trees that are more construction tolerant. I n attempting to respond to the need to achieve a balance between these two competing possibilities, some communities require the documentation o f every tree on a site that is over a certain size (often 8 or 12 inches dbh - "Diameter at breast height"). This approach is N O T recommended, as it is expensive and time consuming, and does not yield information that can be directly used in site layout. A far better approach is to engage the services o f a certified arbonst or forester, who in a site walk through, can make an informed judgment about which trees on the site are o f greatest value, based on their species, health and construction tolerance. A t the same time, the potential impact o f tree preservation and/or removal on adjacent properties can be assessed as well. This approach is less expensive, and yields specific information in memo form that can be used by site designers to maximize the economic and aesthetic benefit that existing trees bring to a property. A short specification for such a "tree resource assessmenf would be very easy to include i n the PURD code, and would yield good long term results. Once a development project is designed to accommodate existing trees o f high quality and construction tolerance, it w i l l be important to have protections i n place that ensure the maximum opportunity for those trees to survive the construction process. Protection language, including monitoring during and after construction, can be included i n the PURD code. Finally, there is the possibility o f prohibiting tree removal on development sites prior to application. Some Ohio cities have adopted such ordinances, which require a permit to remove trees over a certain size. There is wide variation in these ordinances, and the issue would have to be thoroughly studied before it could be determined what approach would work for your situation, what would be acceptable to residents, and what would be practical from a development standpoint. 3) Include common open space standards. Set minimum size and width requirements for common open space to reduce the effect o f narrow strip "no man's land" open space, particularly at the perimeter o f sites. Common open space, i f it is provided, should be large enough to serve a function, as a buffer to adjacent uses, to accommodate

South Euclid TA Memo 1-12-09

a trail connection to local recreation uses, or to provide a landscaping amenity. I n many cases it might be better to have a larger piece in private lot ownership, rather than two smaller strips, one private, one common, adjacent to each other. A recommended minimum width o f common open space would be 25 feet; a recommended minimum width o f private open space adjacent to the home would be 15 feet. I n addition, the perimeter building setback should match the setback o f adjacent conventional lots, so existing neighbors don't have houses any closer to them across the fence than would occur i f the development were a conventional layout. 4) Include thoughtful fence design provisions. Fences i n small-scale, higher density PURD projects are a strong architectural statement in the development. I n smaller, tighter neighborhoods, fences can detract from neighborhood design and visual access. However, many traditional neighborhoods use high quality fences i n small spaces to positive architectural effect. Careful consideration needs to be given to their design and layout in order for them to add value to the overall project. It is recommended that they be designed as part o f the architectural design o f the project, and reviewed by the Architectural Review Board when they are proposed in PURD projects, or when residents propose to alter, add or remove them. It w i l l be important to ensure quality materials and design over time, i n order to preserve the architectural integrity o f the development project. Where private lots are provided, it may be desirable to restrict fences on lots less than a certain size, such as 10,000 square feet. A conditional approval arrangement might provide the flexibility to allow fences under controlled conditions, with requirements for high quality materials and design. 5) Include Stormwater Management and L o w Impact Development provisions. Implement recommendations for decentralized stormwater management, and low impact stormwater practices, as applicable to smaller site conditions. 6) Tailor requirements for the Young Israel Site. Provide specific adaptations to the code under a development agreement for the Young Israel site, which may present design opportunities due to its location on a busy street and potential use for alternative housing. Conservation Development Code. Two o f the upcoming potential development sites are larger, have some specific use opportunities, and warrant the implementation o f an alternative code to the existing PURD. A conservation development code, with minimum requirements for open space, could be well used at the Ammon site, and adapted for use at the Lindan-Palermo site. While it might be possible to handle these individually as development agreements, with important provisions included that take advantage o f the special nature o f these sites, it is recommended that the City have a model code from which to negotiate with the developer. In addition, having an existing code i n place would also reduce risk for the developer, stating objectives ahead o f time so they can be incorporated into early design concepts. Key features o f such a code would be:

South Euclid TA Memo 1-12-09

1) Increased open space requirements. An overall open space requirement o f 40%, while keepmg the overall number o f housing units the same as the underlying zoning. This would accommodate protection o f significant tree and creek resources on the site. M i n i m u m size and width standards for the open space, specifications for ownership and management, and protection o f meadows/woodlands under controlled conditions i n the open space areas, would be included. The ideal site layout provides a balance o f major blocks o f open space, with functional smaller strips that weave throughout the project to enhance design character and provide pedestrian circulation. 2) Expanded riparian setback widths, taking advantage o f the open space available, and strict adherence to them. 3) A detailed environmental site assessment prior to design, including a required tree assessment, (see discussion under "Tree Protection" above). The design should demonstrate that significant site resources have been assessed and incorporated into the open space areas. 4) Relaxed commercial and library parking requirements on the Lindan site i n order to accommodate maximum protection o f open space areas. Opportunities for shared parking during events should be explored. 5) Incorporation o f best practices for stormwater management, including recommendations for decentralized storm water management and low impact storm water design. 6) Include Natural Meadow Protection provisions to allow natural grasses i n larger open space areas, under controlled conditions. The application o f a city's M o w i n g Ordinance, which requires that any grass area be kept mowed under a certain height (usually 6 or 8 inches), can be counterproductive i n conservation development areas where natural meadow can be an important part o f the design. Some open space areas i n conservation developments might even be set up to undergo natural succession i n order to increase woodland on the site and in the neighborhood. Both o f these approaches are highly desirable from a neighborhood property values and watershed protection standpoint, but must be done under controlled conditions to ensure that noxious weeds and other problems do not occur. A "Meadow Protection Ordinance" is a simple solution that provides for expert involvement (such as a landscape architect or soil and water district plant specialist) to identify and offer solutions to problems before they become difficult. Additional recommendations. Finally, there are a few recommendations for overall zoning and planning code implementation i n the City. These recommendations w i l l likely apply to other existing areas o f the City, as well as new PURDs and conservation development areas. Adopt state o f the art stormwater management standards that include decentralized solutions, natural wet and dry detention basins for all development

South Eudid TA Memo 1-12-09

Consider adoption o f tree protection ordinances for pre-design evaluation and protection during/after construction; consider tree protection ordinance for post construction Consider implementation o f natural meadow protection provisions to permit natural meadow and woodland in open spaces on residential sites, under controlled conditions. See discussion under Conservation Development above.

Thank you for involving us i n this interesting project. Please feel free to call us i f we can be o f further assistance, or answer any questions.

South Euclid TA Memo 1-12-09