Havens Corners Road
Brookewood proposes another Meadowbrooke plan
Two years after an embattled rezoning proposal was withdrawn for the proposed Meadowbrooke subdivision, developer Brookewood Construction Co. Inc. has returned with another plan for 15 residential lots at 5593 Havens Corners Road.
The current zoning at the property is limited-overlay single-family residential, and the proposed rezoning is the same, with changes to the limited-overlay and development plan. In addition to seeking an increase in overall density, variances are requested for curb and gutters and sidewalks.
The property was rezoned in late 2006 to residential-overlay district to permit a nine-lot single-family subdivision with a preservation zone setback area. The subdivision contains a total of 4.7 acres, and the proposal is to construct 14 single-family homes on 3.9 acres, preserving Lot 9, which isn't part of the rezoning request, for a total of 15 lots for the subdivision.
Attorney David Hodge, representing Doug Maddy's Brookewood Inc., told the Gahanna Planning Commission on March 13 the proposal has been modified since 2011 because Lot 9 of the original plat was sold.
The existing site is undeveloped, except for a barn on a southwestern site that could be redeveloped for a single-family residential use. The project site is on the south side of Havens Corners Road, to the east of Helmbright Road and to the west of Farm Creek Drive.
Hodge said homework has been done above and beyond the last submission. That homework includes a traffic-impact study by the J. Gallagher Group for Havens Corners Road.
"The impact on Havens Corner Road is nominal," Hodge said.
Citing the sensitivity of stormwater runoff and potential impacts on the Souder Ealy ditch, Hodge said, the area has been studied extensively, and Brookewood proposes best-management-practice techniques throughout the site to mitigate any impact.
He said rain gardens are planned for the development. An open-ditch street system also is proposed, with Grand Ridge Court sloping from east to west, allowing water to flow from that direction into the ditch system.
The plan proposes sidewalks along the east side of Grand Ridge Court but not on the west in an effort to implement the stormwater control method.
Hodge said the target price for the homes is $300,000 to $350,000.
"The homes, from a price point and aesthetics, are similar or better to the area," he said. "This will be a fantastic addition to this property."
Havens Corners Road resident Rob Wilcox said he opposes this development plan as he opposed the previous plan.
"A development of this magnitude would be a disaster," he said. "To have 15 lots is ridiculous."
Havens Corners Road property owner Elsa Gurwin said she also takes issue with the increase in density and the lack of greenspace.
"We're talking 60-foot lots," she said. "When it comes to 14 homes, we're talking about greed."
She said she's also concerned about traffic on Havens Corners.
Gurwin said the price of the homes was a big sticking point two years ago.
"It was (priced) below the surrounding properties," she said.
The commission scheduled a March 20 workshop to discuss stormwater management, right of way for trail development and potential deed restrictions.
Commission member David Thom said density has been an issue. Two years ago, he said, some members discussed reducing the number of homes from 15 to 12.
"It never materialized," he said. "I'd like discussion on reducing lots and how it would affect the entire site plan."
Commission member Jennifer Price asked if Lot 8 could be considered as community or park space.
Commission member Joseph Keehner said he was hoping for something more innovative on the property. He said he doesn't see it as being different from the previous plan.
City Council voted in June 2011 to indefinitely postpone legislation that would have rezoned 4.7 acres at 5593 Havens Corners Road, increasing the density from nine to 14 lots.
At that time, Hodge said, council had brought up questions about storm water and access on Havens Corners Road that couldn't be addressed by the needed deadline.