Granville Community Calendar

Council Minutes August 8, 1990

CALL TO ORDER
SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING
VILLAGE OF GRANVILLE
ST. EDWARD' S CATHOLIC CHURCH
AUGUST 8, 1990
Mayor Eisenberg called the meeting to order at 7: 30 p.m..He then
explained that the meeting was scheduled to consider the
recommendation made by the Planning Commission on the Farmington
Development Plan. After deliberations Council will either accept,
reject, or send the matter back to the Planning Commission for
further study and consideration.
ROLL CALL
Responding to roll call were:
Councilmember Hughes
Councilmember Rader
Councilmember Marshall
Councilmember Malcuit
Also Present:
Councilmember Ormond
Vice Mayor Morrow
Mayor Eisenberg
Shirley Robertson, Granville Finance Director (designated Interim
Manager in Mr. Plunkett' s absence).
Eric Phillips, Granville Zoning Inspector
Manager Plunkett was excused for the meeting.
PUBLIC HEARING
Mayor Eisenberg announced that quite a few people signed up to
speak to the issue. He asked that they limit their comments to
five minutes. A copy of that sign- up sheet is hereby attached as
part of these minutes.
First on the list to speak was Harrison Smith.
Mr. Smith first started out with some context. He explained that
when Mr. Wright' s property was annexed it was zoned into the PUD
classification, with a maximum density of five (5) units per
acre. The issue or question then would be is the Farmington
Development plan a reasonable plan under the PUD zoning. Before
Mr. Smith presented the Farmington Plan he went to great lengths
to explain how a variety of things generate numbers: 1) systems
capacity, 2) design limitations, and 3) market place. When the
numbers (densities) were changed (in the Comprehensive Plan),it
completely divorced the reality of the,numbers from the reality
of the plan. Further, using a base density of 1-1/2 acres per
unit did not permit the goals of the Comprehensive Plan: a)
Special Council Meeting Minutes
Village of Granville
August 8, 1990
Page 2
extention of the Village, b) balance of population, variety of housing, d) c) provide a affordable housing, e) housing for the
elderly, and f) a New England Grid of 1-1/2 acres per unit just
didn't work. He explained that in terms of full service (water, sewers, streets, etc.)specs, a minimum cost of that lot which
produces a house that has a minimum cost of $200, 00 if one doesn' t make any profit. He cautioned Council that in terms of
numbers when the densities were reduced it made the goals outlined in the Comprehensive Plan impossible to obtain. He felt their planners achieved the goals in the comprehensive plan but
not the numbers which were (in his opinion),selected without
reference to planning, induced by outside people.
Mr. Smith then presented the Farmington base plan and criteria
alternately with Rocky Van Rocksburg, Architect for the project, who pointed out the street systems, green space areas, water retention and stream areas, wooded set backs, etc..The presentation included several diagrams mounted on boards attached to easels so that each could point out the different sections of the plan. They also had a board mounted with pictures depicting the New England style and design of existing homes in the Village. This was to show how the plan would include the same style and design for homes designated for the front portion of the property (described by Mr. Smith as dull flat ground)B.y using the front portion of the property for the New England Grid it would make a logical extension of the Village.
Next to speak was Dan Pallante, 1462 Newark Road.
Mr. Pallante was opposed to the Farmington Development as proposed and felt the plan' s lack of compliance with the existing Master Plan would be precedent setting if approved. That Master Plan research, community input opposition, and money invested in the Master Plan would ne wasted if the development was approved as such. Further, the Planning Commission' s recommendation to have Frank and Herb Murphy account for the lower density which should be in the Farmington proposal was unfair to Herb and Frank Murphy and to the taxpayer' s along Newark Road. Mr. Pallante further stated that while revision of the Farmington Development has occurred over the past months, Mr. Wright and Mr. McClain have yet to submit a plan which does not adversely affect the residents on its contiguous borders. By that, he was referring to the southern border of the plan. The development as proposed he felt would have a market devaluation of the properties that exist on the southern border of that area. Mr. Pallante asked that the development that takes place be done in a manner that does not adversely affect those who presently live in the area. In addition, he respectfully asked that Council keep the following
Special Council Meeting Minutes
Village of Granville
August 8, 1990
Page 3
items in mind: that the Farmington issue has been one of
financial and real estate relativity. Where we were and were we
are now is not that meaningful if in the end we have built a
Worthington or Westerville in the Village. Any development of
this purchased farm land is going to yield enormous profits
regardless of the density proposed. Finally, Council should not
take any action that would prevent this community from
petitioning a referendum if need be.
Next to speak was Brenda Mix, 1480 Newark Road
Ms. Mix asked the Granville Village Council to direct the
Farmington proposal back to the Planning Commission for further
review and study. She contended that the proposed plan has not
met the true purpose and intent of the Planned Unit District
PUD)M.s. Mix cited Section 1171.01 (a)b()c() and (d) of the
Granville Codified Ordinances and read the list on what PUD is
expected to accomplish: Section 1171.01 (a) states PUD is to
achieve a more useful pattern of open space and recreation areas.
Ms. Mix felt the Farmington Plan only offers only a small token
in useful open space and could offer much more. Section 1171. 01
b) states PUD is to achieve a development pattern which
preserves and utilizes natural topographic and geological
features. Scenic vistas, tress and other vegetation, and prevents
the disruption of normal drainage patterns. Ms. Mix said the
Farmington Plan flirts with this concept but totally ignores it
with the proposed cutting and grading of the hillside and
rerouting of the stream. Section 1171.01 (c) states PUD is to
achieve a more efficient use of land than is generally achieved
through conventional development, resulting in substantial
savings through shorter utility lines and streets. Ms. Mix said
she counted fifteen cul-de-sacs and numerous unconnected streets
in the proposed Farmington Plan. She cited the plan as nothing
more than urban sprawl, nothing creative, nothing that would
result in any substantial savings in roads or utility lines.
Section 1171.01 (d) states PUD is to achieve a development
pattern in harmony with land use density, and transportation
facilities. Ms. Mix contended that the proposed Farmington
Development density would not be in harmony with the surrounding
areas, and as far as traffic facilities go NewarkG- ranville Road will be even more congested as well as Village streets. Ms. Mix
was in favor of Council rejecting the proposed Farmington
Development Plan. She sincerely felt that the Village could get a better plan.
Special Council Meeting Minutes
Village of Granville
August 8, 1990
Page 4
Frank Murphy, 43 Donald Ross Drive
Mr. Murphy said he would be brief but wanted to go on record
again that he and his brother are against the recommendation of
the Planning Commission for one reason. That the modification
added as a condition to approving the Farmington Development
Plan' s higher density was to take another property to the east
and lower the density that was going to be allowed on that
through the Master Plan. Mr. Murphy said he and his brother own
that property and that they are not happy about it. He didn' t
think it was right to go and take another persons property and
lower the value of it when it shouldn' t have been a consideration
in the approval. He felt that the proposed Farmington Plan should
stand on its own.
Mark Shulman, 435 West College
Mr. Shulman spoke in favor of Council rejecting the Farmington
Development Plan as recommended by the Planning Commission, or at
least returning it to the Planning Commission with further
recommendations. He felt it was a poor precedent to associate the
density with two separate pieces of property and two different
owners. He felt that the number of units proposed for the
development were too many for any one property. He recommended
that Council consider the density put forth in the Comprehensive
Master Plan of one house per acre, and request that Mr. Wright' s
group come back with a plan that extends the buffer areas on the
south, stays off the ridges to the north and confines the
development to approximately 80 acres in the middle and to the
east.
Larry Dwyer, 537 Jones Road
Speaking on behalf of Quest International, Mr. Dwyer said Quest
will neither support or oppose the Farmington proposal. He
expressed Quest' s principal concern about the plan, that is, the
eastern boundary of the property along the Village green lots and
small cluster lots. He said Quest would recommend and support: there 1) be a fifty foot no-build zone along that eastern boundary, and 2) within that boundary (no-build zone),a double row of
evergreen and deciduous plantings with a tree density that would
produce a capacity of 40-60%, 3) a six to eight foot
architecturally compatible fence at the edge of that no-build
zone fifty feet into the property from the boundary.
e
Special Council Meeting Minutes
Village of Granville
August 8, 1990
Page 5
Jim Gordon, 732 Mt. Parnassus
Mr. Gordon stated that Harrison Smith covered most of the
pertinent points. However, he pointed out that in a sense there
were two issues before Council, combined into one proposal. Mr.
Gordon spoke only to one issue and that was the recommendation of
the approval of the Farmington Plan. He would not speak either
for or against the recommendation of a reallocation of the
densities as between the Murphy land and the Wright land. He felt
that the Farmington Plan had. plenty of merit to stand on its own.
He reminded Council that the Farmington Plan was submitted under
the present zoning which is PUD, and that it was not a rezoning
hearing, but a hearing on the acceptability of a plan under the
existing PUD planning. Further, as far a the Comprehensive Plan
was concerned that was a guide for future zoning codes not yet
development, and certainly not yet in effect. He felt that the
Farmington Development would be a very positive addition to the
Village.
Keith WArd, 121 Shepardson Court
Mr. Ward felt that the recommendation from the Granville Planning
Commission on the proposed Farmington Development Plan be sent
back for further study. After reading the Impact Statement
prepared on the Farmington Subdivision, Mr. Ward felt that the
density proposed for this development to be too high. He said
that Farmington alone will mean an increase in traffic to about
25%on Newark- Granville Road and wondered what that increased
population as well as the traffic would do 1) to the downtown, 2)
to the congestion of the road, and 3) to the increase maintenance
that will be required on that road because of the increased
traffic, and; 4) to the increased pollution that all those
additional cars will create. Mr. Ward referred to the affordable
housing issue in the proposed Farmington Development Plan and
felt that it was not affordable to Village standards and that
point should not even be considered. He applauded the efforts of
the Planning Commission to come up with a creative solution to
the problem of density but to do so without any negotiations with
Herb and Frank Murphy was taking the property rights else and he didn' of someone t think that was fair. He said if approved with that condition it would have a domino effect and continue until
there was only one person left. He recommended that Council send
the Farmington Development Plan back to the Planning Commission
for further work that would allow Mr. Wright to develop his
property, but would also address much better the concerns of the public.
Special Council Meeting Minutes
Village of Granville
August 8, 1990
Page 6
Rodger Asmus, 210 Bryn Du Drive
Mr. Asmus had questions in regards to the creek behind Bryn Du
Woods, noting that the whole area behind his lot and lot 16 was
flooded. He asked how the developers were going to handle that
type of thing. He was concerned that all the water was going to
be dumped over onto the lots in Bryn Du closest to the proposed
development. Mr. Asmus noted that at one of the Planning
Commission meetings it was stated that the planners for
Farmington were preparing a covenant or building requirements for
homes adjacent to Bryn Du Woods. He asked if they available. were presently Response to Mr. Asmus was no, they were not complete.
Rocky Van Rocksburg pointed out on the plat plan where the water will be piped for a distance then continue down to the natural
stream bed. In response to the building restrictions or convents,
Mr. McClain responded to Mr. Asmus and said that the lots at the
rear section are almost identical to Bryn Du Woods, and the front
area is going to be somewhat different, but still be maintained
at a good, high standard specification.
Dorothy Garrett, 326 Mt. Parnassus
Ms. Garrett spoke in favor of the Farmington Development under the PUD zoning. She felt the proposal should be considered on its own without a tradeo- ff with other land proposed for multi- residential housing in the east end of the new Village area. In regards to all the talk about preserving the character of the Village (a very small town center surrounded by houses on varying sized lots)M,s. Garrett felt that the proposed Farmington Development provides for a continuing of this variety rather than having the old Village surrounded by large lots with big houses like Dublin, which is what most people say they don' t want. Ms. Garrett said growth will come, everyone knows that, but here it is being controlled and is providing a continuation of the variety of houses which we now have in the Village of Granville.
Lon Herman, 328 Mt. Parnassus
Mr. Herman stated that he and his wife settled in the Village with the intention of getting out of a very, very dense living arrangement in Columbus and raising a family in a much less dense raoruegah. lyMri.ncHreeramsaen suggested that the Farmington proposal would with the kind the Village' s population by about 20%F.urther, additional of increase in density proposed there will be some that traffic in and out of the Village. Demands on services perhaps aren' t in the Village right now. Demands on Special
Council Meeting Minutes
Village of Granville
August 8, 1 990
Page 7
local merchants and others that are not going to be able to
accommodate the increase and a concern that there' s going to be big a push to go with more commercial. In addition, individuals
have indicated that applicable regulations should be considered
in consideration of what' s before Council and that the sentiments
of the Village at large should be considered as well. Mr. Herman
indicated that one of the prime movers in some of the elections
that went on were individuals who had strong sentiments about
growth continuing at a large rate. Mr. Herman suggested that
perhaps the Planning Commissio*n should take another look or, perhaps another proposal could be drafted.
Dean Markle, 1136 Hilltop Drive, Newark, Ohio
Mr. Markle explained that he and his wife have lived in Newark for about 14 years. He is retired now, and he and his wife no longer need their large home, and were looking for a home on a smaller scale. He stated that they have looked and found places such as this in Westerville, Worthington, and Dublin, but would rather invest in a smaller home in Granville. He said, they like many retired people, have spending power that a lot of younger people don' t have to feed into the Village. He appealed to Council to look to all segments of the population when considering the Farmington proposal.
Harrison Smith
Mr. Smith made a few last comments with regard to Mr. Wright' s property. He stated that Mr. Wright' s property was annexed with the specific understanding that the property was going to be developed. He stated that this was not a referendum issue. Further, this was not a request for 5, 4, 3 but for 1.7 units per acre and that it wasn' t fair to say that this was some sort of monumental surprise, and an insult to the existing numbers in the Village. Mr. Smith went on to say that the decision to annex was the decision to add numbers. The decision to zone it was a recognition that those numbers were going to be reasonable, consistent with the promise made to Bill Wright.
Mayor Eisenberg at this time stated that once Council begins their discussion and deliberation no more comments from the floor would be taken. He asked members of Council to ask any questions btheegyinmtihgehtirhave of Mr. Wright and his associates before they discussion and deliberation.
Special Council Meeting Minutes
Village of Granville
August 8, 1990
Page 8
A brief question and answer session was conducted with members of
Council asking various questions of Harrison Smith, Rocky Van
Rocksburg, and Jerry McClain about the proposed plan, affordable
senior housing, widening NewarkG- ranville Road, traffic,
setbacks, and lots adjacent to Bryn Du Woods.
The public hearing was then closed.
CITIZENS' COMMENTS
Those who signed the register were: please see attached list.
OLD BUSINESS
Mayor Eisenberg stated that Council will have to make one of three choices relative to the recommendation of the Planning Commission. He then confirmed with Councilmember Marshall that the Farmington Plan was approved with the condition or recommendation that there would be a density swap. A single vote.
Following a lengthy deliberation, Vice Mayor Morrow moved that Council reject what the Planning Commission sent Council, and request that they reconsider the Farmington Plan and work with cthaerrdieedv.eloper. Motion seconded by Councilmember Rader. Motion
Members of Council then discussed the possibility of having a joint worksession with the Granville Planning Commission.
MEETING ANNOUNCEMENT
Mayor Eisenberg announced that Council has scheduled a worksession with the Granville Planning Commission for August 15, 1990, at 6: 30 p.m.,in Village Council Chambers, providing it' s agreeable with the Planning Commission.
ADJOURNMENT
MCooutinocnilmtoemabderjourn was made by Councilmember Rader and seconded by Malcuit. Motion carried.
Meeting adjourned at 9: 05 p.m..
Yft--ClcIA * 1lo*t
Cillkt'ilo 7 /-W , 4»1-/ f Clark of Council
1
4_3
1
2
FR/ 81N(i»1
CIF YoiWI- 110,-116'- SH-76
SPEAK 939-
0
bfl©li<silirti-- - --_
3
ASc #5
1%
lz
3
1-*
IS
tG
IT_
15_
2» -
ZC
22
23
2+
15
4
4
3*Drr-6742: -
LDrd l5')2, 0_J-_
ber,j maRML«- ----- _.
439 wl_C_el Iel_€-_
7 31- 9717- .Cfr)z-est'ul
j 42 -3- 4*/-
A-0/ 2 »-nd, _ble bR .
ap-4- 4,-S<4/ rvr.\_-Pe1r' 1>3/3%S. ._-__
61 -P _RP+r0s/.3* ____
NGAhe#k_
2
2
Z
21
FARM1
S--1y
h-»
47_ 1 _
3
f
S
G
lS
IG
19·
1<6
l5
2O
11
2Z
Z3
Z
9
10
i3
25-
f'
Y-1 --
1-
NFm
-90
ID=tu
WISH TO
3>EAK
dAA€
UTh M.-_E1«71<____ 433 fboljale Kcls,Stk. 1£K*-
13-7 59*,*_
RL
It
Zil-T -
29
30
FARMINGTOW
JAA,\e
lees_l=-3__w, _eei, E[
3%4__98_60/ E+Ki
fi- d«23 *
Ud©- =*+
In -Lit . 2 )(
1 -0,
Jgk=7-7144-65--- -
4-
4924
S-YA' 6.*\« -- 14/)*1_Grevi-St 1 c_
kt-_
4+g_-_i,f £ _Cr4_L, s__--
2
3
5-
le
S --
9__
10
11
13
ils-
1_(
O
17
ty
IS
20
Zid
22
Zi_
ZS-_
ZG
Z*
141-t«__
3/
1
3R-4
33
All-ENDWCE
ADDRESS
537*22/-:«
i ?6*pI. imil D--UE
199 612€-P-_afr__
4480*6£t-
33 2 . FF. VO·1 rkl_QJ-9-1s/,
/.0-4=L>_41- *
t-_
SLA}
4.w-Aa.*,6lj *0_£C,OA.((#o.b, el*_
1315.>1_(__
439-W .CdC4 €2
47 5- lo. 8.-roOULLA
9/9 0£ - j-
Pl 1 0<« g+b=<
i sz r*s)0.4,
79 Fli-_
1
024-C
FDRKINFrvNEN D*ANCE
60-j g /9-04-
I
1 1*IDAA)fALLl-U/ S_ _ _---
2,3.Jo #A.3 K_
C-ck _ t''
S_11
4 j]
1, 1
=AC1--.* 16 Gu<,/
1 8 -0)3 -
FL_f -s-6* G»AR/NE
jt'
LO* F-RAuk _- Muspils
l i.t/%2] 4St* gy_HUU( -
12 4_Lo*)t /_4*J*_/_ --
-3l»v*U **»*/
006(344---- _- S _ 19
20 _
21 .t__
24=j- -
25
24> It
29 11___
29- j
30 1
44.
I._
ADDRESS.
444 _A008RK 02»_
133SDA l\.E15-1f- 1L+LL-S _4-
1101 »,l',1 -S.
4 Atif 47 - 11-5-011_4 3 Z.3-g .
2_A-3 - 654 .4.. '11 _
7ED u j _r n»-L_
4-3 De-8;.b 32cj ss 12£G,14c/k
gaf r t*_ 0_5 /3»5»
43 1 k- w. 6 4 *9-
5116 NL (Ure /XIi, 4
lus3 S j>a*- Li caud
58 X .Cd6-*- rj i'© f»lm* r·£6

Employee Payroll / Compensation

The Village has thirty-six (36) full-time employees, 16 regular part-time employees and seaonal employees. Village Personnel Policy

Go to My Pay Stub and login.