Granville Community Calendar

Council Minutes 9/5/07

VILLAGE OF GRANVILLE
COUNCIL MINUTES
September 5, 2007

CALL TO ORDER (by Mayor Hartfield at 7:30 pm)


PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE


ROLL CALL
Those responding to the roll call were Councilmembers Barsky, McGowan, Mershon, O’Keefe, Tegtmeyer, Mayor Hartfield, Manager Holycross, and Law Director Crites.

Councilmember Barsky made a motion to excuse Vice Mayor Herman. Second by Councilmember O’Keefe. Motion carried (6-0)


APPROVAL OF AGENDA (7:33 pm)
Councilmember McGowan moved to accept the agenda as presented. Second by Councilmember O’Keefe. Motion carried (6-0).


PRESENTATION
Scot Prebles, Superintendent of Granville Village Exempted Schools
Presentation of Public Exchange Process

Superintendent Prebles thanked Council for the opportunity to present the results of the School District’s survey of their Community Engagement Plan. The goals of this Plan are to seek suggestions on how to better provide information to the parents in the District, improve services provided to students and determine the schools role in the community. The impetus for developing this community dialogue was the failure of the recent school levy.

Superintendent Prebles highlighted the data from the forty-three (43) focus groups that participated in the process. The focus groups were asked to evaluate the values of the school district, the challenges that face the district, to rate the district, and make recommendations for improvement. Mr. Prebles also stated that there was a diverse group of participants including eleven (11%) percent participation by senior citizens and forty (40%) percent participation by residents who have resided in the community for ten (10) years or longer.




The most consistent criticism of the District was the need for improved communication. Superintendent Prebles reported that only fifty-four (54%) percent of respondents were confident that the district was using reliable information about future student enrollment growth. He believed this number should be much higher.

The focus group participants were asked to discuss what they most valued about the Granville School system. There were ten major themes commonly identified by participants that contributed to or detracted from the district. Superintendent Prebles outlined these themes as follows:

Assets Challenges

1. Quality of Staff

Quality Staff Retain & Hire Quality Staff
Caring and Collaborative Staff Affordability of Housing for Staff

2. Quality of Leadership

Very Satisfied with Leadership Improve School Board Trust and Integrity
Accessible Staff Engage Individuals with Equal Influence

3. Quality of Education

High Expectations Continue to Earn Reputation for Excellence
Quality Curriculum Meet All Students’ Needs
Prepared for College Comprehensive Curriculum

4. Involvement of Parents

Highly Involved Parents New Parent Involvement & Outreach

5. Support of the Community

Community Values Education Consensus of Community

6. District’s Communication and Engagement

Opportunity for Stakeholder Input Engage the Community Consistently
Community Resources Used Wisely Opposition Groups & Misinformation
Good Communication with Stakeholders Clear Information to New Parents

7. Small-Town Culture of the District

Small Class Sizes Maintain Small Class Size
One Building per Grade Level Prevent Dilution of Curriculum
Welcoming Atmosphere Encourage Diversity


8. Quality of the School Facilities and School Environment

Safe Environment Maintain Safety
Quality Computers & Technology Accessible School Locations

9. Funding for Education

Low Taxes/High Property Values Diversify Tax Base

10. Partnerships Between Schools and Other Organizations

Collaborations with Denison and Kenyon Work with Local Government
Minimize Impact of School Traffic

Superintendent Prebles indicated that overall the focus groups gave the Granville Exempted Village School District a very high level of satisfaction. The general opinion suggested a positive attitude toward the existing academic programs. The recommendations offered are considered a measure of “tweaking” to an already excellent system. He went on to make the following recommendations based on the responses from the focus group.

• The focus group process was valid.
• Stakeholders have a high level of interest in and support for the schools.
• Stakeholders have input for particular educational programs or elements of the curriculum.
• Relatively high level of parent involvement is a major component in the success of the school district, but may be at risk of declining.
• Growth and change in the community are perceived as the greatest challenge as well as opportunity facing the school district.
• Many stakeholders believe that communication from the district must improve.
• All stakeholders do not currently share the same vision for the school district, particularly regarding the best approach in planning for change.
• There is a need to build trust among some stakeholders for some elements of school leadership.
• The availability of funds and resources, and the district’s use of those funds and resources, are major issues for stakeholders.
• This study can serve as the basis for an ongoing engagement process with stakeholders.
• Participants in the focus groups appreciated the opportunity to give input to the district.

Superintendent Prebles thanked Council for allowing him time to present this report.

Mayor Hartfield opened the forum for questions. Councilmember Tegtmeyer asked Mr. Prebles how the Village and School District can build a dialogue or engage in forums together. Superintendent Prebles did not have a definitive answer to the question except to say that participation in meetings like tonight opens opportunities for continued community dialogue. Councilmember Tegtmeyer agreed, that with the changes confronting school districts today such as diversifying tax bases and maintaining small class sizes, continuing a dialogue between the two entities would be a good idea.

Councilmember Barsky commented that she was glad to hear that the District was interested in researching opportunities on class size options and alternative funding opportunities. She encouraged the District to continue to seek out new ideas and present those issues to the community.

Councilmember O’Keefe requested additional detailed information regarding the relationship between the school district and Denison University and Kenyon College. Superintendent Prebles indicated that the perception of the relationship with these entities may be greater than the actual sharing of resources. He did indicate that the relationships with Denison and Kenyon are good, but the actual sharing of resources could be improved. The District is working on building these collaborations.


CITIZENS COMMENTS (8:07 pm)
Janet Worth Weaver, 2020 Burg Street, provided additional research regarding non-lethal methods for deer management. She indicated that the Humane Society of the United States recommends non-lethal means for resolving conflicts between people and wildlife. She mentioned locations where non-lethal methods were used such as East Goshen, Pennsylvania and West Chester County in New York. She also indicated that HSUS recommends a humane approach to human/wildlife conflict based on: appreciating the natural environment, human tolerance, and a willingness to resolve conflict using non-lethal means. She hoped that Granville will consider using non-lethal means to deal with the deer problem.

Barbara Franks, 121 South Prospect Street, commented about the sign code. She understands that contractor signs need a permit in order to place a sign in front of a home where they are working. This portion of the ordinance is inconvenient and not very business friendly. Could something be done?

Mayor Hartfield commented that she thought this issue had been taken care of a couple of years ago. Village Planner Terry indicated that only real estate signs, civic/community, school and political signs are exempt. Councilmember Barsky asked if, when the Granville Planning Commission approved a new build or a remodel, these signs could be part of that approval. Ms. Terry indicated that the code is not written to permit that type of approval. Mayor Hartfield remembered a discussion regarding sign permits during her tenure. She would like the Planning and Zoning Committee to review this issue.

Barbara Hammond, 123 East Broadway, wanted to encourage Council to make some change to the temporary sign code to permit this type of sign to encourage the use of local business.

Sharon Sellitto, 215 Cherry Street, commented that Council needed to make sure any changes made to the temporary sign code set controls so “it doesn’t look like Morse Road.” Mayor Hartfield assured Ms. Sellitto that the code could be designed in a tasteful manner and with an appropriate sense of reason.

(Mayor Hartfield closed Citizen Comments at 8:17pm)


PUBLIC HEARING

Ordinance No. 10-07, An Ordinance to Amend Sections 351.03 and 351.05 of the Codified Ordinances of the Village of Granville to Regulate and Provide a Penalty for Parking Outside of marked Spaces With Emergency.

Sharon Sellitto, 215 Cherry Street, questioned if someone would be out with a ruler checking cars in parking spaces. Ms. Sellitto mentioned a problem with parking spaces near a fire hydrant on Broadway.

Barbara Franks, 121 South Prospect Street, questioned if this issue was really a problem. Manager Holycross responded that the ordinance was not really a change. It had been on the books, but somehow in the process of updating the code, this portion of the ordinance was omitted. Chief Mason requested that the parking issue be restored to the code. An example of where these marked spaces are an issue is on East College Street where individuals park in unmarked spaces.

Mayor Hartfield closed the public hearing for Ordinance No. 10-07 at 8:19pm.

OLD BUSINESS

Ordinance No. 10-07, An Ordinance to Amend Sections 351.03 and 351.05 of the Codified Ordinances of the Village of Granville to Regulate and Provide a Penalty for Parking Outside of marked Spaces was introduced by Councilmember O’Keefe. Second by Councilmember Barsky

Discussion: Councilmember O’Keefe stated that she was happy to see this regulation implemented to help eliminate cars parked illegally. Councilmember Mershon questioned Manager Holycross regarding the handling of larger vehicles such as tour buses. Manager Holycross indicated that he and Chief Mason discussed this issue, and as long as a vehicle was taking up only the minimum number of spaces needed, it would not be a problem and the vehicle would be in compliance. Councilmember O’Keefe asked if there were spaces designated for tour buses. Manager Holycross indicated that there were not currently any designated bus parking spaces. Councilmember O’Keefe questioned if the lack of specific bus parking was a hazard. Manager Holycross indicated that as long as buses or larger vehicles parked in parallel spaces, there would not be a safety issue. Councilmember Mershon indicated that he wanted to encourage tourists and was happy to hear that this ordinance would not hinder tourism.

Roll call vote on Ordinance No. 10-07: Barsky, McGowan, Mershon, O’Keefe, Tegtmeyer, Hartfield. Motion carried 6-0.

Ordinance No. 10-07 is adopted. Motion carried 6-0.


Mayor Hartfield recused herself from the continuation of the discussion regarding the River Road development project.

Councilmember Barsky indicated that the discussion regarding River Road would continue tonight with residents permitted to put any questions they may have to the consultants and staff in attendance tonight. Citizen comments or questions were requested regarding the River Road development project. This meeting was a continuation of the information gathering process and no decisions would be made tonight.

Barb Hammond, 123 West Broadway, stated that she was disheartened by the visual presentation of the gateway area depicted at the August 27, 2007 meeting. She did not like the close street build out with parking behind the buildings. She was not supportive of the Georgian/Colonial architecture, but preferred a more New England style approach. She would prefer to see barn designs with deep set backs and parking in front of each business with ample landscaping to hide the parked vehicles. She did not want to see Granville develop like the Maple Street area in Zanesville where each business was built along the street. She would prefer to see the River Road area develop as a compliment to downtown Granville, rather than a copy of downtown.

Sharon Sellitto, 215 Cherry Street, agrees with Ms. Hammond; do not copy downtown Granville.

Barbara Franks, 121 South Prospect Street, also agreed with Ms. Hammond. The landowners should be permitted to select the style. Ms. Franks also indicated that the right turn in and right out would not work for the businesses along River and Weaver Roads. The roundabout was a dreadful idea as it only benefits the aggressive driver. Roundabouts also take up more room (land area) and are not efficient. Manager Holycross explained that ODOT has indicated that it will require the right turn in and out. The design presented included this change in use and provided additional access points to both the River and Weaver Road businesses. Ms. Franks indicated that perhaps the on ramp from Main Street to State Route 16 west could be closed and Weaver Road widened to four lanes with the Cherry Street on ramp used as a westward access point. Councilmember McGowan indicated that only ODOT could make that decision.

Wes Sargent, Granville Township Trustee, stated that he feels the Village can do a better job in providing the necessary infrastructure to landowners, better than the Township. He also indicated that decisions needed to be made soon and not delay the process any longer. He understands that Council needs to gather all of the information together, but he hoped a decision could be made quickly as this process had already been going on for quite a while. Councilmember Barsky indicated that an overall consensus was needed by Council. She also agreed that Council needed to move quickly. Councilmember O’Keefe indicated that her concern was the potential traffic issues. Those issues needed to be addressed as thoroughly as possible prior to making a decision so the Village does not face unexpected costs in the future. Trustee Sargent re-iterated that a decision has been a long-time coming. He hoped Council would make a decision as soon as possible. Trustee Sargent asked if there was a timeline for making a decision. Councilmember Barsky indicated that an initial decision should be made shortly.

As there were no further citizen comments, Manager Holycross indicated that the previous work session ended prior to the presentation of the financial issues regarding the River Road development project. Staff was prepared to answer any questions regarding that information.

Councilmember Mershon asked about the compensation proposal directed at making the school district whole should a TIF be implemented. He questioned from where and when the funds for the repayment to the school district would happen. Would the funds come from the Village’s general fund? Finance expert Dennis Schwallie, from Peck-Shaffer, indicated that a TIF repayment to the school district would run past the time the infrastructure cost had been paid. The school would be repaid using monies left at the end of the project and based on the percentage indicated by the TIF. The general fund would not be at risk. Councilmember Barsky asked if the TIF would make the schools whole. Manager Holycross indicated that under the statute a municipality can abate up to 75% of the taxes on new construction and/or on improvements for up to ten years. The TIF presented in the proposal looked at the maximums and suggested a TIF based on 75% over a ten year period, with the ten year period not beginning until development began on the property. At the 75% level, there appeared to be sufficient funds to cover the costs of improvements as well as funds available to reimburse the schools for what they may lose because of the abatement. Manager Holycross indicated that making the schools whole can also have an adverse affect of reducing other political jurisdictions funding causing them to suffer a little more.

Councilmember O’Keefe requested clarification that the revenues affected only new construction and would not affect any other portion of the tax base, and that the other entities would still be receiving the 25% portion not included in theTIF. Manager Holycross indicated in the affirmative. Councilmember Tegtmeyer stated that all jurisdictions would receive more funds than currently received from undeveloped property. They would receive an increase in funding, just not at the highest possible level.

Councilmember Mershon questioned if any discussions had taken place with the School Board regarding their needs for repayment. Manager Holycross indicated that he has had limited discussions with the Superintendent, but was waiting for Council to decide which particular TIF they would favor before presenting a plan to the school district.

Ben Barton, 67 Pinehurst Drive, asked who suggested the idea of a TIF. He stated that the River Road property owners indicated that a TIF would not work for them. The property owners wanted the Village to pay for a portion of the infrastructure. He felt a TIF was a waste of time. He did not want a TIF. Councilmember Tegtmeyer indicated that the property owners have requested that the Village pay 70% of the infrastructure costs which a TIF cover.

Jack Thornborough, 13 Donald Road Drive, commented that a TIF was not appropriate in this instance. None of the property owners want to damage the school district or any of the other recipients of millage monies. If the Village does not want to fund the infrastructure that was Council’s choice, but do not use TIF funding as an alternative. He questioned the rules regarding residential and commercial TIFs. Dennis Schwallie indicated that the rules for a residential TIF primarily involves the local school district and their accounting process. The working assumption used in this plan was based on using only a residential TIF. An alternative option to a TIF was the use of special assessments for storm water utilities, water and sewer improvements which are more traditional methods that usually cost the property owners additional dollars.

Councilmember Mershon indicated that the Village is trying to create commercial development to help support the schools. He believes if the Village is going to increase commercial development, traffic, and be responsible for the costs to improve the infrastructure of roads and intersections, the question should be asked if those cost should be shared by the entire community or just by the residents of the Village. He is not sure what the answer should be, but wants to allow all avenues, including a TIF, to be available as possible choices.

Councilmember Barsky stated that the staff findings regarding the two style choices were quite dramatic and not what was envisioned. She had the impression from statements made in the presentation that these styles were locked-in. She would like to revisit what the location could look like regarding density issues. She questioned if this design was based on the mixed use scenario presented by the property owners. Manager Holycross indicated that this plan was based on the plan presented by the property owners. She also asked which scenario was based on the Suburban Business District. Village Planner Terry indicated that the scenario with the build-to line near the street was more loosely based on the SBD. The other scenario presented was a combination of the mixed use district and the SBD. The designs were to provide a visual conception of what was needed to implement any type of development, but any other design style would certainly be appropriate. However, no other design concept had been requested or mentioned. Councilmember O’Keefe noted that a design workshop with the property owners was suggested in the report, and had the property owners been approached about a workshop. Village Planner Terry indicated that she has not received any designs or development concepts from the property owners, with the exception of one landowner. She would be happy to meet with anyone regarding potential styles or land development scenarios.

Ben Barton suggested that Council and the property owners work out a few basics and then let the owners comply with the zoning. Village Planner Terry indicated that there was not a zoning district that currently applies to this area. She indicated that a new zoning code district was being designed. Mr. Barton indicated that the zoning codes suggested by the property owners were dismissed. Councilmember Barsky stated that Council needed to have some discussion regarding the Suburban Business District as well as the appropriate zoning for the River Road development project area.

Councilmember O’Keefe asked if the cost for acquiring right-of-ways, for the Main Street road improvements, were included in this document. Manager Holycross indicated that those costs were not considered as a specific preference for road development had not been selected. He indicated that when the roadway was constructed, the road would be built down the property line for the east-west connector and south to River Road. Councilmember O’Keefe asked about the cost of construction for an intersection or roundabout on South Main Street. Manager Holycross indicated that knowing the cost information would be necessary, but the road development would come after initial development begins.

Doug Wagner, 300 Pinehurst Drive, asked if Council could decide on the specifics of the annexation later, but give property owners a commitment that annexation will happen and that water and sewer would be provided.

Councilmember Mershon suggested that Council act on those issues that can be addressed immediately and keep an eye toward what is expected down the road. Council should make a decision on whether to extend water and sewer to the initial part of the annexation area, be proactive in determining where roadways and bike paths may be, and reach an agreement with the property owners as to who will supply the land for any right-of-ways. Design standards would be formulated and a decision made on how to proceed into a first phase.

Councilmember Barsky indicated that the time frame suggested by the staff was to deal with zoning issues first as well as the expedition of the annexation process. Councilmember Tegtmeyer cautioned that Council needs to be careful in proceeding without knowing how all the costs would fall out. Councilmember Mershon responded that process could proceed with 1) staff writing pre-annexation agreements, and 2) Council deciding on zoning codes, infrastructure and cost sharing. Council can begin by working toward just phase one and not the total build-out plan.

Councilmember O’Keefe asked if a pre-annexation agreement would include the costs of the road project. Mr. Schwallie indicated that if a TIF ordinance was selected; it would have to be in place prior to a property owner making any improvements and those improvements hitting the tax rolls.

Councilmember Barsky suggested that the Planning and Zoning committee needs to take a look at the zoning issues again.

Roger Kessler, 170 Pinehurst Drive, responded that River Road needs its own zoning code due to topographical issues, and suggested the Gateway District. The SBD is not acceptable. A combination of various districts might be applicable. Councilmember Mershon indicated that he understood Mr. Kessler and Mr. Barton’s concerns, but any zoning district would first need to be acceptable to what works best for the Village.

To move the plan forward, Councilmember Barsky suggested that one zoning document (Gateway document) should be complied, by itself, based on the information in the proposal (page 197) that would be shared with residents and property owners. The information would be available on the web site (www.granville.oh.us) titled Appendix J. The staff should also advertise for public input prior to the October 3rd Council meeting. Councilmember Mershon suggested that staff meet with property owners to determine what each property owner’s development plans were as well as allowing for Village resident input.

Ms. Franks questioned the cost of this development to Village residents. Councilmember Barsky indicated that a specific cost is not yet known, but that development should not be a burden to current Village residents.

Mayor Hartfield resumed the Council meeting.

NEW BUSINESS

Ordinance No. 12-07, To Amend Section 505.11 of the Codified Ordinances to Allow the Trapping of Nuisance Animals Under Specified Circumstances, and Declaring an Emergency was introduced by Councilmember O’Keefe. Second by Councilmember McGowan.

Discussion: Manager Holycross indicated that the ordinance has an emergency component to allow the measure to go into affect immediately upon passage.

Mayor Hartfield set the public hearing for Ordinance No. 12-07 for September 19, 2007.
Resolution No. 07-46, To Give Consent to the Director of Transportation to Complete the Construction of the Pedestrian Bridge Over Raccoon Creek and to Designate the Village Manager as the Contractual Agent for said Project was introduced by Councilmember Tegtmeyer. Second by Councilmember Barsky.

Discussion: Councilmember Barsky asked the status of the project. Manager Holycross said the next step was to select the design and style of the bridge. Councilmember Barsky asked if the location of the bridge was next to the existing Main Street bridge. Manager Holycross indicated that ODOT set the location as part of the grant. The bridge must be within ODOT’s right-of-way. Councilmember McGowan asked that the additional sidewalk paths be included in the design. The preference of design is an antique style. It was suggested that Jim Riddle be consulted as part of the design process. Councilmember Tegtmeyer confirmed that this resolution is part of the first step in proceeding with this project.

Resolution No. 07-46 is adopted. Motion carried 6-0.


REVIEW OF MINUTES

Special Council Meeting of August 15, 2007.
Councilmember Tegtmeyer moved to approve the minutes as amended. Second by Councilmember Mershon. Motion to approve carried 6-0.


COMMITTEE REPORTS

Economic, Finance, Personnel Committee (EFP) – (Herman, Mershon, Tegtmeyer)
No Report.

Granville Foundation – (Tegtmeyer)
Councilmember Tegtmeyer indicated that the Granville Foundation is looking for new board members. If Council has suggestions or recommendations, please forward them to Councilmember Tegtmeyer prior to the next Council meeting.

Light, Safety, Sts/Sidewalks, Utility Committee (LSSU) – (Hartfield, Herman, McGowan)
No Report.


Planning Commission – (O’Keefe)
Councilmember O’Keefe stated that the minutes for the last GPC meeting were in Council’s packet. A resident built a structure without GPC approval and must now go through the approval process. This application was tabled to the next meeting in order to receive all appropriate plans.


Planning & Zoning Committee – (Barsky, Mershon, O’Keefe)
No Report.

Comprehensive Plan – (Barsky)
No Report.

Recreation Commission – (McGowan)
No Report.

161 Accord – (O’Keefe)
Councilmember O’Keefe stated that Jersey Township did not pull out of the Accord, but St. Albans township is out. There is no next meeting scheduled.

Senior Committee – (O’Keefe)
No Report.

Tree & Landscape Commission (Barsky)
Councilmember Barsky reported that the commission is working to find a solution to the issues regarding the struggling maple trees on Broadway. There was no resolution to the problem regarding the Christmas tree in the median. Manager Holycross indicated that the Village did not get the level of positive response from homeowners to proceed with spraying for gypsy moths.

Union Cemetery (Mershon)
No Report.


OTHER COUNCIL MATTERS
Manager Holycross indicated that the liquor permit request included in Council’s packet was not for an address in Granville. There was some confusion by the Liquor Permit Board regarding this application. It is for a business located in Newark, on Church Street.

Mayor Hartfield indicated that she received a complaint regarding the proliferation of parking signs on Jones Road.

Mayor Hartfield also wanted staff to check the location of the corporation limit sign at Canyon and James Road (southeast corner).

Mayor Hartfield also asked that staff put out a public reminder about the enforcement of U-turns on East Broadway.

Councilmember Barsky requested a follow-up regarding signage on the “S” curve on James Road as well as the possibility of providing a wider berm.

Councilmember Barsky also asked if the Comprehensive Plan was still expected by the first of October from the Poggemeyer Group. Manager Holycross indicated in the affirmative

Councilmember O’Keefe asked if the issue of property maintenance could again be examined. Mayor Hartfield indicated that the previous draft guidelines were very draconian. Manager Holycross indicated that the issue could be reintroduced in the Planning & Zoning Committee meeting.

Councilmember Tegtmeyer indicated that there was an Open Space Committee meeting Thursday, September 6, 2007.


ADJOURNMENT (9:33 pm)
Councilmember McGowan moved to adjourn. Second by Councilmember Tegtmeyer. Motion carried, 6-0. Meeting adjourned.



________________________________
Melissa Hartfield, Mayor




__________________________________
Mollie Prasher, Clerk of Council



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.