Granville Community Calendar

Council Minutes April 9, 2008 Special Meeting

 VILLAGE OF GRANVILLE

COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES

April 9, 2008

 

 

CALL TO ORDER (by Councilmember Barsky at 7:00pm)

 

ROLL CALL

Those responding to the roll call were Councilmembers Constance Barsky, Matt McGowan, Steve Mershon, Jackie O’Keefe, Manager Don Holycross, Law Director Crites and Assistant Law Director Crites.

 

Councilmember Barsky asked for a motion to excuse Councilmember Tegtmeyer and Vice Mayor Herman.  Second by Councilmember O’Keefe.  Vote (4-0)

 

The minutes reflect that Councilmember Tegtmeyer arrived at 7:03pm.

The minutes reflect that Mayor Hartfield was not present as she has a potential conflict. 

 

DISCUSSION

 

Councilmember Barsky advised that as this meeting was a Council work session, public comments or discussion would not be permitted.

 

Councilmember O’Keefe asked if sporting good outlet businesses, as a permitted use, were permitted to sell guns.  Councilmember Tegtmeyer responded that as long as all permits were secured, she assumed a retailer could sell guns.  Law Director Crites indicated that he would research the requirements regarding gun sales.  Councilmember McGowan indicated that, in the past, applicants have approached the Village with retail gun shops.  These establishments were covered by state regulations and not excluded by our zoning codes.  Councilmember Mershon indicated that the Village does not restrict owning a gun or the use of guns and that type of business was currently permitted.  Councilmember O’Keefe indicated that she would prefer retailers not sell guns.  Councilmember Barsky requested that research on the topic be conducted. 

 

Councilmember Barsky commented that drive-throughs for banks and financial institutions should remain included in the zoning district.  She indicated that drive-throughs for utility companies were not well used as customers can pay bills online.  Councilmember Mershon indicated that the zoning regarding this issue should maintain similar guidelines to those in the Suburban Business District.

 

Planner Terry advised Council that there was no provision in the existing Gateway Zoning District to address with home occupations in a single family residence.  Council indicated that home occupations should be added as a conditional use.  Councilmember Mershon asked that since the district was designated as mixed/residential/commercial use, why a home business would not be permitted.  Planner Terry asked if the approval should be administrative or through the Board of Building and Zoning Appeal.  Council indicated by administrative approval.

Planner Terry also asked if this zoning district should include single family, residential use.  Planner Terry indicated that single family use was specifically not included in the zoning language and would need a variance to be approved.  Councilmember Mershon indicated that single family housing should be permitted, especially in areas around the lake, as the land cost should encourage the building of house that would support the tax base.  He indicated that this addition had been requested in each of the past three meetings reviewing this zoning.  Councilmember Tegtmeyer indicated that most of the current potential gateway districts currently have single family residential homes.  This usage should be allowed in this zoning language as home & work type businesses in one building should be encouraged.  Councilmember Barsky asked that single family, residential use be included in section b 5 as a conditional use.

 

Maximum Tenant and Building Size - Councilmember Barsky, referring to the Summary of Planning Commission Recommendations, questioned the Planning Commission’s recommendation to remove the single tenant maximum square footage and increase the maximum building size square footage to 15,000 square feet.  She indicated that the Planning & Zoning Committee recommended a single tenant maximum of 5,000 square feet originally with an overall building size of 10,000 square feet.  Councilmember O’Keefe asked the difference between the single tenant size of 5,000 square feet and 8,000 square feet.  Manager Holycross indicated that lots larger than one acre could accommodate the increased square footage.  Councilmember Mershon asked how the 5,000 square feet maximum was determined.  Manager Holycross indicated that 5,000 square feet came from the Suburban Business District, which included the open space incentive.  Councilmember Mershon indicated that he supported the 10,000 square feet maximum tenant and requiring property owners to seek a variance for increased square footage.  Planner Terry indicated that there were often practical difficulties in securing a variance and financial hardship was not an approved reason.  Councilmember Mershon indicated that the Planning & Zoning Committee had recommended a maximum tenant size of 8,000 square feet, which would be large enough for a restaurant, and a maximum building size of 10,000 square feet, which would be too small for a drug retail business.  Council sought clarification from Tim Ryan, Chair of the Planning Commission, who indicated that the Commission determined a maximum tenant size would be unnecessary as the greater concern would be the total building foot print and there were other business types that would be acceptable to Granville that could use the 15,000 square fee maximum.  The Commission agreed with the 15,000 square foot maximum which was proposed in the zoning draft they reviewed.  Manager Holycross indicated that the 15,000 square foot maximum was proposed by staff after meeting with the residents and reviewing the Suburban Business District maximums which offered open space bonuses.  Councilmember Barsky indicated that she had concerns with the higher maximum, but would agree to the 10,000 square feet maximum.  Councilmember Barsky asked if the consensus was a maximum of 10,000 square feet building size with businesses needing additional space required to seek a variance.

 

 

Setback Standards - Council agreed with the Planning Commission recommendation of 75-foot setbacks from the centerline of Main Street.  They agreed that the preferred building esthetic would be that buildings be set back from Main Street.   However, Councilmember Mershon questioned the recommendation that 50% of the building being required to be built at the minimum set-back line.  Planner Terry indicated that the 50% language should have been removed.  Council confirmed that the language should include a 75-foot setback from the center of Main Street with no minimum build-to line.

 

Parking – Councilmember Barsky indicated that the Planning and Zoning Committee had recommended that all parking be behind any building.  The Planning Commission recommended permitting some parking in front of the building whether angled or parallel parking.  Council asked Mr. Ryan to provide the Commission’s reasoning for their recommendation.  Mr. Ryan indicated that with the 75-foot setback, requiring parking to be behind a building would be limiting and providing one lane of parking would not ruin the asesthic and provide adequate parking.  Councilmember Mershon questioned whether single lane parking in front was the best solution.  Planner Terry indicated that single lane parking along with landscaping provides the best and most attractive solution.  Council questioned if this restriction would apply to commercial as well as residential.  Planner Terry indicated in the affirmative.  Councilmember Barsky indicated that Council members here agree with the parking recommendations as long as all parking remained outside the setback areas.

 

Landscaping-Hedge Height – Councilmember Mershon asked why the reduction to 36” hedge height.  Planner Terry indicated that the Planning Commission wanted to allow for a range of hedge heights (36” to 42”) to allow for topography, building style, and so as not to be as restrictive.  The Commission also recommended allowing plantings other than evergreens, which were favored by the deer population.  Councilmember Barsky asked if the spacing of the plantings would be sufficient.  Planner Terry indicated that the spacing of three to four feet off center would be affective and allow for growth.  Councilmember Barsky asked if the tree lawn area would be wide enough for plantings.  Planner Terry responded that all applicants were required to submit a landscape design plan to the Tree and Landscape Commission for approval.  Council agreed with the recommendation.

 

Sidewalks – Councilmember Mershon asked if this requirement would coincide with the pathway plan.  Planner Terry indicated that this recommendation only applied to sidewalks in front of each building.  Council agreed that the fifteen foot sidewalk requirement was too large.  They asked that the Planner clarify the language to permit a six (6) foot sidewalk for areas adjacent to commercial buildings and non-pathways areas, and an eight (8) foot asphalt pathway requirement for possible accesses as suggested by any pathway plan and along roadways.

 

Density/Open Space – Planner Terry explained that the Commission recommended 70% impervious area; however, many properties will not be able to use reach the 70% level due to storm water run-off restrictions, set-backs and possible topographical issues.  Manager Holycross indicated that the 70% impervious area recommendation came from the Suburban Business District requirements.  Mr. Ryan added that the Commission recommended that the open space provisions be removed as there were problems with determining who owned or would be responsible for open space land and the location of open space areas would generally not be continuous.  Planner Terry added that there was no direction as to how the open space areas would function, whether the open space would be all internal or just external.  Councilmember Mershon indicated his support for adopting the 70% impervious area and allowed each property owner to set aside green space areas as part of their development plan.  Councilmember Barsky indicated that she was uncomfortable with the 70%, but would agree to that percentage if Council was in support.  Council indicated there support for 70% impervious area.

 

Building Style – Council was unable to reach a consensus regarding Planning Commission’s recommendation of building style language.  Councilmember Barsky indicated that the phrase “traditional American style” could possibly include styles outside the intent of this code.  Council asked that a more specific definition of the word traditional be determined and the language be more descriptive and specific.

 

Building Height – Councilmember Mershon asked why the minimum of 1.5 stories had been removed.  Mr. Ryan indicated that the Planning Commission found defining what constitutes a half story to be difficult.  The Commission felt using whole stories would be more definitive.  Planner Terry indicated that along with the restriction to number of stories, a specific height requirement could also be included.  Council approved the Planning Commission’s recommendation.

 

Roof Design – Council agreed with the recommendation indicating that the roof design for commercial buildings generally allow for a flat roof to house the mechanicals with architectural facades that hide these features and provide the illusion of multiple stories.

 

Windows – Council agreed to encourage divided light windows, but allow for designs where stylistically another window would be acceptable.

 

Materials – Council agreed with the exterior materials recommendation.

 

Chimneys – Council agreed with the recommendation regarding wood-faced chimneys with language specifying residential use only.

Drive-Throughs – Planning Commission’s final recommendation was not yet available.  Councilmember Mershon suggested drafting the drive-through issue as a separate amendment to the ordinance.  Councilmember Barsky indicated the current language was for no drive-throughs for fast-food restaurants.  Council would continue discussions regarding drive-throughs after the recommendation from the Planning Commission was finalized and presented to Council.

 

Color Schemes – Council agreed with the Planning Commission recommendation as it pertained to color selections.

 

Application Submission – Council agreed with the recommendation that would permit staff to hold or refuse the submission of applications that were incomplete.

 

Traffic Consideration – Council agreed with the recommendation to ask the Law Director to clarify what traffic considerations could be considered in reviewing applications, but to maintain the current language as a criterion.

 

Color White & Signs – Council agreed with the recommendation that white not be considered a color for the purpose of sign applications.

 

Sidewalk Signs – Council agreed with the recommendation that sidewalk signs not be permitted in the Gateway Zoning Districts.

 

Wall Signs – Council agreed with the recommendation to permit only one wall sign.

 

Building Sign Plan – Council agreed with the recommendation to provide a sign plan for multi-tenant buildings.

 

Councilmember Mershon suggested that public comments be permitted for the remainder of the meeting.

 

Dennis Cauchon, 327 East Broadway, requested that the Gateway Zoning District ordinance be placed on the November ballot for a community vote.  He indicated that the Suburban Business District zoning was written by local residents who wanted to specifically keep out drive-throughs and big box businesses, which this zoning district was trying to include.

 

Rodger Kessler, 170 Pinehurst Drive, indicated that the number of condominiums permitted per acre was reduced to the point that it would be cost prohibitive to build anything other than very expensive units.  If Council was interested in providing lower cost housing, he would need to be able to build ten units per acre.  Limiting the number of units only increases the costs.  Planner Terry indicated that under the current zoning recommendations, six units per acre were permitted.  Mr. Kessler also indicated that limiting the maximum size to 5,000 square feet per tenant was not enough footage.  The minimum needed would be 10,000 square feet per building.

 

Ben Barton, 67 Pinehurst Drive, stated that residential use was permitted only as a conditional use.  He recommended that residential use be a permitted use.  Council agreed with one stipulation.  Councilmember Mershon suggested that single residential use not be permitted on main arteries.  Planner Terry indicated that single residential use would be a permitted, but prohibited as a first floor usage on major arterial roadways. 

 

Manager Holycross requested Council clarification of what constituted the 70% density requirement – gross or net acreage.  After discussing the issue, Councilmember Barsky recommended that Planner Terry provide visualization showing examples of the affect of gross acreage vs. net acreage including examples with topographical aspects.  Councilmember Mershon suggested that using net acreage (land only), without including areas such as a lake, 70% impervious area would not be desired.   Consensus indicated that the 70% impervious area would stand.

 

ADJOURNMENT (9:00pm)

Councilmember McGowan moved to adjourn.  Second made by Councilmember O’Keefe.  Motion carried 4-0.  Meeting adjourned.

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.