Granville Community Calendar

Council Minutes August 4, 2010

VILLAGE OF GRANVILLE

COUNCIL MINUTES

August 4, 2010

 

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

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE  

ROLL CALL

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

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

APPROVAL OF AGENDA

Councilmember McGowan moved to approve the agenda.  Second by Vice Mayor Herman. Motion carried (6-0).    

CITIZEN COMMENTS (7:31pm)  

As no one appeared to speak, Mayor Hartfield closed Citizen Comments at 7:32pm.

PUBLIC HEARING (7:32pm) 

Ordinance No. 11-2010, An Ordinance Adopting Permanent Zoning (Village Gateway District) for the Mill District Properties Located on Lancaster Road (South Main Street)

Dennis Cauchon, 327 East Broadway, stated that he felt this development proposal was 95% of the way there.  Mr. Cauchon indicated that he was concerned that Council had not addressed the location of the bike path as part of their approval of the zoning for this site.  The site plan did not show the location of the bike path.  Mr. Cauchon felt the bike path should be placed at the back of the property.  He indicated that there was little support for a bike path located along Lancaster Road. He felt that this location would be highly dangerous due to the two access points that pathway users would be required to cross.  Mr. Cauchon claimed that the parking area for this development would be larger than any other Village lot including the Granville Market lot.  Mr. Cauchon felt that pathway users would be put at risk crossing these access points due to the projected level of traffic shown for the final build out of that property.  He indicated that the Village’s traffic engineer’s statistics showed that the amount of traffic would far greater than the traffic generated by the Granville Market.  Mr. Cauchon urged Council to make the decision as to where the bike path would be located and not allow the Planning Commission to make the decision as part of the development plan.

Dan Bellman, 310 Summit Street, asked Council to consider Mr. Cauchon’s suggestion.  Mr. Bellman indicated that he was not in support of zoning the Mill District area as the Village Gateway District.  He indicated that there was strong community support for the development of the Suburban Commercial District back in 1998. Mr. Bellman felt that the Suburban Commercial District was developed and designed for zoning areas outside the downtown area and in the gateway areas.  This zoning district was to prevent impact to the shops downtown from development outside of downtown.  Mr. Bellman stated that he did not see any reason to change that plan.  He indicated that the Village Gateway District zoning was not needed, that by assigning the Village Gateway District zoning, developers would be able to unwind the impact of the 1998 Comprehensive Plan.  He asked council to watch out in making changes as to what could happen in the future and be able to justify making those changes.  Mr. Bellman felt that Council should not change the zoning code or incorporate new zoning districts if significant community support does not cry out for such change. 

Councilmember Barsky indicated that the community has had many opportunities to voice opinions, concerns, or suggestions regarding this annexation.  The proposed zoning looked like the best opportunity for this area.

Jack Reynolds, Attorney for Smith & Hale representing Metropolitan Partners, asked Council to accept the zoning legislation currently before them.  He indicated that this ordinance was the next step in a process started last year. Mr. Reynolds indicated that previous Council discussions had established and passed the pre-annexation agreement which outlined how this annexation process would proceed, which included the development and implementation of the Village Gateway District.  This developer was also working to zone this property according to existing Village code.  Mr. Reynolds indicated that the presentation of the development plan to the Granville Planning Commission would address many of Mr. Cauchon’s concerns.   Mr. Reynolds asked Council to support this legislation and indicated that he was available to answer any of Council’s questions. 

Councilmember McGowan asked if Metropolitan Partners would agree to locate the pathway on the rear portion of the property.  Mr. Reynolds indicated that they would agree to that location.  Councilmember Barsky asked if Metropolitan partners could provide Council with a plan showing the pathway on the rear of the property by the next Council meeting.  Mr. Rollins of Metropolitan Partners responded in the affirmative.  He indicated that had not set the location of the pathways yet, so his firm would be happy to provide drawings showing a path in that location. 

Mayor Hartfield asked if Council could legislate the location of the pathway.  Law Director Crites indicated that Council could make a recommendation to the Planning Commission, but Council cannot legislate this issue.  Mayor Hartfield confirmed that drawings would be provided by Metropolitan Partners for the next Council meeting and that staff would provide legislation 

Ordinance No. 12-2010, An Ordinance to Amend Sections 1173.02 of the Codified Ordinances of the Village of Granville to Allow Restaurants as a Permitted Use Within the Village Gateway Zoning District

Dan Bellman, 310 Summit Street, asked the definition of a restaurant and if it was adequately defined in this zoning district.  Planner Terry indicated that restaurant types were not defined; restaurant drive-throughs were prohibited.  Mr. Bellman indicated that the Suburban Business District made a distinction between full service and non full service restaurants.  He felt full service restaurants should be permitted, while non full service restaurants should be conditional.  Councilmember Mershon asked for a clarification of restaurant drive through usage.  Restaurants would be permitted, but drive-up, drive through and drive-in facilities would not be permitted.  He also asked if the Code distinguished between full service and non full service restaurants.  Planner Terry indicated that there was no distinction made anywhere in the code between types of restaurants.   

Jack Reynolds, Attorney for Smith & Hale representing Metropolitan Partners, indicated that the request to make this change in the Village Gateway District was discussed and approved by Council as part of the pre-annexation agreement.  This legislation was just the housekeeping initiative to complete the pre-annexation agreement.  He further indicated that restaurants were an integral aspect of this type of development.  He asked Council to approve this legislation. 

Dennis Cauchon, 327 East Broadway, indicated that he was not in support of Council regulating what happens inside any type of business. 

As no one else appeared to speak, Mayor Hartfield closed the public hearing at 8:23pm. 

OLD BUSINESS 

Ordinance No. 11-2010, An Ordinance Adopting Permanent Zoning (Village Gateway District) for the Mill District Properties Located on Lancaster Road (South Main Street) was moved for approval by Vice Mayor Herman.  Second by Councilmember McGowan.

Discussion:

Mayor Hartfield confirmed that drawings would be provided by Metropolitan Partners for the next Council meeting and that staff would provide legislation 

Mayor Hartfield called for a roll call vote to approve Ordinance No. 11-10:  Barsky – yes; McGowan – yes; Mershon – yes; O’Keefe – yes; Herman – yes; Hartfield – yes.  Motion carried (6-0).  Ordinance No. 11-10 was approved.   

Ordinance No. 12-2010, An Ordinance to Amend Sections 1173.02 of the Codified Ordinances of the Village of Granville to Allow Restaurants as a Permitted Use Within the Village Gateway Zoning District was moved for approval by Councilmember McGowan.  Second by Vice Mayor Herman.

Discussion:

Council expressed concern that the language in this legislation was not explicit enough to prohibit drive-in, drive-up or drive through restaurants.  Councilmember McGowan made motion to amend Ordinance No. 12-2010 to read (under Section 117.302 (a)(9)) Restaurants without drive-up, drive-through, or drive-in facilities. Second by Councilmember Mershon. 

Mayor Hartfield called for a roll call vote to approve the amendment to Ordinance No. 12-10:  McGowan – yes; Mershon – yes; O’Keefe – yes; Barsky – yes; Herman – yes; Hartfield – yes.  Motion carried (6-0).  The amendment to Ordinance No. 12-10 was approved.  

Councilmember Barsky expressed concerns about traffic levels should two restaurants with high turnover traffic located in building A and building B.  Those traffic issues need to be addressed.  Mayor Hartfield indicated that there may not be a good answer to that question. 

Mr. Reynolds indicated that the assumptions used by the traffic engineer were for the worst case scenarios.  He also indicated that developers would take that type of information into consideration when leasing the facilities.  It was important to developers to address those types of issues so their tenants and customers have pleasant experiences when visiting the development.  Mr. Rollins indicated that Metropolitan Partners would take each tenants peak customer times into consideration in order to gain a balance.  The want to include a variety of tenant type with different peak times. 

Mayor Hartfield called for a roll call vote to approve amended Ordinance No. 12-10:  Mershon – yes; O’Keefe – yes; Barsky – yes; McGowan – yes; Herman – yes; Hartfield – yes.  Motion carried (6-0).  Ordinance No. 12-10 was approved as amended.   

NEW BUSINESS

Ordinance No. 13-2010, An Ordinance to Amend Section 921.07 of the Codified Ordinances to Adjust Sewer Regulations and Charges was introduced and a hearing date recommended for August 18, 2010 by Vice Mayor Herman.  Second by Councilmember Barsky.

Mayor Hartfield scheduled a public hearing for Ordinance No. 13-2010 for August 18, 2010. 

Councilmember McGowan asked why the rate increase was necessary now, if funding could be taken from the General Fund and what previous projects were funded.  Manager Holycross indicated that staff began advising Council about the need to increase water and sewer rates eighteen to twenty-four months ago.  Staff intended to move forward with the rate increase in 2009, but the Village was financially able to hold off on requesting the increase until now.  The Five Year Capital Improvement spreadsheet has outlined the necessary future improvements needed during the past several years.  Without this rate increase, those projects may not be able to move forward. 

Vice Mayor Herman asked that staff provide additional information regarding why the rate increase was needed and what future projects were needed.  He asked that information be provided to the media as well.  Councilmember Barsky asked that an explanation be included as to the need to rebuild the capital improvement funds and specifically what capital improvements had been completed.  Councilmember Mershon asked that staff identify why the Village charged less and why there was a need to increase rates.

Ordinance No. 14-2010, An Ordinance to Amend Section 925,18 of the Codified Ordinances to Adjust Water Regulations and Charges was introduced and a hearing date recommended for August 18, 2010 by Councilmember Barsky.  Second by Councilmember O’Keefe

Mayor Hartfield scheduled a public hearing for Ordinance No. 14-2010 for August 18, 2010. 

Resolution No. 10-32, A Resolution Authorizing the Village Manager to Enter into an Agreement with the Board of Granville Township Trustees to Provide Police Services to the Raccoon Valley Park and Certain Parcels Owned by Denison University was introduced and moved for approval by Vice Mayor Herman. Second by Councilmember Barsky. 

Discussion:

Councilmember McGowan asked if it was determined that extending police service was too costly for the Village or there were other issues adversely impacting the Village, could the Village end the agreement.  Manager Holycross indicated that this agreement and all prior agreements provided that either party could end the agreement with thirty days notice.   

Councilmember Mershon asked why services needed to be extended to Denison’s Bio-Reserve area.  Manager Holycross indicated that it was the intent to include this area two years ago when police services were extended to Denison property north of New Burg Street.  The Denison areas included in this legislation was correcting that error.  If all of the Denison property were included in this agreement, there would be no confusion as to who provided police response.  Councilmember Mershon indicated that he did not see why the Village should provide extended coverage to these particular areas as it was not necessary.  Mayor Hartfield indicated that she felt this legislation was more of a housekeeping issue. 

Vice Mayor Herman asked that a category be added to the police report which identified police activity in this area to allow the Village to monitor the number of calls. 

Mayor Hartfield called for a vote to approve Resolution No. 10-32.   Motion carried (5-1).  Resolution No. 10-32 was approved.   

REVIEW OF MINUTES

Regularly Scheduled Meeting of July 21, 2010 

Councilmember McGowan made a motion to approve the July 21, 2010 minutes as amended. Second by Councilmember Barsky. Motion carried 6-0. 

COMMITTEE REPORTS     

Economic, Finance, Personnel Committee (EFP) – (All Councilmembers)  

No report. 

Granville Foundation – (Mershon)

No report. 

Light, Safety, Sts/Sidewalks, Utility Committee (LSSU) – (Hartfield, Herman, McGowan)

No report. 

Planning Commission – (O’Keefe)

Councilmember O’Keefe reported that there was an approval to remove the chimney from the Old Academy Building as the chimney was a safety hazard.  Applications for a fence and siding were also approved.

Planning & Zoning Committee – (Barsky, Hartfield, O’Keefe)

Manager Holycross indicated that this committee would be meeting in the near future to review three upcoming stormwater ordinances that were necessary to meet EPA standards. 

Granville Recreation District – (Lerner)

No repot.

Tree & Landscape Commission (Lerner)

No report.

Union Cemetery (Barsky)

No report.

OTHER COUNCIL MATTERS  

Council was asked to approve Trick or Treat for October 28, 2010 from 5:30 to 7:00p,  Resident Mark Weaver, 217 Wicklow Drive, asked Council if it was part of their function to set Beggar’s Night.  Council indicated that it was not part of their legislative function.  Mr. Weaver wondered why Trick of Treat was not on Halloween.  Council did not schedule Beggar’s Night. 

Councilmember Mershon again raised questions about why parking requirements were waived for the new café in the Robbins Hunter Museum.  He questioned how that scenario was different than the taco barn.  Councilmember Mershon questioned what the rules were.  The entire parking package had to be considered for the taco stand, while the new café did not have to consider parking for the Museum. 

Councilmember Barsky questioned how the Planner knew when something was grandfathered.  Manager Holycross indicated that something was grandfathered if the use preceded the code requirement.  Manager Holycross indicated that he would have the Planner respond to these questions. 

Councilmember McGowan questioned if the restaurant would be required to pay property taxes as the Museum was a non-profit.  Law Director Crites indicated that he would look into this issue. 

ADJOURNMENT (9:01pm) 

Councilmember McGowan moved to adjourn the meeting. Second by Councilmember Mershon. Motion carried (6-0). 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.