Granville Community Calendar

Council Minutes November 17, 2010

VILLAGE OF GRANVILLE

COUNCIL MINUTES

November 17, 2010

 

CALL TO ORDER (by Mayor Hartfield at 7:31pm)

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE  

ROLL CALL

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

APPROVAL OF AGENDA

Councilmember McGowan moved to approve the agenda.  Second by Councilmember Barsky. Motion carried to amend the agenda (7-0).    

CITIZEN COMMENTS (7:33pm) 

As no one appeared to speak, Mayor Hartfield closed the Citizen Comments at 7:34pm. 

PUBLIC HEARING 

Ordinance No. 18-2010, An Ordinance to Amend Section 1159.02 of the Codified Ordinances of the Village of Granville to Allow Two-Family and Multi-Family Residential Uses as Conditional Uses in the Village Business District

Bryon Reed, 134 Stone Valley Drive, indicated that he was one of the applicants from Terra Nova who requested this change in the Code.  He indicated that he presented this project to the Granville Planning Commission and wanted to provide the same information to Council.  The concept for the plan was based on the proposed Comprehensive Plan and developed to reflect the goals and objectives outlined in the Plan.  He and his partner sought public comment and opinion by bringing their display almost weekly to the Farmer’s Market.  While at the Market he indicated that the general consensus was overwhelmingly positive and supportive of the project.  Mr. Reed indicated that he understood the concerns expressed by the public and made changes to the design based on some of the concerns voiced.  Mr. Reed advised Council that the two dissenting votes regarding this application on the Planning Commission were due to disagreement with the amendment to the application.  Those Commission members preferred the application as originally submitted.  Mr. Reed also indicated that the suggested changes to the Code were not self-serving, but to fix issues regarding existing multi-family units in that district.  Mr. Reed quoted Commission member Mitchell as saying “I would be in favor of allowing residential use in the downtown business district based on the success of cities that have residential use above their commercial uses.  The great cities of the world all have multi-story residential above their businesses, and those people frequent the businesses and they support the businesses.”  Mr. Reed requested that Council support Ordinance No. 18-10 and hoped this development was viewed as a positive for the community.

Dennis Cauchon, 327 East Broadway, indicated that he felt this legislation was driven by the proposed application.  He felt the development was not a viable project.  The proposed structure was too big for the lot.  Mr. Cauchon indicated that the Granville Inn should not be permitted to sell the lot as a parking area was needed for the Inn per parking regulations outlined in the Village Code.  The Planning Commission vote was not unanimous; it was a three - two vote.  The proposed changes to the zoning code were sloppy zoning.  Mr. Cauchon quoted local residents Keith Myers regarding his opinion on making zoning changes that don’t ask what was the best thing that could happen in zoning, but what’s the worst that could happen.   Mr. Cauchon also suggested that including multi-family uses as a conditional use would allow developers to manipulate that law and transform properties like the Granville Inn and the Buxton Inn into condominiums.  Mr. Cauchon asked Council to step back and consider the proposed legislation and not approve it. 

Patti Urbatis, realtor and owner of Integrity 1 Realty, felt the development was self-serving and would not be beneficial to Granville.  As a realtor, she felt the project would devalue property values.  Ms. Urbatis indicated that statistics show that multi-family unites reduce property values in downtown areas.  She questioned where the documentation was from the community showing support for the project.  No one asked her opinion.  She indicated that she was in her office during Farmer’s Market and had not been approached nor did she Terra Nova at the weekly market.  Ms. Urbatis asked Council not to support the development. 

Sharon Sellitto, 215 South Cherry Street, questioned why the core business district did not include the two largest downtown Village businesses, the Granville Inn and Buxton Inn.  Planner Terry indicated that the Planning Commission was trying to incorporate a use of multi-family housing on the second floor of downtown businesses, so a core business area was suggested.  She also asked about a secret meeting between Tom Mitchell and the developer.  Mr. Mitchell, who was in the audience, responded that there was no such meeting.  Mr. Mitchell also indicated that the Planning Commission suggested and developed the core business district to accommodate multi-family use and to make sure the main downtown business area maintained business usage.  Ms. Sellitto requested that Council not approve this ordinance.  Additionally Ms. Sellitto felt that not allowing buildings to rebuild that were sixty percent destroyed was vindictive.  She also indicated that the rules regarding Denison students living off campus were continually broken. 

Tom Mitchell, 303 South Main Street, indicated that he was in support of this proposal.  The Code amendment was not about or for this particular development, but to fix a hole in the existing Code and a way to add vitality to the downtown business area.  He indicated that he was surprised that the Village did not already permit residences above the downtown businesses.  He felt the increase in density in the downtown area would benefit the local businesses.  Mr. Mitchell also indicated that by allowing multi-family units as a conditional use, each proposed development could be looked at on a case by case basis.  Mr. Mitchell also indicated that the Planning Commission suggested and developed the core business district to accommodate multi-family use and to make sure the main downtown business area maintained business usage. 

Sam Sagaria, 117 South Prospect Street, felt there was not enough information available to make an informed opinion.  He questioned what impact this amendment would have on other residences in the district.  He felt the uncertainty of how this amendment would impact the Village should cause this legislation to be held until additional information was available. 

Julio Valenzuela, 140 Pembroke Lane, indicated that he was the new owner of 115 and 117 East College Street, multi-family housing.  He commented that he did not realize until after he purchased these properties that should sixty percent of either building be destroyed, current Village Code prevented him from rebuilding the units.  He requested that Council vote to protect his interests as well as the other multi-family property owner’s interests.  He indicated that he did not understand concerns regarding converting existing residents into condominiums or apartments.  It was very difficult to convert units to bring them up to code.  Mr. Valenzuela also questioned why multi-family units were permitted to be constructed and then disavowed from the Code.  He also suggested that the Village needed some multi-family housing in the area for single individuals and seniors.  Mr. Valenzuela requested that Council protect local resident’s investment and correct existing errors in the Code. 

Dan Bellman, 310 Summit Street, indicated that the best development for the Village tax base was office units, not residential.  Mr. Bellman suggested that Council separate the issue of residential housing above businesses from development projects.  He felt mixed use issues be separately evaluated and considered.  He described the proposed development project as the most disastrous project brought before Council.  Council should not be promoting multi-family housing in the Village Business District.  This type of development was not the tax base revenue or type of use that the Village needed.  Allowing this amendment to be considered would increase density to eighty percent instead of fifty percent in the residential areas.  Mr. Bellman indicated that the greatest number of problems, according to the police department, were at multi-family units.   He requested that Council not propose this use at all in the Village Business District. 

Bill Wernet, 347 North Granger Street, indicated that it was not by accident that the Village was the way it was – it was due to careful planning.  The Village of Granville was a unique environment with unique characteristics.  People were attracted to our community because of this unique environment.  He requested that Council not support this proposed legislation.   Mr. Wernet further indicated that Denison’s policy regarding off-campus housing could change and permit off-campus housing again.  He would be in support of modifying the zoning code regarding existing structures. 

Bryon Reed, 134 Stone Valley Drive, commented the building condominiums would not devalue existing property values.  A good development would enhance those values.  He and his partner utilized the goals outlined in the Comprehensive Plan to design these empty nester condominiums.  Mr. Reed also indicated that he had not had any conversations with Council or Planning Commission members.  He again reiterated that while at the Farmer’s Market, he did receive positive responses and based the design on the feedback he received. 

Mayor Hartfield read a letter into the record from Ed Vance, 233 East Broadway.  Mr. Vance indicated that he was not in favor of amending the Code for the Village Business District, but he would support changes that would allow for development of that property. 

Herach Nazarian, 2897 Champion Mill Road, spoke in response to several comments made.  He indicated that the Granville Inn was not required to keep their parking lot as they had a separate lot available.  He indicated that the survey of community residents completed for the Comprehensive Plan indicated that multi-family housing was wanted and needed in the community.  He indicated that this legislation was needed to address to correct holes in the existing zoning code and concerns of existing multi-family property owners.    He asked that Council support this amendment to the zoning code. 

Ordinance No. 21-2010, An Ordinance to Amend Section 333.03(b)(3) of the Codified Ordinances of the Village of Granville to Establish a 34mph Speed Limit on Lancaster Road and River Road 

As no one else appeared to speak, Mayor Hartfield closed the Public Hearing for Ordinance Nos. 18-2010 and 21-2010 at 8:38pm. 

OLD BUSINESS 

Ordinance No. 18-2010, An Ordinance to Amend Section 1159.02 of the Codified Ordinances of the Village of Granville to Allow Two-Family and Multi-Family Residential Uses as Conditional Uses in the Village Business District

Discussion:

Councilmember Mershon asked if Council had to consider this legislation.  He questioned if someone introduced this legislation, could they then speak against the legislation.  Law Director Crites indicated that Council did not have to introduce the legislation, but should the legislation be introduced, any Councilmember could speak against the legislation.  Law Director Crites indicated that Council had to act on the legislation.  Council had the ability to not introduce the legislation, but they had to react to the Planning Commission’s recommendation.  Council could deny, reverse, modify or adopt the Planning Commission’s decision, without introducing the legislation.  Council, according to Village Code, section 1143.03, must modify, deny or take affirmative action on Planning Commission’s recommendation.  Council did not have to take action that evening, but would have to make a decision at the next Council meeting. 

Councilmember McGowan moved to reverse the action and recommendation of the Planning Commission.  Second by Councilmember Barsky. 

Mayor Hartfield called for a roll call vote to reverse the action and recommendation of the Planning Commission: Barsky – yes; Lerner – yes; McGowan – yes; Mershon – yes; O’Keefe – yes; Herman – yes; Hartfield – yes.  The Planning Commission recommendation to amend Section 1159.02 of the codified Ordinances of the Village of Granville was reversed (7-0).

Councilmember O’Keefe requested that a more specific definition of multi-family dwelling was needed.  

Councilmember McGowan indicated that he would support apartments above businesses, but had concerns about adding multi-family units as a conditional use to the Code.  He indicated that he would also support allowing existing multi-family property owners the opportunity to rebuild their units.  

Council expressed a consensus that residents had raised a number of issues that should be discussed and addressed by Council that evening. 

Ordinance No. 21-2010, An Ordinance to Amend Section 333.03(b)(3) of the Codified Ordinances of the Village of Granville to Establish a 34mph Speed Limit on Lancaster Road and River Road was introduced and moved for approval by Councilmember McGowan.  Second by Councilmember Barsky.  

Discussion:

Councilmember McGowan suggested that the ordinance should be passed as an emergency measure.  

Councilmember McGowan moved to enact Ordinance No. 21-2010 as an emergency measure.  Second by Councilmember Mershon.  

Mayor Hartfield called for a roll call vote to enact Ordinance No. 21-2010 as an emergency: Lerner – yes; McGowan – yes; Mershon – yes; O’Keefe – yes; Barsky – yes; Herman – yes; Hartfield – yes.  Ordinance No. 21-2010 passed (7-0). 

Mayor Hartfield called for a roll call vote to approve Ordinance No. 21-2010 declaring an emergency: McGowan – yes; Mershon – yes; O’Keefe – yes; Barsky – yes; Lerner – yes; Herman – yes; Hartfield – yes.  Ordinance No. 21-2010 passed (7-0). 

NEW BUSINESS 

Resolution No. 10-46, A Resolution to Reconfirm the Adoption of a Scenic Byway Management Plan through the State of Ohio Department of Transportation was introduced and moved for approval by Vice Mayor Herman. Second by Councilmember McGowan. 

Discussion:

Councilmember Barsky commented that she felt the Village should resubmit the scenic byway application.  Councilmember O’Keefe confirmed that there was not a fee associated with the submission.  Planner Terry indicated in the affirmative. 

Mayor Hartfield called for a vote to approve Resolution No. 10-46.   Motion carried (7-0).  Resolution No. 10-46 was approved. 

REVIEW OF MINUTES  

Special Scheduled Meeting of November 1, 2010 

Councilmember O’Keefe made a motion to approve the November 3, 2010 minutes. Second by Councilmember Barsky. Motion carried 7-0.

Regularly Scheduled Meeting of November 3, 2010 

Councilmember Barsky. made a motion to approve the November 3, 2010 minutes. Second by Councilmember McGowan Motion carried 7-0. 

MAYOR’S COURT REPORT – October 

The Mayor’s Court Report for the month of October was presented for review. 

Councilmember Barsky moved to accept the October Mayor’s Court report.  Second by Councilmember McGowan.  Motion carried 7-0. 

Mayor Hartfield instructed the report be filed with the Clerk.  A copy of the report will be included as part of these minutes.  

MANAGER’S REPORT – October 

The Manager’s Report for the month of October was presented for review.      

Councilmember Barsky commented that income tax receipts were still down four percent.  Councilmember Mershon commented that the projected numbers through year-end show some of the revenues increase.  Finance Director Kraner indicated that she anticipated that Village revenue would be down by three percent at the end of the year from projected revenue.  She indicated that revenues began the year down by seven percent. 

Councilmember Barsky moved to accept the October Monthly Manager’s Report   Second by Councilmember McGowan.  Motion carried 7-0. 

Mayor Hartfield instructed the report be filed with the Clerk.  A copy of said report will be included as part of these minutes. 

COMMITTEE REPORTS     

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

No report. 

Granville Foundation – (Mershon)

No report. 

Lights, Safety, Streets/Sidewalks, Utility Committee (LSSU) (Hartfield, Herman, McGowan)

No report. 

Planning Commission – (O’Keefe)

Councilmember O’Keefe reported that a renovation for a home on West Maple Street was approved.  The removal of a storage building was approved as well as the approval of the construction of a new garage.  Approvals were also granted for a driveway, roof and a change of use for Petali Teas to add a tea room. 

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

Councilmember Barsky indicated that a copy of the Planning & Zoning Committee’s meeting minutes were included in Council’s packet.  The Committee recommended that three ordinances be brought before Council to address various NPDES requirements.  Additionally, the Committee recommended that two ordinances regarding mailing and notification procedures be submitted to Council in order that the Village Code maintains consistency.  Council consensus was that several of the issues brought up by residents during the public hearing regarding existing multi-family structures should be addressed by the Planning and Zoning Committee.  Councilmember Mershon indicated that the Village’s Code may be a little looser than other community codes.  He also indicated that current rules in lending may also need to be reviewed prior to updating the Code. 

Granville Recreation District – (Lerner)

Councilmember Lerner responded to Councilmember Mershon’s question about the amount of programming provided for seniors.  Councilmember Lerner indicated that the Rec District provided $6,000 to the Granville Senior Fellowship for senior programming.  Councilmember McGowan indicated that the Rec District’s one year use of Village office space would soon be expiring.  He questioned when the Rec District would be breaking away from utilizing Village support and becoming self-sufficient as they now had the ability to petition for additional millage. 

Tree & Landscape Commission (Lerner)

Councilmember Lerner reported that the Tree & Landscape Commission was working on the renewal application for the Tree City award.  The Commission was taking over the administration of the Memorial Tree Program from the Granville Garden Club.  The Bryn Du Homeowner’s Association asked the Tree & Landscape Commission to remove an evergreen tree from the tree lawn on the southeast corner of Bryn Du Drive and Glyn Tawel Drive.  The Homeowner’s Association indicated that there were problems with unsupervised children leaving contraband in the tree.  The Tree & Landscape Commission indicated that they were uncomfortable with removing the tree, but would look at other options including limbing up the tree.  Denison University was in the process of submitting an application to become a Tree Campus.  With that certification, the University would apply for a Toyota grant which would provide one hundred new trees for the campus. 

Union Cemetery (Barsky)

No report.

OTHER COUNCIL MATTERS  

2011 Budget Presentation 

Finance Director Kraner presented a PowerPoint presentation of the 2011 Village Budget.  She indicated that the presented budget was a draft.  Council was provided a summary memo outlining the projected revenues and expenses for 2011.  The revenue projections were estimates based on projections and trends.  A printed copy of the presentation will be filed with these minutes. 

Councilmember Mershon expressed his concerns about the $600,000 cost overrun.  He questioned which expenses were up from 2010 that accounted for those additional costs.  The $92,000 payment for the pedestrian bridge to Raccoon Valley Park was one item.  He would like to know what accounted for the additional costs.  Finance Director Kraner indicated that she was not aware of any specific items causing the increase in expenses.   

Vice Mayor Herman questioned the purchase of new equipment in 2011.  He questioned if the equipment could continue to be leased.  He also indicated that he was hesitant to make changes to the budget until a new Village Manager was hired.   

Councilmember O’Keefe questioned if the Village should take responsibility for plowing the Newark-Granville Road pathway.   

Mayor Hartfield asked Councilmember to email Finance Director Kraner with any changes to or questions about the budget.  Planner Terry indicated that the budget would be made available for review at the Granville Library, in Village Hall and on the Village website. 

EXECUTIVE SESSION 

Councilmember Barsky moved to enter into Executive Session, pursuant to ORC 121.22(G)(1) – “to conference with the public body’s attorney concerning a dispute involving the public body.” Second by Councilmember O’Keefe. 

Mayor Hartfield called for a roll call vote:  Barsky – yes; Lerner – yes; McGowan – yes; Mershon – yes; O’Keefe – yes; Herman – yes; Hartfield – yes. Motion carried 7-0. Time in: 9:50pm.  

Councilmember McGowan moved to return to regular session.  Second by Councilmember Barsky.

Mayor Hartfield called for a roll call vote: Barsky – yes; Lerner – yes; McGowan – yes; Mershon – yes; O’Keefe – yes; Herman – yes; Hartfield – yes. Motion carried 7-0. Time in: 10:20pm. 

Council returned to the regular session.

Mayor Hartfield indicated the she would compile a list of applicants for the Village Manager position to confirm that all Councilmembers had received copies of all applications.  The Mayor will also request from Council a list of qualities that candidates should possess.  Councilmember Mershon suggested that each Council member should compile a list of two to three applicants that they prefer and see which applicants may be top candidates for all members.  Mayor Hartfield indicated that Council should meet in December on a non-regular Council meeting to review the applications. 

Clerk Prasher reported that seventy-eight had been taken as part of the deer management program with a total of eighty-three hunters participating.

Councilmember Lerner asked if the individual, who made the records request regarding his parking ticket, received the information requested.  Law Director Crites indicated that the individual’s hearing was scheduled for Friday, November 19th and his records request had been fulfilled.   

ADJOURNMENT (10:22pm) 

Councilmember McGowan moved to adjourn the meeting. Second by Vice Mayor Herman. Motion carried (7-0). 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.