Village of Granville
September 21, 2011
CALL TO ORDER (by Mayor Hartfield at 7:32pm)
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Those responding to the roll call were Councilmembers Barsky, Lerner, Mershon, Vice Mayor Herman, Mayor Hartfield, Law Director Crites and Village Manager Stilwell.
Councilmember Barsky made a motion to excuse Councilmembers McGowan and O’Keefe. Second by Councilmember Lerner. Motion carried (5-0).
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Vice Mayor Herman moved to approve the agenda as presented. Second by Councilmember Barsky. Motion carried 5-0.
CITIZEN COMMENTS (7:33pm)
As no one appeared to speak, Mayor Hartfield closed Citizen Comments at 7:34pm.
Ordinance No. 30-11, An Ordinance to Amend Section 1305.02 of the Codified Ordinances of the Village of Granville to Amend Zoning Fees
Planner Terry made a presentation regarding the proposed amendments to the zoning fee portion of the Village Code. The following is a summary of the proposed changes:
- Public Use fees will apply only to new principal structures
- Establishing a Public Use fees for commercial and institutional uses
- Additional of a fee for Other Structures of a commercial/institutional nature
- Additional fee for the Architectural Review Overlay District and the Transportation Corridor Overlay District for processing the application.
- Amend Board of Zoning and Building Appeals review fees
- Remove the cost of postage and advertising
- Lower the fee for residential, commercial and institutional application
- Remove the building appeals fee
- Amend Plat fees
- Add a fee for lot splits of commercial and institutional properties
- Reduce the residential fee for minor revisions related to development plan amendments
- Add a commercial and institutional fee for minor revisions related to development plan amendments
- Remove the fee for the cost of postage for rezoning residential, commercial and institutional applications
- Reduce the fee for right-of-way permits
- Clarify the fees for temporary signs
- Proposed increase in the fee to make an appeal to Council with the fee covering the cost of processing those appeals
- Modify the Occupancy Permit
- Add a fee to lot split and lot combination applications
- Remove the fee for requesting and extension of a zoning permit
- Add a fee to cover the costs related to construction inspections of new development projects
Vice Mayor Herman asked the purpose or intent of changing the fee structure. Planner Terry indicated that the impetus to review and amend the fee structure was in response to comment made by residents and applicants and to update the fee structure to bring it in line with the current Code regulations.
Vice Mayor Herman questioned what constituted a major revision to a development plan versus a minor revision. Planner Terry indicated that this fee only applied to Planned Development districts (PUD and PID). Vice Mayor Herman indicated that he was not interested in making it easy for developers to modify their applications after the approval process was complete. It would be too easy for something to sneak in that was not appropriate. Vice Mayor Herman requested that staff provide a definition of what constituted a mayor and minor change. Possible a tiered structure based of a cost of project threshold. Councilmember Mershon stated that a development fee would already have been paid and there may not be a dollar figure to attach to a fee structure. The Planning Commission was responsible for making the decision about what was a mayor or minor change. Mayor Hartfield commented that a percentage could be attached based on the square footage of the project.
Vice Mayor Herman commented about the increase in the fee to file an appeal to Council. He appreciated the Planning Commission’s concerns to cover the true costs of the appeal process; however, he was not in support of limited resident’s access to Council, which he felt increasing the appeal fee would do. The cost of an appeal should be under $250 or leave the fee at the current $150 level and remove the additional charges for postage and handling. Councilmember Barsky commented that Village Council needed to maintain an approachability. Councilmember Lerner stated that increasing the fee to a higher level would be too prohibitive to residents.
Councilmember Barsky questioned the cost of providing maps. Planner Terry indicated that the cost for this service could be based on the local copy rate.
Councilmember Mershon questioned how often a fee was charge for easement encroachment. Was Granville Historical Society charged this fee. Planner Terry indicated that the Historical Society was not charged the fee as Council provided the easement via an ordinance. The only instance that Planner Terry could think of was with the addition of balcony service by Brews; however, a special lease arrangement was negotiated so this fee was not charged. Planner Terry indicated that this fee could be removed.
Planner Terry explained the addition of the construction inspection fees. These were added to cover the costs incurred to hire outside inspectors to be on-site for inspections of large developments or additions. A six percent fee would be charged the applicant up front to cover those costs with any remaining money returned after the completion of the project. Councilmember Mershon asked how six percent was determined. Planner Terry indicated that six percent was a standard charge for many municipalities statewide. This fee would normally only be charged for improvement to commercial or institutional developments. Manager Stilwell indicated that a qualifier could be added to the schedule that stipulated that this fee would be charged for improvements involving public utilities or roadways.
Councilmember Lerner asked Planner Terry if she could further look into the previously discussed issue involving erosion and sediment control for properties between one tenth of an acre and one acre. Council had passed an ordinance exempting these properties from specific regulations. She would like staff to look into this issue further.
As no one else appeared to speak, Mayor Hartfield closed the public hearing at 8:22pm
Ordinance No. 30-11, An Ordinance to Amend Section 1305.02 of the Codified Ordinances of the Village of Granville to Amend Zoning Fees
Councilmember Lerner moved to continue the public hearing for Ordinance No. 30-11 to the October 5, 2011 Council meeting. Second by Vice Mayor Herman. Motion carried 5-0.
Resolution No. 11-51, A Resolution Accepting the Amounts and Rates as Determined by the Budget Commission and Authorizing the necessary Tax Levies and Certifying Them to the County Auditor was introduced and moved for approval by Councilmember Barsky. Second by Councilmember Mershon.
Manager Stilwell advised Council that language in the resolution was amended to reflect the current county tax budgeting process. The previous language was based on tax budgeting procedures eliminated several years ago.
Mayor Hartfield called for a vote to approve Resolution No. 11-51. Motion carried 5-0. Resolution No. 11-51 approved.
Ordinance No. 32-11, An Ordinance Providing for the Issuance of Not to Exceed $359,000 of Notes by the Village of Granville, Ohio, in Anticipation of the Issuance of Bonds for the Purpose of Paying Part of the Cost of Acquiring the Mansion building Property Located at 537 Jones Road for Village Purposes was introduced and a hearing date recommended for October 5, 2011 by Councilmember Barsky. Second by Councilmember Lerner.
Mayor Hartfield scheduled a public hearing for Ordinance No. 32-2011 for the October 5, 2011 Council meeting.
Councilmember Mershon asked staff to provide the anticipated rate for the upcoming notes.
REVIEW OF MINUTES
Special Scheduled Meeting of August 5, 2011
Councilmember Lerner made a motion to approve the August 5, 2011 minutes. Second by Vice Mayor Herman. Motion carried 5-0.
Regularly Scheduled Meeting of September 7, 2011
Councilmember Barsky made a motion to approve the September 7, 2011 minutes as amended. Second by Vice Mayor Herman. Motion carried 5-0.
MAYOR’S COURT REPORT – August
The Mayor’s Court Report for the month of August was presented for review.
Councilmember Barsky questioned a possible error in the vehicle maintenance report. In the text report, vehicle maintenance hours were listed at 1,834 whereas on the spreadsheet report, the hours were 183. Manager Stilwell indicated that the error was typographical and the report would be corrected.
Councilmember Barsky moved to accept the August Mayor’s Court report. Second by Councilmember Lerner. Motion carried 5-0.
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 – August
The Manager’s Report for the month of August was presented for review.
Councilmember Barsky moved to accept the August Monthly Manager’s Report Second by Vice Mayor Herman. Motion carried 5-0.
Mayor Hartfield instructed the report be filed with the Clerk. A copy of said report will be included as part of these minutes
Economic, Finance, Personnel Committee (Council as a Whole)
Granville Foundation (Mershon)
Councilmember Mershon reported that the donor recognition event was scheduled for November 3rd.
Light, Safety, Streets/Sidewalks, Utility Committee (Hartfield, Herman, McGowan)
Planning Commission (O’Keefe)
Planning & Zoning Committee (Barsky, Hartfield, O’Keefe)
Granville Recreation District (McGowan)
Tree & Landscape Commission (Lerner)
Councilmember Lerner indicated that the Commission was working hard on the renovations to Opera House Park. Tree & Landscape Commission Chair Don Hostetter would be providing Council with an update this evening. Councilmember Lerner also reported that the Commission was working on the fall tree planting program. This year the Commission would be planting thirty trees with five trees being planted at the Bryn Du Mansion. The evergreen tree planted in memory of Buck Sargent was replaced. Additionally, the Village was currently removing more tree than replanting.
Don Hostetter advised Council that a new design had been developed to renovate Opera House Park. The intent was to clean up and improve much of the existing landscape and improve user accessibility. The Commission would be utilizing the funds donated by the Lifestyle Museum. He explained that the park was twenty-five years old and in need of renovation. The Commission divided the renovation into four segments. They would begin with the east side of the park as it needed the most attention. They hoped to begin this fall. Three hemlocks and much of the other landscaping on the east side of the park would be removed. The new plantings would cost between four and six thousand dollars. When this work was completed, the Commission would begin on the south exposure, then the west side of the park and end with the renovation of the bell platform.
Union Cemetery (Barsky)
OTHER COUNCIL MATTERS
Councilmember Barsky reported on the recent Comprehensive Plan Steering Committee meeting. She indicated that following the last public hearing, it was determined that the Plan was larger than desired. The Committee decided to interview and contract with a zoning intern to edit the document. The Committee welcomed participation by Councilmembers and Township Trustees in the interview process. The intent was to provide a readable, concise document. The Committee has held eighteen meetings and completed six revisions of the land use map. Councilmember Mershon added that it was important to maintain a document that was representative of the community.
Councilmember Mershon questioned the point of the Village including township properties in the Village’s Deer Management program. He indicated that he had questioned this issue previously. He suggested that the staff should focus on Village properties only. Councilmember Mershon questioned the Village’s exposure in providing hunters for township property and the extra effort expended by Village staff. Manager Stilwell indicated that the overall effort was to remove deer and properties in close proximity to the Village could help with that effort. Clerk Prasher indicated that the Township had been participating in the program since 2008 at the request of the Township Fiscal Officer and Trustees. Township residents request to be part of the program as they did not know any hunters. Denison offered their township property contingent that it was part of the Village program. Previous Village staff felt the collaborative effort would be beneficial in providing relief to the residents and the program’s success. Manager Stilwell indicated that he would check on the Village’s exposure and review the township locations
OTHER STAFF MATTERS
Cherry Valley Interchange
Planner Terry provided Council with an update regarding the options available and the cost of those options regarding the construction of the proposed Cherry Valley Road Interchange.
The twelve foot acorn lights would cost the Village an additional $140,000. Costs associated with those decorative poles could be funded through a Transportation Enhancement grant. Council agreed with the recommendation to use a combination of the low mast and decorative lighting.
Planner Terry indicated that planting street trees along both sides of the northern roadway would not add any additional costs to the project. Council indicated their support for the recommendation of the Village planting street trees along the roadway as funding was available.
Traffic Signal Poles
Planner Terry indicated that the decorative traffic signal pole would cost an additional $60,000. As the cost of the upgrade was minimal, Council recommended not touse the more decorative traffic pole.
Bridge Fence /Railing
Planner Terry indicated that the upgrade of the more decorative fence would only cost an additional $26,500. Council recommended the upgraded fencing.
Planner Terry indicated that the total cost for all of the decorative upgrades would be an additional $226,500. ODOT would bid this portion of the package as a decorative alternate and Council would have an opportunity to choose not to proceed with these upgrades later in the process. Council supported advising ODOT of their support for these upgrades
ADJOURNMENT (8:55 pm)
Vice Mayor Herman made a motion to adjourn. Second by Councilmember Mershon. Motion carried 5-0.