GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION
March 12, 2007
Members Present: Chip Blanchard, Jackie O'Keefe, Tom Mitchell, Tim Riffle, Carl Wilkenfeld, Jack Burriss
Members Absent: none
Visitors Present: Bill Wernet, Roger Kessler
Others Present: Chris Strayer, Village Planner, Lauren Repas, Interim Planner
Minutes of February 26: MR.BURRISS MOVED TO APPROVE MINUTES AS PRESENTED. MR. BLANCHARD SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Citizens Comments: none
Swearing in of Witnesses:
William Lavender, 57 Westgate Drive - Sign
Mr. Strayer explained that in the past we have approved a free-standing sign for them, and now they want two new signs facing Cherry Valley Road: (1) 4'x8' on the property and (2) 30"x48" on the building itself. We have allowed, under temporary sign permit, one 4x8 for commercial properties, and Mr. Strayer does not recommend two signs. It makes no difference whether it is free-standing or on the side of the building.
Mr. Riffle said we can approve and let them decide where to place it.
MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO APPROVE 07-012 WITH THE CONDITION THAT THEY CAN PUT ONE 4'X8' SIGN EITHER ON THE BUILDING OR ON THE GROUND. MR. BLANCHARD SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
River Road Proposed Zoning
Proposed zoning changes for River Road have been in the works for three years, Mr. Strayer reported, and a property owner now wants water and sewer on River Road, but Village Council was not ready to extend without annexation. We looked at the entire area and went through a master reviewing process, and Council is asking for GPC input since a PUD would go through GPC. In the event of phased development, we would have it built out consistently across the board, but it would require new zoning.
Mr. Blanchard asked whether the majority of the zoning would mirror that of the village, and Mr. Strayer said some of it would, i.e., lighting, design, signage.
Ms. O'Keefe asked about greenspace and was told they went with a smaller minimum than the 10% minimum in the past, as per Keith Meyers' recommendation. Since there are significant water issues there, with the lake and flood plain occupying about 30 acres, those areas cannot be built on anyway.
Mr. Wilkenfeld asked whether drive-throughs would be permitted and was told yes, as part of a larger plan, but it must be in the rear.
Mr. Strayer said they left things off to allow more flexibility because this is a planned development which would have to be approved by GPC. There are a lot of details in standards listed while leaving the uses wide open. In the township everything is a conditional use, so they can deny anything based on requirements in the code. Flexibility provides GPC and Village Council more discretion for them. We do not have variances for uses. You cannot list every possible business that might arise.
Mr. Riffle noted there are some things we would not think appropriate but which would be OK under these uses, such as Lion's Dens. Mr. Strayer said it is unconstitutional to prohibit businesses like Lions' Dens, for which the code would need to be amended. Mr. Riffle suggested saying "such as…"
Mr. Wernet represents one of the people impacted by this, and he agrees with Mr. Riffle in that it puts GPC in a difficult position. You could have a list "including but not limited to…." Putting things on a list would reduce the need of an applicant to come before GPC. The more a developer can get rid of uncertainties, the better off everyone is. Mr. Strayer does not disagree, but in this situation the way our codes are set up everything comes to GPC anyway. To do what you are talking about is a policy decision to be determined by V.C. Mr. Mitchell agrees with Mr. Wernet. It's pro-development to have a strict set of guidelines. It's anti-developer when it is harder. Mr. Strayer repeated we tried to make it simple. Design is a hard to make detailed enough for a code. It does not say it has to be of historic significance.
Mr. Riffle asked why AROD was named and was told for consistency; it does not say this is an AROD, but their standards should be considered and have the same flavor.
But Mr. Riffle thought there is not a lot of architectural significance on River Road, and everything down there is grandfathered. You can't make it look like Granville.
Roger Kessler noted the concept for the steering committee of the developer is simple. Around the lake they wanted nice condos. Along Mr. Barton's property they wanted mixed use-retail, office, apartments above, and along the railroad tracks that would be for restaurants, summing up: (1) residential, (2) mixed use, (3) services.
Mr. Mitchell asked about the residential density and was told 10 units per acre would be permitted. Mr. Mitchell added the trend is to limit the number of new housing to control for fewer children in the schools. He is concerned that some real numbers ought to be built into the ordinance to create a way to keep these from being single-family residences.
Mr. Strayer said they are considering fees in lieu of bigger developments
Mr. Riffle suggested listing the maximum height rather than just 2 stories, but Mr. Strayer said under a PUD we consider the entire area and the height of the neighboring buildings.
Zoning Code Amendments
1137.02: The Village Planner can back-charge the property owner for any repairs we have to make. He may be asked to tear it down. A property maintenance code is not in here but could be added someday.
1133.03: That Village Council can appeal any decision GPC makes was not an idea heartily endorsed by GPC members.
1137.01: Mr. Wernet is concerned that people do not show up for GPC meetings until the last meeting, when a decision is to be made. There should be an article in the SENTINEL telling what is going on. He suggested putting a link on the email list so people can learn what is on the agenda. Mr. Mitchell noted that the press is not here tonight.
Resolution: Mr. Wilkenfeld wanted GPC to prepare a Resolution of Thanks to Mr. Strayer for his 3 1/2 years of excellent service. Mr. Strayer will be moving to Canal Winchester on March 22 to be their Development Director in charge of planning and zoning. He will have a staff of five, will make more money, and be involved with economic development.
Finding of Fact: MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO APPROVE FINDINGS FOR A UNDER NEW BUSINESS, AND WE FIND THEM CONSISTENT WITH RELEVANT SECTIONS OF THE CODE AS OUTLINED IN MR. STRAYER'S MEMO OF MARCH 12. MR. BLANCHARD SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS APPROVED BY MAJORITY WITH ONE NAY VOTE (MR. WILKENFELD).
Adjournment: 8:45 p.m.
Next Meetings: March 26 and April 9