Should Village Council Change The Comprehensive Plan Tomorrow Night?
Submitted by on Tue, 07/15/2008 - 17:29.
By Dan Bellman
Analysis: In one night, Granville Council could change major parts of the 1998 Comprehensive Plan that were implemented only after hours of volunteer time, community input, and several months of work. Because Granville Council held a public hearing at its last meeting on the new zoning changes, the Village staff feels that Council must vote on these substantial zoning changes on Wednesday night, July 16th. The zoning changes will affect not only the River Road area, but also the Cherry Valley Road area.
Here are some of the significant changes proposed by Tim Ryan and the Planning Commission:
- Commercial Size of Buildings: The 1998 Comprehensive Plan limited a single commercial tenant to 4,000 square feet. The purpose of this was to prevent larger retailers from forcing out the small, family owned businesses located in the downtown. The Planning Commission proposes to double this to 8,000 square feet per commercial tenant.
- Lot Coverage: The 1998 Comprehensive Plan set a limit on lot coverage – the size of buildings, driveways, parking lots, etc. – to 50% of the lot. The Planning Commission proposes to increase lot coverage to 60% for both the Cherry Valley Road area and the River Road area. This especially could affect the property owned by Ben Barton and Rodger Kessler. About a 1/3 of their property contains a lake, and if the lake acreage is used to calculate the higher 60% lot coverage, the result could be that Barton and Kessler would be allowed to cover something closer to 90% of their dry land acreage.
- Residential Limit Per Acre: The 1998 Comprehensive Plan set a limit of 4 residential units per acre. The Planning Commission proposes to increase this to 6 residential units per acre. The impact of this increase, for example, would allow the Barton and Kessler property to build up to 39 residential units on its 6.541 total acres (or on its approximately 4.3 acres of dry land). Often times, traffic engineers use the figure of 10 traffic trips per day per residential unit to estimate traffic burden from residential units.
- Number of Stories: The 1998 Comprehensive Plan set a limit on the size of buildings to 2.5 stories. The Planning Commission proposes to raise this to 3 stories. Three-story buildings probably will be necessary if Barton and Kessler plan to fit 39 condos on their 4.3 acres of dry land.
- Open Space Incentives: The 1998 Comprehensive Plan provided open space incentives whereby higher density ratios are permitted if the developer dedicates certain areas to public open space. The Planning Commission completely eliminates this open space incentive.
- Parking: The 1998 Comprehensive Plan encouraged parking in the rear of the buildings. The Planning Commission proposes that a single row of parking now be permitted in the front of commercial buildings.
- Sidewalks: The 1998 Comprehensive Plan called for wide sidewalks in front of retail establishments to encourage social gathering areas, such as those in the sidewalk areas of downtown Granville. The Planning Commission eliminates this requirement.
Comp Plan or Zoning District
I'm confused by Mr. Bellman's comments that the Comprehensive Plan outlined any of the subject matters. The Comprehensive Plan of 1998 and the upcoming plan does not discuss any of these items specifically. Comprehensive Plan's are vague and do not designate specific zoning for properties. Zoning districts are applied by Council. What Mr. Bellman is discussing are zoning issues, not Comprehensive Plan issues.
Even if Council passes this legislation, the zoning district is not attached to any specific area. It just becomes a possible Village zoning district that could be applied to any newly annexed areas or to areas requesting a new zoning district.
Nicely Said
Thank you for a concise, accurate and sensible portrayal of the issues at hand and the man in question.
Not everyone has to agree on all (or any) issues that come our way, but representing how issues have arisen and how they are being sorted out is a welcome relief on this site.
It's too bad that so many here fall into the category that you describe wishing for zoning outside of the present law.
Again, well stated. Thanks.
Hell no they shouldn't!
At the very least they should let us have another public hearing.
How do they do that?
They vote down this resolution and set a new public hearing for sometime in September when the rest of us are around to take part in the determination of how our government will work and what our community will look like.
What rationale for proposed changes?
Surely they've explained the rationale.
Tim Ryan says he wants larger box retail than SBD allows...
Tim Ryan, chairman of the Planning Commission, says he wants "better fast food", places like Staples, and larger box retail than what is permitted in the Suburban Business District.
Never mind that all the community surveys for decades are opposed to traffic causing retail businesses that increase costs for infrastructure and don't help the schools as much as office...
Tim Ryan
It's natural to be concerned that a person who works developing Big Boxes is chair of our Planning Commission. But, so far, I think Tim's been a much better commission member than I expected.
It is true that he led the Planning Commission effort to rewrite the proposed River Road and Weaver Drive zoning in a very unGranville way -- 15,000 sf Boxes, big asphalt parking lots, 70% lot coverage, drive-thru restaurants, etc. He told the Village Council that proposed law was written to allow medium Big Boxes like Staples. It's also true that the entire Planning Commission appeared totally unfamiliar with the Comprehensive Plan. They were befuddled by the existence of density bonuses for dedicating open space for public use and stripped this important tool from the law out of ignorance rather than malevolence. (Density bonuses for open space/bike paths/etc. are a response to the Supreme Court decision in Dolan v. Tigard and are in virtually every smart growth zoning code.)
Basically, the Planning Commission wrote an ordinance for an upscale, traffic-oriented retail district -- essentially Boxes and chain restaurants with bricks and nice trim aimed at thru-traffic on the highway -- similar to what you might see on Hamilton Road. In defense of the ordinance, it represented a coherent vision and one very much in the mainstream of upscale commercial development. It's not Granville, but it's not Rte. 79 either.
Most important, Tim advocated his views in the proper way and at the proper time -- in the writing of legislation. As Planning Commission chair, it was proper for him to assert his vision of what a good zoning law would be. He made his case articulately and with a good bit of courtesy. This is democracy in action.
The other part of Tim's job is enforcing the Planning Code. Overall, I think he's done this quite well. The PC has gone astray in recent years by voting to approve what it wishes the law said rather than what the law does say. Tim has tended to be a strict constructionist, applying the law as it is written, not as he (or the applicant) wishes it would be. Although he may want the law to permit drive-thrus and boxes, I am confident that he would enforce the law properly if that does not occur. He's also run meetings more effectively and efficiently as he has become more experienced.
In sum, he's done his job well:
* advocating his views on zoning laws -- views that I oppose -- at the right time and in an articulate way.
* enforcing the law as written, pretty much without fear or favor.
This diversity of opinion makes us stronger and forces everyone to think more deeply about the issues.
It is the vision thing
I don't disagree. Tim has done a very good job of sticking to the zoning code. In terms of day-to-day functioning of the Planning Commission Tim is part of the solution.
But this article and thread are not about that. They are focused on whether or not the village is going to follow the vision laid out in the Comprehensive Plan or some new vision concocted by the Planning Commission. In developing zoning for the gateway areas the Village Council and the Planning Commission are supposed to follow the vision of the Comprehensive Plan, not change it.
Zoning Laws and the Comprehensive Plan
The comprehensive plan is simply a 'suggestion' and should never be confused with the zoning laws that are in place (and especially with zoning laws that don't exist: ie River Road).
The Gateway District is separate and distinct from Surburban Business District and the two should not be confused. It's not fair to council to make them capitulate to a few opponents (promoting strict compliance with SBD zoning) as opposed to working on the best possible solution for the land and its location as it relates to the entrance of Granville.
They have put in four long years of thought and negotiating (all in PUBLIC MEETINGS OPEN TO ALL CITIZENS) and are now on the brink of taking the final step to encourage the annexation of the land in question. Let's see how things play out this evening.
Comprehensive plan must be followed under state law
"The comprehensive plan is simply a 'suggestion' and should never be confused with the zoning laws that are in place"
Absolutely incorrect on the law there NoSpin. In the State of Ohio a township or a village need not have a comprehensive plan. However, if they do, then it must be followed.
Zoning and the Comprehensive Plan
In fact, the existingn Comprehensive Plan Update from 1998 was completed to create zoning for River Road, Weaver Drive, Cherry Valley and other village entrances. The Suburban Business District was written explicitly for these entranceways -- now called gateways -- and is attached as an appendix to the Plan.
The Plan was done in response to the threat of Cherry Valley and Rte. 16 becoming what it became -- fast food, gas station, etc. -- because of poor zoning. The Plan was a joint effort to the Granville Village and Granville Township. Several hundred people attended public hearings. More than 2,000 responded to a survey. The township and village hired two of the nation's top smart growth planners -- Randall Arnedt and Frank Elmer -- to help design an alternative that fit with Granville. Top notch urban planner Keith Myers was co-chair of the Plan committee (and chair of the Granville Planning Commission for much of the time) with the late Charlie Metzger. Community members put in thousands of hours trying to address the gateway issue and proper zoning.
The Village Council, which included Ben Rader, Matt McGowan and others, adopted the zoning recommendations unanimously. The Suburban Business District was to zone the gateways. A 2001 Comprehensive Plan Review reincorporated the 1998 plan recommendations. The draft Comprehensive Plan uses similar but more general language. A scientific survey done for the new plan shows broad support for existing policies. In fact, the survey indicates that residents favor even tougher restrictions on the property -- less retail, smaller retail, more open space, etc. -- that the SBD allows. That's because the SBD was a compromise that the community can live with.
The proposed Gateway district began as the Suburban Business District -- literally. Then, the Planning Commission went through it and added things requested by property owners seeking to develop the land. The PC increased lot coverage from 50% to 70%, for example. It permitted single-story, single-use, 15,000-square-feet boxes -- twice the size of CVS -- and eliminated the prohibition on big parking lots in the front. It relaxed controls on signs, reduced pedestrian-friendly rules, added restaurant drive-thrus, etc.
The developer friendly Gateway District was sent to the Village Council, where it met a lukewarm reception. The Council scaled back the developer wish list. Now, it has 60% lot coverage, for example. The restaurant drive-thrus are gone but the big signs remain and the pedestrian-friendly parts of the law were not restored.
Before it now, the Council has a ordinance that is half cat and half dog. It makes no sense. The Planning Commission version is an upscale, traffic-oriented law that attaches the Village entrances to the four-land highway. The Comprehensive Plan version is a smart growth ordinance that limits scale, focuses on pedestrians and attaches to downtown. The current version has no coherence and, if approved and not overturned by voters, will result in incoherent development.
The reason this process has taken so long -- it actually started in 1999 when Jack Thornborough request sewer for the River Road coffee shop complex -- is that some property owners (not Jack) want to do more with their property that the Comprehensive Plan of current zoning allows. They want Granville utilities but not the constraints that come with developing in the Village. They think the Trustees will give them what they want -- I'm not so sure -- but the Trustees can't give them utilities. So a few property owners -- and not even the largest one! -- keep coming back to Council with new efforts to change zoning.
The Council choice is really this: The Granville community has thought deeply about these issues. We've created the proper zoning, with the help of the nation's top experts. The new Community Plan survey says these policies have overwhelming community support. The zoning is not new. The policies are not new. They were designed explicitly to let developers know what you can and cannot do at the village entrances.
The Village Council should stand by the Comprehensive Plan and the process that created it. Otherwise, it makes a joke out of community involvement and makes every zoning decision a measure of how successful developers are at pulling the levers of power to mold Granville to their desires rather than the other way around.
SBD was never the starting point for Gateway
Please don't distort reality. Using words like "literally" to describe the involvement of the SBD zoning is an exaggeration and in fact not true.
Landowners actually started with the Township "General Business" zoning to create a usable zoning district. It was determined on early on that SBD wouldn't fit with the topography and ownership interests, which is still true today.
Your self annointed "top notch urban planner" (Keith Meyers) was hired to draw the first few plan designs, and the landowners SCALED BACK FROM HIS SUGGESTIONS as they had too much building mass for the land in question, and not enough common ownership to make the plan come together.
The 50% land use idea was ineffective for the topography of the land, and everyone involved in the process understands what has been discussed. 70% works for the bulk of the smaller lot owners, and 60% was the compromise. Nothing more.
You say half dog, half cat.... but each piece of property is unique, some flat and buildable; some rolling and not usable; some with broad road frontage; some with narrow frontage, but lots of depth. The plan had (must try) to accommodate all of the property the Village wants to annex.
The sign law is so much stronger and more refined than any other district. It takes into account highway facing facades as well as side facing / access roads, etc. It's a well written and thoroughly researched draft.
I won't even comment on the Thornborough land in question. I've expressed those views and facts on here previously (ad nauseum).
I don't know who you refer to as the largest land owner not being involved, so I cannot begin to understand what you are talking about. Technically, Lake Hudson is the largest land owner, and they have no interest in annexation to the village (can you blame them?). I do know that the owners of the old Shurtz property lost interest in dealing with the absurdity of the Village Council long ago and are moving forward with other planning that will accommodate their vision in due time.
Utilities issues will work themselves out in the course of time. The EPA will have much to say on this issue if annexation does not occur. Obviously, Owens Corning found a way to get water and sewer to their property, and many others will do the same as land becomes more valuable.
Maybe we should enact the most recent version of the comprehensive plan. Obviously, many parts are still a work in progress and obviously 'someone' feels strongly enough that the old plan needs to be made current. With that said, the comp plan is simply a guideline. Nothing more.
Respect for Comprehensive Plan
Some "landowners" may have started with the Township General Business District -- which the proposed Gateway district also doesn't comply with because, for example, the township also has 50% lot coverage -- but the Village Council started with existing zoning and the existing Comprehensive Plan. That's why the drafts are marked to show the existing Suburban Business District and highlight proposed changes.
Nospin argues that these property owners have unique needs not met in the plan or in current zoning. I argue that the community has done it right and should stick with the Comprehensive Plan.
The proposed Gateway District became a developer's wish list and, even scaled back slightly, would be a loss for Granville.
FACT CHECK PLEASE
he WANTS "better fast food"?
he WANTS "places like Staples, and larger box retail"
really?
have you spoken with him?
this is the same Tim Ryan who was praised earlier today for disallowing a larger parking lot?
He wants "better fast food", places like Staples and...
I have not talked with him. Didn't have to.
He said he wants better fast food, places like Staples and larger box retail than allowed in the SBD. He said this in an open session held by the Planning Commission on the Gateway District.
But I am glad to hear you are surprised. I should think most Granville residents would be surprised.
Wolf in the hen house
This should not be a surprise. He has been involved with big commercial retail developments for years.
He brought Lowes to Heath over the objections of the neighboring residents.
He wants to bring stores like they have in Heath to Granville.
How he ever got on the village's planning commission is anyone's guess. Wolf in the hen house.
Respect the Comprehensive Plan
Excellent points, Dan. The proposed zoning change not only violates the existing Comprehensive Plan, it also violates the draft Comprehensive Plan that will soon be voted on by the Village Council and Trustees. Granville can't expect the Comprehensive Plan to have credibility if elected officials toss it in the trash can every time developers want more density, more asphalt, more sprawl, etc.
The Village and Township jointly paid for the new Comprehensive Plan (and the old one). Trustee Habig and Village Council member Barsky were co-chairs of the Comprehensive Plan Committee. We paid for an expensive scientific survey to ask the community what it wanted. The process should be respected.
The Suburban Business District was created expressly and explicitly to zone "the gateways." The Council and Trustees should stick with the Comprehensive Plan. That's what it's there for.
Let's hope the Village Council votes no
The Planning Commission is on the path to destroy many features of the 1998 Suburban Business District which was very carefully developed by a group that incorporated a range of people, from developers to homeowners to planning professionals. In doing so, the current Planning Commission has demonstrated that they fail to understand how to promote good development practices.
The article correctly notes that under the current SBD a developer can get higher density only if they provide usable open space to balance out the harm caused by the higher density. The impact of this seemingly innocuous change is major. By eliminating the incentive for open space that exists in the current SBD, the Planning Commission virtually assures that there will be no usable open space. This bad situation is made worse by the Planning Commission now wanting to increase the density from 50% to 60% without any requirement for open space.
The change in parking to allow parking in front of buildings is highly inappropriate in a "gateway" area. This area, where visitors get their first impression of Granville is the last place to bring scenic parking lots to the front of buildings. What was the Planning Commission thinking?
The change in building size for a commercial tenant is unfortunate. The original SBD limit of 4000 square feet was deliberately designed to both protect the downtown and to encourage development that would help the schools and have reduced infrastructure requirements which taxpayers would have to provide. That original SBD limit of 4000 square feet per building for commercial combined with a much higher limit for office development encourages offices; the very kind of development which has minimal tax-increasing infrastructure requirements and provides the most revenue to our hard-hit school district. Why does the Planning Commission not want to promote development which will most help our schools?
The change in sidewalk requirements gives further insight into the current Planning Commission's inability to understand how zoning impacts the feel of a district. When asked during the 1998 Comprehensive Plan Update process what sort of commercial/office district people liked the most, the nearly unanimous conclusion was one designed to encourage pedestrian access and interaction among the people in the district. We of course have a perfect model for encouraging pedestrian access and pleasant interaction in our downtown. {In fact, the success of the Granville model so impacted the designers of the Easton development that they incorporated similarly large sidewalks.) Why our Planning Commission cannot learn from a model in front of the very building in which they hold their meetings while others 20 some miles away get the point is unknown.
Another set of changes not mentioned in the article, but present in the draft ordinance, are the "drive a truck through it" provisions. For example, the parking regulations section has a clause that states "a deviation from these parking regulations may be recommended by the Planning Commission to the BZBA where appropriate to the integrity of the development plan." Sounds innocuous enough until one considers the record of the current Planning Commission and current BZBA. Developers can use this loophole to build massive lots of asphalt. Of course good planning principles limit the amount of parking available to what is necessary. Just take a look at some of the parking lots in Heath to see what can happen: land used for lots where only a relatively small fraction of the parking spaces are ever used instead of attractive landscaping and open space.
Lack of publicity?
Thanks for putting a spotlight on very important info, Dan. I'm hoping there will be a large turnout at the meeting. Interesting it's held with what seems to me as little notice and during vacation time for many.