Village Council Enthusiastic about New Metropolitan Partners Plan for River Road
Metropolitan Partners presented to Granville Village Council on Wednesday a new plan for annexation of its 5.1 acres. The revised plan included an enlarged terrace with artisan work areas and a fire pit to create an outdoor space that would add outside activity to the front of the development and increase the opportunity for person-to-person interaction.
A bioswale was added to help shield the parking lot, handle water runoff, and provide a better integrated green space. Finally, building design and placement was modified to provide a more interesting view from South Main Street and meet building height requirements.
Metropolitan Partners indicated that the development is designed and scaled for "service oriented retail…professional office use or food use that is neighborhood-based."
Mayor Melissa Hartfield asked if the developer was opposed to having two-story buildings. She indicated one of her concerns was that the development "not look like a box strip." Tim Rollins, from Metropolitan Partners, indicated while they were not opposed to two-story structures, for them adding a second floor was "about a break even from an economic standpoint." Metropolitan’s Jack Lucks added, "its our obligation to you and ourselves to make these units not appear to look like [a box strip]."
Council member Mershon stated he would prefer larger two-story buildings like those in the downtown Granville business block to "tie this area visually into downtown", "increase revenue for the schools and the village" and protect land located to the east from South Main Street road noise. The Metropolitan Partners representatives expressed concern about the additional parking that would be needed to support a higher density development and noted existing building heights already protect land to the east from both the view and noise of Main Street. Council member Jackie O’Keefe noted, "we need to consider with more density what that is going to do to the traffic." Council member Connie Barsky said she felt the location of the site, between the more densely developed village and the more rural township, was better suited to be "a transitional area from the township to the village."
Support for the plan was expressed by several council members. Connie Barsky told the developer, "I think you have done a nice job." Lon Herman said "I like what you have done." Melissa Hartfield said, "I think you have done a really excellent job…very nice layout."
Citizen support for the plan was strong. Local resident Jurgen Pape noted that the plan "has evolved very nicely." John Klauder, a nearby property owner, said he was "really pleased to see progress made." Another audience member noted that it was a "wonderful, very inventive plan." Bill Wernet said, "this is a great example of how a top-fiight developer can work with a community and it is much appreciated." Dave Getreu, president of Granville Kiwanis, a property owner in the annexed area, indicated that the Kiwanis membership "voted almost unanimously in favor of annexation."
Given the strong support for the plan, the representatives from Metropolitan stated they would go back and develop more detailed plans as well as make annexation agreement modifications to match the plan discussed at the meeting. Mayor Melissa Hartfield indicated that council would next address the annexation in a work session focused on the revised draft annexation agreement.
- Login or register to post comments
- 700 reads
Post to Twitter



Delicious
Digg
Facebook
Google
Two- Story Buildings
I am definitly not against development at that location but I agree that any new business in that area should be made to look consistant with the rest of the Granville Shop atmosphere which is two-story buildings.
The people of Granville have a wonderful community that has evolved over a long time with careful long-term planning. Please don’t get blown away by a slick presentation, be certain that it will be right for Granville 10 - 20 - 50 years from now.
Please -- no short term thinking
Barsky and OKeefe are on track here. The last thing we need is a bunch more traffic on that street.
Why are we trying to encourage/pressure a developer to over develop the property? Sure a bit more money for schools and the village now but lower property values for all of us when traffic becomes a nightmare. Sounds like short term thinking to me.
Tie it into the downtown?
I get where the mayor is coming from on the look of the place. Maybe having buildings that are 1 1/2 stories high would work (I think that is what the Suburban Business District calls for anyway).
But I don’t understand Mershon when he says he wants to tie it into downtown. There are homes, a cemetery, the mill, and a bunch of other stuff, between this development and downtown. I like the developer’s/Barsky’s idea of something more appropriate for this location.
I agree
I was trying to wrap my head around the Mayor’s logic myself. Just seemed like a strange request. Council wants to maximize revenue but minimize development and traffic. It would be great if it worked that way but where do they expect this revenue to come from?
I’m pleasantly surprised by the plans for the development. It could be better IMHO but considering the restraints it’s probably as good as it could be.