A hiccup in Plain City’s Uptown streetscapes plan brought differing opinions between council members to the surface during their most recent meeting.
Village Administrator Nathan Cahall said new sidewalk construction in the Uptown area requires collaboration between the village and local business owners.
He explained that the public right-of-way does not cover the entire width of the sidewalk, as private ownership extends four to five feet from the building faces in some areas.
In order to create positive drainage, Cahall said village staff was gathering signatures from property owners which would allow Plain City to “legally trespass” and pour sidewalk closer to their buildings.
He said most business owners were willing to grant the village permission to do so, but one specific owner of a Main Street property “on the block between Chillicothe Street and the first alley” raised new concerns last week.
That individual, who Cahall did not name, said raising the sidewalk elevation would cover one row of bricks on the building’s face. The owner said that could potentially trap moisture and damage the façade.
Cahall emphasized that the engineer’s plans consider potential water damage and would add a “vapor gap” near the bricks.
“The goal is to take as much water as humanly possible away from the base of all the buildings,” he said.
In tandem with the concerns raised last week, Cahall said the property owner again requested the alley his building abuts is vacated by the village.
While officials did not confirm the identity of the property owner, Eric Medici has previously requested council vacate an alley next to his building so he could close it to traffic and convert it to a pedestrian-only path.
Though council was not opposed to converting the alley, they were hesitant to give up the right-of-way to do so. The discussion from this month’s work session is planned to be continued in May.
In light of this request, Council member Michael Terry questioned the substance of the property owner’s concerns.
He said he felt the owner was simply attempting to leverage discussions about potential building damage in order to force the village into vacating the alley near his property.
“The minute you bring that up, you’re holding me hostage,” he said.
While Council member Sherry Heineman agreed, fellow member Frank Reed bolstered the property owner’s argument.
He said he felt the village has “some kind of obligation to not do damage to the buildings we’re going to put sidewalk in front of.”
“I think our engineer says it’s not going to do damage,” Solicitor Paul Lafayette responded.
Reed, though, said the village should do further research to determine whether the “opinion” of the engineer or the concerns of the property owner were more accurate.
Terry fiercely disputed Reed’s evaluation of the situation.
“It’s not just two opinions – it’s a qualified person and a business owner,” he said to Reed.
Reed did not waver in his skepticism.
“I’m not willing to go on credentials on this,” he said. “There’s too much at stake.”
Regardless of the property owner’s motivations, Cahall said the village cannot proceed with its original streetscape plans without his permission to encroach beyond the public right-of-way.
“We’re kind of stuck here, in terms of our options,” he said.
The engineer’s current plans include extending the curb line around the side of the building to prevent deterioration of the foundation. Cahall said a catch basin would be added that allows outlets from nearby property owners to connect.
Additionally, to ensure Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) compliance, Cahall said the sidewalk would “grab another four inches of height” to leave the current front step while adding another, smaller ramp.
Cahall said the village could pursue an alternate design in an attempt to avoid delaying the project.
In that scenario, the village would construct new sidewalk only within the public right-of-way, then add a “slip drain” that will run to a storm sewer along the curb on Main Street.
Cahall said it would create appropriate drainage and reduce the long-term maintenance, but create a “half-finished looking product,” because the old, privately owned portion of the sidewalk would remain in place. The property owner would be responsible for maintenance of the area they own.
Terry said he is “appalled” that the property owner would raise new concerns “this late in the process.”
He said he felt the village should create their own drainage for the slip drain, while warning the property owner “we will ticket them for ADA compliance (violations)” and “I will never” vote to vacate the alley.
Despite different perspectives on sidewalk construction, Reed agreed with Terry’s refusal to vacate the alley.
“Those are two different issues, as far as I’m concerned,” Reed said.
Mayor Jody Carney agreed. She said the village needs to make progress with streetscape plans but can continue to discuss options for the alley separately.
“We have been planning this for a long time and we need to keep moving forward,” she said.
Council member Shannon Pine suggested council proceed with the alternate plan to add a slip drain, “unless we can get the owner on board.”
“It will always be an option for them to do their own sidewalk improvement in the future,” she said.
Her fellow council members agreed.
Cahall said he would share council’s opinion with the property owner and discuss before finalizing a plan.
“I’m cautiously optimistic,” he said.