GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION
July 8, 2002
Amended Minutes
Members Present: Jack Burriss, Barb Lucier, Mark Parris
(Vice Chair), Richard Salvage (Chair), Carl Wilkenfeld,
Richard Main
Members Absent: None
Also Present: Seth Dorman, Village Planner
Visitors Present: Todd Wrobleski, Maxine Montgomery,
Jerry Siper, Mary Lou VanAtta, Emma-Lou VanAtta, Bob
Searles, Steve Mansfield, Mike Flood, Constance Barsky,
Judy Duncan, Larry Morgan, Jeff Brown, John Klein,
Jonathan Wocher, Jack Gehrum, Larry Miller, Art Chonko
Citizens’ Comments: None
The Chair swore in all those who planned to speak.
Minutes of June 24, 2002: Mr. Salvage wished to make
changes on Page 4: Add the following in front of End
Citizens Comments with: Mr. Salvage asked for additional
citizen comments and pointed out that this is the only
opportunity for such. However, no further comments were
made and Mr. Salvage ended them.
On Page 6, add at top of page: Mr. Salvage
pointed out that under section 1171.03(b) square footage
is limited to 6000 per tenant or use and that this
applicant has two uses and therefore is allowed 12,000
square feet, making the proposal acceptable under the
code, in his opinion.
MR. BURRISS MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES AS CORRECTED.
MR. PARRIS SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY
APPROVED.
Mr. Wilkenfeld said that since we are a body that
makes recommendations, it seems it might be good to get a
word-for-word transcript of the SuperAmerica part of the
minutes and attach it to the minutes. Mr. Salvage would
just as soon leave it up to Village Council. Mr. Parris
said the information is there if they feel it is a
necessity.
MR. WILKENFELD MOVED THAT WHEN WE SEND OUR RECOMMENDATION
TO VILLAGE COUNCIL, WE SHOULD INCLUDE A WRITTEN FORM OF
THE MINUTES FROM THE TAPES. THEN THEY CAN MAKE THE
DECISION WHETHER THEY WANT TO READ IT. MS. LUCIER
SECONDED
Mr. Salvage wanted to table this issue pending
cost estimates from Mr. Dorman. MR. BURRIS MOVED TO TABLE
THIS ISSUE TO FIND OUT THE COST. MR. WILKENFELD SECONDED,
AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
New Business:
Granville Village Schools, 310 North Granger Street –
Replace all windows, remove all mechanical louvers.
Mr. Dorman said the application is in conjunction
with interior modifications planned for the school. They
want to (1) Replace all the exterior windows, and (2)
remove all existing mechanical louvers and infill those
areas with masonry.
Todd Wrobleski said they want to bring the
building back to its historic nature. The windows would
be double hung, the top part is fixed glass and the bottom
is flexible. On the inside they are going to drop the
ceilings to hide the new mechanicals that is the reason
for the paneling on the new windows. A lot of the
existing windows have glass and are painted in.
Mr. Parris said from a functional standpoint will
the double-hung windows have spring-loaded mechanical
balances, and he wondered why they would not use an awning
unit. The response was for cost and safety reasons with
projecting windows. The finish is metal with color
similar to building.
MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION #02-
082 AS PRESENTED MR. PARRIS SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS
UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Larry Morgan, 343 East Broadway – Front Porch Renovation
Mr. Dorman said the application is to: (1) replace
the 3 posts with similar posts; (2) replace floor; and
(3) rebuild lattice understructure including the access
door to an old coal bin.
Larry Morgan said the 100-year-old porch takes
abuse from the weather and has deteriorated and he wants
to replace the flooring with geodeck, a recycled material
and would use either a dark grey or light brown flooring.
He wants to square up the posts. The pressure-treated
posts would have a routed reveal. The existing railing
will hold up for awhile yet.
In answer to a question from Mr. Burriss, Mr.
Morgan said the deck material would be run the same way as
the existing but is a little higher, just below the
threshold.
MR. PARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION #02-091, AND THE
APPLICANT WILL BE ABLE TO CHOOSE BETWEEN THE DARK GRAY OR
LIGHT BROWN MATERIAL OF THE TYPE HE BROUGHT IN AS THE
SAMPLE. MR. WILKENFELD SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS
UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Lee & Linda Davis, 304 North Pearl Street - Driveway
Widening & Brick Sidewalks
(A) Work has been done on the driveway, and at the
last meeting the applicant was asked to bring in a new
application. They have widened the driveway 4.5 to the
east and 1.5 to the west and installed brick pavers on an
aggregate base where the original drive was concrete. This
will require BZBA approval for a lot coverage variance.
Mr. Burriss said the work done heretofore has been done
well.
(B) They also wish to remove the aging sidewalk and
replace it with brick pavers. These are Village
sidewalks. Mike Flood, contractor, said they would be
receptive to what the Village has done downtown.
Ms. Lucier asked whether pavers negatively impact
the ability of handicap access? Mike Flood did not know,
but they could leave the ramp concrete. Ms. Lucier
thought we ought to know for sure before granting
applications.
Mr. Parris said we need to be sensitive to Village
improvements, and if there is a pattern we should follow
it. Since these are Village sidewalks, (a) have we let
other people do sidewalk work? (b) Once built, whose
responsibility is it to maintain it? This is the first
time anyone has asked for approval to tear up Village
sidewalks. Mr. Dorman is only aware of older brick
sidewalks, and no owner has done anything, to his
knowledge, but he can research the question. Joe Hickman
had asked the applicant to come before the PC. Mr.
Salvage asked what are the specifications for sidewalks?
A letter from neighbor Dan Bellman expresses his approval
of the project.
(A) MR. PARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE ITEM A OF APPLICATION #02-
092 AS PRESENTED, PENDING APPROVAL OF LOT COVERAGE
VARIANCE BY BZBA. MR. BURRISS SECONDED, AND THE MOTION
WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
(B)MR. PARRIS MOVED TO TABLE PART B OF APPLICATION #02-092
AT THE APPLICANT’S REQUEST. MR. BURRISS SECONDED, AND THE
MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Denison University, 459 South Main St. – Relocate Habitat
for Humanity Recycling Barn
Art Chonko said the college wants to help the
community by allowing the recycling barn for aluminum cans
at the steam plant. It seemed a convenient place for it,
rather than behind the Episcopal Church. There would be
little visual impact. This is for Habitat for Humanity
and not related to the recycling bins on River Road.
Mr. Wilkenfeld said that because it is in the
TCOD, we have to agree this is not really a building for
doing business, Mr. Salvage said it’s an accessory
building.
MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION #02-093 AS
PRESENTED. MS. LUCIER SECONDED, AND THE MOTION
UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Denison University – New Campus Map and Temporary Signage
Art Chonko said they are requesting one-sided
campus map signs at (1) Burke Hall, (2) Washington
Drive/Lamson Lodge, and (3) the entrance from College
Street. They will be internally lit. Variances would be
needed for internal illumination and size.
The map would be grey aluminum with red letters. Ms.
Lucier would not have a problem with the Burke Hall sign
because it’s already there and already internally lit.
Ms. Lucier has a problem with the College Street sign
because she did not think there are many pedestrians who
are starting at the bottom of the hill at night. It does
not look good next to the nice entrance to the college.
Mr. Parris agreed and said if someone were in a car, the
headlights would light it up. Mr. Chonko did not know the
foot candles since this is conceptual, but it needs enough
light to be visible. He thought it would not be a glaring
light. He added there will be more signs in the parking
lots.
Consensus was to deny the entrance sign at the
Main/College Street entrance, and Mr. Chonko said he will
withdraw it from the application.
Mr. Salvage applied the criteria to the requested
variances for internal illumination and size:
A. That special circumstances or conditions exist which
are peculiar to the land or structure(s) involved and
which are not applicable to other lands or structures in
the same zoning district. Denison itself is a condition
that is peculiar in terms of the size, of the institution
and the amount of access it has to the Village; the
signage is actually very minimal when taken in context.
B. That a literal interpretation of the provisions
of this Zoning Ordinance would deprive the applicants of
rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same
zoning district under the provisions of this Ordinance.
Not applicable.
C. That the special conditions and circumstances do not
result from the actions of the applicant. They do, but
it’s required to adequately represent the University.
Also part of the square footage that we’re dealing with is
architectural presentation of the map.
D. That the granting the variance will not confer on the
applicant any undue privilege that is denied by this
Ordinance to other lands or structures in the same zoning
district. That can’t happen.
E. That the granting of the variance will in no
other manner adversely affect the health, safety, and
general welfare of the of persons residing or working
within the vicinity of the proposed variance. No, it
helps them find where they are going on campus.
Mr. Salvage stated that after reviewing 1171.01 we feel
that approval of the variances to grant the application is
in order.
MR. WILKENFELD MOVED THAT UPON REVIEWING THE VARIANCES FOR
THE CAMPUS MAP SIGNAGE, TWO OUT OF THE THREE PROPSED SIGNS
SPECIFICALLY AT BURKE HALL AND AT THE INTERSECTION NEAR
LAMSON LODGE/MITCHELL CENTER MEET THE REQUIREMENTS FOR
VARIATION. MR. PARRIS SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS
UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION #02-094 (PART
A) WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1) THAT WE ARE ONLY
APPROVING THE PROPOSED SIGNS AT BURKE HALL AND AT THE
INTERSECTION NEAR LAMSON LODGE/MITCHELL CENTER. MR.
PARRIS SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Then there was a sort discussion on the proposed temporary
sing to direct summer conference attendees away from the
Main/College Street entrance to avoid the construction
MR. WILKENFELD MOVED THAT APPROVE APPLICATION #02-094
(PART B) FOR THE TEMPORARY SIGN AS PRESENTED. MR. PARRIS
SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Christopher Avery, 127 South Prospect Street – Front Porch
Renovation
Mr. Dorman came across this project already
underway and requested the applicant file an application.
Applicant wants to (1) replace posts, (2) install new
floor, (3) repaint railings, (4) replace lattice around
base, and (5) replace entrance walk on the house side of
the sidewalk. The post snapped, the floor is collapsing,
and the roof is sagging. The balcony part is not being
renovated at this time.
Dr. Avery said the deteriorating condition made
renovations crucial for safety reasons. One part of the
renovation uncovered another, and the project grew. It
will match the existing materials and colors as closely as
possible.
MS. LUCIER MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION #02-095 AS
PRESENTED. MR. WILKENFELD SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS
UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Old Business:
Eloise Miller, 590 West Broadway – Fence Extension into
TCOD
Mr. Dorman said Ms. Miller extended a portion of
the 5’ tall blue-green wooden fence he approved last year
into the TCOD. Mr. Dorman said the fence is 93½’ from the
center of road, which puts it 36½’ into the TCOD. From
fence to the front of the house is 38’, and from the front
of the house to the sidewalk is 30’.
Mr. Wilkenfeld noted this house has been there a
long time and this is part of the back yard and does not
impinge on the view. The purpose of the TCOD is not to
turn things into a mining town and put things right at the
roadside.
Mr. Parris asked whether this is a modification
and was told yes. But he would have been more comfortable
if this had been a new application, since it’s in a
different zoning area. Mr. Salvage wondered whether we
would have approved it if it had been in the TCOD
originally. It’s minor under the circumstances.
MR. PARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE A MODIFICATION TO APPLICATION
#01-106 AND FIND IT TO BE MINOR. MR. BURRISS SECONDED,
AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Jim Hartzler, 203 North Plum Street – Removal of Two
Windows
Mr. Dorman said the PC approved an application for
a retaining wall a month or so ago, and this is an
amendment for the removal of two non-historic windows.
The siding will match.
Mr. Parris said we did not even talk about the
house during the former discussion. Mr. Dorman thought it
was minor enough that we could add this to the original
application, but Mr. Parris said the last time he wanted a
retaining wall, but this is a completely separate issue.
Mr. Salvage did not think he would have trouble getting
approval with proper application.
MS. LUCIER MOVED TO CONSIDER THIS A MINOR MODIFICATION.
MR. WILKENFELD SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY
DENIED.
Speedway/SuperAmerica, SR 16/S.CherryValley Rd. – Proposed
Gas Station
This is the second formal hearing for the proposed
gas station and convenience store, which was tabled at the
last meeting. {It was requested that this be a word-for-
word transcription, so the secretary has done this in a
separate file.}
MS. LUCIER MOVED THAT WE REMOVE APPLICATION #02-081 FROM
THE TABLE. MR. PARRIS SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS
UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Mr. Salvage requested the Planner to provide an update,
and Mr. Dorman referred them to the cover memo and the
applicant.
Jonathan Wocher, Planner said he would like to cover a
couple of items newly submitted and then get to the issue
of traffic. Greg Dale briefed him on the issues addressed
at the last meeting. The revised plans include utility
plans, dumpster, landscaping. Aerial views of the site
provide context of the Speedway with respect to the flood
plain. We also submitted materials relative to
containment issues, catch basins, and financial
responsibility for underground tanks. Mr. Wocher wanted to
focus on traffic issues so he introduced Jack Gehrum,
Traffic Consultant, who oversaw the traffic study. He
will address basic assumptions for the traffic study and
what Speedway feels would be improvements in the traffic.
Jack Gehrum said in December, 2001, his firm completed a
draft traffic impact study basically for a Speedway
facility with 12 pumps, and convenience store totaling
7800 square feet at the intersection of SR 16 and S.
Cherry Valley Road {CVR}. The traffic counts showed {CVR)
has 14,250 vehicles per day and there are 37,000 on SR 16
and some significant traffic delays under existing
conditions. Looking to see what the problems were, they
studied trip generation and distribution for the
facility. For the trip generation, the basis is a
collection of counts across the country, land uses, and
traffic studies, to allow consistency between
communities. For this facility in the morning peak,
there were 60 in and 60 out, evening peak 80 in and 80
out. Those trips vary in their consistency because we are
dealing with suburban locations, and there are a lot of
pass-by trips. Pass-by trips are trips that are already
on the road, diverted to the gas station. About 2/3 of
the gas station trips would be diverted traffic. One-
third are trips primarily to the gas station. Mr. Gehrum
said at the major intersection we are already at a
significant level and we are not going to increase that.
We are looking at a single use on the property. Ms.
Lucier and Mr. Wilkenfeld disagreed.
Mr. Gehrum’s recommendations include constructing
a left-hand lane for SuperAmerica (SA). I suggest we add a
lane and change the current through lane on SR 16 to a
through right turn lane, to have dual right turns and move
more vehicles through the intersection.
Another issue had to do with whether additional
Right-of-Way {ROW} was needed on CVR in front of the
facility or whether the roadway was limited to a 5 lane
section. There is a partial ROW and it would provide
means to widen CVR as the area becomes developed.
Ms. Lucier asked how much difference does it make
whether you have 8 or 12 fueling stations? Mr. Gehrum
said if you look at the figure there is an average per
fueling position around the country and he clarified the
data in the report. They converted your trip generation
into average fueling position, so the equation says per
fueling position you have X number of trips and you can
use that according to the number of fueling positions.
Ms. Lucier asked if fewer pumps would help, and was told
with fewer pumps you would have fewer cars. If you have a
demand and not enough pumps, you would have a lot of
people waiting around.
Mr. Wilkenfeld asked Mr. Gehrum to shed light on the 11
studies and where these studies took place; in the city,
country or suburban areas, and was told that this
information is standardized and that is what we use.
Mr. Burriss asked: Is your recommendation that SA Way be
three lanes? He was told that is correct. Mr. Salvage
asked what impact would it have if the right out were
removed one and was told part of that is marketing and
access rather than actual need.
Mr. Parris is concerned because of the congestion of the
area along to the close proximity of the Speedway with
people crossing the traffic pattern. Right in right out
is no problem, but with people going left in or left out,
people are going to close their eyes and pray.
Mr. Wilkenfeld asked for clarification on Page 13, the
level of service and classifying things A-F and delays,
and can you relate it to the studies we are looking at
here? Page 14 looks at all these terms and they are all
at a level in our study that the volume exceeds capacity
and where does it say how we get to acceptable levels of
capacity? You are saying there is no capacity for any
more volume. Mr. Gehrum said they did not analyze this
because it is an existing problem. We don’t see what will
happen in the future, but Mr. Wilkenfeld said we have to
take into account a problem that already exists. How can
we be expected to absorb more capacity? Mr. Gehrum’s
group doesn’t examine the roadway to see what ODOT is
doing. They are studying the impact of this station. How
much worse will it be than what’s already there? He said
how do you stop traffic from continuing on a public
highway? On SR 16 the backups are tremendous.
Ms. Lucier said one of the things we look at is
does this proposal exacerbate the traffic problem?
Mr. Wilkenfeld thinks we have some real safety
issues and has a question about not just this study but
studies in general. How do you address people in the
left traveling lane when they decide to get into the right
lane? It slows everybody down. Are you taking into
account the actual flow: Mr. Brown said you can’t figure
a crazy person into the analysis. That would apply to
anywhere with more than two lanes. You can’t design
something for a person being irresponsible that close to
the intersection. Mr. Salvage said these are questions
that can’t be answered. Ms. Lucier asked if we have a
traffic consultant present?
Doyle Clear, Traffic Engineer, said. {summarized
here}, “Most of the time the subject of traffic impact is
dealt with at the zoning level, not at the site planning
level. I looked at it as a permitted use and instead of
looking at a traffic study I approached this more as a
site access system to see if it works. I have worked with
Jack Gehrum and one of their problems is you don’t have
any guidelines on how to do traffic studies. I asked Seth
what did you ask them to do, and I think PKG did their
best in answering how to do it. They are not to go beyond
what they think is in the best interests of their study.
You might think about adopting guidelines used by most
cities. Two major problems exist:
(1)We are dealing with a roadway system which we are
going to rebuild some part of on the south part of CVR.
My contention is that since they own the other two
parcels, the study should have considered land uses on the
other two parcels of land. When McDonalds comes in, you
wouldn’t want to tear up what you’ve just built. So my
suggestion was to ask them to look at the study
considering the other two lots being developed, i.e., fast
food and a high turnover sit down restaurant. Capacity
ratios are where volume equals capacity. In the guidelines
it will be responsibility of developer to mitigate the
traffic increase. So (1) They did not take into
consideration the other parcels. And (2)They didn’t
mitigate their impacts. Seth wrote to them and we got no
response so I was asked to take another look at it from a
traffic standpoint. I am also working with Joe and Seth
on the north section of CVR. We are looking at what are
the kinds of things we need to do on the north side? They
are under design now on the north. One of the things Jack
was trying to explain was diverted trips. I agree with
Jack this will generate very few new trips. The
development will take traffic from the road. But what
happens with the exception of how to balance right in and
right out with the person who is coming east, right in,
left out, that was a through trip and added traffic. If
I am going north, I have to turn left, make a loop. The
most devastating is left in left out. Those trips are
moments for significant impact. So what happens now since
this is a permitted use and previously approved? What is
it we can do to make the system work better and mitigate
the impact? So to mitigate the impact, what needs to be
done is to modify the north and widen the south side. My
suggestion to Seth was perhaps since the village is doing
the north leg we might work with ODOT on adding a second
north turn lane to SA Way from CVR. During a.m. and
p.m.peaks, 13 cars would want to make a left turn. If all
13 of them use it, it will block traffic, so my objective
was to put them into two lanes. My suggestion was to ask
for more ROW. I did not move anything but the objective
is to get the sidewalks within the ROW and the roadway
along ROW. Then we add a second northbound left turn
lane. We need to make arrangements for space for
queueing. Get ODOT to help. And make improvements to get
back to the bad level we had before. If we dealt only
with Speedway, then the 5-lane section is appropriate.
When you start adding the other two parcels, these three
generate 400 vehicles in there in the morning and 430 in
the evening. If you think these are going to come on
line, then move the curb and gutter all at the same time.
The traffic engineer was told to make the intersection
safer so they take green time away from the side streets.
They did not do that. So everyone had an equal time of
delay. This is an Achilles heel on SR 16 and we don’t
want to get pinched on the north and south.
Mr. Wilkenfeld noted that the report on Page 7:promises SR
16 will continue to experience problems. On Page 11, you
say: “Rather than adding through lanes, the State will
probably opt to construct an interchange in the vicinity
of CVR.; however, it is understood that such a
modification is at least ten years in the future.” He
added that a memo from Joe Hickman to Seth Dorman
regarding Council’s direction reads: “…any entities
developing along CVR must live within the confinements of
the existing five lane intersection.”
Chairman Salvage asked for Citizens’ Comments
STEVE MANSFIELD was one of the citizens who voted against
the previous application in ’97 and that referendum
proposal was defeated and the newspaper said it was
defeated by 63% voting against it. I felt my views were
an expression of the Comprehensive Master Plan and some of
the zoning code developments at that time. Other
comments: <> Number of pumps; It’s hard to find any
station with 12 pumps. They usually have 6 islands,.and
he thinks this out of character for Granville. <> Other
lot usage. <> Will this store/station sell diesel and if
they do, would large trucks would be involved; re the left
turn situation, what would a large truck there at 5:30 do
to the problem?
CONSTANCE BARSKY would agree with everything said. The
other thing she would ask is if you do a calculation of 60-
80 cars at peak hours to see how much money that would
generate. It would not be much money, so they are going
to need more cars to make any money. <> Also, how much
tax would it generate? A tax might support 10 kids per
year. <> Also, when Bob Evans realized the result of the
survey, they did cooperate with us to make their facility
agree with the Village. {She read a report of balancing
long- and short-term, which is available from her.) We
have a right as citizens of this community and they need
to come on our terms. They can’t just come in and say
traffic will not have an impact. That is not true.
End of Public Comment
A representative from Speedway reported that in Pataskala
there are 12 fuel stations. This is not in the middle of
the village. It’s a highway oriented location. The
temptation to diminish the number of pumps is likely to
create a demand for more pumps. Removing pumps is not the
way to reduce traffic.
Mr. Wilkenfeld asked Speedway what is your goal
and the average gas sales? Answer $8-12 per sale. It
varies. Mr. Parris said you know from sales reports how
many cars visited your pumps per day and how much money
you brought in. Most of the people in the store are
probably going to be at the gas pumps. If you can’t
answer that, you should not be in business. He wants a
check and balances and a number from the business side of
it. If you took all your vehicles, how many trips do you
get per day per pump. We want to see if there is a match
there. The representative replied that after we determine
the site and layout, we decide return of investments.
Ms. Lucier asked what would you project your
income would be? Mr. Parris is looking for correlations
between what your business reports tell you as far as
trips going and what our traffic studies say. Is the
traffic study worth the paper it is printed on? He was
told those are nationally generated trip rates.
Mr. Wilkenfeld said the studies don’t match. We have no
idea of where they were taken from. Your goal is to make
money, but you have got to know what your average sale is
and how many cars you anticipate. The representative said
1000 customers come into our stores, maybe 980 vehicles
per day. A lot of businesses have a busiest time in the
peak for traffic because we want to analyze when most of
the cars are there. Mr. Wilkenfeld asked if this comes to
$9800 per day and was told, “I don’t know about that,” by
a representative of the applicant. Speedway could be
considered as a loss. Speedway made road improvements with
the assumption that this use would occur. Given the
uncertainty about the future interchange, we feel it’s
appropriate to assume morning trips and to not consider
the other two lots. The contribution that Speedway is
willing to make in addition to the improvements would be
the dedication of the ROW and what could be a 5-lane
intersection. Our contribution would be the ROW that
would accommodate future lot improvements of lots 2 and
3. Some lane restriping may be appropriate, i.e., right
turns.
Mr. Clear noted that he was working for SA on the
previous study and it was an evaluation of what needed to
be done.
Mr. Wilkenfeld has a question for our Law Director. The
conditions have changed for PUD’s. This is a legislative
process. We brought our charter and codes in line with
that. The courts said it was a legislative process. How
many times do the citizens of Granville have to go through
this.? :Law Director Crites said every time the Supreme
Court changes anything we have to change also. Mr.
Wilkenfeld asked, “If Village Council votes No, is that
the end of it?” The answer was: It can be appealed through
the Court of Appeals. If it goes to referendum, then what
happens? Answer: Appellant can make a new application,
and they can keep coming back. Mr. Salvage noted that
they have the right to use their land.
Mr. Parris stated that Mr. Clear brought up the point
about considering the entire site, not just the gas
station. In PUD we couldn’t do this because we have to
have the whole thing in front of us. This is a different
zone district, but what is your opinion of how we should
consider this parcel: One site plan for all three or one
only?
Mr. Crites said there are a number of factors GPC can and
should consider.
Ms. Lucier asked about a difference of opinion the
Planning Commission had about the issue of the canopy.
Seth was counting square footage as part of the building
at a ratio established for Certified. What does the code
say?
Mr. Crites asked: “Did you look at whether it is one or
two uses? It could go either way.
Mr. Burris said that regarding some of the improvements
agreed upon and made with Bob Evans, the previous station
had a smaller number of pumps and square footage. Were
you considering that? The station we are now looking at
is bigger but the lot is also.
The Speedway representative said originally we had 4 lots
and we incorporated two into one for the gas station.
This is our current standard building. Whether it was
smaller or not, there are additional improvements
recommended in our study and we agreed to implement them.
John Stephens showed shingle samples and a cultured stone
sample with colors. The band around the building is
called the EIFS. Synthetic stuff. We were asked to put a
detail with cap. Showed detail of sample at the end of
the runs for the building and also on the canopy. He
showed the detail of the column. We agreed on a column of
round capital and smooth shaft but we were asked to have a
tapered column. The gutter and downspouts would have a
collar that blends in. The gutters on canopy are
internal.
Mr. Burriss asked if 60’ is sufficient for three lanes for
SA Way? What about the type of ourdoor products? Mr.
Stephens said this is seasonal. Outdoor products are
important to Speedway, and we would like to be able to
keep that.
Mr. Burriss asked what is the relationship between
the top of the ice machine and the bottom of the windows.
He was told it’s below the windows. Also, we want pop
displays.
Mr. Burriss said that we didn’t allow Certified to have
stuff outside. And they are being asked to remove it. The
Speedway representative said they hope to come to an
understanding what you are asking for. Outdoor display is
still under discussion.
Dumpster: The dumpster enclosure is same stone on two
sides with picket fence. Enclosed on three sides with
gate on front. .Mr. Burriss asked if the propane could be
put in there between the building and the dumpster? And
Mr. Parris assumed garbage trucks backed in there and was
told Yes, there is room.
Signage: The Speedway Representative said they want to
have the permanent sign board in place of the changeable
copy sign because they are under the allowable maximum
space. Mr. Parris said we don’t have to give the maximum
space to you.
Lighting: Speedway said they are under Certified’s
footcandles, which were approved. Mr. Parris thought it
didn’t look excessive. It’s OK. There would be external
lighting of the free-standing sign.
Hours of Operation: We want 24 hours; it’s important.
The majority of the Planning Commission said no.
Purpose and Intent: Mr. Wilkenfeld would like Mike Crites
to talk about the purpose and intent and sections under
PCD development standards A and B. Mr. Parris feels right
out. would be a hazard.
Doyle Clear and Jack Gehrum agreed that elimination of the
right out would reduce the number of conflicts. People
would not leave at the same time people are going through
the intersection. The intersection at Bob Evans is going
to be full of problems. I have worked for many
developments re gas station access and they would clearly
prefer going right out.
Mr. Wilkenfeld called Mr. Crites’s office. He spoke with
Mr. Gorry about the Planned Development District. Under
the purpose and intent {1171.01} it says it is part of the
discussion and decision process and I want Mr. Crites to
verify. On 92G there are issues re traffic and PDD to
discuss. Specifically Tax Revenue and how that relates to
the school the costs to us and impact on in the Village;
enhancement rather than harm; transportation; community
objectives of the Master Plan. I want to make sure this
is something we need to work at.
Mr. Crites said the Purpose and Intent in 1171 lays out
parameters through which Village Council expects PUDs to
be achieved. These are all things the Planning Commission
can consider in approving a development plan.
Mr. Wilkenfeld said in 92G (A-E), we are also charged to
look at safety and how it impacts the entire Village.
Mr. Crites reads from ‘c’ - “The Commission shall not
recommend nor shall Council approve a development plan
unless they find that: A – Such planned development
provides adequate ingress and egress and does not
adversely impact traffic patterns nor unreasonably
increase traffic usage of municipal streets to the
detriment of the safety and welfare of the public. B -
Planned development fronting on major streets shall be
provided with parallel service streets in order to limit
access to one intersection on a major street.” C is
parking. These are factors that need to be considered by
you and the Village Council.
Square Footage: Mr Parris said Mr. Crites needs to
research this. We came up with 85% for Certified last
year. Mr. Dorman explained that regarding the canopy,
codes are not always clear and interpretations have to be
made. That was made for Certified in the SBD. The Law
Director said when you do something, you do it
consistently. Mr. Salvage does not recall the 85%
limitation so it should not be considered. Ms. Lucier
said the Village Council said building the canopy ought to
have some relevance under massing. We don’t have to
design it tonight.
Uses: Mr. Parris said we have two uses which we don’t
know about yet. I want to consider this site with the
bare bones of variances. I think we need to apply the
code to the site plan. Mr. Dorman explained that under
1171.03(c) deviations are allowed. It’s within your
authority to recommend deviations.
Mr. Wilkenfeld has a way to determine whether it
is one or two uses. Would you build a gas station without
a store? No. Would you build a store without a gas
station? No. So it’s one use.
Mr. Salvage said, No, that’s two uses, and Mr. Dorman said
it’s two separate uses and they are both allowable. So
they are allowed 12,000 square feet.
Site Plan and Outdoor Sales: Mr. Wilkenfeld feels the
design of the building does not fit too well with
Granville, but it’s OK Mr. Burriss wants additional
screening of outside sales items. They have to enclose
outside products, and Mr. Salvage does not like propane at
the end of the building. Mr. Wilkenfeld does not want
anything outside the building. Because you are extending
the store. But Mr. Salvage asked, “What if they provide an
enclosure. It must be screened. Mr. Dorman reminded that
it says in the code, 1171.04 (8) outdoor display is
prohibited. Mr. Parris would have to see what type of
screening is proposed.
Mr. Burriss asked about setback and with the
current sign plan, has there been enough area allowed for
road work? {This will be discussed later}
Lighting is OK
Greenspace: Mr. Salvage said we want them to include an
area along SA Way. I would allow them to use the
dedicated area for extension of utilities. They can use
it for nondevelopment items.
Taxes: Mr. Wilkenfeld asked about their cost to us. Look
at the community objective of the Master Plan. When are
the people of the Village going to get what they ask for?
Mr. Salvage figured it would be valued at $1-3 million,
land and building, including all improvements. Mr.
Wilkenfeld wants to be sure it does not cost the village
more for services. It should not be a tax loss
situation. {He reads from Master Plan} “Smaller
facilities do not bring in much tax.” There’s a lot of
commercial in Heath, but it does not bring in enough to
cover expenses. Heath puts in little businesses and then
bigger businesses can’t go in. We are not going to
generate money. We should have other less traffic-
oriented businesses.
Mr. Parris said you are comparing different types of
businesses re cost/ benefit ratio. It would be nice if we
could pick and choose, but I think we have to work at
what’s presented to us by the owner of the property. It
just can’t be larger cost than benefit re infrastructure.
Mr. Wilkenfeld said Mr. Dorman brought in figures
from Jenkins and Certified for 2001. Certified -
$2,675/year, Jenkins - $4,191/year. Mr. Salvage said
these are old figures.
Mr. Burriss thought that based on $1 million value, we
should be able to determine property taxes, and he asked
Mr. Dorman to get that. Ms. Lucier asked him to look into
increased maintenance cost for widening roads.
Mr. Wilkenfeld noted that Re community objectives of the
Master Plan (1171.01), it says, “c. A development pattern
in harmony with land use density, transportation
facilities, and community facilities are objectives of the
comprehensive plan.” He had surveys from two different
master plans. 19% wanted convenience stores, 72% did not
want convenience stores. The Master Plan says people want
greenspace., scenic vistas, people have not gotten from
their government what they have asked for. Why do we
spend time and money doing Master Plans and then ignore
it? Mr. Salvage countered: “Use the existing Master
Plan, 1998. That’s not a master plan, it’s a survey.”
Mr. Parris said that even though there are a lot
of things in our code, I think with the Master Plan and
some of my own views I was not put here to pass policy but
rather to measure against the code in place right now. If
public opinion is contrary to that, it will come out in
the work of the Village Council or new referendums.
Traffic: Mr. Salvage wants the applicant to make the
upgrades proposed by the Village Traffic Consultant,
including no left hand turns. <> Clarify the 5-lane
expansion to SA <> Eliminate right out and left out <>
Restriping. <>SA Way will be 3 lanes. <> If the widening
is done, how does that alter what we are looking at? <>
Sidewalk is sufficient, <> Buffers? <> I want them to
dedicate additional ROW so an additional lane can go in
the future when two lots are developed. <> Bring in final
drawing showing upgrades and additional ROW for the next
meeting.
Mr. Wilkenfeld reported that in the Master Plan ’98, page
18, it says: “Address the highly dangerous intersection –
as evidenced by several fatal and near-fatal accidents—of
River Road and State Route 16 by making egress from River
Road onto Rt 16 from both the north and south, a right-
hand turn only.” “Granville officials should continue to
develop a process to manage access to areas of new
development so that vehicular and pedestrian traffic flows
safely and at the desired capacity and speed.”
Mr. Burriss noted that: “I don’t want Carl to feel he is
alone. This is a very difficult issue for all of us, and
part of the reason it is difficult is that we care. We
would not be serving on the Planning Commission if we
didn’t care. It’s not like we are serving on the Planning
Commission because people to like us. It is not like we
get thanks. I want to publicly thank Carl for bringing in
the points he is making and we may have to address this
further. I think Carl and Richard can discuss issues that
they may not agree on. I am not sure how the cycle is
broken. I concentrate on architecture and make things the
best they can be regardless of some of my personal
feelings. We have to continue the process.” Mr.
Wilkenfeld said, “I appreciate that.”
Mr. Salvage said he will draft a Finding of Fact and we
can discuss anything before we finalize at the next
meeting. The applicant requested tabling the application
and will submit revised drawings for the next meeting.
MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO TABLE THE APPLICATION AT THE
APPLICANT’S REQUEST. MR. BURRISS SECONDED, AND THE MOTION
WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Finding of Fact: MR. PARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE FINDINGS FOR
A, B, AND C{REVISED}, D. AND E {AS MODIFIED}, AND F UNDER
NEW BUSINESS (Schools, Morgan, Davis, Denison, Avery) AND
A (Miller) (AND ITEM B AS A DENIAL) (Hartzler) UNDER OLD
BUSINESS, AND WE FIND THEM CONSISTENT WITH THE RELEVANT
SECTIONS OF THE ZONING CODE AS OUTLINED IN THE VILLAGE
PLANNER’S MEMO OF JULY 8. MS. LUCIER SECONDED, AND THE
MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Adjournment: 12 Midnight.
Next Meetings: July 22 and August 12
Respectfully submitted,
Betty Allen
Monday, January 30, 2012 at 12:46PM