Planning Minutes 6/24/02
Monday, January 30, 2012 at 12:45PM GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION
June 24, 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: Jeff Brown, Howard Bowen, Buck Withers,
Dave Betts, Greg Dale, Maxine Montgomery, Chad and Carolyn
Brubaker, Jerry Siper, MaryLou VanAtta, Donna Childers,
Steve Mansfield, Brian & Jean Nichols, Vera & Ron Bogert,
Mary Kay Campbell, Tom Mitchell, Mike Flood, Constance
Barsky, Judy Duncan, Cynthia & John Cort, John Eliot, Bob
Rutherford, Rose Wingert, Margaret Clayton, Rochelle
Steinberg, Jim Huddle, Jim Medeger, Judith Thomas, Sheryl
Gardner, Lee Davis, Sharon Sellito
Citizens’ Comments: None
The Chair swore in all those who planned to speak.
Minutes of May 30, 2002, and June 10, 2002: MR. PARRIS
MOVED TO APPROVE BOTH SETS OF MINUTES AS PRESENTED. MR.
BURRISS SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Old Business:
Lee & Linda Davis, 304 North Pearl Street - Modification
Mr. Dorman explained that the applicants wish to
extend the fence 12’ to the east, to move the gate, to
widen the driveway, and to change driveway from concrete
to brick pavers. The concrete has already been removed
and pavers installed. In the process the driveway was
widened to 18” on the west and 4½’ on east side. This
widening will need a variance for lot coverage. Changes
were made without approval of the Village Planner, so this
is an after-the-fact application. Does this constitute a
major or minor modification? The driveway was not on the
original application, but is part of the modification.
The application did include addition of two patios.
Mike Flood said his company (Albyn’s) will be
putting in the fence. In widening the driveway, it made
sense to him to try to get two cars in that area. He said
the applicants decided not to add the east side patio but
to add flagstones instead.
Ms. Lucier asked whether the pavers are such that
a few along the edge could be removed without harming the
driveway, and the answer was Yes.
The four items at issue are: (1) replace sidewalks
and driveway with pavers; (2) lawn irrigation (not a
concern of GPC); (3) driveway widening; (4) fence
extension. The applicant needs to submit an application
for (1) and (3).
MR. WILKENFELD MOVED THAT THE FENCE PORTION OF THIS
AMENDMENT TO THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION IS A MINOR
MODIFICATION, AND THE REST OF IT IS A MAJOR MODIFICATION.
MR. PARRIS SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY
APPROVED.
MS. LUCIER MOVED TO APPROVE THE MODIFICATION TO
APPLICATION #01-149 TO EXTEND THE FENCE. MR. WILKENFELD
SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
New Business:
Jim McKivergin, 124 South Main Street – Satellite Dish
Mr. Dorman said the application is to install a small dish
on the south side of rear of the building to allow a
training program for Re/Max.
Mr. McKivergin added that the dish is necessary to receive
the materials, and equipment and materials are free. It
would go back on the shingle roof above the back deck. It
is the only way they can provide services for their
agents. It is not visible from the store or south side,
though it may be visible from the Park National Bank
parking lot.
Mr. Wilkenfeld asked whether it can withstand winds of 80
mph, and Mr. Dorman said that after an extensive telephone
search, he learned it could do so.
MS. LUCIER MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION #02-078 TO INSTALL
A SATELLITE DISH. MR. PARRIS SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS
UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Centenary UMC, 235 East Broadway – Front Porch Railing &
Porch Foundation Renovations
Ms. Brubaker said they wish to install a white
cedar railing on the porch with 32” spindles and to screen
the cement block foundation of the Methodist parsonage.
Mr. Burriss asked whether it would be 32” and said
that might not be high enough to meet the Building Code.
Ms. Brubaker will adhere to the codes. Mr. Dorman will
work with her on this.
MR. BURRISS MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION #02-079 WITH THE
CONDITION THAT THE RAIL BE BROUGHT INTO COMPLIANCE WITH
THE CURRENT BUILDING CODE AND THAT THE VILLAGE PLANNER
WILL ISSUE FINAL APPROVAL. MR. WILKENFELD SECONDED, AND
THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Thomas Mitchell, 335 West Elm Street – Retaining Walls
Mr. Dorman said retaining walls are necessary to
provide proper drainage. Mr. Mitchell said the retaining
walls would be 1’ to 4’ high and made of “Garden Wall.”
He excavated a little bit to make sure the water would not
go into the house, but water will be captured and piped to
the back of the lot in a 4” plastic line.
MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION #02-080 AS
MODIFIED BY THE DRAWING SUBMITTED 6/24/02. MR. PARRIS
SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Speedway/SuperAmerica, State Route 16 at Cherry Valley
Road – Speedway Gas Station
Mr. Dorman showed pictures of other Speedways in the area,
and he and the representative, Greg Dale, pointed out
various details of each. Mr. Dale displayed a color copy
of the site plan and said this is a complicated
application and review. He proposes to focus on those
items Mr. Dorman identified as potentially not in
compliance with the guidelines. He believes out of the 60
items in Section 1171.03 (b), six are possibly not in
compliance and he wants to focus on those:
(1) Maximum of 6,000 square feet per Tenant: Including
85% of the canopy is what brings Speedway over the limit.
Mr. Dorman said the 85% arose when we dealt with
Certified. Certified is in the SBD rather than the PCD,
but the codes are similar and we made a policy of
including the canopy in the calculation at only 85%, and
we wanted to be consistent. Others thought the canopy
has some weight as far as lot coverage is concerned. It
is also in relation to lot coverage, density, and maximum
single tenant. Mr. Salvage thinks square footage is
calculated inside. Mr. Dorman said this excess would need
a variance for maximum single tenant, or ‘deviation,’ as
it is called now. The Planning Commission has guidelines
for reviewing development plans. The Planning Commission
has the authority to vary from these guidelines.
(2) Build-to Line and Front Yard Setback: Build-to lines
should be 30’ from the right-of-way. The representative
said that provision is primarily intended for older areas
where they are trying to preserve street frontage. That
does not make sense here on the busy highway. The only
way they could meet it would be to turn the building
around.
(3) Height: Minimum is 1½ stories, and the architect has
responded to the Planning Commission’s comments on this.
The application shows 1 story in appearance.
(4) Hours of Operation: They are proposing a 24-hour
operation because it’s on a state route with no residents
around.
(5) Lighting: 25 foot candles are the maximum, but at
some spots the proposal is for 35 foot candles for safety
sake. There is no light spillover.
(6) Signage: Deviances are necessary. What is being
proposed is a similar package as was approved for
Certified.
(7) Parking spaces: 15 is the maximum allowed for this
particular proposal, but they are proposing 12 regular
spaces with 1 handicapped space and the space around the
pumps could also be counted. Mr. Salvage said our Law
Director said we could count the spaces at the pumps, but
Mr. Dorman clarified that the code was providing for a
maximum not a minimum.
These items will be discussed after the traffic
discussion.
Comments from Citizens
Vera Bogert said she lives ½ mile away and has
concerns about the water table and having toxic materials
so close to her well. Is there to be a monitoring
process? The representative said there is a sensitive
monitoring service. They have environmental catch basins,
and water will go into the retention pond and flow out.
Any contamination would be pumped out and go into a
terminal to be recycled.
Mr. Salvage asked about insurance against
contamination, and the representative said they are self-
insured. He asked whether they contribute to the state
fund for clean-ups, and the representative could not
answer that question.
When a lift station is put in, the underground
water table has to be lowered. Speedway plans to raise
the site several feet. They don’t anticipate going very
deep for the tanks, about 13’. The site will be raised to
street level, or 1’ above grade.
John Cort brought up the traffic concerns,
especially with a possible River Road closing. State
Route 16 was built as a bypass around Granville; now
people are going through Granville to bypass traffic on SR-
16. He said future eventualities must be considered as
well as the Speedway corner, but Mr. Salvage didn’t know
that we can make assumptions at this time. Mr. Cort said
there are 25-30 cars waiting behind a stopped school bus
Constance Barsky said the application is for fuel
sales, as opposed to a gas station. They are not included
in permitted uses as a convenience store. <> Also,
regarding the survey from the Master Plan, did citizens
agree that they needed it? 72% said a convenience store
was not needed, nor was gasoline. They didn’t build a gas
station at that time because people didn’t want it. <> Six
pumps are not needed most of the time, and they could
reduce them to four. <> The Master Plan does not want 24-
hour stores. To ask for a variance is inappropriate. <>
We need a clear indication of what taxes would be
generated. A building like this would be at a minimum
level. Certified only pays $1700 per year in property
taxes.
Rochelle Steinberg is concerned about the traffic. At 5
p.m. and lunchtime you can wait for three light cycles. A
gas station would only contribute to the congestion. Mr.
Salvage said the Village has been working on timing of the
signal and he thinks it’s been better this week.
MaryLou VanAtta lives on Cherry Valley Road and agrees
that the traffic is horrendous and will be getting worse
with the River Road traffic. If they want to widen the
road, the only way to do it is to have more commercial
development. The Cherry Valley Lodge has its own turn
lane.
Sharon Sellito asked why the applicants are calling it a
store that sells gas rather than just a gas station.
Didn’t we vote against that? The referendum was to
overturn Village Council’s decision to have it, according
to the October 1998, Sentinel. It was defeated by 63%.
Mr. Salvage asked for additional citizens comments and
pointed out that this is the only opportunity for such;
however no further comments were made, Mr. Salvage ended
the citizens comments section.
End Citizens Comments
Mr. Wilkenfeld thought there was some confusion
with the code. This is legislative, and we are looking at
variances. Anything that affects the well being of the
community, such as traffic, we can take into account.
Mr. Dorman referred the group to 1171.03 (c), 1-8,
which outlines the considerations to make our decision.
Ms. Lucier thought traffic was an underlying issue
we have to deal with before we get to lighting and
signage, and we need to talk with traffic consultants.
Regarding whether or not a store is an appropriate
use, everything done in a convenience store falls into
what is listed here. Is what it says, exclusive of other
kinds of stores? This is a gas station and other items
are a convenience. There’s nothing inappropriate, nothing
allows us to exclude. A convenience store is an
amalgamation of things listed here.
Mr. Parris said when we worked on Certified that
was already an existing business. They had a store
before. Mr. Dorman said the issue of a convenience store
never arose for Certified because they already had a
store, albeit a small one.
Mr. Parris said as far as definitions go, 50 years
ago a gas station provided service, but now they all have
convenience stores. Is a convenience store considered a
grocery store? Does a gas station automatically include
a convenience store? If a gas station is something that
just sells gas, what do we call one that sells gas,
convenience items, and service? Mr. Wilkenfeld thought it
was a convenience store with gas sales. It needs a
definition.
Mr. Salvage asked whether we are comfortable under our
zoning code to proceed with this application, and Mr.
Parris said yes, if it is a permitted use. Mr. Wilkenfeld
and Ms. Lucier want a legal opinion, and Mr. Main was very
concerned about traffic and stacking.
The engineer present said his firm did not prepare the
traffic study. He is here for site design and couldn’t
respond to traffic questions. Mr. Salvage specifically
requested the traffic engineer’s presence. The attorney
said they look at traffic generated by their development.
They found that 70% of the trips generated by Speedway
come from vehicles already on the road, and the other 30%
of the trips generated by Speedway would be new trips.
The traffic problem is caused by the high regional traffic
on SR-16. This applicant has already contributed $250,000
toward road improvements. This facility will not cure
traffic problems at the intersection nor materially
increase it. Mr. Salvage said neither traffic study felt
this facility would substantially impact traffic already
there.
Ms. Lucier said it’s the turns that significantly affect
the traffic situation more than just the number of cars.
Mr. Wilkenfeld is concerned about the complexities of lane
shifting on SR-16 and that slower vehicles have to cut
across two lanes of traffic to get to the left turn lane
at the intersection. This is what causes accidents.
Mr. Salvage thought the only concern was making left turns
out of the proposed gas station. But Mr. Wilkenfeld felt
we are responsible for the wider community, and that
people avoid the traffic on SR-16 by going through town.
Mr. Salvage thought that had nothing to do with the
Speedway proposal. Mr. Salvage thought the issue was how
we make sure Speedway does not exacerbate the situation.
Mr. Burriss said all of us have major concerns about
traffic and the traffic studies. They are not easy to
read, and we all have a little built-in distrust toward
traffic studies. To move forward, there needs to be
greater explanations of the traffic situation, we need
additional information.
The group returned to the items of concern noted by Greg
Dale earlier:
(1) Maximum Single Tenant: Lot coverage is OK. The
canopy is included in the gross square footage and puts it
over the maximum, but Mr. Salvage has never heard of a
canopy included in the single tenant calculation. We
would have a hard time denying this application because of
this overage. The canopy should be an accessory
structure. Mr. Wilkenfeld said that from the top the
canopy is larger than the building He thought GPC could
ask for fewer pumps and make the canopy smaller. Mr.
Parris thought it should be considered under lot coverage
but not under gross square footage. Mr. Dorman said we
addressed that for Certified, and the interpretation was
that of the Law Director, who said it is a structure but
since it does not have walls, you could give a discount by
counting only 85% of its square footage. For consistency
we need to do the same. Mr. Salvage pointed out that
under Section 1171.03 (b) square footage is limited to
6,000 square feet per tenant or use, and that this
applicant has 2 uses and therefore is allowed 12,000
square feet making it acceptable under the code in his
opinion. Mr. Wilkenfeld wondered whether there are two
tenants, the convenience store and the gas station.
(2) Build-To Line: Mr. Wilkenfeld would prefer having
the front facing SuperAmerica Way. Green space buffers
would be added to shield the rear from SR-16. Mr. Burriss
said that was to permit parking behind the facade of the
building. The applicant should provide a site plan that
includes location of the ROW and edge. The representative
said they would not remove the fence and trees.
(3) Height: The Commission had no problem. The
applicant has followed our recommendations.
(4) Hours of Operation: Mr. Wilkenfeld feels they
should stick to the maximum 18 hours. Ms. Lucier agrees
and feels there would be less need of police protection
with 18 hours. Mr. Burriss is not comfortable with the
additional hours in terms of future areas and also
properties of similar function that are already under that
restriction. Mr. Parris agrees. Mr. Salvage has a
question with what the code says, and he has no problem
with a 20-hour operation. The representative wants us to
consider a deviation.
(5) Lighting: Mr. Salvage thought this looked like a
modest plan. Ms. Lucier asked whether it falls under the
foot candle restrictions. The representative said there
are very few instances where it does exceed 25, and they
are all under the canopy. The pumps are internally
illuminated for the price and the pay at the pump screen.
Lights are recessed under the canopy and it goes directly
down. Mr. Burriss asked whether their plan considers all
sources of lighting, i.e., light coming through the
window, or just under the canopy. The representative said
the company who prepared this takes all lighting into
consideration. The group wanted more information. Mr.
Salvage thought Speedway should get a copy of what we
approved for Certified.
(6) Signage: There will not be signage on the pumps.
Mr. Burriss said we do not allow products to be stored
outside, i.e., mulch. There are to be no pop machines
outside. The representative asked for one ice machine and
propane sales and Mr. Salvage thought they may need to
enclose them. The ice machine should have no signage.
Changeable message signs are not permitted. The
application now asks for two signs: An internally lit
freestanding sign, which would need a variance, and a
large wall sign, internally lit, over the door with the
moving “S” logo. The frame is aluminum with a plastic
cap. The part under the S is solid, not glass. The
architect explained the pediment, the narrow band, and the
column caps. Color samples will be provided. Mr. Parris
didn’t really want to discuss how different this proposal
is from the normal Speedway proposal.
(7) Dumpster: Mr. Dorman asked whether the covering
for the dumpster is opaque and similar to other sites and
was told they can do anything we like. Mr. Salvage said to
put it in the back with a door and provide details to us.
(8) Parking: Resolve the right-in, left-out
situation. The representative said the sidewalk would
have to be on top of a utility easement. The drawing will
provide sidewalks 5’ behind the Cherry Valley Road tree
lawn.
(9) Open Space: The applicants are planning to
dedicate 12 acres in the floodplain to the Licking Land
Trust.
(10) Landscape Plan: Mr. Burriss would like to see
more detail on the Landscape Plan in terms of species and
type and planting heights. There will be potted flowers
with irrigation.
(11) Other Details: Mr. Burriss thought additional
investigation should be done to surrounding water. The
representative said they can provide EPA information. <>
The Engineer is to provide geologic water pumping details.
<> The rear entrance is used only for emergencies; which
needs to be addressed. <> Mr. Burriss preferred the
columns to be fluted, and the architect said OK but they
are trying to give a contemporary appearance. <> Edge of
canopy should be of a different color.
What is needed next? Color samples, traffic engineers for
traffic discussion, and Joe Hickman and the Law Director
should be invited.
MR. PARRIS MOVED TO TABLE APPLICATION #02-081 PENDING
FURTHER INFORMATION. MR. BURRISS SECONDED, AND THE MOTION
WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Finding of Fact: MR. PARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE THE FINDINGS
OF FACT FOR A UNDER OLD BUSINESS (Davis) AND A, B,AND C
(McKivergin, Brubaker, Mitchell) UNDER NEW BUSINESS, AND
WE FIND THEM CONSISTENT WITH RELEVANT SECTIONS OF THE
ZONING CODE AS OUTLINED IN THE VILLAGE PLANNER’S MEMO OF
JUNE 21ST. MS. LUCIER SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS
UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Adjournment: 10:45 p.m.
Next Meetings: July 8th and July 22nd
Respectfully submitted,
Betty Allen