GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION
March 20, 1995
Members Present: Larry Huey, Peter Marshall substituting for Dorothy Garrett, Keith Myers, Lyn Robertson, Richard Salvage,
Members Absent: Gary Stansbury
Visitors Present: Brian Lindamood (Sentinel),Eloise DeZwarte
338 E. College),Doug Lake (First Federal S &L),John
Thornborough (Borough Co),James Thornborough (150 Thresher),
Andy Spriele (McDonald s),Ray Fisher (McDonald' s),John Thaxton
Super America),Cathy Neiheart (4500 Granview),Flo Hoffman (508
W. College, Dan Havener (Bob Evans),Richard Fuson (103
Shepardson Ct),Pat Kelley (Kelley &Assoc, 671 McKinley,
Newark),Dan Bellman (320 N. Pearl),Jurgen Pape (403 E.
Broadway),Don Neifer (331 E. Elm)
The Minutes for February 27 had numerous changes, so the
secretary provided a revised copy of the minutes; to be reviewed
at the next meeting.
The Minutes of March 9 require the following changes: Page
2: under Broadway Blooms, Line 10, add "Based onlv on Item 3.
consideration tonight is strictly on legal grounds
Line 4 under Larry Brown, "but. in Mr. Tailford- s Mudgment.
a violation of 9" is not substantial enough to reguire. . . ."
Page 3, Line 5, add "Upon completion of GPC review, Mr.
Tailford will update. . . ."
Mr. Huey moved to approve minutes as corrected. Mr. Salvage
seconded, AND MINUTES WERE UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Citizens Comments: None
Granville Business &Professional Association
The Association wishes to set up two temporary signs
designating times for the Farmers' Market this summer. Mr. Huey
moved to grant permission for these signs in the public interest
to be set up from 8: 30 a. m. to 12: 30 p. m. Saturdays in August and
September. Mr. Salvage seconded, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY
John and Carole Sue McCluskey, 128 South Cherry Street
The McCluskeys wish to remove a back window and replace it
with siding to match existing siding. This will not be visible
from the street. Mr. Huey moved to approve application; Mr.
Salvage seconded, AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Borough Company, Shepardson Court -Replatting Application
The Borough Company wishes to replat from six lots to three
larger ones. Mr. Thornborough reported that the old house on
Shepardson is currently being renovated. There is an easement
on the north side of Lot A for access to properties facing West
Broadway and an easement in Lot B for the sewer. The pond will
be landscaped, and there will be a serpentine walk in the front.
The lot line between lots A& B will be moved to the north about
4' to meet 12' setback requirement for garage. Also, all side
setback notes will be 12' rather than 7. 5' or 15' as shown on
plat. Driveway access will be shared by Lots A &B. Lot C will
have new driveway access. Mr. Huey moved to approve application,
Mr. Salvage seconded, AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
First Federal Savings &Loan, 116 East Broadway -Sandwich Board
The Sandwich board will be on the porch, where it should
remain because it is only one-sided. Mr. Myers moved to approve
application with the condition that it remain on the porch. Mr.
Huey seconded, AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Don and Karen Neifer, 331 East Elm
Mr. Neifer explained that they are revising previously
approved plans because of cost factors. The back side of the
house is visible to Mt. Parnassus but not to East Elm. The
addition will be a four-season sunroom of insulated aluminum
panels with brown exterior walls and white roof. Mr. Salvage
moved to approve application, Mr. Huey seconded, AND APPLICATION
WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Knoll Group Management Co.,80 Westgate Drive
The Knoll Group wishes to construct an addition to the east
side of the building for additional file room space and a one-car
garage. They also wish to change driveway and add 7 new parking
spaces, which will be ample under the requirements. No one was
present to represent the group, but GPC determined that the
existing walls are brick and the addition will be vinyl siding.
Mr. Myers moved to approve application, Mr. Salvage seconded, AND
IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
SuperAmerica Group, SW Corner of Cherry Valley Road and SR 16
Ms. Robertson explained that plans for this corner are not
final, rather, this is the beginning stage. It is necessary to
move slowly and carefully with this development. The most
important questions to consider are How does whatever is proposed
contribute to life in Granville and How can we be sure that
everybody who wants to talk has a chance to be heard. Mr. Huey
would hope that people who have comments will talk beforehand,
rather than after the fact.
Mr. Thaxton, from SuperAmerica, asked for questions/ comments
from the audience, and Mr. Bellman began by questioning whether
this is one of the permitted uses in the area. Assuming that it
is, the gas station should have a unique character, appropriate
for Granville, with few lights, no parking lot facing the road,
and no outside storage. Mr. Bellman would prefer brick with
attractive windows, less metal and more wood, shielding of the
gas pumps, more green space with lawn, and a facility smaller
than traditional S/As. The usual S/A colors are too gaudy. Mr.
Thaxton stated that the company would listen to suggestions but
within the standard S/A plans.
Mr. Pape addressed the traffic situation, stating there are
three entrances and exits, which is dangerous and unnecessary.
Mr. Thaxton stated that the traffic engineer recommended this as
a safety zone for turning traffic. Landscaping needs also to be
emphasized, and Mr. Thaxton said that some of the land along the
creek is floodplain and will remain greenspace. He has read the
PUD guidelines and has tried to interpret them and recognizes
that some variances may be necessary.
Ms. Robertson reminded him that parking should be in the
rear, and display of goods for sale shall be discouraged. Mr.
Thaxton said you do not want the back of the building facing the
road and stated that there will be plantings. GPC reminded him
that he needs to be aware of Granville's desires regarding
architecture and shielding of cars from the road.
4 -Theln-ajor problem, according to Mr. Huey, is that there is no overall site plan provided. Under PUD we go by subdivision
regulations; we need to look at the overall density and dedicated
land, and we would probably not be in favor of piecemeal approval.
Mr. Tailford reminded the group that an overall plan is
not necessary for a work session, but members still would like to
see what is planned for the property.)
Ms. Robertson questioned whether Granville needs five or ten
more gas pumps and is aware that S/A is appealing to through
traffic, thus detracting from our community. Mr. Marshall
suggested that the taxes would help the school tax base. Ms.
Robertson stated that when we convert residential or farmland to
commercial, we need to ask questions about tax benefits to determine the worth to Granville. She asked Mr. Thaxton if he
would be willing to provide an estimate of how such a business
would benefit the schools, and he agreed to do so.
Mr. Myers would like to see more landscaping and greenspace
between the highway and the parking areas and also between S/A
He wondered whether setbacks were within
addition, pedestrian access needs to show a
connection to the overall system and to the bikepath and a
crossing over Cherry Valley Road. Illumination seems excessive
and Mr. Thaxton asked whether we have a candlefoot requirement.
We do not, but there is a lighting plan.
AA»-4t.»-. More discussion ensued bout traf le, turn lanes, traffic
cuts, road widening, and the culdesac for turning.
Ms. DeZwarte asked whether a marketing study has been made,
and the answer was yes, the business will come from a two-mile
Ole Kyderick(q?ue)stioned the necessity for more gas pumps
and the sale of merchandise easily available elsewhere. He also
did not see how the architecture of S/A and McDonalds could be
made appropriate to Granville styles. There will be light
pollution, especially at night, congestion, vapor pollution, and
Janice Remmelem(?ov)ed to Granville to escape urban sprawl
and stated that more people should be here to express their views
and fears that the proposed businesses will set a precedent.
Mr. Thornborough added that other McDonalds have altered their
adjust to local conditions, and S/A should be able to do
Mr. Huey recognized that cookie-cutting businesses is
cheaper but they can improve their design here.
Ms. Robertson summarized the points of discussion: 1)
design needs to be altered, (2) aesthetics need improvement, (3)
size is too big, (4) need site plan with dedicated greenspace,
5) what' s the payoff for us, (6) landscaping seems inadequate
and cars need to be shielded, (7) too much lighting, (8) light
pollution, (9)Apollution of cars and pumps, (10) detraction of
g> qsueattliitnygo,f (life, i. e.,crime, traffic congestion, precedent 11) the legality of a gas station here, (12) pathway
connection and safety of pedestrians, (13) too much signage
piles of mulch are a sign, and so is the facia canopy which is
designed to attract business).
Mr. Salvage thought that what is proposed might be an upgrade to what is on the corner now, and the group provided
input to the Granville character, especially via the Master Plan guidelines.
Mr. Thaxton was requested to avoid excessive commerciali- zation and improve the aesthetics by putting the parking to the rear. He will provide an overall plan. Mr. Tailford will look
up for him the drawings for the businesses on Galway Drive.
Dan Havener, Project Designer, stated Bob Evans' desire to
build a 5900 sq. ft. brick restaurant seating 167 and a 60-unit
motel. The motel is not under discussion at the present time.
There will be a red canvas awning and a metal roof on the
restaurant, and it will have lights pointed upwards. Mr. Myers
questioned the parking arrangement (which should be in the rear)
and the overabundance of lighting. Mr. Havener would consider
landscaping islands, and they are seeking a better spot for the
dumpster. 7433-4L-S.1a: itpee *1,1 Llic fruiil-of thc buitd-irrg-w- ou b]e*
eensde*i ed' a. 32940M.r.. Pape asked whether Bob Evans and the
motel could plan joint parking lots.
Ms. Robertson stated that there needs to be a pedestrian
crossing across Cherry Valley and a 5 pathway. This can be on
the easement or on Bob Evans property and end at the south
Mr. Bellman stated that motels are not included in the
Ms. Robertson summarized the discussion: 1) is a motel a
permitted use?2, )(too much lighting, (3) landscaping needs to
be reviewed by Tree &Landscape Committee, (4) move the storage
facility, (5) flagpole is too high, (6) consider a monument sign,
7) pathway plan needed, (9) screen the dumpster, (10) more
greenspace, (11) subdue the red, (12) move the building closer to
the corner, (13) need a pedestrian crossing.
Mr. Huey explained the draft he wrote to amend the sign code
to reflect changes in neon signs: 1) Amend Section 1189. 05(c)
to add the word tempora-ry, (2) list the restrictions enumerated
at previous meetings to try to subdue neon signs. He feels they
should refer to services only, but there are already four brandname
signs in place. A three-color sign probably would not be
subdued, but a business could apply for a variance. N,--e-0T- rssi-g-ould
1 Ltur-n-ede-ff L bhee-losc of theL-U=1-1 f-eSSd-a- y , I#antt-*e-sv*eta-hemor-rel 1 LLe-L i, 7 - -H-i. Robertsobnut feme-er-lcstt)4h4£a1st*· p
rilybrL an/dM-n-ra.-mue-signs sh ou
recommend to Village Council to grandfather existing signs. But
the only grandfathered signs are those put in before the ordi- nance.
Village Council needs to be informed that GPC members were not able to come to consensus about this amendment but were trying to arrive at a compromise.
Mr. Huey moved that we send this amendment to Village
Council for their consideration. Mr. Myers seconded, and MOTION
WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Mr. Huey/hat he-3«0 c&tr=Irrgetbt-he a lZowable time limit for temporary signs in Section 1189. 04(j)fr/om 14 to 90
days per year and to restrict temporary window signs to
businesses in order to make the ordinance more enforceable.
Adjournment: 10: 30 p. m.
Next Meetings: April 3 and April 17