GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION
May 15, 1995
Members Present: Kevin Bennett for Dorothy Garrett, Larry Huey, Keith
Myers, Richard Salvage, Gary Stansbury
Doug Tailford, Jr.,Village Planner
Visitors Present: Brian Lindamood (Sentinel),Dave Woerner (GBPA),
Larry Wills (Bob Evans),Kim Zeune (Marathon),Cindy Schumaker
Marathon),Ed Vance (248 Thornewood),Gil Krone (BZBA; 3262 Milner),
Ashlin Caravana (BZBA),Dan Bellman (BZBA)
Minutes: May 1 Page 1, under Granville Coop. Nursery School mural,
clarify to read "Mr. Huey stated that since the sole purpose was
decorative, not attention-getting, the mural is not to be considered a
sig."Mr. Huey moved to approve minutes as corrected. Mr. Myers
seconded, AND MINUTES WERE UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED AS CORRECTED.
Citizens Comments: Ed Vance brought before the group his concerns and
questions about proposed development at Cherry Valley Road at 16:
1. Have all required traffic studies been completed; if so, what
are the results and could we have a copy? The response was Yes. 3
2. Have environmental studies been made as to the possible
environments of each proposal, i. e.:air quality and air pollution,
odor pollution, noise pollution, light pollution at night, solid
waste/ garbage pollution, trash pollution from blowing papers, safety
considerations due to increased traffic, signage pollution, aesthetic
and visual pollution, increased incidents of crime and its increased
load on police department, increase of fire and emergency runs,
increase in infrastructure requirements and loadings on existing
treatments plants, including water, sewage, electricity, trash
collection, water quality pollution and hazards from buried fuel tanks,
oil and fuel spills, considerations for spill prevention control
countermeasures to protect environment and infrastructure from
hazardous wastes, requirements for providing recycling centers for used
oil and other contaminants, earthen embankments other to screen parking and eyesores.
3. Have all requirments of the village codes been met in regard to: signage limitations, permitted usage limitations, color require- ments, parking requirements, architectural compatibility?
4. If not, which requirements are being relaxeed, are anticipated to be relaxed, and for which such requirements have variances/ exceptions been granted, are anticipated to be granted, are now under review, or are anticipated to be requested?
5. If such facilities are actually approved, is the village re-
quiring or negotiating for appropriate color and architectural schemes
such as used by these companies on other locations?
6. Have these companies submitted plans for mitigating measures
to offset and control the environmental impacts caused, or having
potential to be caused, by their construction and operation?
In regard to the proposed Marathon station, is there any justification
to grant a conditional use in this situation when another such
facility is proposed for the same immediate area? Isn't the purpose of
the ordinances presently in effect to prevent such overcrowding,
proliferation of similar facilities, and facilities with similar
environmental and other impacts, from locating in the same area?
It is strongly suggested that all of the proposed developments be
required to address these environmental and other impacts on the area,
both immediate and surrounding, both short and long term, and be
required to conform to and abide by all existing codes, ordinances, and
requirements of the village without exception, variance, relaxation or
the granting of conditional usages. To do otherwise is to violate the
purpose, intent and, in some instances, perhaps the letter of the law.
Your careful consideration and attention to these matters and
concerns will be appreciated by the citizens of this community, both
now and in the future. What we do now will determine the future of
this community, will ensure that our heritage is passed to future
generations, and will either preserve or destroy the unique
characteristics and quality of Granville and the surrounding areas.
Granville Historical Society, 115 East Broadway -Sandwich Board
The white sandwich board with black lettering is to say "Museum
Open" and will be placed inside the fence. Mr. Salvage moved to
approve application; Mr. Myers seconded, AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY
Mary Tuominen, 452 N. Granger Street
Ms. Tuominen needs space for her dogs to run, and her neighbors
at least those whom she could locate) are in support of her application
for a backyard fence, which will be 4- inside the Mr. property line. Huey was concerned about the wire, and Ms. Tuominen explained that she wanted something attractive; it is called field fencing, 48" tall green dipped welded woven wire which won' t rust. There are trees,
outside the fence, on the south side and evergreens that cover half the width on the north. GPC only received this application tonight and has not had opportunity to examine the site. Mr. Stansbury moved to
approve application, Mr. Myers seconded, AND IT WAS APPROVED WITH ONE ABSTENTION (Mr. Huey).
Cindy Schumaker and Kim Zeune explained that the station will be
next to Wendy's on Cherry Valley Road. They have gone to great lengths
to adhere to Granville' s zoning ordinances. There will be three pumps,
a convenience store, gazebo, bike racks, a carwash, and landscaping.
The plan is to accommodate cars and small trucks, not semis. A driveway
will be shared with Wendy's, and Mr. Tailford explained other proposed
traffic directional patterns. GPC expressed several concerns:
Parking: Parking toward the rear and sides should be encouraged,
as well as sufficient screening via mounding and landscaping. Mr.
Myers suggested possible site designs to achieve a reduction of asphalt
and to shield gaspumps from the road.
Setbacks: Ms. Schumaker explained that the setback is determined
by the height of the carwash, and to make it look good, they felt that
with landscaping it should not be a real problem since this is just an
alley. The variance would provide the best traffic flow there. Mr.
Tailford suggested that if approved, this variance should be offset by
an increase in landscaping. The dumpster should be moved away from
back property line one foot for each foot of height (approx. 16-).
Land sca_Ring: Mr. Tailford felt that landscaping is necessary to
screen parking and dumpster, carwash, and air and water pumps. According
to Ms. Schumaker, the plan is not ready yet but will include
mounding with trees. 61/
Architecture: With the carwash so close to the road, A articulation is needed. Mr. Zeune stated that the so-called white A-ed
bricks are not really white, but more a light reddish e* ire*.They are
not planning outdoor storage at this time. Mr. Myers suggested a
return to rectangular windows, rather than the half dormers in the
plan. Ms. Schumaker stated that this is not the typical gas canopy and
that they are emphasizing the convenience- store items rather than
gasoline. Mr. Salvage liked the design as presented, but others
disagreed and wanted strict adherence to the code concerning orientation
and felt that Marathon should be required to provide good reasons for requesting derivations from the code for the variances. The posts
holding up the canopy should not be a shiny steel; maybe they could be bricked in. Some GPC members objected to the blue and white striping
around the building and canopya -b- right color not subdued and there- fore might be construed as signage.
Sidewalks: Ms. Schumaker explained that there will be sidewalks in front and a bikerack in the rear. Mr. Tailford had suggested that
access to bikeracks is necessary. A 5- sidewalk needs to be provided along Cherry Valley road from north property line to the entrance with access to Marathon added.
Access: There will be a connection between the alley (which is owned by the Murphys) and South Galway. Mr. Tailford would like it as a requirement that Wendy- s traffic can use the access road. Signage: Applicant wishes to erect the internally illuminated ground sign as pictured and similar to Wendy-s sign. Mr. Salvage would
encourage more signage to invite customers. But under SBD there are
restrictions on what we can allow, and there will also be a sign
stating the gas prices. The goal is to plan something that looks good,
fits the law, and encourages Marathon to make a profit. A sign similar
to Wendy' s would be appropriate.
Lighting: Marathon has been advised to design a plan to meet
proposed lighting guidelines as a minimum while GPC considers final
Bob Evans Restaurant
Larry Wills presented a revision to earlier plans conforming to
GPC recommendations. Only the restaurant, not the motel, is under
consideration tonight. Mr. Wills referred to previously noted
Rufus Hurst has determined that a motel is a germitted use.
Lighting: The Bob Evans people will address the new proposed
lighting guidelines. They believe there should be no problem.
Landscaning: The plan will be submitted at the time of
The architects have moved and screened the dumpster. They have
also reduced the heiaht of the flaanole from 70- to 30-.
Sign: They have designed a brick sign similar to Wendy's, with
bright yellow letters on a red background. Members considered both the
yellow and the red to be not subdued.
Pathwav Plan: They have a sidewalk along Cherry Valley with
crosswalk signage and they will plan a pedestrian crossing. Once the
motel goes in, they will consider a sidewalk connecting Bob Evans to
the motel. They could arrange to plan for the landscaping now so that
sidewalks could be added later.
Greenspace; They have moved the parking to the rear.
Red Colo_r_: The color needs to be darker, more subtle. Mr. Wills
stated that this required corporate vote. Mr. Huey felt that the roof
was so well lit with 13 lights that the whole building is like a sign.
Move the buildina closer to the corner: This was adjusted, but
not very much.
Additional concerns expressed by Mr. Tailford include:
Sidewalks: Sidewalks will be within the right of Bob Evans does not want way. to consider a connection to Dropertv to
the south until they know who is to move in there. Mr. Myers would
rather see a plan now, which is actually required under PCD.
Proposed location of motel should be adjusted to limit Darking
along SR 16. Motel location and development plan should all be marked proposed" and not considered approved with the development plan. SuperTAmraefrfiicca. studv: Mr. Tailford stated that concerns are mostly with Our engineers think that the study is fine as far as Bob Evans is concerned.
Sianage: Bob Evans proposed two signs on the building, one on the front and one on the side facing Cherry Valley Road, in addition to the ground sign.
oropertv owner- s name andte *t-uctures will be indicated
on the plans.
50' -GPC members thought the red should be reduced; the red roof does
not need so much lighting. They suggested other means of lighting to
reduce the intensity and to subdue the lighting away from the main
Adjournment: 10: 05 p. m.
Next Meetings: June 5 and 19. Mr. Huey to be absent on June 19)
GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION