Granville Community Calendar

GPC 08/05/96

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION
August 5, 1996
Minutes
Members Present: Maxine Montgomery,Keith Myers,Lyn Robertson,Richard Salvage,Marc Shulmall,Gary Stansbury
Also Present: Joe Hickman,Assistant Village Manager
Visitors Present:Scott Rawden SentineD; ...
Minutes of July 15: The following corrections were noted: 1)Page 1 -Mr. Hickman's title
should be added. 2)Page 2,C "onceptual Plan,Hersam Property,West Broadway"A -t Mr.
Stansbury's request,change last sentence offirst paragraph to 'Mr. Stansbury is concerned about
a driveway up the east steep slope and Mr. KobUIlski feels this is manageableA."t Mr. Shulman's
request,change first sentence ofthird paragraph to I"n slimmary,GPC is generally ceptive to the location ofthe houses,but had a number of reservationsA,"t Ms.Montgomerys' request,
change the third sentence ofthe third paragraph to 'Mr. Salvage would like to see a lot ofthe
steepness ofthe driveway reducedM..R,,,"STANSBURY MOVED TO APPROVE MINUTES;
MR-SAT«VAGE SECONDED;MINUTES WERE UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED AS
CORRECTED.
Citizens Comments: ED VANCE (Thornewood Drive)noted,in re the SuperAmerica
application,that the allowable uses under the PCD zoning code,do not include a filling station;
therefore,SuperAmerica would need a BZBA variance in order to conform to village ordinances.
BOBBIE FALQUET N( ewarkG- ranville Road)spoke in support ofthe Kissacks'McDonald's application,reminding the Commission that the Kissacks would be neighbors,not just owners,
and that they have a good record ofgiving back to the communities in which they do business.
DEBBIE FARRAR ofthe Granville Athletic Boosters,also spoke on behalf ofthe Kissacks to let
Commission members know that they have contributed a great deal to the Granville Schools. Ms.
Farrar also noted that Granville needs additions to the tax bas>on the commercial property designated on the Master Plan,and that the Kissacks would b g"ood business neighbors."
New Business:
Aladdin Restaurant, 120 East Broadway -Sidewalk Cafe
Owner Ben Rader has submitted an application for a sidewalk cafe. This apparently does
not need a Zoning Permit,but does need Planning Commission review before being forwarded to Council.
1
Through questioning,Commission determined that the dimensions and placement ofthe
proposed sidewalk cafe were consistent with those ofBrew's and Victoria's,including boundary
plantings and the ability for pedestrians to walk through the area.
MR-SALVAGE MOVED TO GIVE THE REQUEST A POSITIVE
RECOMMENDATION. MR.MYERS SECONDED;THE MOTION WAS APPROVED
UNANIMOUSLY.
Steve Smith,331 Spellman Street -Driveway Approach
Mr. Smith is asking to relocate the driveway approach to his home while Spellman Street
is being rel)uilt. The property falls within the Architectural Review Overlay District.
Commission members determined that no trees would be cut down,the current concrete
apron would be removed,and that the existing fence would be relocated from the new driveway
cut to fill in the old cut.
MR STANSBURY MOVED THAT THE REQUEST BE APPROVED. MR.
SALVAGE SECONDED;THE MOTION WAS APPROVED UNANIMOUSLY.
Ronald Elliot,232 North Granger Street -Shingle Replacement
MbEI]iot- wants-to-replace roof shingles on the entire house,and has chosen shingles
consistent with other homes in the area. ,The property falls within the Architectural Review
Overlay District.
Mr. Elliot informed Commission members that he had recently purchased the house,that
the roofwas leaking,and that the original shingles are no longer manufactured.
MR. SHULMAN MOVED THAT THE REQUEST BE APPROVED. MR
STANSBURY SECONDED;THE MOTION WAS APPROVED UNANIMOUSLY.
SuperAmerica
SuperAmerica has submitted Preliminary Plat Plans and a complete Application for
Preliminary Plat Approval in( cluding the required attachments).They have paid the initial fees
required. Revised elevation drawings and responses from the Village traffic engineer were also
conveyed to Commission members.
2
Mr.John Thaxton,representing SuperAmerica,made a two-part presentation: A)the
preliminary plat;and B)the Site Plan for one ofthe 4 lots on the parcel.
A, Preliminary Plat
1. The site is approximately 17 acres,divided into 4 commercial lots and including
approximately 4 acres of"green space"on the south side ofthe plat intended to be
dee(led to the Granville Land Conservancy. SuperAmerica will occupy Lot 1;Lots
2,3,and 4 will be held in reserve. Mr. Thaxton asked approval ofthe Preliminary
Plat,since the Lot 1 development plan was contingent upon such a ruling.
UU
2. Ms. Robertson asked for Citizen Comments:MARYE #E VAN ATTA
commented that the plans to donate land to the Conservancy werev "erynice,"
prompting Mr. Thaxton to inform Commissions members that the Conservancy
portion ofthe plat would be restricted against development.
3. Commission members questioned Mr, Thaxton: a)MR.MYERS wondered
about the placement ofthe road in relation to the feeder canal;Mr. Thaxton replied
that it didn't go that far,referring to Page 2 ofthe plat plan. b)MR.MYERS
asked about the restrictions on the Conservancy land;Mr. Thaxton replied that it is
lnot to be used as a developeable lot,b"ut could be used for retention, a common
area,or a landscaped space. c)MR, MYERS asked about proposed uses for Lot
4;Mr. Thaxton replied none had been determined as yet. d)MR SALVAGE
asked ifthe main exit would line up with the proposed exit for the Bob Evans;Mr.
Thaxton replied that it would, e)MR..SALVAGE asked Joe Hickman ifthe
Granville Fire Department was satisfied with the on-site traffic plan;Mr. Hickman
said he had yet to receive a response from the GFD.
4. Commission members discussed the proposal: MS. ROBERTSON wanted to
be sure that approving the Preliminary Plat would not be construed as approving
the future placement of a business on Lot 4,which is only a half- acre lot. MR.
SHULMAN wondered if'lminimum yards"would apply after the site is broken up,
citing p. 88 ofthe Code which requires 350' offrontage,and noting that none of
the proposed lots would meet that requirement after the split. MR.MYERS felt
the Plat approval would not imply anything in relation to Lot 4, and that any
proposed business for that site would,ofnecessity,have to be small and would
have to come to the Commission for approval. MR. STANSBURY asked Mr.
Hickman ifthe Village would have any control over the private road
SuperAmericaWay)M; r.Hickman said it would not,though Mr. Myers felt there
would be at least a measure of control via the development application. MS.
ROBERTSON wondered ifthe Commission might vote separately on the two
parts ofthe proposal;Mr. Myers felt the application could not be split. A
DECISION ON PART A OF THE PRESENTATION WAS PUT ON HOLD
UNTIL PART B HAD BEEN PRESENTED AS WELL.
3
B. Site Plan
1. Mr.Thaxton went over the site plan in detail: a)there will be a right-in/ rightout
only from Cherry Valley Road,with the main site access coming from
SuperAmerica Way,b)the kerosene pump has been removed. c)the trash
compound has been moved, d)mounding has been added to reduce visibility of
paved areas. e)parking in front ofthe store has been changed to head- in;moving
it to the side or rear is neither functional nor safe, in Mr. Thaxton's opinion. f)the
outside storage area for mulchs/alt has been moved so that it is visible on the lot
itselfbut not from either road. g)the crossover to Lot 2 is now on the plat.
h)there will eventually be a crossover to/from the VanAtta property;
SuperAmerica is reserving the right to discuss any intended usage. Ms.
Montgomery asked about future conditions on location of access points;Mr.
Myers and Mr. Salvage thought it would have to happen in a given spot,though
Mr. Thaxton felt it must be discussed by all parties concerned. Mr. Stansbury
asked about the placement ofthe Bob Evans' access;Mr. Salvage replied that it
had a tentative place,but Commission still had the ability to approve the final.
2. Mr. Thaxton presented the site lighting plan,along with the landscaping design.
He noted a change in how lighting would fall outside the parking lot. Mr. Sllulman
asked ifthe lighting was the same brightness as Wendy's;Mr. Thaxton replied that
Mr. Myers was to have determined this, Ms, Robertson wondered ifthis matter AU should be sent to the Lighting Commfil@Ms.Montgomery responded that the
Lighting Conliponly deals with the Village itself,though it might suggest something for commercial installations. Ms. Robertson suggested Commission
could approve theRending application with the proviso that the lighting go to the
Lighting Comm726. Mr. Salvage noted,with some frustration,that Commission
had before it a formal application with no guidelines about Code status in this
particular matter. Mr. Myers asked if the plan used 60 foot candles under the
canopy;Mr. Thaxton replied that it did,because of safety concerns. Mr. Myers
noted that sucho "verl-ightinga"lso represented advertising. Mr. Thaxton replied
that he had to comply with certain safety standards,though he had nothing in
writing. General discussion followed among Commission members as to a specific
light design,generally-desired lighting levels,and inconsistencies in the coderequired
ratio of 10:1 maximum-to-minimum lighting levels. Ms. Robertson
concluded that the Commission members need to inform themselves more before
being able to render a decision and asked Mr, Hickman ifthe Village had a lighting
expert available. Mr. Hickman said it did not,but that he could take the plans to
an engineer for a recommendation and that Commission could approve the
proposed plan with a condition about the lighting. Mr. Myers suggested the
Commission refer the lighting matter to the Village engineers B( yrd B&ull)a,nd
also get information on lighting levels at other gas stations and at Wendy's. THIS
WAS AGREED TO,WITH A REPORT EXPECTED AT THE NEXT
MEETING. Mr. Myers then suggested Commission look at the rest ofthe
4
application and agree to reconsider the lighting at a later date. Mr. Thaxton
agreed.
3. Mr. Thaxton presented the landscaping plan. Mr. Hickman noted that it had
been submitted to Tree & Landscape;their lack of a response is assumed to be a
tacit approval ofthe plan. Mr. Myers questioned the outdoor storage of
mulchs/alt,pursuant to Section 1171.03, in which such use is to be d"iscouraged."
He also suggested consolidating the low plantings on the mound so they would
look better and provide more of a screen for the outdoor storage. Ms. Robertson
also questioned the need for outdoor storage directly in front ofthe store. Mr.
Thaxton replied that SuperAmerica had taken storage offthe islands,as requested,
but wanted to keep it in front ofthe store.
4. Mr. Hickman reported that the engineers had checked the planned drainage of
the entire plat and were satisfied.
5. Mr. Thaxton showed Commission members renderings oftwo proposed ground
signs,one 35 sq.ft.,one 50 sq.ft. He also proposed backlit letters on the front of
the building,sayingS "uperAmericaM." r. Shulman emphasized that the 50 sq.ft.
combined- business sign should be for all four lots with no increases in size as each
business is added. Commission was generally not in favor ofilluminating the sign
on the building. MS ROBERTSON ASKED THAT MT. THAXTON BRING
PICTURES OF A LIGHTED SIGN TO THE NEXT DISCUSSION OF THE
SITE LIGHTING. COMMISSION ALSO ASKED MR. THAXTON TO
DECREASE THE HEIGHT OF THE MOUNTING STRUCTURE FOR THE
714 GROUND SIGN BY REMOVING FOUR COURSES OF BRICK Vr .
01
6. Commission members discussed the proposal: MS. ROBERTSON reminded
Commission members that,in light ofthe possible appearance of a moratorium on
the November ballot,it might be wise to seek legal advice on the ramifications.
MR.MYERS felt Commission needed to act on the application at hand. MS. k . / €-
ROBERTSON cautioned that CmmniggiSn might face an injunction;MR. l/c, 5
STANSBURY felt that was immaterial to the discussion. MR.HICKMAN
reported that the Village Law Director feels the moratorium is " speculative" and
that Commission must act on what is in front ofit. MR.MYERS proposed a
number of conditions for the approval ofthe application: 1)that the 35 sq.ft. sign
be lowered approximately 1 foot;2)that language to restrict development ofthe
Reserve ( Parcel A)be included on the Plat;3)that the Preliminary Plat be adjusted
to end the main road just beyond the proposed access road to Lot 3;4)that action
be suspended on the lighting plan,subject to a resubmission with the
recommendation ofthe Village engineer;5)that outdoor storage be permitted on
the lot only,not in front of the building,with the understanding that Mr. ·Thaxton
will consult with the SuperAmerica operations division and report back at the next
5
meeting;6)that landscaping be massed to screen the outdoor storage;7)that
Commission examine pictures ofthe building sign at their next meeting;8)that the
Land Conservancy gift be shown on the Final Plat as u"nderstooda"n;d 9)that
Commission retain authorization to place the access road to the south. After some
discussion,MR-MYERS MOVED THAT COMMISSION APPROVE THE
APPLICATION,INCLUDING THE PRELIMINARY PLAT AND THE SITE
PLAN,BASED ON THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1)THAT OUTDOOR
STORAGE BE ALLOWED ON THE LOT ONLY,NOT IN FRONT OF THE
BUILDING;2)THAT ACTION ON THE LIGHTING PLAN WOULD NOT BE
TAKEN UNTIL PLAN IS RESUBMITTED WITH THE RECOMMENDATION
OF THE VILLAGE ENGINEER;3)THAT THE PRELIMINARY PLAT BE
ADJUSTED TO END THE ROAD JUST BEYOND ACCESS ROAD TO LOT
3;4)THAT LANGUAGE TO RESTRICT DEVELOPMENT OF RESERVE
PARCEL A BE INCLUDED ON THE PLAT;5)THAT THE 35 SQ.FT. SIGN
BE LOWERED BY ONE FOOT;6)THAT LANDSCAPING BE MASSED TO
SCREEN OUTDOOR STORAGE;7)THAT COMMISSION RETAIN
AUTHORITY TO PLACE THE ACCESS ROAD TO THE SOUTH;and 8)
THAT COMMISSION EXAMINE PICTURES OF A BUILDING SIGN AT
THEIR NEXT MEETING BEFORE RENDERING A DECISION ON
WHETHER OR NOT IT SHOULD BE LIT, MR, SALVAGE SECONDED THE
MOTION;IT WAS APPROVED UNANIMOUSLY. Mr. Myers made a final
comment,offering his compliments to Mr. Thaxton and his team,saying that this
building has come farther along than any application"Commission has reviewed.
Church of Jesus Christ ofLatter-Day Saints,2486 Newark-Granville Road -Work Session
Mr. Larry Everhard ofGPD Associates,engineers for the church,discussed a proposed lot
split along with proposed improvements to the Church and parking lot. Mr. Everhard reported
that tile church had purchased the land to the east and south of their current property and wished
to redraw their site to add 1.4 acres ofPUD land in an '1"shape to their current east and south
lot lines. Mr. Kevin Rawlinson,also of GPD Associates,noted that the land to be added to the
church property would be changed from PUD zoning to the current church zoning. Mr. Everhard
went on to explain that the church intended to improve and add to the detention pond routed to
all existing storm sewer on Westgate Drive. The church is planning to construct the continuation
b ofthe drainage from Westgate Drive S.R. 16 (approximately 500 feet).Mr. Rawlinson has
already met with the city engineer to discuss the project, Mr, Shulman asked about easements,
and Mr. Rawlinson replied that the city already has all but one small piece ofthe easement
necessary for the new section. Ms. Montgomery stated that the church's offer to construct the
balance ofthe storm line was most generous. COMMISSION GAVE ITS APPROVAL TO THE
PROPOSAL. The Church will come before the Commission formally on August 19, 1996.
6
Don and Laurie Kissack,McDonald's -Work Session
McI) onald's Don and Laurie Kissack presented their plans for a McDonald's restaurant to
be located at Cherry Valley Road and South Galway Drive,emphasizing that they will be owneroperators
ofthis restaurant and p' artners with the communityD."isplaying renderings oftheir
proposed site plan and building elevations,they noted that the site,a 1.285-acre plat, fronts on
Galway Drive,with a 55' setback from Galway and a 103' setback from Cherry Valley Road.
There is a 36h"i-gh landscaped berm between Cherry Valley Road and the east parking area,and
the site has 65%coverage,with pedestrian and bicycle access. Site lighting was reviewed. The
building finish will be brick;finished height will be 26'.They will request a variance for a 7'- high,
ground-mounted,illuminated 'McDonald's"sign. They also emphasized that they will be willing
to contribute to any necessary intersection improvements.
Ms. Robertson asked for Citizen Comments: TOM HARVEY (Burg Street)spoke in
support of'the Kissacks,urging Commission not to keepp "ushing the envelopew" ith prospective
developers i.(e.,te l"l them what you want and stick to it."M)A;TT McGOWAN S( pellman
Street)asked about the design ofthe McDonald's at Muirfield n(o one knew the answera);nd
JACK BURRISS expressed concern about the way the driveway crossed the pede rian area in
front ofthe enclosed playground and suggested a stop sign.
The Commission then questioned theKisssarM*R„STANSBURY felt there were too
many signs,though he did cite p. 130,section89.02a(nd stated that the sign regulations were unclear. MR SHULMAN said that total maximum signage should not exceed 24 sq.ft.,and that /
businesses were allowed two sign each e ( 6*iuding·them- entrpreviewb-oardw- iIich is not 7 / gm_thes-tfeet}M: R. STANSBURY red6Wmended that all the M" 's"on the sides of the ---
buildings be removed. Mrs. Kissack noted the design ofthe building was such that the building
own the building)said it had. In response to a question about parking,Mr. Kissack said they had
alone would not s"ayM" cDonald's;Mr. Stansbury felt there would be other signs. MEL
SHULMAN asked ifthe lot size had been reduced;a representative from McDonald's (who will
given up a curb cut on Cherry Valley Road;Mrs. Kissack said emphatically they d"o not want 804/ uwshinagt Wsoemnedbyr'sichkacosm.Me"rRtrimSHinUmLMorAeNplascuegsg.esMteRd.mMoYreEvReSrtitchaolulignhetstohne tbhueilbdiunigldhinag,dpe ta"rkheanpsaby
giant leap"but felt it was still pretty mixed in terms of style and especially objected to the
ganged"windows. He felt the 'M's"were okay on the two large gables but should be eliminated
Yi
earthberms screentheparking. MS.MONTGOMERY also agreed,notingthat tryingto move
from the smaller gables. MR SALVAGE felt the site plan was acceptable,with parking on the
Cherry Valley Road e(ast)side ofthe buildinRg. S.T*A[NSBURY agreed,as long as mounded
all the parking to the west side would create problems with the drive- thru and the main
entrancee/xit. MR SALVAGE confirmed that any stacking,either entering or leaving,would be off of Cherry Valley Road.
Adjournment: 11:30 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Sandy Ellinger,Acting Secretary
7

Employee Payroll / Compensation

The Village has thirty-six (36) full-time employees, 16 regular part-time employees and seaonal employees. Village Personnel Policy

Go to My Pay Stub and login.