Granville Community Calendar

GPC Minutes 11/4/1996

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION

November 4, 1996

Minutes

Members Present: Maxine Montgomery, Lyn Robertson, Richard

Salvage, Marc Shulman, Gary Stansbury

Members Absent: Keith Myers

Also Present: Reza Reyazi, Village Planner

Visitors Present: Scott Rawden (Sentinel),Mary Fellabaum (310

W. Elm),Carl Wilkenfeld (317 W. Elm),Darryl Payne (100 Bantry),

Dean Markle (95 Bantry),Peter Marshall, Chuck Meteer (307 N.

Granger),Tim Snider (368 Bryn Du Drive),Joe &Dorie Overman

546 N. Pearl),Tom Scono (313 Beechwood Dr),Phil Wince and

George Fackler (Fackler)

Minutes of October 7, 1996: Approval postponed as copy supplied

was incomplete.

Minutes of October 21: Postponed pending approval of October 7

minutes.

Citizens Comments: None

New Business:

Joe and Dorie Overman, 546 N. Pearl -TCOD review

The Overmans wish to construct an addition to the rear of

the house, which would include a bathroom, utility room, and 2- car garage. It would be 35' closer to the rear lot line than

ordinances permit and exceed maximum lot coverage, and BZBA has granted variances. Mr. Overman' s original plans were changed in

order to improve the neighbors' view by offsetting the rear wall

1 foot insteadcloser to Pearl and side-loading the garage with one door of two. They will not be cutting the tree but will need to remove some of the hedge.

Mr. Shulman asked about the TCOD and wondered whether, with the hedge cut down, the garage would be more visible. Mr.

Overman thought the garage would not be very visible from Pearl. MR. SHULMAN MOVED TO APPROVE. MR. STANSBURY SECONDED, AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

James Pletcher, 448 West Broadway -TCOD review

additiMorn. Pletcher wishes to remove the porch and add a two-story 12' deeper to the rear. BZBA granted a side yard

setback variance but TCOD approval is required by GPC. Mr.

Pletcher said the addition would be out of sight from the road. MR. SHULMAN MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION. MR. STANSBURY

SECONDED, AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Austin and Cynthia McElroy, 110 East Elm --Signs

Two gray signs with blue letters are planned, 6"x12" each,

upstairs on the walkway, facing the other building, in order to

help people find the business.

MR. STANSBURY MOVED TO APPROVE.

IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

MR. SHULMAN SECONDED, AND

Public Hearing

George Fackler, 1960 Newark-Granville Road

I. Introduction by Staff

Mr. Reyazi stated that he received this development plan on

Tuesday so he has had insufficient time to study it thoroughly.

He has a letter from Jerry Turner, engineer, pointing out detail

that needs to be' addressed, the main issues of which are:

A. Possibility of access to Galway

B. Need for a sign plan

C. Some review of utilities by. staff

D. Lighting plan

E. Landscape plans

This plan does not include the drive-through. Mr. Shulman asked

how it got to be a public hearing with incomplete plans, ially since espec- we usually hold work sessions, and Mr. Reyazi said

he got the plans far enough ahead to post notices but was expect- ing the plans sooner than they actually arrived. He has not had

time to speak with Mr Turner. Mr. Shulman suggested holding a public hearing but taking no action and continue the public hear- ing until next time when we have more details. Mr. Reyazi said

the application for the drive-through was remanded from Village Council to BZBA.

Mr. Salvage asked whether this means that we would be

gathering input for two weeks, and Mr. Shulman said that if we tchloinsek it tonight, we will have to vote next time and he does not we will be ready. Ms. Robertson s€ated that the public

cannot respond to an application they have not seen. She added

that as a courtesy we could hold a hearing for the information we diso hina.ve and continue it or start a hearing when all information Mr. Shulman thought this application more detailed ·than most and should be granted even more time for study than single- use plans.

Ms. Robertson stated that we cannot conclude a hearing when plans are incomplete and staff has not had a chance to talk with the engineer. It' s crucial that our procedure is fair to every- one. Mr. Salvage indicated that since the notice was posted, we must hold the public hearing tonight but does not feel it appro- priate to hold it open until next meeting. Mr. Reyazi has clari- fied with the law director that we can continue the hearing. Mr. Salvage questions this statement, and Mr. Reyazi said he was not sure about closing a hearing tonight and holding another one in two weeks, since adequate notice must be given.

More discussion on incomplete information, deadlines, and

2

0 ·- 11

121 /

continuances ensued. Ms. Robertson stated the public hearing

will be continued, but Mr. Wince is not satisfied and thinks it

should not be continued without first hearing from him. Mr. Wince

stated that they have been here before and that Village Council

remanded because they said they presented new material. BZBA did

not say they needed new material. At Village Council all BZBA' s

questions were answered, and now it' s unfair to bring up new

questions. Ms. Robertson explained that it is to Fackler' s advantage

to continue.

II. Presentation by Applicant

Mr. John Oney [spelling uncertain; he did not sign visitor

list],architect, stated that they have provided sufficient detail

as requested in the ordinance for site plan approval. He

explained the concept for the multi-use development, designed to

fit in with Granville' s appearance and provide an upscale commun- ity service area. The drive-through was eliminated, and they are

encouraging a pedestrian-friendly environment. They plan to

provide access to neighboring businesses, and are planning one curbcut. They have widened the road for deliveries and drivethrough-

customer convenience.

Lighting Plan. A plan was provided, and he said all light- ing fixtures are total cut-off. He pointed out where lights

would be situated. There will be a baluster and a 25' tall

total-cut-off, 400-watt light pole. All lights are 5 ft. candles

to %ft. candle. If any light runs off to the residential area,

additional shields will be added.

Landscaping Plan. Mr. Ryzer [?st]ated they tried to main- tain the character of the developments in the area and Granville.

They will plant sugar maples, evergreens, crab apples, oaks, flowering trees, and shrubs. Plantings will surround each build- ing and column, and islands will have red maples; the intention was to produce color each season. Turf will be planted under shrubs and trees.

TrafficP/ arking. Mr. Oney stated that traffic studies have been done.

Site Utilities. Mr. Snyder[c?iv],il engineer, they stated that are taking storm water to where it needs to be directed. This is not the final plan, but water runoff and fire hydrants are located and everything in the ordinance has been covered. Referring to Mr. Turner' s letter, two concepts are questioned: sanitary sewer and storm water drainage. Sanitary water would go down Cherry Valley to Wcotgato. There will be on-site retention of storm water. They can orily discharge storm water at the same rate as at present so they have to retain it in pipes. Mr.

Snyder met with Mr. Murphy regarding easement access across private property for discharge. Mr. Murphy is correlating that with plans he has for new businesses.

III. Public Comments.

3

CARL WILKENFELD asked whether plans exist for the other section

of the plot. He asked whether this plan is in the TCOD. He

is concerned about long-term maintenance. He also asked about

lot coverage, which was answered at 65 per cent.

MARY FELLABAUM asked how much space would be actually in

turf, and Mr. Ryzer said all areas not used for parking or

planting would be turf.

IV. Ouestions from GPC.

Ms. Robertson asked about entrances to the building, and Mr.

Oney said they would be at the convenience center, restaurant,

the bank, and the offices. He also responded that there would be

eating areas outside with patio and cafe seating with fence. He

added that there will be delivery-truck screening and trucks will

probably have to back up.

Regarding TCOD, Mr. Oney thought there was a 70' lot setback

line from Newark-Granville and 50' from C. V. Apparently the

property is grandfathered from TCOD requirements. This was

discussed with Mr. Tailford, but Mr. Reyazi wants to check on

this point.

Mr. Stansbury asked about the dumpster, and there will be

two, behind cedar screens in the delivery area.

He asked whether lot coverage includes the future building,

and Mr. Oney thought each phase conforms with 65 per cent

coverage.

Mr. Stansbury asked about storm water approval from Bird &

Bull, and this is still pending.

Mr. Reyazi asked whether the storm sewer manhole on Galway

is in fact there yet because he could not find it. He will check

with Mr. Turner on this issue.

Mr. Stansbury asked about the lighting plan, and he preferred

that lighting plans show lumens. Mr. Oney said all lights

would be no glare, total cutoff. No foot candles will go off the

property. Mr. Reyazi has given them our proposed guidelines.

Since they are not approved yet, Fackler' s cannot be forced to

abide by them, but Mr. Snyder said they will do their best to

adhere to our rules.

Mr. Shulman wanted to see depictions of elevations of all

four sides. Mr. Oney said they will have the same proportions and

the same materials on all sides, and he described the color

scheme. Building is 30' high, and the fireplace is workable.

Mr. Stansbury asked where traffic would come from because

Bird &Bull asked for a left-turn lane. Mr. Reyazi will clarify

location with Mr. Turner.

Ms. Robertson asked what would be on second floor, and the

answer was nothing. They are aesthetic dormers.

4

Access to Galway was questioned by Mr. Reyazi, and Mr. Only

said future entrances would line up with Fackler' s entrance. Mr.

Murphy is receptive to this plan. Mr. Reyazi stressed the

importance of having a clear understanding with Mr. Murphy on

accesses. Mr. Wince objected that this issue was not voiced at

the GPC work session, but they added it anyway. Mr. Salvage

stated that GPC has always required developers to plan to connect

adjoining properties, and Mr. Reyazi hoped Fackler' s would be

more specific and participate in any compromise that may be

necessary. Mr. Wince would be happy to meet.

Mr. Snyder wondered why GPC needs such a deep level of detail

and was told GPC needs to consider whatever the engineers

bring up. Mr. Snyder assumed that only what was in 1175 was

necessary, and he has not spoken with Mr. Turner. Ms. Robertson

cited GPC' s prerogatives in 1175. 04( e) "Any other plans

determined necessary by the Planning Commission."

V. Comments from Applicant.

Mr. Wince stated that applicants have complied with

everything requested.

VI. Planning Commission Discussion.

Ms. Robertson stated that looking at the engineer' s

questions is part of the overall decision-making, and although

GPC might lack expertise in this area, they can ask for reassurance

that these items are being addressed. Mr. Shulman added

that GPC has never approved an application with as many questions

as Mr. Turner raises.

Applicants asked for a list of pending areas where questions

remain, and Ms. Robertson reiterated them:

1. Response to Mr. Turnerts letter -Mr. Reyazi to follow UP.

2. Lighting plan. Guidelines are likely the to be approved in themn. ear future, and it is advisable that applicants adhere to

3. Tree and Landscape Committee approval.

4. TCOD recommendations from staff.

5. Access drive to Galway in a more realistic fashion. Discussion among all parties. Mr. Wince to set up meeting.

6. Depiction of elevations on all sides.

7. Signage and dimensions.

8. Materials of building.

9. Lot coverage calculations.

10. Delivery truck turnaround issue resolved. Proof that

trucks can get in and out.

11. Guidance from fire department re location of hydrants

5

and assurance that fire trucks can get through area.

12. Effects of any of the above on the site plan.

Mr. Wince wants staff completion of their review by next

meeting. Mr. Reyazi reminded them that he only got the plans

late Tuesday afternoon; Mr. Turner was going on vacation, and he

had to prepare and mail packets for committee members. He

promised to do his best to get all necessary information.

Ms. Robertson stated that this hearing is continued until

next meeting, November 18. Mr. Wince again stated his objection

to a continuance.

Lighting Plan will be first on Nov. 18 agenda.

Finding of Fact:

Mr. Reyazi stated that the law director said we rhust prepare

a written F. F. for all decisions. He did not like one person to

prepare them for the others; we need to take turns. Small

application approvals can have their F. F. written up the same night. The F. F. s need to be adopted as part of the GPC

decisions.

MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO FORMALLY ADOPT F. F. FOR THE HICKMAN AND

IGA APPLICATIONS AS PRESENTED. MR. STANSBURY SECONDED, AND

MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. .

MR. STANSBURY MOVED TO FORMALLY ADOPT THE SALVAGE F. F. AS

PRESENTED. MR. SHULMAN SECONDED, AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY

APPROVED.

MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO FORMALLY ADOPT THE OVERMAN, PLETCHER, AND McELROY F. F. AS PREPARED TONIGHT.

Adjournment:

Next Meetings: 11: 15 p. m.

November 18 and December 2

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.