GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION
May 20, 1996
Members Present: Maxine Montgomery,Keith Myers,Lyn Robertson,Richard Salvage,Marc
Also Present: Doug Tailford,Jr.,Village Planner
Visitors Present: Scott Rawden S( entinel)R, obert D&orothy Essman 1(404 Cherry Valley),
Don Contini 3(15 N. Pearl)R,obert Abel,Mark Sweetman,Jeffrey Brown,John Thaxton
SuperAmericaL),arry Wills,Dan Havener B(ob Evans)G, lenn Hardy G( ranville)C,harles
West W( oolpert)R,on Cook 1(137 Cherry Valley)J,ohn Strohmeyer 2(01 N. Pearl)B, arbara &
Dick Lucier 2(16 S. Pearl)P,atty Markham W( . Broadway)J,oAnn Morey 3(26 E. College)J,im Suzy Marr 2(79 Potters Lane)B,ob Carlson 1(16 Shannon Lane)D,ean Markle V(illage
Minutes of May 6 Bottom of Page 3, change 48'to 48".MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO
APPROVE APRIL 8 MINUTES; MR. STANSBURY SECONDED AND MINUTES WERE
Citizens Comments: None
Barbara and Richard Lucier,216 South Pearl
The Luciers wish to remodel an old barn and turn it into a two-car garage,adding 3' to
west side. A deck on rear of house will be replaced with small porch and brick patio. They will
install substantial landscaping with trellises. MR. SHULMAN MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION;
MR. STANSBIJRY SECONDED,AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
John and Julie Strohmeyer,201 West Pearl
The owners wish to install a 48"white colonial fence on south and east sides of the
property. Mr. Shulman indicated that other fences in the area have an established setback and
this fence should be in line with the house. Mr. Strohmeyer indicated that he wanted to maximize the space as much as possible to allow more room for his children to play,and that it
would not look balanced in line with the house. He said the proposed fence would be 3' from the sidewalk but could be flush with the side of the porch,4-5' from sidewalk. Ms. Robertson expressed concern about visibility and safety for cars, and members agreed this would not be a problem. Mr. Stansbury agreed that it would look better lined up with the house but recognized
that a lot of play space would be lost. Mr. Shulman would rather have a 42"fence if it is lined
up with the porch.
MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION SUBJECT TO THE FENCE
HEIGHT REDUCED TO 42"AND THE FENCE BEING LINED UP WITH THE FRONT
EDGE OF THE PORCH. MR STANSBURY SECONDED,AND THE VOTE WAS DEFEATED TWO (Shulman,Stansbury)TO ONE ( Salvage).
Ms. Robertson told him that if he still wants the fence as in original application,he will
need to submit further information with exact drawings,with porch, and fence location. It
would be helpful to review where other fences are in that area. Mr. Strohmeyer will meet with
Mr. Tailford again.
Gran-Rental Station,113 N. Prospect Street
The owners are requesting maroon awnings above window and door and replacing tin
siding with off-white vertical siding. He wants to print a street address on the vertical drop of
the awning,which is considered an address,rather than a sign.
MR. STANSBURY MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION;MR. SALVAGE SECONDED,
AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Don Contini,444 East Broadway
Mr. Contini wishes to replace original siding with vinyl because original siding is not
repairable. He showed sample of heavy gauge siding and indicated that all trim is wood and will
look like the original. He also wishes to install a bay window in the rear of the house and
replace shed roof with an arbor roof over the back porch.
MR. SHULMAN MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION;MR. STANSBURY SECONDED,
AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Granville Athletic Boosters,Granville High School,New Burg St.
The Boosters are seeking final approval on development for the stadium,and Mr. Myers,
on behalf of the Boosters, explained the plan for fence and lighting. The main change from the
last plan is that the field has been moved back closer to the hillside and a new entry plaza has
been designed. The green vinyl fence has been pulled back to allow more landscaping.
Mr. Salvage stated that based on the need to expedite this process,some of the work has
been started,although the rain forced postponement of tree planting. The four light poles will be
70' tall with 36 lights on each. Other lighting is needed at the concession stand. MR SHULMAN MOVED TO ACCEPT APPLICATION SUBJECT TO APPROVAL OF THE
VILLAGE ENGINEERS AND ANY OTHER STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS THAT NEED
TO BE FOLLOWED. MR.STANSBURY SECONDED,AND IT WAS APPROVED WITH
ABSTENTION OF MR.MYERS,WHO WORKED ON THE PROJECT.
Public Hearing -Bob Evans
Bob Evans Farms have officially submitted their proposal for restaurant and a proposed
motel. Ms. Robertson explained the new five-step procedures to be followed for hearings.
L Introduction by Staff.Mr. Tailford presented the proposal for the property,detailing
location,frontage,seating,future drive,lighting,signage,landscaping,and design.etc.
IL Applicant Presentation. Mr. Havener updated the group on plans,specifically referring to Mr. Tailford's memo of May 15, 1996. 0/*
motel loPtahgaesSaDn 1o.wNnoe.r.2.he explained that the connection road will be worked out when th A+ - - j-
Page5 .(No. 2.The height of the lights is 24' and they will be total cuto-ff lights.
No. 3. Site lighting along Cherry Valley was not addressed earlier and was never a design concern,so it needs to be looked at.
No. 4. Lighting uniformity can be worked out with the village.
Page A4 and AS. No. 2. Fluorescent light under awning will be removed.
Page A4 and AS.No. 3. Broken keyhole pediment will remain.
Page A4 and AS,No. 4. Architecture still has not been changed as requested by GPC. The Bob Evans supervisors have allowed as much alteration of style as possible. Page A.4 and AS.No. 5. All but three spotlights have been removed, retaining the three in the front.
General Comments. No. 1. There will not be a monument sign,only two building signs.
No. 2. Items still pending on Mark Zarbaugh's memo of May 10 are as follows:
Curb and gutter detail is OK,but location of underdrain needs to be noted on the plan.
Conduit for future street lighting does not need to be addressed at this point. Any
lighting along the road is the responsibility of Bob Evans.
Bob Evans has no problem with the village planting trees between curb and sidewalk,but
that is off their property and not their responsibility.
Regarding traffic movements and stacking problems,this may be the case,but Bob Evans
does not know the solution at this point. They need to know what information the GPC wants.
Bob Evans will clarify calculations for street trees on landscape development plan.
Staff Recommendations. Mr. Havener explained they are seeking approval tonight and
hope that further review will not be required.
Letter from Bird and Bull. Mr. Havener cited some remaining concerns: Services will
be provided to a proposed motel site. Fire Department approval is assumed. Easements will be
provided to motel. The entrance is being studied at this time;it is possible that SuperAmerica
and Bob Evans drives will line up.
ITT. Public Comments.
VJ# NU PattyMheam* stated that maintaining a New England style architecture and maintaining
the distinct character of Granville is a good idea. Bob Evans should look at a totally different style. She would encourage landscaping and trees and minimum signage.
Mary Lou VanAtta thinks Bob Evans' building falls in with Granville already. The south
side of Rt. 16 is commercial and would welcome the restaurant.
Dan Bellman thinks Bob Evans would be a welcome member of the community and has
a unique architecture. He likes the brick and muted colors.
Ron Cook agrees with Ms. VanAtta and feels this area is not downtown Granville. They
are seeking drive-by traffic and have had good communication with and been cooperative with
the village. Mr.Cook is in real estate and finds it somewhat difficult to move property because of the stonewalling of the village.
Bob Carlson feels that we are building another Newark around Granville and it will
eventually be a slum. Senior citizens and others will be moving out of Erinwood and it could end up a dead area. Property values would decline.
Dean Markle added that most development occurs along beltways. Commercial
development should be kept around those intersections and reasonable compromises need to be reached. He would not want a McDonald's at the intersection. Other Bob Evans look good.
IV. Questions from the Commission to Bob Evans.
Mr. Tailford stated that the last time the connector road was discussed, it was going to be
set in a location or noted that we would determine where its location should be,but that is not on the plans. It needs to be noted,subject to moving as approved by GPC and users. His other
Standard lights are not adopted yet for the village, Type of lights and heights should be
on the plans.
Tree and Landscape Commission had a question on landscaping near the dumpster.
Automobile stacking can be made a condition upon approval.
Trees in the 6' tree lawn is a requirement by Tree and Landscape Commission but they
believe we do not need trees in that tree lawn because of other trees there;if Bob Evans wishes
trees,they would be required on the plan.
Approval of Fire Department is not customary unless cul-de-sacs are involved.
Mr. Myers stated that they would need variances from GPC for sign sizes and total
signage Parking in front is subject to our discretion,and parking deviations need GPC approval
regarding connection to the south property. Mr. Havener has no problem with adding proposed
curb cuts to the plan. The motel would have violation its own entrance road. The light pole height 14 in 1 of the lighting uniformity, All driveways are going to need conduits. 1./) 0 9 3./ 0(rt
Mr. Shulman asked whether ig}as were of equal size and internally lit,and the answers were Yes.
Mr. Stansbury asked about a traffic study. This has been done,but SuperAmerica will
require a second look by the village engineer. There cannot be a traffic light there.
Mr. Salvage asked about illumination along the sidewalks. Mr. Tailford stated that the
new standards have not been approved yet but that GPC decided not to have public street lights.
There is a deficiency about what is shown and what's on the proposed list. The last comment on Bird and Bull's memo is still up in the air regarding sewers,and this could be left as a condition
Ms. Montgomery asked about total signage,and the outline of the two signs with the
words B" ob Evans"adds up to 88 sq.ft.,or 44 sq.ft. each. She suggested Bob Evans look at a gray roof. Mr. Havener prefers the red,but in order to get them off the hurdle,they would
change the color and material but not the design.
V. FinalQuestiopnpslic,a*n*t.Mr.Will said they would be willing to change colors
Gburtannovtillteh.e architecture, Route 16 is designated commercial and they wanted to service
VI. GPC Discussion apd Yotq.
U AL/ b,A-N V-- . A *f q.+/
in this Mr.Sage sttethaGPC is overstepping its authority to force architectural standards Mr. Staanresbau.rrhy edisMagarseteerd,Plan suggests that if we want guidelines,we shouldad/iE$th-em,but stating that the Master Plan does say that we should maintain a typical style. Ms. Robertson read from the Master Plan,which recommends commercial at this area but
suggests the commercial style be consistent with a New England townW.*e are trying to uphold the spirit of'the Master Plan,which consists of what the citizens desird@She does not think a brown building with gray roofwill accomplish this goal. Mr. Shulman is concerned about lighting and wonders how this application compares with Wendy's. He also stated that signs should be at a minimum.
Mr. Myers stated that the problem is that Bob Evans wants to maintain its identity but
that Granville wants to maintain its identity also.
Mr. Myers moved that we approve the application for Bob Evans with the following
1. That a connection to the site to the south be made.
2. That fluorescent lighting under the canopy be removed.
3. That lighting on the roof be restricted to three lights,as indicated on the presentation,
but shining on the pediment.
4. That approval of village service director is required.
5. That the engineers' comments be addressed by applicant,with approval of staff.
6. That there be no ground sign.
7. That the roof color be changed from red to a more muted color as indicated by
Mr. Salvage seconded the motion. The motion was rejected by Roll Call as follows:
Mr. Salvage- yes Mr. Shulman -no
Mr. Myers -yes Mr. Stansbury -no
Ms. Robertson -no
John Thaxton presented changes in plans made since our last work session,and a
1. They eliminated the service road.
2. They eliminated the cut-de-sac. 3. They redesigned building to accommodate Granville's hoped-for standards.
4. They have looked again at the "ins and outs."
5. They have improved the landscaping.
6. There would be a 35 sq.ft. monument sign with gas prices at corner of Cherry Valley and Rt. 16.
7. There would be a sign on the back area at the entrance,and it would have room for
*other8u.seTrhS,eSreigwnowuoldulbdebaes5m0asllqs.fitg.nwoitvheratllheusdeorso.r and pattern striping would be on the
9. There is more greenspace,and they have beefed up the landscaping along Rt. 16 by
shifting the building.
10. The outdoor storage is limited to 316/, high with shrubbery on top. It would not be visible from the street.
11. There would be neatly stacked storage ( i.e.,cases of pop)in front of the door. 12. Blimpie's would sell merchandise within the store. 13. S/A would give residual land along the creek to the Granville Land Conservancy.
14. The driveway would line up with Bob Evans'.
GPC members stated their concerns.
1. Mr. Myers stated that the overall site plan is better, but the "ins and outs"with Rt. 16
so close might be a problems however,Mr.Dole stated that they have moved it farther south and the location is required for truck maneuverability. 2. Ms. Robertson would prefer the storage of pop, etc.,be inside.
3. Engineers need to look at the traffic plan again.
4. Mr. Shulman does not want the lighting any brighter than Wendy's. Mr. Myers will measure the lighting at Wendy's.
5. Mr. Tailford stated that there needs to be an interconnecting road or easement
between S/ A and the next door property to the south.
Policy for Drop-off Boxes, Vending Machines and other Outdoor Product Structures
GPC members unanimously approved Mr, Tailford's latest May 1996 draft by way of a motion by Mr. Stansbury, seconded by Mr. Myers.
Adjournment: 10:55 p.m.
Next Meetings: June 10 and June 17
July 1 and July 15