Granville Community Calendar

GPC Minutes 8/5/1996

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.

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.