Granville Community Calendar

Planning Minutes 6/24/02

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION June 24, 2002 Amended Minutes

Members Present: Jack Burriss, Barb Lucier, Mark Parris (Vice Chair), Richard Salvage (Chair), Carl Wilkenfeld, Richard Main Members Absent: None Also Present: Seth Dorman, Village Planner Visitors Present: Jeff Brown, Howard Bowen, Buck Withers, Dave Betts, Greg Dale, Maxine Montgomery, Chad and Carolyn Brubaker, Jerry Siper, MaryLou VanAtta, Donna Childers, Steve Mansfield, Brian & Jean Nichols, Vera & Ron Bogert, Mary Kay Campbell, Tom Mitchell, Mike Flood, Constance Barsky, Judy Duncan, Cynthia & John Cort, John Eliot, Bob Rutherford, Rose Wingert, Margaret Clayton, Rochelle Steinberg, Jim Huddle, Jim Medeger, Judith Thomas, Sheryl Gardner, Lee Davis, Sharon Sellito Citizens’ Comments: None The Chair swore in all those who planned to speak.

Minutes of May 30, 2002, and June 10, 2002: MR. PARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE BOTH SETS OF MINUTES AS PRESENTED. MR. BURRISS SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Old Business:

Lee & Linda Davis, 304 North Pearl Street - Modification

 Mr. Dorman explained that the applicants wish to extend the fence 12’ to the east, to move the gate, to widen the driveway, and to change driveway from concrete to brick pavers. The concrete has already been removed and pavers installed. In the process the driveway was widened to 18” on the west and 4½’ on east side. This widening will need a variance for lot coverage. Changes were made without approval of the Village Planner, so this is an after-the-fact application. Does this constitute a major or minor modification? The driveway was not on the original application, but is part of the modification. The application did include addition of two patios. Mike Flood said his company (Albyn’s) will be putting in the fence. In widening the driveway, it made sense to him to try to get two cars in that area. He said the applicants decided not to add the east side patio but to add flagstones instead. Ms. Lucier asked whether the pavers are such that a few along the edge could be removed without harming the driveway, and the answer was Yes. The four items at issue are: (1) replace sidewalks and driveway with pavers; (2) lawn irrigation (not a concern of GPC); (3) driveway widening; (4) fence extension. The applicant needs to submit an application for (1) and (3). MR. WILKENFELD MOVED THAT THE FENCE PORTION OF THIS AMENDMENT TO THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION IS A MINOR MODIFICATION, AND THE REST OF IT IS A MAJOR MODIFICATION. MR. PARRIS SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. MS. LUCIER MOVED TO APPROVE THE MODIFICATION TO APPLICATION #01-149 TO EXTEND THE FENCE. MR. WILKENFELD SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

New Business:

Jim McKivergin, 124 South Main Street – Satellite Dish

Mr. Dorman said the application is to install a small dish on the south side of rear of the building to allow a training program for Re/Max. Mr. McKivergin added that the dish is necessary to receive the materials, and equipment and materials are free. It would go back on the shingle roof above the back deck. It is the only way they can provide services for their agents. It is not visible from the store or south side, though it may be visible from the Park National Bank parking lot. Mr. Wilkenfeld asked whether it can withstand winds of 80 mph, and Mr. Dorman said that after an extensive telephone search, he learned it could do so.

MS. LUCIER MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION #02-078 TO INSTALL A SATELLITE DISH. MR. PARRIS SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. Centenary UMC, 235 East Broadway – Front Porch Railing & Porch Foundation Renovations

 Ms. Brubaker said they wish to install a white cedar railing on the porch with 32” spindles and to screen the cement block foundation of the Methodist parsonage. Mr. Burriss asked whether it would be 32” and said that might not be high enough to meet the Building Code. Ms. Brubaker will adhere to the codes. Mr. Dorman will work with her on this.

MR. BURRISS MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION #02-079 WITH THE CONDITION THAT THE RAIL BE BROUGHT INTO COMPLIANCE WITH THE CURRENT BUILDING CODE AND THAT THE VILLAGE PLANNER WILL ISSUE FINAL APPROVAL. MR. WILKENFELD SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. Thomas Mitchell, 335 West Elm Street – Retaining Walls

 Mr. Dorman said retaining walls are necessary to provide proper drainage. Mr. Mitchell said the retaining walls would be 1’ to 4’ high and made of “Garden Wall.” He excavated a little bit to make sure the water would not go into the house, but water will be captured and piped to the back of the lot in a 4” plastic line.

MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION #02-080 AS MODIFIED BY THE DRAWING SUBMITTED 6/24/02. MR. PARRIS SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. 

Speedway/SuperAmerica, State Route 16 at Cherry Valley Road – Speedway Gas Station

Mr. Dorman showed pictures of other Speedways in the area, and he and the representative, Greg Dale, pointed out various details of each. Mr. Dale displayed a color copy of the site plan and said this is a complicated application and review. He proposes to focus on those items Mr. Dorman identified as potentially not in compliance with the guidelines. He believes out of the 60 items in Section 1171.03 (b), six are possibly not in compliance and he wants to focus on those:

(1) Maximum of 6,000 square feet per Tenant: Including 85% of the canopy is what brings Speedway over the limit. Mr. Dorman said the 85% arose when we dealt with Certified. Certified is in the SBD rather than the PCD, but the codes are similar and we made a policy of including the canopy in the calculation at only 85%, and we wanted to be consistent. Others thought the canopy has some weight as far as lot coverage is concerned. It is also in relation to lot coverage, density, and maximum single tenant. Mr. Salvage thinks square footage is calculated inside. Mr. Dorman said this excess would need a variance for maximum single tenant, or ‘deviation,’ as it is called now. The Planning Commission has guidelines for reviewing development plans. The Planning Commission has the authority to vary from these guidelines.

(2) Build-to Line and Front Yard Setback: Build-to lines should be 30’ from the right-of-way. The representative said that provision is primarily intended for older areas where they are trying to preserve street frontage. That does not make sense here on the busy highway. The only way they could meet it would be to turn the building around.

(3) Height: Minimum is 1½ stories, and the architect has responded to the Planning Commission’s comments on this. The application shows 1 story in appearance.

(4) Hours of Operation: They are proposing a 24-hour operation because it’s on a state route with no residents around.

(5) Lighting: 25 foot candles are the maximum, but at some spots the proposal is for 35 foot candles for safety sake. There is no light spillover. 

(6) Signage: Deviances are necessary. What is being proposed is a similar package as was approved for Certified.

(7) Parking spaces: 15 is the maximum allowed for this particular proposal, but they are proposing 12 regular spaces with 1 handicapped space and the space around the pumps could also be counted. Mr. Salvage said our Law Director said we could count the spaces at the pumps, but Mr. Dorman clarified that the code was providing for a maximum not a minimum.

 These items will be discussed after the traffic discussion. 

 Comments from Citizens

 Vera Bogert said she lives ½ mile away and has concerns about the water table and having toxic materials so close to her well. Is there to be a monitoring process? The representative said there is a sensitive monitoring service. They have environmental catch basins, and water will go into the retention pond and flow out. Any contamination would be pumped out and go into a terminal to be recycled. Mr. Salvage asked about insurance against contamination, and the representative said they are self- insured. He asked whether they contribute to the state fund for clean-ups, and the representative could not answer that question. When a lift station is put in, the underground water table has to be lowered. Speedway plans to raise the site several feet. They don’t anticipate going very deep for the tanks, about 13’. The site will be raised to street level, or 1’ above grade. John Cort brought up the traffic concerns, especially with a possible River Road closing. State Route 16 was built as a bypass around Granville; now people are going through Granville to bypass traffic on SR- 16. He said future eventualities must be considered as well as the Speedway corner, but Mr. Salvage didn’t know that we can make assumptions at this time. Mr. Cort said there are 25-30 cars waiting behind a stopped school bus Constance Barsky said the application is for fuel sales, as opposed to a gas station. They are not included in permitted uses as a convenience store. <> Also, regarding the survey from the Master Plan, did citizens agree that they needed it? 72% said a convenience store was not needed, nor was gasoline. They didn’t build a gas station at that time because people didn’t want it. <> Six pumps are not needed most of the time, and they could reduce them to four. <> The Master Plan does not want 24- hour stores. To ask for a variance is inappropriate. <> We need a clear indication of what taxes would be generated. A building like this would be at a minimum level. Certified only pays $1700 per year in property taxes. Rochelle Steinberg is concerned about the traffic. At 5 p.m. and lunchtime you can wait for three light cycles. A gas station would only contribute to the congestion. Mr. Salvage said the Village has been working on timing of the signal and he thinks it’s been better this week. MaryLou VanAtta lives on Cherry Valley Road and agrees that the traffic is horrendous and will be getting worse with the River Road traffic. If they want to widen the road, the only way to do it is to have more commercial development. The Cherry Valley Lodge has its own turn lane. Sharon Sellito asked why the applicants are calling it a store that sells gas rather than just a gas station. Didn’t we vote against that? The referendum was to overturn Village Council’s decision to have it, according to the October 1998, Sentinel. It was defeated by 63%. Mr. Salvage asked for additional citizens comments and pointed out that this is the only opportunity for such; however no further comments were made, Mr. Salvage ended the citizens comments section.

End Citizens Comments

 Mr. Wilkenfeld thought there was some confusion with the code. This is legislative, and we are looking at variances. Anything that affects the well being of the community, such as traffic, we can take into account. Mr. Dorman referred the group to 1171.03 (c), 1-8, which outlines the considerations to make our decision. Ms. Lucier thought traffic was an underlying issue we have to deal with before we get to lighting and signage, and we need to talk with traffic consultants. Regarding whether or not a store is an appropriate use, everything done in a convenience store falls into what is listed here. Is what it says, exclusive of other kinds of stores? This is a gas station and other items are a convenience. There’s nothing inappropriate, nothing allows us to exclude. A convenience store is an amalgamation of things listed here. Mr. Parris said when we worked on Certified that was already an existing business. They had a store before. Mr. Dorman said the issue of a convenience store never arose for Certified because they already had a store, albeit a small one. Mr. Parris said as far as definitions go, 50 years ago a gas station provided service, but now they all have convenience stores. Is a convenience store considered a grocery store? Does a gas station automatically include a convenience store? If a gas station is something that just sells gas, what do we call one that sells gas, convenience items, and service? Mr. Wilkenfeld thought it was a convenience store with gas sales. It needs a definition. Mr. Salvage asked whether we are comfortable under our zoning code to proceed with this application, and Mr. Parris said yes, if it is a permitted use. Mr. Wilkenfeld and Ms. Lucier want a legal opinion, and Mr. Main was very concerned about traffic and stacking. The engineer present said his firm did not prepare the traffic study. He is here for site design and couldn’t respond to traffic questions. Mr. Salvage specifically requested the traffic engineer’s presence. The attorney said they look at traffic generated by their development. They found that 70% of the trips generated by Speedway come from vehicles already on the road, and the other 30% of the trips generated by Speedway would be new trips. The traffic problem is caused by the high regional traffic on SR-16. This applicant has already contributed $250,000 toward road improvements. This facility will not cure traffic problems at the intersection nor materially increase it. Mr. Salvage said neither traffic study felt this facility would substantially impact traffic already there. Ms. Lucier said it’s the turns that significantly affect the traffic situation more than just the number of cars. Mr. Wilkenfeld is concerned about the complexities of lane shifting on SR-16 and that slower vehicles have to cut across two lanes of traffic to get to the left turn lane at the intersection. This is what causes accidents. Mr. Salvage thought the only concern was making left turns out of the proposed gas station. But Mr. Wilkenfeld felt we are responsible for the wider community, and that people avoid the traffic on SR-16 by going through town. Mr. Salvage thought that had nothing to do with the Speedway proposal. Mr. Salvage thought the issue was how we make sure Speedway does not exacerbate the situation. Mr. Burriss said all of us have major concerns about traffic and the traffic studies. They are not easy to read, and we all have a little built-in distrust toward traffic studies. To move forward, there needs to be greater explanations of the traffic situation, we need additional information.

The group returned to the items of concern noted by Greg Dale earlier:

(1) Maximum Single Tenant: Lot coverage is OK. The canopy is included in the gross square footage and puts it over the maximum, but Mr. Salvage has never heard of a canopy included in the single tenant calculation. We would have a hard time denying this application because of this overage. The canopy should be an accessory structure. Mr. Wilkenfeld said that from the top the canopy is larger than the building He thought GPC could ask for fewer pumps and make the canopy smaller. Mr. Parris thought it should be considered under lot coverage but not under gross square footage. Mr. Dorman said we addressed that for Certified, and the interpretation was that of the Law Director, who said it is a structure but since it does not have walls, you could give a discount by counting only 85% of its square footage. For consistency we need to do the same. Mr. Salvage pointed out that under Section 1171.03 (b) square footage is limited to 6,000 square feet per tenant or use, and that this applicant has 2 uses and therefore is allowed 12,000 square feet making it acceptable under the code in his opinion. Mr. Wilkenfeld wondered whether there are two tenants, the convenience store and the gas station. (2) Build-To Line: Mr. Wilkenfeld would prefer having the front facing SuperAmerica Way. Green space buffers would be added to shield the rear from SR-16. Mr. Burriss said that was to permit parking behind the facade of the building. The applicant should provide a site plan that includes location of the ROW and edge. The representative said they would not remove the fence and trees. (3) Height: The Commission had no problem. The applicant has followed our recommendations. (4) Hours of Operation: Mr. Wilkenfeld feels they should stick to the maximum 18 hours. Ms. Lucier agrees and feels there would be less need of police protection with 18 hours. Mr. Burriss is not comfortable with the additional hours in terms of future areas and also properties of similar function that are already under that restriction. Mr. Parris agrees. Mr. Salvage has a question with what the code says, and he has no problem with a 20-hour operation. The representative wants us to consider a deviation. (5) Lighting: Mr. Salvage thought this looked like a modest plan. Ms. Lucier asked whether it falls under the foot candle restrictions. The representative said there are very few instances where it does exceed 25, and they are all under the canopy. The pumps are internally illuminated for the price and the pay at the pump screen. Lights are recessed under the canopy and it goes directly down. Mr. Burriss asked whether their plan considers all sources of lighting, i.e., light coming through the window, or just under the canopy. The representative said the company who prepared this takes all lighting into consideration. The group wanted more information. Mr. Salvage thought Speedway should get a copy of what we approved for Certified. (6) Signage: There will not be signage on the pumps. Mr. Burriss said we do not allow products to be stored outside, i.e., mulch. There are to be no pop machines outside. The representative asked for one ice machine and propane sales and Mr. Salvage thought they may need to enclose them. The ice machine should have no signage. Changeable message signs are not permitted. The application now asks for two signs: An internally lit freestanding sign, which would need a variance, and a large wall sign, internally lit, over the door with the moving “S” logo. The frame is aluminum with a plastic cap. The part under the S is solid, not glass. The architect explained the pediment, the narrow band, and the column caps. Color samples will be provided. Mr. Parris didn’t really want to discuss how different this proposal is from the normal Speedway proposal. (7) Dumpster: Mr. Dorman asked whether the covering for the dumpster is opaque and similar to other sites and was told they can do anything we like. Mr. Salvage said to put it in the back with a door and provide details to us. (8) Parking: Resolve the right-in, left-out situation. The representative said the sidewalk would have to be on top of a utility easement. The drawing will provide sidewalks 5’ behind the Cherry Valley Road tree lawn. (9) Open Space: The applicants are planning to dedicate 12 acres in the floodplain to the Licking Land Trust. (10) Landscape Plan: Mr. Burriss would like to see more detail on the Landscape Plan in terms of species and type and planting heights. There will be potted flowers with irrigation. (11) Other Details: Mr. Burriss thought additional investigation should be done to surrounding water. The representative said they can provide EPA information. <> The Engineer is to provide geologic water pumping details. <> The rear entrance is used only for emergencies; which needs to be addressed. <> Mr. Burriss preferred the columns to be fluted, and the architect said OK but they are trying to give a contemporary appearance. <> Edge of canopy should be of a different color. What is needed next? Color samples, traffic engineers for traffic discussion, and Joe Hickman and the Law Director should be invited.

MR. PARRIS MOVED TO TABLE APPLICATION #02-081 PENDING FURTHER INFORMATION. MR. BURRISS SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Finding of Fact: MR. PARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE THE FINDINGS OF FACT FOR A UNDER OLD BUSINESS (Davis) AND A, B,AND C (McKivergin, Brubaker, Mitchell) UNDER NEW BUSINESS, AND WE FIND THEM CONSISTENT WITH RELEVANT SECTIONS OF THE ZONING CODE AS OUTLINED IN THE VILLAGE PLANNER’S MEMO OF JUNE 21ST. MS. LUCIER SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Adjournment: 10:45 p.m. Next Meetings: July 8th and July 22nd

Respectfully submitted, Betty Allen 

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.