Granville Community Calendar

Planning Minutes 7/8/02

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION July 8, 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: Todd Wrobleski, Maxine Montgomery, Jerry Siper, Mary Lou VanAtta, Emma-Lou VanAtta, Bob Searles, Steve Mansfield, Mike Flood, Constance Barsky, Judy Duncan, Larry Morgan, Jeff Brown, John Klein, Jonathan Wocher, Jack Gehrum, Larry Miller, Art Chonko Citizens’ Comments: None

The Chair swore in all those who planned to speak.

Minutes of June 24, 2002: Mr. Salvage wished to make changes on Page 4: Add the following in front of End Citizens Comments with: Mr. Salvage asked for additional citizen comments and pointed out that this is the only opportunity for such. However, no further comments were made and Mr. Salvage ended them. On Page 6, add at top of page: Mr. Salvage pointed out that under section 1171.03(b) square footage is limited to 6000 per tenant or use and that this applicant has two uses and therefore is allowed 12,000 square feet, making the proposal acceptable under the code, in his opinion.

MR. BURRISS MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES AS CORRECTED. MR. PARRIS SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

 Mr. Wilkenfeld said that since we are a body that makes recommendations, it seems it might be good to get a word-for-word transcript of the SuperAmerica part of the minutes and attach it to the minutes. Mr. Salvage would just as soon leave it up to Village Council. Mr. Parris said the information is there if they feel it is a necessity. 

MR. WILKENFELD MOVED THAT WHEN WE SEND OUR RECOMMENDATION TO VILLAGE COUNCIL, WE SHOULD INCLUDE A WRITTEN FORM OF THE MINUTES FROM THE TAPES. THEN THEY CAN MAKE THE DECISION WHETHER THEY WANT TO READ IT. MS. LUCIER SECONDED 

 Mr. Salvage wanted to table this issue pending cost estimates from Mr. Dorman. MR. BURRIS MOVED TO TABLE THIS ISSUE TO FIND OUT THE COST. MR. WILKENFELD SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

New Business:

Granville Village Schools, 310 North Granger Street – Replace all windows, remove all mechanical louvers.

 Mr. Dorman said the application is in conjunction with interior modifications planned for the school. They want to (1) Replace all the exterior windows, and (2) remove all existing mechanical louvers and infill those areas with masonry. Todd Wrobleski said they want to bring the building back to its historic nature. The windows would be double hung, the top part is fixed glass and the bottom is flexible. On the inside they are going to drop the ceilings to hide the new mechanicals that is the reason for the paneling on the new windows. A lot of the existing windows have glass and are painted in. Mr. Parris said from a functional standpoint will the double-hung windows have spring-loaded mechanical balances, and he wondered why they would not use an awning unit. The response was for cost and safety reasons with projecting windows. The finish is metal with color similar to building. 

 MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION #02- 082 AS PRESENTED MR. PARRIS SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Larry Morgan, 343 East Broadway – Front Porch Renovation

 Mr. Dorman said the application is to: (1) replace the 3 posts with similar posts; (2) replace floor; and (3) rebuild lattice understructure including the access door to an old coal bin. Larry Morgan said the 100-year-old porch takes abuse from the weather and has deteriorated and he wants to replace the flooring with geodeck, a recycled material and would use either a dark grey or light brown flooring. He wants to square up the posts. The pressure-treated posts would have a routed reveal. The existing railing will hold up for awhile yet. In answer to a question from Mr. Burriss, Mr. Morgan said the deck material would be run the same way as the existing but is a little higher, just below the threshold.

MR. PARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION #02-091, AND THE APPLICANT WILL BE ABLE TO CHOOSE BETWEEN THE DARK GRAY OR LIGHT BROWN MATERIAL OF THE TYPE HE BROUGHT IN AS THE SAMPLE. MR. WILKENFELD SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Lee & Linda Davis, 304 North Pearl Street - Driveway Widening & Brick Sidewalks

 (A) Work has been done on the driveway, and at the last meeting the applicant was asked to bring in a new application. They have widened the driveway 4.5 to the east and 1.5 to the west and installed brick pavers on an aggregate base where the original drive was concrete. This will require BZBA approval for a lot coverage variance. Mr. Burriss said the work done heretofore has been done well. (B) They also wish to remove the aging sidewalk and replace it with brick pavers. These are Village sidewalks. Mike Flood, contractor, said they would be receptive to what the Village has done downtown. Ms. Lucier asked whether pavers negatively impact the ability of handicap access? Mike Flood did not know, but they could leave the ramp concrete. Ms. Lucier thought we ought to know for sure before granting applications. Mr. Parris said we need to be sensitive to Village improvements, and if there is a pattern we should follow it. Since these are Village sidewalks, (a) have we let other people do sidewalk work? (b) Once built, whose responsibility is it to maintain it? This is the first time anyone has asked for approval to tear up Village sidewalks. Mr. Dorman is only aware of older brick sidewalks, and no owner has done anything, to his knowledge, but he can research the question. Joe Hickman had asked the applicant to come before the PC. Mr. Salvage asked what are the specifications for sidewalks? A letter from neighbor Dan Bellman expresses his approval of the project.

(A) MR. PARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE ITEM A OF APPLICATION #02- 092 AS PRESENTED, PENDING APPROVAL OF LOT COVERAGE VARIANCE BY BZBA. MR. BURRISS SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. (B)MR. PARRIS MOVED TO TABLE PART B OF APPLICATION #02-092 AT THE APPLICANT’S REQUEST. MR. BURRISS SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Denison University, 459 South Main St. – Relocate Habitat for Humanity Recycling Barn

 Art Chonko said the college wants to help the community by allowing the recycling barn for aluminum cans at the steam plant. It seemed a convenient place for it, rather than behind the Episcopal Church. There would be little visual impact. This is for Habitat for Humanity and not related to the recycling bins on River Road. Mr. Wilkenfeld said that because it is in the TCOD, we have to agree this is not really a building for doing business, Mr. Salvage said it’s an accessory building.

MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION #02-093 AS PRESENTED. MS. LUCIER SECONDED, AND THE MOTION UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Denison University – New Campus Map and Temporary Signage

 Art Chonko said they are requesting one-sided campus map signs at (1) Burke Hall, (2) Washington Drive/Lamson Lodge, and (3) the entrance from College Street. They will be internally lit. Variances would be needed for internal illumination and size.

The map would be grey aluminum with red letters. Ms. Lucier would not have a problem with the Burke Hall sign because it’s already there and already internally lit. Ms. Lucier has a problem with the College Street sign because she did not think there are many pedestrians who are starting at the bottom of the hill at night. It does not look good next to the nice entrance to the college. Mr. Parris agreed and said if someone were in a car, the headlights would light it up. Mr. Chonko did not know the foot candles since this is conceptual, but it needs enough light to be visible. He thought it would not be a glaring light. He added there will be more signs in the parking lots. Consensus was to deny the entrance sign at the Main/College Street entrance, and Mr. Chonko said he will withdraw it from the application. Mr. Salvage applied the criteria to the requested variances for internal illumination and size:

A. That special circumstances or conditions exist which are peculiar to the land or structure(s) involved and which are not applicable to other lands or structures in the same zoning district. Denison itself is a condition that is peculiar in terms of the size, of the institution and the amount of access it has to the Village; the signage is actually very minimal when taken in context. B. That a literal interpretation of the provisions of this Zoning Ordinance would deprive the applicants of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same zoning district under the provisions of this Ordinance. Not applicable. C. That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. They do, but it’s required to adequately represent the University. Also part of the square footage that we’re dealing with is architectural presentation of the map. D. That the granting the variance will not confer on the applicant any undue privilege that is denied by this Ordinance to other lands or structures in the same zoning district. That can’t happen. E. That the granting of the variance will in no other manner adversely affect the health, safety, and general welfare of the of persons residing or working within the vicinity of the proposed variance. No, it helps them find where they are going on campus.

Mr. Salvage stated that after reviewing 1171.01 we feel that approval of the variances to grant the application is in order.

MR. WILKENFELD MOVED THAT UPON REVIEWING THE VARIANCES FOR THE CAMPUS MAP SIGNAGE, TWO OUT OF THE THREE PROPSED SIGNS SPECIFICALLY AT BURKE HALL AND AT THE INTERSECTION NEAR LAMSON LODGE/MITCHELL CENTER MEET THE REQUIREMENTS FOR VARIATION. MR. PARRIS SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION #02-094 (PART A) WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1) THAT WE ARE ONLY APPROVING THE PROPOSED SIGNS AT BURKE HALL AND AT THE INTERSECTION NEAR LAMSON LODGE/MITCHELL CENTER. MR. PARRIS SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Then there was a sort discussion on the proposed temporary sing to direct summer conference attendees away from the Main/College Street entrance to avoid the construction

MR. WILKENFELD MOVED THAT APPROVE APPLICATION #02-094 (PART B) FOR THE TEMPORARY SIGN AS PRESENTED. MR. PARRIS SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. 

Christopher Avery, 127 South Prospect Street – Front Porch Renovation

 Mr. Dorman came across this project already underway and requested the applicant file an application. Applicant wants to (1) replace posts, (2) install new floor, (3) repaint railings, (4) replace lattice around base, and (5) replace entrance walk on the house side of the sidewalk. The post snapped, the floor is collapsing, and the roof is sagging. The balcony part is not being renovated at this time. Dr. Avery said the deteriorating condition made renovations crucial for safety reasons. One part of the renovation uncovered another, and the project grew. It will match the existing materials and colors as closely as possible. 

MS. LUCIER MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION #02-095 AS PRESENTED. MR. WILKENFELD SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Old Business:

Eloise Miller, 590 West Broadway – Fence Extension into TCOD

 Mr. Dorman said Ms. Miller extended a portion of the 5’ tall blue-green wooden fence he approved last year into the TCOD. Mr. Dorman said the fence is 93½’ from the center of road, which puts it 36½’ into the TCOD. From fence to the front of the house is 38’, and from the front of the house to the sidewalk is 30’. Mr. Wilkenfeld noted this house has been there a long time and this is part of the back yard and does not impinge on the view. The purpose of the TCOD is not to turn things into a mining town and put things right at the roadside. Mr. Parris asked whether this is a modification and was told yes. But he would have been more comfortable if this had been a new application, since it’s in a different zoning area. Mr. Salvage wondered whether we would have approved it if it had been in the TCOD originally. It’s minor under the circumstances. 

MR. PARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE A MODIFICATION TO APPLICATION #01-106 AND FIND IT TO BE MINOR. MR. BURRISS SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Jim Hartzler, 203 North Plum Street – Removal of Two Windows

 Mr. Dorman said the PC approved an application for a retaining wall a month or so ago, and this is an amendment for the removal of two non-historic windows. The siding will match. Mr. Parris said we did not even talk about the house during the former discussion. Mr. Dorman thought it was minor enough that we could add this to the original application, but Mr. Parris said the last time he wanted a retaining wall, but this is a completely separate issue. Mr. Salvage did not think he would have trouble getting approval with proper application.

MS. LUCIER MOVED TO CONSIDER THIS A MINOR MODIFICATION. MR. WILKENFELD SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY DENIED.

Speedway/SuperAmerica, SR 16/S.CherryValley Rd. – Proposed Gas Station

 This is the second formal hearing for the proposed gas station and convenience store, which was tabled at the last meeting. {It was requested that this be a word-for- word transcription, so the secretary has done this in a separate file.}

MS. LUCIER MOVED THAT WE REMOVE APPLICATION #02-081 FROM THE TABLE. MR. PARRIS SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Mr. Salvage requested the Planner to provide an update, and Mr. Dorman referred them to the cover memo and the applicant.

Jonathan Wocher, Planner said he would like to cover a couple of items newly submitted and then get to the issue of traffic. Greg Dale briefed him on the issues addressed at the last meeting. The revised plans include utility plans, dumpster, landscaping. Aerial views of the site provide context of the Speedway with respect to the flood plain. We also submitted materials relative to containment issues, catch basins, and financial responsibility for underground tanks. Mr. Wocher wanted to focus on traffic issues so he introduced Jack Gehrum, Traffic Consultant, who oversaw the traffic study. He will address basic assumptions for the traffic study and what Speedway feels would be improvements in the traffic. Jack Gehrum said in December, 2001, his firm completed a draft traffic impact study basically for a Speedway facility with 12 pumps, and convenience store totaling 7800 square feet at the intersection of SR 16 and S. Cherry Valley Road {CVR}. The traffic counts showed {CVR) has 14,250 vehicles per day and there are 37,000 on SR 16 and some significant traffic delays under existing conditions. Looking to see what the problems were, they studied trip generation and distribution for the facility. For the trip generation, the basis is a collection of counts across the country, land uses, and traffic studies, to allow consistency between communities. For this facility in the morning peak, there were 60 in and 60 out, evening peak 80 in and 80 out. Those trips vary in their consistency because we are dealing with suburban locations, and there are a lot of pass-by trips. Pass-by trips are trips that are already on the road, diverted to the gas station. About 2/3 of the gas station trips would be diverted traffic. One- third are trips primarily to the gas station. Mr. Gehrum said at the major intersection we are already at a significant level and we are not going to increase that. We are looking at a single use on the property. Ms. Lucier and Mr. Wilkenfeld disagreed. Mr. Gehrum’s recommendations include constructing a left-hand lane for SuperAmerica (SA). I suggest we add a lane and change the current through lane on SR 16 to a through right turn lane, to have dual right turns and move more vehicles through the intersection. Another issue had to do with whether additional Right-of-Way {ROW} was needed on CVR in front of the facility or whether the roadway was limited to a 5 lane section. There is a partial ROW and it would provide means to widen CVR as the area becomes developed. Ms. Lucier asked how much difference does it make whether you have 8 or 12 fueling stations? Mr. Gehrum said if you look at the figure there is an average per fueling position around the country and he clarified the data in the report. They converted your trip generation into average fueling position, so the equation says per fueling position you have X number of trips and you can use that according to the number of fueling positions. Ms. Lucier asked if fewer pumps would help, and was told with fewer pumps you would have fewer cars. If you have a demand and not enough pumps, you would have a lot of people waiting around. Mr. Wilkenfeld asked Mr. Gehrum to shed light on the 11 studies and where these studies took place; in the city, country or suburban areas, and was told that this information is standardized and that is what we use. Mr. Burriss asked: Is your recommendation that SA Way be three lanes? He was told that is correct. Mr. Salvage asked what impact would it have if the right out were removed one and was told part of that is marketing and access rather than actual need. Mr. Parris is concerned because of the congestion of the area along to the close proximity of the Speedway with people crossing the traffic pattern. Right in right out is no problem, but with people going left in or left out, people are going to close their eyes and pray. Mr. Wilkenfeld asked for clarification on Page 13, the level of service and classifying things A-F and delays, and can you relate it to the studies we are looking at here? Page 14 looks at all these terms and they are all at a level in our study that the volume exceeds capacity and where does it say how we get to acceptable levels of capacity? You are saying there is no capacity for any more volume. Mr. Gehrum said they did not analyze this because it is an existing problem. We don’t see what will happen in the future, but Mr. Wilkenfeld said we have to take into account a problem that already exists. How can we be expected to absorb more capacity? Mr. Gehrum’s group doesn’t examine the roadway to see what ODOT is doing. They are studying the impact of this station. How much worse will it be than what’s already there? He said how do you stop traffic from continuing on a public highway? On SR 16 the backups are tremendous. Ms. Lucier said one of the things we look at is does this proposal exacerbate the traffic problem? Mr. Wilkenfeld thinks we have some real safety issues and has a question about not just this study but studies in general. How do you address people in the left traveling lane when they decide to get into the right lane? It slows everybody down. Are you taking into account the actual flow: Mr. Brown said you can’t figure a crazy person into the analysis. That would apply to anywhere with more than two lanes. You can’t design something for a person being irresponsible that close to the intersection. Mr. Salvage said these are questions that can’t be answered. Ms. Lucier asked if we have a traffic consultant present? Doyle Clear, Traffic Engineer, said. {summarized here}, “Most of the time the subject of traffic impact is dealt with at the zoning level, not at the site planning level. I looked at it as a permitted use and instead of looking at a traffic study I approached this more as a site access system to see if it works. I have worked with Jack Gehrum and one of their problems is you don’t have any guidelines on how to do traffic studies. I asked Seth what did you ask them to do, and I think PKG did their best in answering how to do it. They are not to go beyond what they think is in the best interests of their study. You might think about adopting guidelines used by most cities. Two major problems exist: (1)We are dealing with a roadway system which we are going to rebuild some part of on the south part of CVR. My contention is that since they own the other two parcels, the study should have considered land uses on the other two parcels of land. When McDonalds comes in, you wouldn’t want to tear up what you’ve just built. So my suggestion was to ask them to look at the study considering the other two lots being developed, i.e., fast food and a high turnover sit down restaurant. Capacity ratios are where volume equals capacity. In the guidelines it will be responsibility of developer to mitigate the traffic increase. So (1) They did not take into consideration the other parcels. And (2)They didn’t mitigate their impacts. Seth wrote to them and we got no response so I was asked to take another look at it from a traffic standpoint. I am also working with Joe and Seth on the north section of CVR. We are looking at what are the kinds of things we need to do on the north side? They are under design now on the north. One of the things Jack was trying to explain was diverted trips. I agree with Jack this will generate very few new trips. The development will take traffic from the road. But what happens with the exception of how to balance right in and right out with the person who is coming east, right in, left out, that was a through trip and added traffic. If I am going north, I have to turn left, make a loop. The most devastating is left in left out. Those trips are moments for significant impact. So what happens now since this is a permitted use and previously approved? What is it we can do to make the system work better and mitigate the impact? So to mitigate the impact, what needs to be done is to modify the north and widen the south side. My suggestion to Seth was perhaps since the village is doing the north leg we might work with ODOT on adding a second north turn lane to SA Way from CVR. During a.m. and p.m.peaks, 13 cars would want to make a left turn. If all 13 of them use it, it will block traffic, so my objective was to put them into two lanes. My suggestion was to ask for more ROW. I did not move anything but the objective is to get the sidewalks within the ROW and the roadway along ROW. Then we add a second northbound left turn lane. We need to make arrangements for space for queueing. Get ODOT to help. And make improvements to get back to the bad level we had before. If we dealt only with Speedway, then the 5-lane section is appropriate. When you start adding the other two parcels, these three generate 400 vehicles in there in the morning and 430 in the evening. If you think these are going to come on line, then move the curb and gutter all at the same time. The traffic engineer was told to make the intersection safer so they take green time away from the side streets. They did not do that. So everyone had an equal time of delay. This is an Achilles heel on SR 16 and we don’t want to get pinched on the north and south. Mr. Wilkenfeld noted that the report on Page 7:promises SR 16 will continue to experience problems. On Page 11, you say: “Rather than adding through lanes, the State will probably opt to construct an interchange in the vicinity of CVR.; however, it is understood that such a modification is at least ten years in the future.” He added that a memo from Joe Hickman to Seth Dorman regarding Council’s direction reads: “…any entities developing along CVR must live within the confinements of the existing five lane intersection.”

Chairman Salvage asked for Citizens’ Comments

STEVE MANSFIELD was one of the citizens who voted against the previous application in ’97 and that referendum proposal was defeated and the newspaper said it was defeated by 63% voting against it. I felt my views were an expression of the Comprehensive Master Plan and some of the zoning code developments at that time. Other comments: <> Number of pumps; It’s hard to find any station with 12 pumps. They usually have 6 islands,.and he thinks this out of character for Granville. <> Other lot usage. <> Will this store/station sell diesel and if they do, would large trucks would be involved; re the left turn situation, what would a large truck there at 5:30 do to the problem?

CONSTANCE BARSKY would agree with everything said. The other thing she would ask is if you do a calculation of 60- 80 cars at peak hours to see how much money that would generate. It would not be much money, so they are going to need more cars to make any money. <> Also, how much tax would it generate? A tax might support 10 kids per year. <> Also, when Bob Evans realized the result of the survey, they did cooperate with us to make their facility agree with the Village. {She read a report of balancing long- and short-term, which is available from her.) We have a right as citizens of this community and they need to come on our terms. They can’t just come in and say traffic will not have an impact. That is not true.

End of Public Comment

A representative from Speedway reported that in Pataskala there are 12 fuel stations. This is not in the middle of the village. It’s a highway oriented location. The temptation to diminish the number of pumps is likely to create a demand for more pumps. Removing pumps is not the way to reduce traffic. Mr. Wilkenfeld asked Speedway what is your goal and the average gas sales? Answer $8-12 per sale. It varies. Mr. Parris said you know from sales reports how many cars visited your pumps per day and how much money you brought in. Most of the people in the store are probably going to be at the gas pumps. If you can’t answer that, you should not be in business. He wants a check and balances and a number from the business side of it. If you took all your vehicles, how many trips do you get per day per pump. We want to see if there is a match there. The representative replied that after we determine the site and layout, we decide return of investments. Ms. Lucier asked what would you project your income would be? Mr. Parris is looking for correlations between what your business reports tell you as far as trips going and what our traffic studies say. Is the traffic study worth the paper it is printed on? He was told those are nationally generated trip rates. Mr. Wilkenfeld said the studies don’t match. We have no idea of where they were taken from. Your goal is to make money, but you have got to know what your average sale is and how many cars you anticipate. The representative said 1000 customers come into our stores, maybe 980 vehicles per day. A lot of businesses have a busiest time in the peak for traffic because we want to analyze when most of the cars are there. Mr. Wilkenfeld asked if this comes to $9800 per day and was told, “I don’t know about that,” by a representative of the applicant. Speedway could be considered as a loss. Speedway made road improvements with the assumption that this use would occur. Given the uncertainty about the future interchange, we feel it’s appropriate to assume morning trips and to not consider the other two lots. The contribution that Speedway is willing to make in addition to the improvements would be the dedication of the ROW and what could be a 5-lane intersection. Our contribution would be the ROW that would accommodate future lot improvements of lots 2 and 3. Some lane restriping may be appropriate, i.e., right turns. Mr. Clear noted that he was working for SA on the previous study and it was an evaluation of what needed to be done. Mr. Wilkenfeld has a question for our Law Director. The conditions have changed for PUD’s. This is a legislative process. We brought our charter and codes in line with that. The courts said it was a legislative process. How many times do the citizens of Granville have to go through this.? :Law Director Crites said every time the Supreme Court changes anything we have to change also. Mr. Wilkenfeld asked, “If Village Council votes No, is that the end of it?” The answer was: It can be appealed through the Court of Appeals. If it goes to referendum, then what happens? Answer: Appellant can make a new application, and they can keep coming back. Mr. Salvage noted that they have the right to use their land. Mr. Parris stated that Mr. Clear brought up the point about considering the entire site, not just the gas station. In PUD we couldn’t do this because we have to have the whole thing in front of us. This is a different zone district, but what is your opinion of how we should consider this parcel: One site plan for all three or one only? Mr. Crites said there are a number of factors GPC can and should consider. Ms. Lucier asked about a difference of opinion the Planning Commission had about the issue of the canopy. Seth was counting square footage as part of the building at a ratio established for Certified. What does the code say? Mr. Crites asked: “Did you look at whether it is one or two uses? It could go either way. Mr. Burris said that regarding some of the improvements agreed upon and made with Bob Evans, the previous station had a smaller number of pumps and square footage. Were you considering that? The station we are now looking at is bigger but the lot is also. The Speedway representative said originally we had 4 lots and we incorporated two into one for the gas station. This is our current standard building. Whether it was smaller or not, there are additional improvements recommended in our study and we agreed to implement them. John Stephens showed shingle samples and a cultured stone sample with colors. The band around the building is called the EIFS. Synthetic stuff. We were asked to put a detail with cap. Showed detail of sample at the end of the runs for the building and also on the canopy. He showed the detail of the column. We agreed on a column of round capital and smooth shaft but we were asked to have a tapered column. The gutter and downspouts would have a collar that blends in. The gutters on canopy are internal. Mr. Burriss asked if 60’ is sufficient for three lanes for SA Way? What about the type of ourdoor products? Mr. Stephens said this is seasonal. Outdoor products are important to Speedway, and we would like to be able to keep that. Mr. Burriss asked what is the relationship between the top of the ice machine and the bottom of the windows. He was told it’s below the windows. Also, we want pop displays. Mr. Burriss said that we didn’t allow Certified to have stuff outside. And they are being asked to remove it. The Speedway representative said they hope to come to an understanding what you are asking for. Outdoor display is still under discussion. 

Dumpster: The dumpster enclosure is same stone on two sides with picket fence. Enclosed on three sides with gate on front. .Mr. Burriss asked if the propane could be put in there between the building and the dumpster? And Mr. Parris assumed garbage trucks backed in there and was told Yes, there is room.

Signage: The Speedway Representative said they want to have the permanent sign board in place of the changeable copy sign because they are under the allowable maximum space. Mr. Parris said we don’t have to give the maximum space to you.

Lighting: Speedway said they are under Certified’s footcandles, which were approved. Mr. Parris thought it didn’t look excessive. It’s OK. There would be external lighting of the free-standing sign. 

Hours of Operation: We want 24 hours; it’s important. The majority of the Planning Commission said no.

Purpose and Intent: Mr. Wilkenfeld would like Mike Crites to talk about the purpose and intent and sections under PCD development standards A and B. Mr. Parris feels right out. would be a hazard. Doyle Clear and Jack Gehrum agreed that elimination of the right out would reduce the number of conflicts. People would not leave at the same time people are going through the intersection. The intersection at Bob Evans is going to be full of problems. I have worked for many developments re gas station access and they would clearly prefer going right out. Mr. Wilkenfeld called Mr. Crites’s office. He spoke with Mr. Gorry about the Planned Development District. Under the purpose and intent {1171.01} it says it is part of the discussion and decision process and I want Mr. Crites to verify. On 92G there are issues re traffic and PDD to discuss. Specifically Tax Revenue and how that relates to the school the costs to us and impact on in the Village; enhancement rather than harm; transportation; community objectives of the Master Plan. I want to make sure this is something we need to work at. Mr. Crites said the Purpose and Intent in 1171 lays out parameters through which Village Council expects PUDs to be achieved. These are all things the Planning Commission can consider in approving a development plan. Mr. Wilkenfeld said in 92G (A-E), we are also charged to look at safety and how it impacts the entire Village. Mr. Crites reads from ‘c’ - “The Commission shall not recommend nor shall Council approve a development plan unless they find that: A – Such planned development provides adequate ingress and egress and does not adversely impact traffic patterns nor unreasonably increase traffic usage of municipal streets to the detriment of the safety and welfare of the public. B - Planned development fronting on major streets shall be provided with parallel service streets in order to limit access to one intersection on a major street.” C is parking. These are factors that need to be considered by you and the Village Council. 

Square Footage: Mr Parris said Mr. Crites needs to research this. We came up with 85% for Certified last year. Mr. Dorman explained that regarding the canopy, codes are not always clear and interpretations have to be made. That was made for Certified in the SBD. The Law Director said when you do something, you do it consistently. Mr. Salvage does not recall the 85% limitation so it should not be considered. Ms. Lucier said the Village Council said building the canopy ought to have some relevance under massing. We don’t have to design it tonight.

Uses: Mr. Parris said we have two uses which we don’t know about yet. I want to consider this site with the bare bones of variances. I think we need to apply the code to the site plan. Mr. Dorman explained that under 1171.03(c) deviations are allowed. It’s within your authority to recommend deviations. Mr. Wilkenfeld has a way to determine whether it is one or two uses. Would you build a gas station without a store? No. Would you build a store without a gas station? No. So it’s one use. Mr. Salvage said, No, that’s two uses, and Mr. Dorman said it’s two separate uses and they are both allowable. So they are allowed 12,000 square feet.

Site Plan and Outdoor Sales: Mr. Wilkenfeld feels the design of the building does not fit too well with Granville, but it’s OK Mr. Burriss wants additional screening of outside sales items. They have to enclose outside products, and Mr. Salvage does not like propane at the end of the building. Mr. Wilkenfeld does not want anything outside the building. Because you are extending the store. But Mr. Salvage asked, “What if they provide an enclosure. It must be screened. Mr. Dorman reminded that it says in the code, 1171.04 (8) outdoor display is prohibited. Mr. Parris would have to see what type of screening is proposed. Mr. Burriss asked about setback and with the current sign plan, has there been enough area allowed for road work? {This will be discussed later}

Lighting is OK

Greenspace: Mr. Salvage said we want them to include an area along SA Way. I would allow them to use the dedicated area for extension of utilities. They can use it for nondevelopment items.

Taxes: Mr. Wilkenfeld asked about their cost to us. Look at the community objective of the Master Plan. When are the people of the Village going to get what they ask for? Mr. Salvage figured it would be valued at $1-3 million, land and building, including all improvements. Mr. Wilkenfeld wants to be sure it does not cost the village more for services. It should not be a tax loss situation. {He reads from Master Plan} “Smaller facilities do not bring in much tax.” There’s a lot of commercial in Heath, but it does not bring in enough to cover expenses. Heath puts in little businesses and then bigger businesses can’t go in. We are not going to generate money. We should have other less traffic- oriented businesses. Mr. Parris said you are comparing different types of businesses re cost/ benefit ratio. It would be nice if we could pick and choose, but I think we have to work at what’s presented to us by the owner of the property. It just can’t be larger cost than benefit re infrastructure. Mr. Wilkenfeld said Mr. Dorman brought in figures from Jenkins and Certified for 2001. Certified - $2,675/year, Jenkins - $4,191/year. Mr. Salvage said these are old figures. Mr. Burriss thought that based on $1 million value, we should be able to determine property taxes, and he asked Mr. Dorman to get that. Ms. Lucier asked him to look into increased maintenance cost for widening roads. Mr. Wilkenfeld noted that Re community objectives of the Master Plan (1171.01), it says, “c. A development pattern in harmony with land use density, transportation facilities, and community facilities are objectives of the comprehensive plan.” He had surveys from two different master plans. 19% wanted convenience stores, 72% did not want convenience stores. The Master Plan says people want greenspace., scenic vistas, people have not gotten from their government what they have asked for. Why do we spend time and money doing Master Plans and then ignore it? Mr. Salvage countered: “Use the existing Master Plan, 1998. That’s not a master plan, it’s a survey.” Mr. Parris said that even though there are a lot of things in our code, I think with the Master Plan and some of my own views I was not put here to pass policy but rather to measure against the code in place right now. If public opinion is contrary to that, it will come out in the work of the Village Council or new referendums.

Traffic: Mr. Salvage wants the applicant to make the upgrades proposed by the Village Traffic Consultant, including no left hand turns. <> Clarify the 5-lane expansion to SA <> Eliminate right out and left out <> Restriping. <>SA Way will be 3 lanes. <> If the widening is done, how does that alter what we are looking at? <> Sidewalk is sufficient, <> Buffers? <> I want them to dedicate additional ROW so an additional lane can go in the future when two lots are developed. <> Bring in final drawing showing upgrades and additional ROW for the next meeting. Mr. Wilkenfeld reported that in the Master Plan ’98, page 18, it says: “Address the highly dangerous intersection – as evidenced by several fatal and near-fatal accidents—of River Road and State Route 16 by making egress from River Road onto Rt 16 from both the north and south, a right- hand turn only.” “Granville officials should continue to develop a process to manage access to areas of new development so that vehicular and pedestrian traffic flows safely and at the desired capacity and speed.” Mr. Burriss noted that: “I don’t want Carl to feel he is alone. This is a very difficult issue for all of us, and part of the reason it is difficult is that we care. We would not be serving on the Planning Commission if we didn’t care. It’s not like we are serving on the Planning Commission because people to like us. It is not like we get thanks. I want to publicly thank Carl for bringing in the points he is making and we may have to address this further. I think Carl and Richard can discuss issues that they may not agree on. I am not sure how the cycle is broken. I concentrate on architecture and make things the best they can be regardless of some of my personal feelings. We have to continue the process.” Mr. Wilkenfeld said, “I appreciate that.”

Mr. Salvage said he will draft a Finding of Fact and we can discuss anything before we finalize at the next meeting. The applicant requested tabling the application and will submit revised drawings for the next meeting.

MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO TABLE THE APPLICATION AT THE APPLICANT’S REQUEST. MR. BURRISS SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Finding of Fact: MR. PARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE FINDINGS FOR A, B, AND C{REVISED}, D. AND E {AS MODIFIED}, AND F UNDER NEW BUSINESS (Schools, Morgan, Davis, Denison, Avery) AND A (Miller) (AND ITEM B AS A DENIAL) (Hartzler) UNDER OLD BUSINESS, AND WE FIND THEM CONSISTENT WITH THE RELEVANT SECTIONS OF THE ZONING CODE AS OUTLINED IN THE VILLAGE PLANNER’S MEMO OF JULY 8. MS. LUCIER SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Adjournment: 12 Midnight. Next Meetings: July 22 and August 12

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.