GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION February 24, 2003 Amended Minutes
Members Present: Jack Burriss, Richard Main, Mark Parris (Vice Chair), Richard Salvage (Chair); Tim Riffle was welcomed as the new representative from the School Board Members Absent: Barb Lucier Citizens Present: David Meleca, Thomas Morano, Father Enke Also Present: Seth Dorman, Village Planner Citizens’ Comments: None
Election of Officers: MR. BURRISS NOMINATED RICHARD SALVAGE AS CHAIR AND MARK PARRIS AS CO-CHAIR. MR. RIFFLE SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. Minutes of February 10, 2003: MR. PARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES AS PRESENTED. MR BURRISS SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
St. Edward’s Catholic Church, 785 Newark-Granville Road – Sanctuary Addition and Site Access Modification David Meleca, Architect, described the plans to build a new sanctuary and: (1) Relocate access road and create a loop road around the church; (2) move existing rectory; (3) demolish two homes on church property; (4) turn existing church into gathering space and add amenities to it; (5) add parking spaces to accommodate 800 cars. In the future they would like to add an outdoor arcade if funds allow. Mr. Meleca described in more detail the plans and materials and said the footprint will be small. They will be adding porches to the existing church. They will be encroaching a little bit into the 100’ setback for TCOD and this would require a variance. However, they need to site the addition so that the central beams will line up. Other houses on the street are closer than 100’ back. A second variance is required for height; they plan a 57’ peak, whereas the maximum is 30’ in this zoning district. In the Institutional district the maximum height is determined by GPC and the fire chief. The addition will be below grade of road. Lot coverage needs to be examined more carefully. Mr. Salvage asked about their timetable, and Mr. Meleca said they are working hard on the architectural and are moving along with fund-raising. Under SRD, these variances must go to BZBA. GPC can only approve variances for signs and variances in the TCOD. Mr. Salvage asked if they considered rezoning to Institutional, and Mr. Parris said that, considering the different variances required, Institutional zoning would allow ordinances more appropriate for what they have in mind. Mr. Dorman said this would require a hearing at Village Council. The whole process could take two or three months. Looking at Paragraph One above, (1) members thought relocation of access road would be no problem. In fact, it would simplify the traffic flow. (2) Moving the rectory (3) and demolishing the houses would be no problem. Joe Hickman has to approve demolitions. (4) More details are required, showing location of nearby houses, signs and lighting. (5) SRD does not mention parking requirements in the code. The procedure for rezoning: (1) Check with Law Director to ensure this is not spot zoning; (2) File an application for rezoning, probably for March 24; (3) Set Village Council hearing for April 2; (4) public hearing likely on April 16; (5) a month after approval, rezoning goes into effect. GPC could meanwhile vote pending subsequent rezoning. Mr. Parris asked whether neighbors have been consulted, and Mr. Meleca said yes. Their only reservation would be for commercial rezoning. One neighbor asked about the split-rail-fence issue, and Mr. Meleca told him they have not discussed this yet. Neighbors don’t want parking in front of the church. Mr. Burriss brought up some architectural concerns, congratulating them on their excellent design. He asked about any marking of the crossing. There is a lantern on the existing church and he would like to see some sort of demarcation of the cross or cupola on the larger building too. It is missing its finial. Other churches have them. The cross is the most celebrated thought. What you are proposing is leading in a new direction. What the Catholic Church needs is “continuity of language of relationship structures.” Some elements here remind him of the capital building at Williamsburg, i.e., lanterns. Mr. Meleca said they looked at small country churches with shutters and large windows and the committee liked the rural character. He said they wanted a cupola but it would need support and it changed everything to give such support Mr. Riffle liked to see a church going back to classical design. Mr. Parris wished them luck on their $4 million campaign.
Revisions to the Comprehensive Plan
Mr. Main promised Village Council he would push this along. V.C. wants to select a committee to have more discussion and take GPC input into account. Then there would be a conference committee of Township and Village. Mr. Parris thought the biggest burdens are on the Township and the school district; therefore it would be appropriate to have our School Board member be on board. Mr. Riffle was agreeable to this suggestion. GPC members will e-mail Mr. Riffle their concerns with the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Main said V.C.’s big concern was attracting businesses and to create an atmosphere where businesses can be successful. Several sections in the Plan seemed to be a bit anti-commercial. Commercial is essential to relieve the burdens on the homeowner. Mr. Salvage noted that many developers are not looking at Granville, since they are not willing to fight. Support systems are crucial for businesses and residences, and Mr. Riffle mentioned Easton and the once-successful Continent. The hamlet concept invites mixed uses. Please send your concerns to Mr. Riffle.
Other Comments: Mr. Dorman showed a picture of the neon sign proposed by the new frozen custard shop on North Prospect. Members didn’t object to the neon, but they thought the name Whit’s could be improved or removed. A neon sign must be ‘artful.’ We need to look at his total sign package.
Adjournment: 8:50 p.m. Next Meetings: March 10 and March 24 Respectfully submitted, Betty Allen