GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION May 5, 2003 Amended Minutes
Members Present: Jack Burriss, Barb Lucier, Richard Main, Mark Parris (Vice Chair), Tim Riffle, Richard Salvage (Chair) Members Absent: None Citizens Present: Jeff & Thalia Oster, David Graham, Brian Crock, Tom Prieto, Dorothy Mann, Paul Enke, David Meleca Also Present: Seth Dorman, Village Planner Citizens’ Comments: None The Chair swore in all those who planned to speak.
Minutes of April 28, 2003: Postponed until next meeting
St. Edward’s Church, 785 Newark-Granville Road – Zoning Amendment The Public Hearing closed without comment.
Mr. Dorman explained that the applicant wishes to change the zoning from SRD-A to Institutional District. GPC will be making a recommendat6ion to Village Council on their finding. Staff finds this application complete, and notices to property owners were completed on time. It is not necessary to notify the State Director of Transportation. Attorney David Graham introduced Monsignor Paul Enke and Architect David Meleca and made a PowerPoint presentation. The church owns 15.406 acres which they would like to rezone. The current rectory is not part of the request for rezoning. The process to be followed is: (1) tonight’s hearing; (2) appearance before Village Council; and (3) request addition and renovation to GPC. The request is that the zoning map be amended to change zoning from SRD-A to ID and includes only the church properties. The ID zoning is more appropriate for churches. In considering this request, the applicant looked at the project and how it will affect Granville, the surrounding area, and the property itself.
Benefits to the Granville community are as follows: (1) To facilitate the planned church addition and renovation (2) To allow the church to improve its ministry to the community (3) To ensure future civic, religious and community use of the property
Benefits to the area are as follows: (1) Strengthen the historical and architectural character of the area (2) Enhance and expand classical architecture (3) Assure future civic and community use of a property in a key access point to the village (4) Enhance and protect green space and landscaping in TCOD
Benefits to the property and area surrounding are as follows: (1) Allow for improvement of the property (2) Institutional district guidelines are more flexible (3) Renovation will result in better access and traffic flow
Having fulfilled all procedural requirements of the zoning ordinance and for the reasons explained, the applicant requests that in accordance with Section 1143.04(e), the GPC recommend to Village Council that the zoning map be amended as requested. In looking at the ordinances, Ms. Lucier noted that in Chapter 1169, permitted uses in the ID, it seems to have been written for Denison needs, and if we recommend this zoning change, are we enabling something to be built that could not be built under residential, such as homeless shelter, senior housing and student dormitories, and do we feel comfortable with that? Mr. Salvage does not know that those would be permitted under ID and does not think it was written with Denison in mind. Anything the applicant desires to build in the future would come before the GPC. Mr. Main added that only the portion that lays in the TCOD currently is in the purview of the Planning Commission.
Mr. Salvage applied the request to the criteria for amendment of the code: A, Compatibility of the proposed amendment to adjacent land use, adjacent zoning, and to appropriate plans for the area. Having received no adverse comments to the request, GPC is satisfied with the land use proposed. B. Relationship of the proposed amendment to access and traffic flow. It would improve traffic flow with two main entrances and eliminate one curb cut. C. Relationship of the amendment requested to the public health, safety and general welfare. GPC does not believe there would be any impact in these areas. D. Relationship of the proposed use to the adequacy of available services and to general expansion plans and the capital improvement schedule. The proposed amendment and improvement will have no impact on available services or general expansion plan
Mr. Burriss noted that a valid point has been made for this request. This is a change that should be recommended and having participated in renovation of another church, he feels the GPC should proceed with this recommended change. Mr. Riffle added that the church would be able to add-on no matter which district it’s in, so this is beneficial to everybody. Dotty Mann, neighbor, asked whether this would preclude them from what they might do under residential, and Mr. Salvage replied that it would, but the applicant has made the decision that rezoning is in the best interest of their property.
MR. PARRIS MOVED THAT THE GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDS TO THE VILLAGE COUNCIL THAT THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING MAP BE GRANTED AS REQUESTED. MR. BURRISS SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Dr. Jeff Oster, 1179 Cherry Valley Road – Freestanding Sign
Mr. Dorman said the application is for a double- sided, free-standing sign of 18 square feet, aluminum with wood clad exterior and lustreboard finish, that would be installed 20’ from the edge of the pavement. It will be 5’3” tall, with a dark green background and white letters. Dr. Oster feels the green color will fit in well with the community and he wants it in line with the road, but they have a challenge with tree branches being so low. He hopes to give it a definite commercial flavor in this residential area. It will be externally lit, and he does not know about landscaping yet. The Rambling Rose and this property will share a driveway. Mr. Burriss feels it would be in the interest of the community to keep a consistency of setback and quality with the Rambling Rose and the New Day Spa signs and that lighting plans should be approved by Mr. Dorman.
MR. BURRISS MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION #03-041 WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: (1) THAT THE SETBACK BE CONSISTENT WITH THE SETBACK OF THE RAMBLING ROSE SIGN; AND (2) THAT THE LANDSCAPING PLAN BE SUBMITTED TO THE VILLAGE PLANNER FOR APPROVAL. MR. RIFFLE SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Finding of Fact:
Mr. Salvage has prepared a draft recommendation for the church, and a final copy will be attached to these minutes.
MR. PARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE THE FINDING OF FACT FOR APPLICATION #03-022 AS READ BY MR. SALVAGE. MS. LUCIER SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
MR. PARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE THE FINDING OF FACT FOR ITEM B UNDER NEW BUSINESS (Oster) AND WE FIND IT CONSISTENT WITH THE RELEVANT SECTIONS OF THE ZONING CODE AS OUTLINED IN THE VILLAGE PLANNER’S MEMO OF MAY 2, 2003. MS LUCIER SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Adjournment: 8:35 p.m. Next Meetings: May 28 and June 9, 2003. The August 25 meeting is cancelled unless something unforeseen appears.
Respectfully submitted, Betty Allen