Minutes
6:30 PM November
12, 2009 Council
Chambers
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Peter DeMasters, Barbara Ferrell, Kathryn Greever,
MEMBERS ABSENT: Ken Martis
STAFF: Christopher Fletcher, AICP
I. CALL TO ORDER / ROLL CALL:
DeMasters called the meeting to order at
6:30PM.
II. MATTERS OF BUSINESS:
A. Approval of the September 10, 2009
minutes. Stranko moved to
accept the minutes as prepared by Staff; seconded by Selin. The motion passed unanimously.
III. OLD BUSINESS:
A. RZ08-05
/ First Presbyterian Church-Westminster:
Request by
First Presbyterian Church of Morgantown for a Planned Unit Development (PUD)
amendment as it relates to a temporary parking lots and Development Plan submission
deadline for property along Spruce Street and Forest Avenue and the old Central
School site along Baird Street and Willey Street. Tax Map #26 Parcels #247, 248, 249, 260, 262,
263, and 270.
Fletcher read the Staff Report stating
that in December 2008, City Council approved the “Westminster House” PUD
Outline Plan establishing a Development Plan submission deadline of June
2010. Ordinance 08-48 and its exhibit
illustrating the subject PUD area is attached hereto as Addendum A.
First Presbyterian Church of
Morgantown now seeks approval to amend its approved Outline Plan to:
·
Extend
its deadline to submit the Development Plan by six (6) months;
·
Amend
Section 4 “Statement of Development Schedule” of its Outline Plan as proposed in
their letter dated November 1, 2009, which is attached hereto as Addendum B;
and,
·
Establish
two temporary parking lots that will be used for leased parking so that revenue
can be generated to offset debt service created in acquiring the old
Article 1357.03 (D) (4) (b) provides
that:
“The Development Plan shall be submitted to the Planning
Department no more than eighteen (18) months following City Council approval of
the Outline Plan…The Municipal Planning Commission may extend the time for
application for approval of Development Plan for good cause, consistent with
the purposes of the Zoning Ordinance.”
Article 1357.06 “CHANGES IN THE APPROVED PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT” of the Planning & Zoning Code provides that:
(A) Changes
Requiring Outline Plan Approval. Changes which alter the concept or intent of the
Planned Unit Development including but not limited to:
(1) Significant increases in
density;
(2) Significant changes in the
proportion or allocation of land uses;
(3) Change in the list of approved uses; [emphasis added]
(4) Changes in the locations of
uses;
(5) Changes in functional uses
of open space, where such change constitutes an intensification of use of the
open space; and/or
(6) Changes in the final
governing agreements where such changes conflict with the approved Outline
Plan.
Fletcher stated that it is the opinion of the Planning
Department that the proposed changes alter the concept and intent of the
originally approved Outline Plan to the extent that Planning Commission
approval is necessary.
DeMasters recognized Chet Parsons,
President of the Westminster House, and asked if there was any additional
information that should be submitted to the Commission. Parsons stated that their letter dated
November 1, 2009 and the Staff Report is a complete description of their
request. Parsons stated that the
economic downtown over the last year has made securing adequate financing very
difficult but they remain committed to delivering the project as approved. The request is to provide additional time to
pursue financing for the project.
Selin asked for clarification
concerning the schedule provided in the letter that was included with the Staff
Report as Addendum B and whether or not the project could be built in two
months. Parsons said that the date
identified for building permit issuance was incorrect. Fletcher stated that provided a specific date
for building permit issuance with the development schedule was not
necessary. The operative dates were the
start and completion of construction.
Fletcher suggested that the building permit reference could simple be
struck from the letter.
Stranko asked for clarification on
the temporary parking use arrangement, Staff’s suggested sunset provision, and
what would happen at the end of the temporary period if the project is not
initiated. Parsons stated that the
developer has an agreement with their bank to pay interest only payment during
the interim while they pursue financing options. Revenue for the leased spaces in the
temporary parking lots is necessary to offset interest payments. Parsons stated that they intend to work with
the City and Planning Commission to fully comply with the approvals granted and
the letter of law.
Stranko stated that the highest and
best use of the property is not parking lots.
Parsons agreed.
There
being no questions or comments by the Planning Commission, DeMasters opened the
public comment portion of the hearing.
There being no public comments offered either in favor or against the
petition, DeMasters closed the public comment portion and asked for Staff’s
recommendations.
Fletcher
stated that Staff
recommends that the proposed Outline Plan Amendment be approved with the
following conditions/considerations:
1.
That
the “Westminster House” PUD Outline Plan document be supplemented by this Staff
Report and related addenda as the convention to be used in evaluating the
petitioner’s Development Plan.
2.
That
review and approval of the project’s Development Plan continue to be waived by
the Planning Commission and conducted at the staff level. However, should the Development Plan
substantially differ from the approved Outline Plan and related Amendment 1,
then the petitioner must submit a subsequent Outline Plan Amendment to the
Planning Commission for approval.
3.
That
the applicant obtain minor subdivision approval to reconfigure the existing
parcel boundaries in a manner that best meets the overall ownership,
development, and management objectives set forth in the “Westminster House”
Outline Plan.
4.
That
the Development Plan deadline be extended by six (6) months from June 3, 2010
to December 3, 2010.
5.
That
the two (2) proposed temporary commercial parking lots, as illustrated on the
site plan attached hereto as Addendum C, is approved and that said temporary
use shall end on or before December 31, 2010.
The design, construction, temporary access, management, and maintenance
of same shall comply with all reasonable performance standards required by the
Planning Director, City Engineering, and Morgantown Utility Board.
Fletcher also noted that, based on
the Commission’s earlier discussion, that the reference to building permit
issuance in the proposed development schedule be struck.
Stranko asked Fletcher if Staff had
considered traffic generated by the temporary parking use. Fletcher stated that the City Engineer
determined that the number of temporary spaces was less than the number projected
for complete development and, as such, would not require a modification to the
findings of the original traffic impact analysis.
Stranko asked if Staff and the
developer had discussed security and lighting for the temporary parking
lots. Fletcher stated that the larger
parking lot is currently enclosed by fencing.
The owner has agreed that the only fencing to be removed will be for
temporary driveway access. Preserving
the existing fencing will be necessary to ensure that the owner or the City can
easily restrict access to the parking area at the end of the temporary period.
Concerning lighting, Fletcher stated that Staff briefly discussed lighting
measures with the owners and that they are still studying the feasibility of
additional lighting. Fletcher stated
that he visited the area after dusk and observed that there may be sufficient
lighting from adjacent developments like Unity Manor that cascade onto the
proposed parking areas.
Stranko asked for clarification on
the precedent on approving PUD Development Plan submission extensions. Fletcher stated that the Commission has
granted extension requests for the Square at Falling Run PUD and the SC Bodner
PUD. The only other current PUD is Grand
Central Station and their deadline has not passed yet.
Stranko asked for clarification on
two separate provisions in the Planning and Zoning Code; one addressing
temporary uses in Article 1331.07 and the other addressing Outline Plan
amendments. Stranko asked if the
Commission’s decision to grant the extension and the temporary use met both
provisions in the Planning and Zoning Code.
Fletcher stated that the Code requires Planning Commission site plan approval
for temporary uses. Because the original
Outline Plan did not include temporary parking in its land use schedule, Staff
determined that an Outline Plan amendment was necessary. Fletcher stated that it is the opinion of the
Planning Department that approval or denial of the request for temporary parking
use and the Development Plan extension as presented along with recommended
conditions and considerations adequately satisfy the Commission’s
responsibility established in the Planning and Zoning Code. Stranko thanked Staff for its work with the
petitioner and wanted to make sure that the recommended sunset provision was
clear.
Selin stated that she appreciated
that the developer came to the Planning Commission to request the six-month
extension well in advance of the deadline.
Selin asked what action would be required if the petitioner requested a
second extension, whether or not Staff discussed this possibility with the
developer, and how six months was determined.
Fletcher stated that the six month extension was the timeframe requested
by the petitioner. Fletcher stated that
Staff advised the petitioner of previous PUD Development Plan extension
requests granted by the Planning Commission.
Fletcher reminded the Commission that extensions were granted for the
Square at Falling Run PUD and the SC Bodner PUD. Fletcher stated that the Square at Falling
Run PUD is unique due to the several funding sources involved in the
development and the property ownership arrangements with the University and the
City.
Shuman asked if the parking lot was
going to be gravel or paved. Fletcher
replied that the temporary parking lots would be gravel. Shuman asked that if in a year from now they
ask for an extension, will they be required to pave the parking area because
the Planning & Zoning Code required permanent pavement after 12
months. Fletcher stated that Staff
advised the petitioner of the twelve-month paving grace period that is
currently in the Planning & Zoning Code.
Fletcher stated that Staff advised the petitioner, given the information
Staff has now, that an additional request to extend the deadline or extend the
temporary parking use would not be supported by the Planning Department.
Stranko stated that this is a great
project and the he encourages the Commission to support the request, however
the Commission and the petitioner, from his perspective, should understand that
parking is not the highest and best use for the property that a second request
for an extension of the temporary use would not be favorably looked upon.
Selin moved to approve the six-month
Development Plan submission deadline as requested, but striking the reference
to building permit approval in the amended development schedule, and approve
the temporary parking use with Staff recommended conditions and considerations;
seconded by Stranko. The motion passed
by a 6-2 vote with Loretta and Shuman opposed.
IV. NEW BUSINESS
A.
MNS09-21 / Rice Rentals /
Fletcher read the Staff Report stating that the
petitioner seeks minor subdivision approval to adjust the boundary separating
Parcels #473 and #474 in order to build a duplex. The modified Parcel #473 will have an area of
approximately 7,400 sq. ft. and sixty-five (65) foot of road frontage. The modified Parcel #474 will have an area of
approximately 6,600 sq. ft. and fifty-five (55) foot of frontage.
Both parcels meet or exceed the
minimum lot area standard of 5,000 sq. ft. and forty (40) foot of road frontage
for the R-2 District. The adjusted
parcel boundary will be located so that minimum side setback standards are
observed from the existing multi-family structure and the proposed duplex. Addendum A of the Staff Report illustrates
the location of the subject site and the proposed subdivision.
Fletcher stated that the petitioner requested Staff to represent him.
Loretta asked for clarification on the illustrations provided in the
Staff Report Addendum A. Fletcher stated
that the yellow box shown is the approximate building foot location over the
hill from Stewart Street and that the approximate height of the proposed
duplex’s roofline would be at or below the roof line of the adjacent townhouses
illustrated in the photograph.
Selin asked if retaining walls were included in the proposed
development. Fletcher stated that he
didn’t recall retaining walls in the plans that were submitted and approved
with the petitioner’s building permit application. Fletcher stated that he didn’t think that
excavation for the duplex cut into the toe of the hill supporting the existing
parking along
There being
no further questions or comments by the Planning Commission, DeMasters opened
the public comment portion of the hearing.
There being no public comments offered either in favor or against the
petition, DeMasters closed the public comment portion and asked for Staff’s
recommendations.
Fletcher stated that Staff
recommends approval with the following conditions:
1.
That
the applicant submit three (3) paper copies, signed and sealed by a surveyor
licensed in the State of West Virginia, of the final plat for the Planning
Commission President’s signature; and,
2.
That
the final plat is filed at the Monongalia County Courthouse within thirty (30)
days of meeting the condition set forth above.
Stranko moved
to approve the minor subdivision petition as requested with Staff’s recommended
conditions; seconded by Loretta. The
motion passed 7-1 with Ferrell opposed.
IV.
OTHER BUSINESS
A. Public
Comments – None
B. Committee
Reports – None
C. Staff
Comments:
Fletcher reminded the Commission
that President DeMasters had, in accordance with the Planning Commission’s
Bylaws, duly called a workshop that will immediately follow the Commission’s
business meeting. The purpose of the
workshop will be to inform the Commission of the Administration’s proposed
Planning & Zoning Code text amendments relating to changes in the definition
of “Family” and determining residential occupancy citywide. Workshops are not considered regular or
special meetings and may not include the formal conduct of business, rendering
decisions, or taking action for which the Commission is charged. Workshops are open to the public and are
intended to serve as training, study, public education, etc.
Fletcher reminded the Commission that
a private tour had been scheduled at the U.S. Department of Energy’s new
building in the
V.
FOR THE GOOD OF THE COMMISSION – None.
VI.
ADJOURNMENT – Meeting adjourned at 7:05 PM.
MINUTES
APPROVED:
COMMISSION
SECRETARY: _____________________________
Christopher
M. Fletcher, AICP