MORGANTOWN PLANNING COMMISSION

MINUTES

April 12, 2007

6:30 P.M.                                                                                       City Council Chambers     

Members Present:  Ray Hicks, Jennifer Selin, Sam Loretta, Tim Stranko, Marti Shamberger, Peter DeMasters, Ron Hill, Teresa Miller, and Ken Martis

Members Absent:  None

Staff Present:  Lisa Mardis, Deputy Planning Director

MATTERS OF BUSINESS:

A.  Approval of March minutes - Motion to approve by Martis, second by Miller.  Motion carried unanimously.

OLD BUSINESS: 

A.  TABLED – TX07-01:  An administratively requested text amendments to revise Table 1331.05.01 “Permitted Land Use” and Article 1331.06 (21) of the Planning and Zoning Code as they relate to the supplemental regulations for restaurant uses. 

Mardis described the text amendment.

Item #1 Restaurant - R-1A “C” stricken, R-2 “C” stricken, R-3 “C” stricken suggested as “P”.  Item #2 Restaurant, Family - R-2 “C” added.

The Chair asked for public comment.  There being none, the public portion was closed.

Motion to approve by Loretta, second by Stranko.  Motion carried unanimously.

NEW BUSINESS:

A. RZ07-02 / Giuliani / 256 Prairie Avenue:  Request by James and Karen Giuliani for a zoning map amendment for property located at 256 Prairie Avenue. Tax Map #28 Parcel #130; currently zoned as R1A Single Family Residential District.

Mardis read the staff report stating that the petitioners seek to rezone the property from R-1A to R-3.  The area of the subject parcel is approximately 1.33 acres and is located across from Morgantown High School.  This property is currently listed as a duplex with the City’s rental registration. She continued that the property was part of a large reclassification or realty from R-3 to R-1A on February 6, 1992.  The request should be evaluated on its land-use merits alone and the development intentions should not be considered.

James Giuliani, applicant, 256 Prairie Avenue, stated the C. Alexander Wade home is the only national landmark in Morgantown; and it is also in the Chancery Hill Historical District.  Mr. Giuliani stated that he intends on keeping the property as it currently stands.  Mr. Giuliani gave a brief history of himself and his family’s rehabilitating of several other properties. 

Motion to suspend the rules to allow the discussion of the history being presented by Miller, second by Stanko.  Miller also asks that Mr. Giuliani be conscious of the time.  Motion carried unanimously.

Mr. Giuliani continued to give a history of the C. Alexander Wade house, surrounding property, and rezoning done in 1992. 

Mrs. Karen Giuliani explained the intent of the request for R-3 zoning and would like to use the property as a future museum and expressed great concern with the City of Morgantown and their neighbors over their request.

Mr. Giuliani showed a map with the properties in question and asked to amend his zoning request to PRO or R-2.  Mr. Giuliani stated he feels this should be examined on a larger scale rather than zoning for his property.  He stated that he would like to have the request tabled and invited the Commission to look at the property.  He feels that the overlay districts need to be addressed; his goal is to get the uses around his property changed.

The Chair asked for public Comment.

Shawn Fennigan and Janet Seer, 116 Wagner Road, spoke in opposition and stated that they believe rezoning would directly impact their property located across the street and that the Commission should consider the fact that the property could be sold.  They stated that traffic is already a problem on Prairie Avenue and the north end of Wagner road due to the high school schedule and events, and that a multi-family structure would cause additional problems. Rezoning would also impose a change in the character of Chancery Hill and South Park and set precedence for future zoning encroachment into R-1A neighborhoods.   They request that the commission deny the zoning amendment and preserve the historical value of the property.

Carolyn Jacobs Hampson, 224 Lebanon Avenue, stated she admired the renovations Mr. Giuliani has made in the past, but requests that the Commission forward a recommendation of denial. 

Paul Becker, 245 Allison Street, stated that the neighborhood has a variety of uses with multi-family structures but that the neighborhood needs to remain a family neighborhood for the best interest of the community.

Joannie Rowe, 300 Wagner Road, stated she was one of the members that worked diligently, along with Mr. Giuliani, to have the home registered as a historical structure.  Ms. Rowe asked to preserve the historical district as it currently stands.

Bill Kawecki, 324 Cobun Avenue, thanked Mr. Giuliani for bringing his project to light and stated that he has been a supporter of Mr. Giuliani’s past accomplishments.  Kawecki believes that the neighborhood is in jeopardy because of what has been put in place and what has been allowed, and the potential for being approved in the neighborhood.  He hopes the Commission will consider the impact of these issues on the neighborhoods.

Jill Ware, 305 Wagner Road, did not expect the change of events at the meeting.  She stated that she believes that neighborhoods are being affected by people who are more interested in the downtown area than the historical ones.

Hicks address the citizens regarding the purpose of the meeting and the order of content.  Hicks suggested these neighborhoods organize a group meeting and bring their recommendations to the Planning Commission.

Mrs. Giuliani stated that was done previously without any action from the city.  That is why they proceeded in this direction.

Miller called a point of order and suggested the neighborhood associations gather and bring requests forward.  She continued that the overlay districts were created to assist and protect other zones.

The Chair asked for public comment.  There being none.  The public portion was closed.

Martis stated there is a public comment session at the end of every meeting.  There were many public hearings during the process of the zoning changes.  The commission does go to location to view areas.  R-1A zone is not changed easily because the commission is very protective of this zone. The commission does not change a property because of what can happen in the event of a change of hands. Martis stated he would make a motion to reject the request once the commissioners have spoken.

Stranko stated that the request is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the State Law does not allow the commission to make a recommendation to Council unless there are extenuating circumstances.  He stated that it is his opinion that the staff does an exceptional job of preparing information for the Commission and that staff could be of assistance to Mr. Giuliani and the neighborhood.

Stranko made a motion to reject application RZ07-02 and direct staff to meet Mr. Giuliani and other interested citizens to discuss the B-4 zoning issues that have been addressed this evening, and to make a report to the commission at staff’s earliest convenience.  Second by Martis.  Loretta added that he would like City Council to be involved with the meeting. 

Mardis advised that there have been numerous meetings concerning the overlay district and that one issue holding up the process is a request by Mr. Giuliani to rezone a portion of the area to PRO.  She stated that property owners have been sent letters, but a majority do not live in the area.

Hicks called for a vote, motion carried unanimously.  Hicks thanked the citizens for attending.

Mardis stated for the record that if Mr. Guilani wants to request the property rezoned to R-2 or PRO he needs to submit a separate map amendment request and that the deadline is April 13, 2007 for the May meeting. 

B. MNS07-05 / Castle / Putnam Avenue:  Request by Michael Castle for minor subdivision approval for property located on Putnam Avenue. Tax Map #24 Parcel #321; an R-2, Single and Two-Family Residential District.

Mardis read the staff report.  In response to questions, she explained the boundary adjustments and stated that the applicant would like to construct two duplexes and adjoining courtyard and convert the school into a multi-family structure; only one principal structure is permitted per parcel.

Michael Castle, 1117 University Avenue, stated that his intentions were translated thoroughly by Ms. Mardis.   Mr. Castle stated he would be keeping some of the units for rental but will offer them as condominiums. 

A Commissioner asked about the property surrounding the basketball court.

Mr. Castle stated that he does not have ownership of that property.   He continued that the improvements, such as windows and landscaping, would not change the facade of the school.   The remaining lot would be approx 12,000 – 16,000 feet.

The Chair asked for public comment.  There being none, the public portion was closed.

Mardis read the Staff recommendations as the petition be approved 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 Commissions Chair’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.

Mardis addressed concerns with zoning issues going to the Board of Zoning.   

Castle addressed the adjoining property issues and encroachments stating that he would adhere to set back requirements.

Selin made a motion to approve, second by Shamberger.  Motion carried unanimously.

C.  RZ07-03: Administratively requested zoning map amendment for a portion of certain West Virginia University realty relating to the development of the new alumni center.  Tax Map #6, Parcel #74 (the portion of realty affected by the proposed zoning map amendment is illustrated on Tax Map 11).

Mardis read the staff report and explained the uses and allowances for government owned property and when that property must comply with City Codes. 

The current zoning for the subject site is R-1; this zoning type would negate the development of the proposed alumni center. The Planning Department is recommending a zoning map amendment for only that portion of West Virginia University realty along Patteson Drive that is directly related to the proposed development of the new Alumni Center.

In reviewing the surrounding zoning it appears this area to be best served by a B-2 classification.  This reclassification of the subject site would be considered a boundary adjustment for the existing B-2 District along Patteson Drive and west of the subject site.

Steve Douglas, representative, explained the new Alumni Center and stated that the development will address several issues, including storm-water and green space.   The Alumni Association is separate from the University and the building would be built with all private funds. 

Roger Hartung stated that the materials used for the building have not been decided, but will include an illuminated flying WV on all four sides.

Stephen Douglas, Alumni Center, stated that they are working to have all building materials be native to West Virginia.

The Chair asked for public Comment.

Mayor Ron Justice, 741 Johnson Avenue, gave a background on how this came to be a zoning issue.  He continued that he does not believe a conditional use in R-1, for this project, would be appropriate route as it could set precedence. The B-2 option would be consistent with abutting zoning and the uses would be in compliance.  The storm water retention would be for general usage, not just for the alumni building.  The Alumni Association only requires two acres; however the Planning Department feels this would be better served by using seven acres to allow for the needed storm water retention and public green space. 

A member of the audience has a hotel across the street and stated that he welcomes the building and is willing to help with parking by offering the use of his parking lot if necessary.

Bill Kawecki asked questions concerning the impact of rezoning when the University decides to sell the property.

Douglas advised the Alumni Association is only leasing the property, in the instance that the Alumni Center no longer is interested, the property would revert back to the University.

Don Spencer, 565 Harvard Avenue, stated that it does concern him with needing a way to designate permanent green space in the zoning ordinance and hopes it is something that can be discussed in the future.

Mardis read the staff recommendation and commented on the surrounding zoning, existing land uses, and MUB’s proposed stormwater management improvements within the environmental protection corridor, the proposed zoning reclassification is justified under the Comprehensive Plan. It is further advised that the Commission forward a recommendation to City Council to approve the subject zoning map amendment.

Mardis advised the R-1 areas it would touch would belong to the University.

Rob Moyer, Director of Facilities of WVU, clarified that the ownership of the property would not change it will remain property of the University.

A Commissioner commented on the fact that the university is coming to the City with this proposal that will assist with the stormwater issues at their cost and commends them for their selfless act.

Motion to accept by Hill, second by Stranko.  Motion carried unanimously.

D. S07-07.III / West Virginia University Alumni Association Properties: Request by West Virginia University Alumni Association Properties, Inc for a Development of Significant Impact (DSI) Site Plan Review for a portion of certain West Virginia University realty relating to the development of the new alumni center.  Tax Map #6, Parcel #74 (the portion of realty affected by proposed site plan review is illustrated on Tax Map 11).

Mardis read the staff report.  She explained that the petitioner seeks to construct a new West Virginia University Alumni Center on a certain portion of West Virginia University owned realty.  The Associate Vice President, Joseph Fisher, of West Virginia University has given written authorization for the petitioner to seek necessary approval from the City of Morgantown. 

Mardis, again, advised of the government owned property exemptions and how they relate to this situation. 

Mardis then read the project details that include land use for dormitories, parking, stormwater facilities, and the exterior design of the building.  The following approvals must be obtained for the proposed project prior to building permit application:  1) Zoning Map Amendment from R-1 to B-2; and 2) Site plan Type III Development of Significant Impact.

The Chair asked for public comment.  There being none, the public portion was closed.

Mardis read the staff recommendation as the project being reviewed as a B-2 development, be approved with the following conditions.

1. That a zoning map amendment reclassifying the subject portion of West Virginia University owned realty from R-1 to B-2 be enacted by City Council.

2. That a Landscape Plan meeting the standards set forth in Article 1367 of the Planning & Zoning Code be submitted to and approved by the Planning Director prior to the issuance of any temporary or permanent occupancy permit.  Variance approval shall be required prior to occupancy should said plan not meet the minimum standards set forth in Article 1367.

3. That a Pedestrian Circulation Plan for all parking areas be submitted to and approved by the Planning Director prior to the issuance of any temporary or permanent occupancy permit.

4. That variance approval must be granted by the Board of Zoning appeals to exceed the maximum number of parking spaces if more than 191 stalls remain after internal parking lot landscaping provisions and pedestrian circulation provisions are incorporated.

5. That the City Engineer determines whether or not a sidewalk connection along University Avenue from Patteson Drive to and through the intersection of Medical Center Drive and University Avenue must be completed as a part of the proposed Alumni Center development project. Should the City Engineer determine that said sidewalk link is necessary, then same must be completed prior to the issuance of a permanent certificate of occupancy.

Hicks called for discussion.

The Commission supports all sidewalks possible for this project.

Stranko made a motion to approve the application with the conditions indicated by the staff, second by DeMasters.  Motion carried unanimously.

E. TX07-02:  Administratively requested Planning & Zoning Code text amendments to Article 1329.02, Table 1331.05.01, and Article 1331.06 (2) as they relate to “professional services establishment,” “guest house,” “community center,” and “home occupation” uses.

Mardis stated that this text amendment is intended to address amendments as reviewed in the previous workshop.  She noted that everything underlined has been added and everything struck through is being deleted.

Guest Houses – Conditional uses in R-1 and R1-A have been struck through.

Professional Services – Conditional uses in R-1 and R-1A have been struck through.

Community Center – Excluding community centers permitted as conditional uses in the R-1 and R-1A Districts has been added, a comma has been added, and M has been replaced with m in multi-family.  The multi-family housing component shall not occupy more than 60 30 percent of the total gross floor area of the facility.

Home Occupation, Class 2 – The following permitted and prohibited home occupations are intended to serve as a guide in determining whether certain home-based enterprises are deemed acceptable within residential neighborhoods.  It is recognized that this listing is not exhaustive.  For Class 1 Home Occupations, the Planning Director shall make the determination of whether an unlisted business is similar to a listed permitted use and issue or deny a Home Occupancy Class 1 permit. For Class 2 Home Occupations, the Board of Zoning Appeals shall make the determination of whether an unlisted business is similar to a listed permitted use and issue or deny a Home Occupation Class 2 permit has been added.

Class I Home Occupations are classified as ones that have no traffic at the residence, for example an internet business.  Class II may involve traffic.

PERMITTED HOME OCCUPATIONS:

1. Offices for such professionals as, but not limited to, architects, brokers, counselors, clergy, dentists, doctors, draftspersons and cartographers, engineers, insurance agents, lawyers, real estate agents, accountants, editors, publishers, journalists, psychologists, contact management, graphic design, construction contractors, landscape design, surveyors, cleaning services, salespersons and manufacturer’s representatives, travel agents.

2. Personal services, including barbershops, beauty parlors, manicure and pedicure shops, pet grooming, catering and chauffeuring services.

3. Instructional services, including music, dance, art, and craft classes, and tutoring.

4. Studios for artists, sculptors, musicians, photographers, and authors.

5. Workrooms for tailors, dressmakers, millers, and craft persons, including weaving, lapidary, jewelry making, cabinetry and woodworking.

6. Repair services, including watch and clocks, small appliances, computers, electronic devices, lawnmowers and small engines.

7. Garage/yard sales, “Tupperware” parties.

PROHIBITED HOME OCCUPATIONS:

1. Kennels, stables, veterinarian clinics/hospitals.

2. Medical and dental clinics, hospitals.

3. Restaurants taverns, private clubs.

4. Motor vehicle repair.

5. Undertaking and funeral homes.

6. Retail sales of goods not made on the premise.

7. Sexually oriented business, as defined herein.

SUPPLEMENTAL REGULATIONS PERTAINING TO PERMITTED LAND USES

Section 2 (c) (viii).  A home occupation shall not involve on site employment of persons not residing in the dwelling, except as otherwise provided in this ordinance.  Replaced with: A home occupation shall have no more than one nonresident employee on the premises at any one time.  The number of nonresident employees working at locations other than the home occupation is not limited. 

Section 2 (d) (iii) Retail sales shall not occur on the premises on a regular basis or in substantial volume, such that customer visitation to the premises exceeds three (3) customers per day.  The Board of Zoning Appeals shall decide if the proposed type and volume of retail activities is reasonable when considering the conditional use permit application. Replaced with: Customer/client visits to the home occupation location are limited to the hours from 9 A.M to 8 P.M. The home occupation shall not generate more than ten (10) customer/client visits in any one day and no more than three (3) customers/clients can be present at any one time.

The Chair asked for public comment.

Richard Sutter, Suncrest, stated that the neighborhood committee. is pleased with the zoning recommendations of the Planning Staff with guest house, professional services, multi-family housing in community centers.  They appreciate being able to work with the City to accomplish some of these positive changes. However, they want the home occupation changes to be revisited at another time due to the considerable disagreement in the community and it was not part of the legal notice on March 20, 2007.

It was asked what part of the home occupation he is in disagreement.

Mr. Sutter believes that is legal because it was not part of the Legal Notice.  He continued that people want quiet neighborhoods, and having someone working in your home in addition to the homeowner is a new idea to some.

Mardis commented that it was advertised properly but it was not published in entirety for what ever reason.  She stated that this issue should be tabled and published again. 

It was asked how that will affect daycares.

Mardis advised that they are not part of this change.  The State had a representative attend the workshop and offered assistance.  They decided to leave the daycare as it is written because it is not only for children it is for adults as well.

Miller agreed that if this was left out of the legal notice it should wait until the next meeting.

Kathleen Sutter, 1248 Fairlawn Avenue, agreed with moving forward with the recommendations that will preserve the esthetics of the neighborhood.  She also discussed her support in the home occupation changes but thinks it should remain the same.

Chris Gluck, 317 Laurel Street, thanked the Planning Department for the meetings to amend the ordinance.  His concern is with the addition of an employee in the home, allowing ten customers per day, and extending hours to 8 p.m.  He likes the idea of having a cap but ten is a large number.  Before they are adopted, they should be discussed more in depth. 

Selma Riffle, resident, agrees with everyone who has spoken.

Hicks clarified the recommendations

Discussion ensued on the legality of only approving a portion of the text amendment.

Kathleen Sutter commented that they did not ask for these specific changes only for the home occupation to be more defined. Now she feels is should remain as it currently is written.

Stranko commented that there are issues that need to be discussed and suggeted to move forward on approving the other items.

Jenny Densmore, 319 Suncrest, asked to table the home occupation but move forward on the other issues.  She added that additional traffic in the area is becoming a larger issue.

Further discussion ensued on approving a portion of the amendment. 

Hill stated he believes it can be separated and only send forward the items that have been approved.

Selin agreed.

Miller moved to accept the changes with the exception of the home occupation, second by Selin.

Stranko stated he understands the comments regarding home occupation but supports more definition in the ordinance.  This will assist the public with decision making for home occupations.

Motion carried unanimously.

Stranko moved that staff re-advertise and include in the agenda for next month a reconsideration for change of section Article 1329.02 entitled home occupation class 2 the discussion include BZA,  second by Selin. 

Selin discussed the need for more consideration. Stranko agreed.

Shamberger suggested inviting the BZA to the discussion.

Hicks suggested the issues that have been brought about be considered for revision by staff.

Mardis clarified when the workshop will be held but if this is re advertised as a legal advertisement it will be on the agenda for action. 

Seven members in favor, one abstention, Motion carried.

F.  TX07-03:  Administratively requested Planning & Zoning Code text amendments to Table 1331.05.01, Article 1331.06 (5), and Table 1365.04.01 as they relate to “bed & breakfast inn”.

Mardis read the staff report.  She explained that under the land use table, Bed and Breakfast would be removed from the R-1 and listed in R-1A as a conditional use.

Supplemental Regulations Pertaining to Permitted Land Uses Table Section 5, reads as:  In all residential districts where permitted, the proposed a BED AND BREAKFAST INN should shall retain the architectural orientation and form characteristic of the surrounding neighborhood, and shall be located only in existing homes structures.

Under parking requirements:  1 space per guest room plus 2 for the resident or owner or manager on-street parking spaces directly in front of the inn may count towards the parking requirement except in residential parking permit required areas.

The Chair asked for public comment.  There being none, the public portion was closed.

The concern was raised that bed and breakfast inns were conditional permitted in R-1A and the lots being smaller.  

Sam Loretta asked if the allowance, by conditional use, of bed and breakfast inn in the R-1A could be removed from the land use table.

The Chair asked for public comment.  There being none, the public portion was closed. 

Mardis stated that the staff recommendation was for approval.

Miller stated she was in favor of leaving in R-1.

Selin stated that part of the compromise was for the R-1A if it met the requirements.

Motion to approve by Miller.  Second by Selin.  Motion carried unanimously.

G.  MNS07-08 / Merow / Charles and Ridgeway Avenue:  Request by Robert Merow for minor subdivision approval for property located at 1021 & 1037 Charles Avenue and 1030 Ridgeway Avenue.  Tax Map #25 Parcels #385,385.1, 386; R-1A, Single-Family Residential District.

Mardis read the staff report.  She stated that the petitioner seeks to realign parcel boundaries separating the subject parcels for the purpose of ensuring that the existing parking areas are situated on the same parcels as the associated residential structures for which they serve.  The proposed adjustments exceed the requirements for approval.

Bob Merow, applicant, 1448 Roosevelt Street, stated he wants to move the property lines to put the parking lots on the same parcel as the duplex they serve.

Hicks clarified that these are existing structures. 

The Chair asked for public comment, there being none, the public portion was close.

Mardis then read the Staff Recommendation as the minor subdivision petition be approved 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 Chair’s signature; and,

2. That the final plat is filed at the Monongalia County Courthouse within thirty (30) days of meeting all conditions set forth above.

Motion to approve subject to staff recommendations by Stanko, second by Miller.  Motion carried unanimously.

OTHER BUSINESS:

Public Comments: 

Mr. Stutter thanked the Commission for allowing everyone to be heard.

Hicks commented on the issue of the rezoning of Mr. Giuliani, in relation to B-4 affect on his property and that needs to be addressed.

Mardis stated that for the first meeting over 300 property owners were sent invitations and only four (4) people attended. 

Discussion ensued on the B-4 Overlay District and the requirements it would add, such as height restriction in some areas and parking requirements.  It was suggestion that different areas may need different restrictions. 

It was suggested that Staff move forward with the B-4 Overlay District.

Miller commended the Planning Department with their work on this overlay district and working with residents.  This now needs to move forward as a concept with out the individual issues to stop the progress. 

It was agreed by the Planning Commission that staff should move forward with the overlay district.

Miller suggested having the neighborhood discuss and forward what the overall requests are to Council. 

Staff Comments:  None

Motion to adjourn by Miller, second by  -------.  Motion carried unanimously.

ADJOURNMENT:  9:45 P.M.