MORGANTOWN PLANNING COMMISSION
Minutes
6:30 PM August 14, 2008 Council Chambers
MEMBERS PRESENT: Marti Shamberger, Peter DeMasters, Sam Loretta, Barbara Ferrell, Kathryn Greever, Ken Martis, Jennifer Selin
MEMBERS ABSENT: Tim Stranko, Seventh Ward Vacancy
STAFF: Christopher Fletcher, AICP
I. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL: Shamberger called the meeting to order at 6:30PM
II. MATTERS OF BUSINESS:
A. Approval of July 10, 2008 minutes. DeMasters noted a correction in the spelling of his name to include an “s” at the end. Selin moved to accept the minutes as amended; seconded by Greever. The motion passed unanimously.
III. OLD BUSINESS: None
Fletcher noted that he received a call from Josh Purvis of S.C. Bodner requesting that their agenda item be tabled until the Planning Commission’s September meeting due to inclement weather and their inability to fly out of the greater Indianapolis area this afternoon.
Selin moved to table agenda item “B” under new business RZ08-03 / Bodner / Stewart & University Avenue; seconded by DeMasters. The motion passed unanimously.
A. RZ08-02 / Warner / 2567 University Avenue. Request by Grand Central Apartments, LLC for an amendment to the Planned Unit Development (PUD) Outline Plan and Zoning map amendment approved by the Planning Commission on August 9, 2007 and enacted by City Council on September 4, 2007.
Fletcher read the Staff Report stating that the petitioner is seeking approval for an amendment to the Planned Unit Development (PUD) Outline Plan and Zoning Map Amendment approved by the Planning Commission on August 9, 2007 and enacted by City Council on September 4, 2007. Said amendment request will increase the area of the proposed PUD from approximately 3.37 acres to approximately 7.74 acres and increase the number of dwelling units from approximately 85 units to approximately 250 units. The subject site includes the existing Grand Central Business Center complex and surrounding parcels. A map illustrating the location of the site is provided in Addendum A of this report.
In September 2007, City Council approved a PUD Outline Plan (see Addenda B and C of this report) that included approximately 3.37 acres for the development of multi-family residences. The original Outline Plan did not include the existing Grand Central Business complex. Since said approval, the petitioner has decided to expand the redevelopment area to approximately 7.74 acres, which will include the removal of the existing business office complex, and significantly increase the number of multi-family dwelling units. Such a change requires an amendment to the originally approved Outline Plan as well as the reclassification of additional realty to PUD.
Some commentary about the Planned Unit Development (PUD) process is in order… The PUD process consists of three procedural steps. Step 1 is preliminary consultations with staff. Step 2 is the Outline Plan Phase, which is the issue before the Planning Commission now. During this step, the developer sets forth the “vision” or master plan for how the project will evolve. A significant amount of planning is necessary during this phase to establish the overall character of the development, how it interfaces with its spatial context, the types of and intensities of land uses, the amenities being offered, how the project will affect transportation patterns in the area, and some general rules for how the buildings will look and how they will be arranged.
Equally important is what is NOT required during this phase… Such things as detailed engineering studies of storm water control, utility services, detailed engineering drawings of road improvements, detailed site and building plans, etc. are NOT required at this stage of the process. It is simply unreasonable to expect the developer commit significant resources to dotting every “i” and crossing every “t” at this point, on the hope that City Council reclassifies the property to allow the development to proceed. During the outline plan phase, Council simply decides whether or not to accept the “vision” presented, based on the reasonable levels of supporting data required. If the answer is yes, then Council merely amends the zoning map, in this case from O-I & R-3 to PUD, in order for the detailed analysis to go forward.
Step 3 is the Development Plan Phase. During this phase, the developer has the confidence to go forward with a detailed analysis of the project, knowing that the zoning reclassification is in place. At this point, construction plans are produced, drainage calculations are provided, detailed engineering analyses of infrastructure improvements are done, final site and building plans are prepared, etc.
Article 1357.03 (D) (4) provides that the review and approval of the Development Plan may be retained by the Planning Commission or delegated to Staff. The Planning Commission has traditionally delegated this task to Staff (i.e. Phase I and the Phase II segments of the Square at Falling Run PUD; SC Bodner PUD; original Grand Central Apartments PUD).
As Addenda D and E of this report illustrate, the Planning and Engineering Departments agreed that this PUD Outline Plan Amendment would include only a massing plan and a preliminary traffic impact analysis (NOTE: “massing” refers to the organization of a building’s overall volume). This approach was based on the following factors:
· The site contains substantial elevation changes and can be generally characterized as a “horseshoe valley.” Considerable civil and geotechnical analysis is necessary to determine final building location, intensity, and density as well as the extent of surface and structured parking. The economics of requiring such exploratory planning and design work for this site at this speculative stage of the PUD process does not appear feasible or prudent.
· The location, concentration, and access to parking areas within the development will not be known until extensive civil analysis noted above is complete. The merit and quality of a traffic impact analysis diminishes when:
- Trip generation projections and vehicular directional flow can not be identified with a high degree of confidence.
- The time between traffic analysis and development delivery increases.
- The relevance of “current” trip counts becomes suspect due to extended time between count collection and traffic analysis completion.
The attached PUD Outline Plan identifies the proposed land uses and general development program but is relatively vague concerning development standards, architectural characteristics, and other applicable specifications of the Planning & Zoning Code that will be used to govern the subject PUD. This information, like the traffic impact analysis, can only be addressed after the civil analysis is completed and authentic development costs/economics are realized.
As such, Staff strongly encourages the Planning Commission to retain the review and approval of this PUD’s Development Plan. Doing so will ensure that all relevant analyses and PUD governing policies and provisions are considered by the Planning Commission in total with inspection, comment, and participation by the public as intended by the Planning & Zoning Code.
Further, the Planning Commission may simply recommend to City Council that the property’s zoning revert to its present classification if the Development Plan is not satisfactory in terms of:
· The relationship and compatibility of the proposed plan to the adjacent properties and neighborhood, and whether the proposed plan would substantially interfere with the use or diminish the value of adjacent properties and neighborhoods
· The desirability of the plan to the City's physical development, tax base and economic well-being.
· The mitigation of undue traffic congestion.
· The preservation of significant ecological, natural, historical, and architectural resources to the extent possible.
· The enhancement of the appearance, image, function, and economic sustainability of the community at large.
· The plan is designed to a more human scale, supports multi-modal transportation options, preserves useful and meaningful open space, provides significant amenities to residents, and incorporates architectural detailing, massing and scale that are consistent with historical community norms.
Belinda Knight, representing the development team, was present to speak on behalf of the petitioner’s request. Knight presented a PowerPoint presentation further illustrating the proposed Outline Plan amendment. Knight went on to state that the proposed PUD is located between the Downtown and Evansdale campus and near the Law School. The facility is an entrance into Sunnyside and within walking distance to downtown. Currently, five aged rentals are on the current site. Utilities are above ground and the buildings will not be visible from University Avenue. Siting the aerial photography, Knight stated the PUD’s primary usage is residential with some retail, office and educational spaces.
The PUD’s boundary is 3.36 acres that will include 250 multi-family two, three and four bedroom apartments. There will be 106,000 square footage and the building height will be the same or lower than the present buildings, which is 5.5 to 6 stories high. Open space will be 15%, with a possibility this number may increase to as much as 35%. Adequate provisions have been made for public services.
Alpha Associates provided the preliminary traffic study that conforms to DOH standards. Referencing the intersections affected by the PUD, Knight explained that:
· Intersection #1 / University Avenue / North Street / North 6th St. Extension will not be affected by this development during the morning peak hours, but will be affected during the peak evening hours;
· Intersection #2 / University Avenue / South 6th St. Extension will not be impacted; improvements to that intersection will actually improve traffic flow. This intersection will be moved approximately 60 to 75 feet westward to the intersection angle to 90 degrees. One left and one right turn lane will be provided exiting the site. There is a minimum of 350 degree site distance at the eastbound approach looking south and 400 degree site distance looking northward up the hill.
· Intersection #3 / 6th St. and Beverly Avenue Intersection will not be impacted. The developer has considered a slope @ this intersection to facilitate public transit.
Knight stated that Alpha recommended closing the eastbound approach from University Avenue improving the west bound delay from 169.6 seconds to 58.8 seconds in its improved condition.
Selin questioned ingress and egress at Ensign Avenue. Knight replied it would be restricted for entering or exiting unless one is a resident.
Shamberger questioned whether there will be a traffic light allowing a left turn. Knight stated there is no plan for a light at this time, but this decision was left to the City. They were advised by Alpha Associates that this area does not warrant the need for a light at this time.
Knight cited the many benefits this PUD will provide. It is centrally located to Mylan, both hospitals and the Evansdale Campus. The façade will be consistent with local architecture and the street scape will compliment the residential neighborhoods and the revitalization efforts in the Sunnyside Up area. There is also a plaza area in the design for MountainLine transit.
Knight noted that the construction cost of the PUD will be over $40 million dollars, but once developed will the entrance into Sunnyside. The development plan revisions and approval will be between February 2009 and August 2010. Demolition of the older buildings is anticipated to begin in February of 2009 with construction to begin in April 2009. The next step for the petitioner will be to present to City Council of the whole on August 26. First reading will be on September 2 and 2nd reading will be October 2.
Loretta asked how many parking spaces will be available. Knight stated there would be 750 which are actually more than the minimum required amount. Structured parking is planned for one to three levels.
Shamberger questioned if the parking was underground. Knight replied that depending on the topography some will be underground.
Selin said she is concerned with the percentage of open space and questioned how it could be between 15% and 35% due to the topography of the area. Knight reminded the Commission the referenced site plan is conceptual. The final development plan will show exactly where the building will be situated.
Selin also asked what will be done with the portions of the property not built on. Knight stated it will be open space.
Selin asked when this plan comes back to the Planning Commission, even if it comes back in phases, will it be a complete plan. Knight advised it will come back complete as one phase but may not be built all at one time.
Rick Colebank, Alpha Associates, stated that his firm has been hired as a part of the design team for the proposed development. Colebank reiterated that the plan will be a single, coherent plan although it may not be built all at one time.
Selin asked Colebank what types of architectural detail will be anticipated. Colebank explained the finished design will not be a modern looking one with a glass block type look; rather it will be a more residential application for the entire development. All finishes and materials will be considered. When questioned about how the buildings would reflect massing, Colebank stated with a development of this type certain dimensions do not work. They are trying to show the type of coverage for the anticipated density.
Shamberger questioned, as with the previous PUD that was presented, if the intent of this PUD is to be family-oriented. Knight explained that the intent is to open the development to a wide range of levels of economy; they do expect some families and some students.
Martis asked Fletcher if the internal roads are city roads. Fletcher said there is a city right-of-way located within and partly bisecting the site. That right-of-way has to be maintained for access to other parcels. The way it is shown on the Outline Plan drawings is what was agreed to originally, but the City would be open to considering other alternate alignments provided access is maintained to otherwise landlocked adjacent parcels.
Martis questioned the physical barrier that was referred to and if it would be on the right-of-way. Fletcher said the question that exists now is if that road would continue to be private or if it would be developed to city specifications. Once the final traffic impact analysis is done, it would be brought back to the Planning Commission. Martis requested that any changes in road and intersection alignment and improvements be reviewed by the Traffic Commission.
Fletcher noted that the proposed relocation of the primary intersection away from North Street should serve to improve safety by increase sight distances as well as discourage traffic from cutting through adjacent Wiles Hill.
Shamberger opened the public comment portion of the meeting asking if anyone wished to speak in favor of the request.
David Kelly, 235 Jones Avenue, stated that he is not against the project, but he has concerns with the southern entrance and exit on the intersection of Beverly Avenue and the northern part of 6th Street. Because he owns apartments there, he travels that road a number of times a day. Travel is very difficult. The entire street from Grant to Beverly is only really one lane wide. That street cannot have any additional traffic. When planning a major development such as this, either don’t use that intersection or improve the northern part of 6th St. How could a traffic study possibly say that an additional 1000 vehicles will have no impact on that intersection. He also doubts families would be residing there, it would primarily be students.
With no one speaking against the petition, Shamberger closed the public comment portion of the hearing and requested Staff’s recommendation.
Fletcher stated that in response to Mr. Kelly’s comments and concerns, he wanted to reassure the Commission and Mr. Kelly that the preliminary study was not intended to address specific intersection improvements but to take a look at project trip generation and whether or not traffic control devices like stop signs or traffic lights would be necessary. Fletcher stated that improvements to the Beverly Avenue connection/intersection will be necessary and required.
Fletcher stated that the proposed Grand Central Apartments Outline Plan appears to meet several of the PUD general provisions and review considerations set forth in the Planning & Zoning Code (Article 1357.01 and Article 1357.05 respectively). The contemplated land uses and densities appear to be consistent with other developments within the general Sunnyside neighborhood. Further, the PUD procedure appears necessary to facilitate a significant redevelopment of underutilized land and functionally obsolete structures given the subject site’s location, topography, existing parcel boundaries, and surrounding roadway network.
As such, Staff advises the Planning Commission to submit to City Council a recommendation to approve the Grand Central Apartments Outline Plan Amendment 1 as set forth in the attached document by reclassifying of the subject realty from O-I and R-3 to PUD with the following conditions/considerations:
1. That the Development Plan must be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission within 18 months following City Council approval of the Outline Plan.
2. That the Development Plan submission include a final traffic impact analysis to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
3. That the number of persons permitted to occupy a dwelling unit may be governed by the building code.
4. That the Development Plan include a complete list of potential non-residential land uses and square footages that will be used to govern the PUD.
5. That minimum on-site parking must be calculated on at least 0.5 spaces per occupant; include additional parking for guests; and, additional parking for potential non-residential uses.
6. That the petitioner obtain minor subdivision approval by the Planning Commission and any right-of-way annulment and/or realignment approvals by City Council that may be necessary.
Shamberger asked Ferrell if she heard any comments from anyone since this would take place in her Ward. Ferrell said she has not, but did not know anything herself until she received the meeting’s packet. Ferrell stated University Avenue and North Street is a very busy intersection.
DeMasters stated he likes Fletcher’s recommendation that the Planning Commission retain oversight authority for the development plan and that if the development plan is not satisfactory that the property revert back to current zoning classification.
Martis stated the idea of demolishing some very ugly buildings and replacing them with an attractive new development is very appealing.
Loretta stated he hopes the developer is listening to what is being said regarding traffic issues and review their site plan to see what can be considered.
DeMasters moved to recommend RZ08-02 to City Council with staff’s recommendations; seconded by Martis. The motion passed unanimously.
Fletcher suggested that a workshop be held with the developer and the Planning Commission prior to the submission of the Development Plan. Fletcher stated that the Planning Commission’s recommendation will be placed on Council’s August 28, 2008 Committee of the Whole agenda, with the First Reading anticipated for September 2 and the Second Reading anticipated for October 2. Both readings will include public comment periods.
A. Public Comment – None
B. Staff Comments.
1. The Traffic Commission agreed with the recommendations of the Planning Commission and communicated that to City Council. Fletcher anticipates City Council will make that change soon. He will keep the Planning Commission apprised.
2. A consultant has been selected for the Downtown Strategic Plan Update. Staff is presently working on the contract and hopes to begin work in early September. Several stakeholder groups have been identified to work with the consultant including neighborhood associations, property owners, business owners, WVU, residents, etc. Fletcher asked that each Planning Commission member be a representative on one of the stakeholder groups.
The meeting was adjourned at 7:50 PM.