MORGANTOWN PLANNING COMMISSION

MINUTES

February 8, 2007

6:30 P.M. City Council Chambers

Members Present: Ray Hicks, Jennifer Selin, Marti Shamberger, Teresa Miller, and Ken Martis

Members Absent: Fred Shaupp, Sam Loretta, Peter DeMasters

Staff Present: Christopher Fletcher, Planning Director

MATTERS OF BUSINESS:

A. Approval of December and January minutes - Motion to approve both by Shamberger, second by Miller. Motion carried unanimously.

OLD BUSINESS: None

NEW BUSINESS:

A. MNS07-03 / Engels / 2009 Purinton Street: Request by Mr. Kevin Engels for minor subdivision approval of realty located at 2009 Purinton Street. Realty is located on Tax Map #43 Parcels #60, 61 & 89; currently zoned as R1A Single Family Residential District and surrounded by R1A.

Fletcher read the staff report stating that the petitioner seeks to combine two parcels and approximately 930 ft² from parcel #89 to make one 8,040 ft². The remnant parcel will contain approximately 11,025 ft². Fletcher continued that both proposed parcels exceed the R-1A District minimum lot area of 3,500 ft² and minimum lot frontage of 30 ft standards. No set back issues are being created. Addendum A of this report illustrates the location of the subject realty. Mr. Engels submitted a request that the petition be represented by the Planning Department.

Hicks asked for public comments in favor of the proposal.

An attendee requested clarification on the location of the property.

Hicks asked for public comments in opposition of the proposal. There being none, the public portion was closed.

Fletcher read the staff recommendation and recommended that 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 by Selin, second by Martis. Motion carried unanimously.

OTHER BUSINESS:

Public Comments: None.

Staff Comments:

Fletcher explained information given to the Commission that Council had received regarding the R-1 Petition for Text Amendments concerning “Bed & Breakfast”, “Professional Services,” and “Guest House” uses. This is a petition for Council to review and amend a recently passed city code. The request was based on the R-1 neighborhoods being affected by added traffic, signs, and parking. Along with that is a list of the addresses of the signers with their current zoning. The petition was submitted to City Council on January 16, 2007 and is expecting the Planning Commission to discuss this issue. We were unable to meet the advertising requirements for this meeting; however it will be on the next agenda along with staff recommendations. It has been added for discussion to this meeting.

Hicks asked for public comments.

Richard Sutter gave the commission a handout and addressed the commission regarding the petition requesting to keep R-1 areas strictly residential. He read the handout which outlined two requests 1) change the content of R-1 and R-1A uses, and 2) change the process by which conditional uses are granted.

Mr. Sutter then gave a breakdown of specific changes with conditional uses and supporting information for each. They are requesting the following: 1) remove bed and breakfast from conditional use, 2) remove guest houses from conditional use, 3) remove professional services from conditional use, 4) remove daycare facilities class II from conditional use, 5) remove group residential facility as conditional use, 6) remove hospitals as conditional use, 7) remove community centers as conditional use, 8) change cemeteries from permitted to conditional use, 9) change government facilities from permitted to conditional use, 10) change essential services and equipment from permitted to conditional use, and 11) home occupation- keep Class I, Class II – change the definition to be more specific and restrictive.

Mr. Sutter explained the need to change the process for granting conditional uses and gave the recommendations as: 1) conditional use applications go first to the Planning Commission before BZA, 2) the process should be slowed to allow for consideration, city wide notification and citizen reaction and input.

James Frost asked why conditional uses are only taken to the BZA and not also with the Planning Commission.

Fletcher explained that in 2004 State Planning Enabling Statute amendments were made to ensure continuity in the conditional use process as cities and counties across the State had instituted a variety of conditional use approval procedures. Fletcher continued with a background and examples on the need for change of the process.

Chris Gluck questioned the notification period and stressed concerns with the number of members on BZA that would determine the structure of a neighborhood. Mr. Gluck also commented that requests may impact neighborhoods differently and need to be addressed accordingly.

Bill Kawicki, President of the South Park Association of Neighbors, agrees that the zoning board need assistance. Mr. Kawickii stated that the process should have more community involvement so the decisions are not detrimental to a neighborhood. Mr. Kawicki questioned the reasoning behind the different requirements for zoning between districts. Mr. Kawicki stated the reasoning for the requests as: to preserve the residential nature of the neighborhood, require time for consideration, reexamine due process to allow the affected resident’s time to respond, and look at the multi-family dwellings to allow adequate vehicle storage.

Dave Dinardi supported the neighbors who have come before the Commission.

Charlie Lyer concurs and supports the neighbors’ comments. The changes are semi-commercial and would like to maintain the residential quality of the neighborhoods.

Hicks commented on inconsistency with the petition being from R-1 and the signers from R-1 and R-1A.

Ms. Sutter explained the original petition was from R-1. She went on to explain how it evolved to include R-1A.

Hicks explained that Planning Commission was geared to the planning process of projects and the Board of Zoning Appeals used for the regulatory process of a project. This way the Planning Commission is not bogged down with regulatory items. Projects that are considered major development are discussed in the Planning Commission. Slowing down the process may not necessarily need to include the Planning Commission.

Bill Kawckii stated that when Council was addressed with the issues, they suggested the Planning Commission be included. Mr. Kawcki suggested the Planning Commission make recommendations for changes.

Hicks stated he understands the need for change to ordinance but does not feel the Planning Commission should be part of the slowing process.

Selin suggested a hearing to address these specific issues such as the R-1 and R-1A areas.

Hicks suggested a workshop.

Selin added that things such as the conditional uses need to be addressed individually and discussed.

Shamberger agreed and suggested a joint discussion with the BZA. Shamberger commented that the zoning law may seem like it passed very quickly, it has been several years in the process. Shamberger asked Fletcher about requirements for members set by state law.

Fletcher stated the Planning Commission can be comprised of 5 and 15 members. The number of members is set by local ordinance; the Morgantown Planning Commission is comprised of nine members, seven representing wards, one representing City Council, and one representing the Administration. State statute sets the Board of Zoning Appeals composition to five members.

Martis commended the work done for the petition. He added that home occupations may also work for the neighborhood in some cases, but the other areas need to be discussed.

Cathleen Sutter agreed with the home occupation issue but in general it could be more specific for clarification of what is acceptable.

Martis stated that they have been carefully looked at by this board.

Ms. Sutter discussed there are no Council members or ward representative on the BZA.

Fletcher advised that State Code precludes members of the Board of Zoning Appeals to be members of other boards and commissions of the jurisdictions. The intent is to protect members from influence from other jurisdictional legislative and advisory bodies.

Shamberger added she feels that the new zoning ordinance is more restrictive and more protective than the old.

Miller commented that there seems to be a feeling of change in philosophy that the neighborhoods are not restricted and do not want protection. That was the basis to change the zoning codes. The conditional use is generally based on the response of the neighbors to the BZA. The conditional use and permission may be lost if the situation changes. The conditional uses are used to replace spot zoning. It allows for an area to be considered for a conditional use but does not change the zoning of the area, so if the business goes away it can revert back.

Jack Frost stated this opens up a precedence being set and that generates concern.

Miller advised that in a zoned area this is true. In a residential area it is based on other items.

Hicks suggested a session to discuss this in open forum.

Councilor Don Spencer stated he agrees with the comments made on spot zoning because of past problems. He appreciates the issues being presented. Councilor Spencer asked that the importance of home occupations in regards of family issues. Councilor Spencer commented on the request to remove community centers from conditional use. He urged the use of the community centers for the betterment of the neighborhoods. Councilor Spencer added that there could be a restriction on a private entity’s use of community center.

Shamberger made a motion to suspend the rules to allow additional comments, second by Selin.

Mr. Sutter replied the closed schools and community centers are two different items. The community center is an issue because of possible family housing.

Miller commented on the home occupations and community center discussion. Miller stated she like the fact they can look at each case on an individual basis. Miller understood the need for residents not to be required to attend all meetings but feel they are being represented fairly by their boards and commissions.

Hicks concluded with suggesting a workshop to discuss these issues as part of the training needed for the commission. Hicks thanked everyone for their concerns and addressing the Planning Commission.

Resignation of Julie Cryser – Chair Hicks submitted Cryser’s letter as an addition to the minutes.

2006 Administrative Report – Fletcher discussed the contents of the report and noted that State statute requires the Planning Commission to submit an annual report to City Council.

Fletcher noted that the B-4 overlay district workshop was very successful and staff is working on the issues that were raised. Fletcher asked that members complete a questionnaire to determine the topics for training.

Selin added that a workshop idea is the height of buildings in the downtown area. The workshop may be used to determine a maximum height and parking for the structures. Fletcher advised that workshop topics are being developed based on the suggested issues.

Martis added to the minutes that Joe Fisher, Associate Vice President of Facilities and Services for WVU, came at 5:30pm to brief the Planning Commission on the WVU’s 10-year master plan. Because of the Planning Commission’s request that the university and the city share information, he thanked Mr. Fisher for the opportunity to communicate between the university and the city.

Selin commended the Planning Department for its thoroughness and presentation in the annual report.

Motion to adjourn by Selin, second by Shamberger. Motion carried unanimously.

ADJOURNMENT: 8:05 P.M.