MORGANTOWN PLANNING COMMISSION

MORGANTOWN PLANNING COMMISSION

Minutes

February 14, 2008

6:30 PM Council Chambers

MEMBERS PRESENT: Marti Shamberger, Peter DeMasters, Sam Loretta, Barbara Ferrell, Kathryn Greever, Theresa Rich Jennifer Selin

MEMBERS ABSENT: Tim Stranko, Ken Martis

STAFF: Christopher Fletcher, AICP

I. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL: Shamberger called the meeting to order at 6:30 PM

II. MATTERS OF BUSINESS:

A. Approval of January 10, 2008 Minutes

Selin moved for approval of the January 10, 2008 minutes as presented; second by DeMasters. The motion passed 6-0 with Barbara Ferrell abstaining from the vote.

III. OLD BUSINESS:

A. S08-02.III / Metro Properties / North Willey Street: Request by Metro Properties (City Gardens- Building #3 – Southwest) for site plan approval for a Development of Significant Impact at property located on North Willey Street. Tax Map # 21 Parcels # 73.01-73.02; B-2, a Service-Business District. (ITEM TABLED AT JANUARY 10, 2008 HEARING)

Loretta moved to remove the item from the table; second by Selin. Ferrell stated that, as a new member of the Planning Commission, she had not had sufficient time to review the Commission’s January 10, 2008 hearing concerning Case Number S08-02.III. As such, and in accordance with the Commission’s By-laws, she stated that she had to abstain from any discussion or vote on the matter. The motion passed 6-0 with Ferrell abstaining.

Fletcher stated that the Commission tabled the agenda item and requested that Staff meet with Terry Hough, City Engineer, and West Virginia Division of Highways to identify any alternatives that could be included as conditions that would serve to reduce and/or mitigate adverse traffic impact created by the subject development. Fletcher read the following memo from Ms. Hough to the Planning Commission:

This office has been requested by the Planning Commission to offer any additional recommendations that would serve to mitigate potential impact on traffic congestion and safety generated by the above referenced development. Based on our January 17, 2008 conference call with WVDOH Engineer Mr. Michael Davis and his staff regarding same, the following conclusions were made:

· As stated before, North Willey Street is a part of the State’s road system and requires access permitting from the WVDOH for new or relocated entrances. WVDOH requires a traffic impact study when developments generate 100 or more trips during AM and/or PM peak times. WVDOH calculated the number of trips for the subject project, based on 88 units rather the actual 72 units proposed, and found that it would generate 62 AM peak trips and 75 PM peak trips. As such, a traffic impact study is not required by WVDOH. Further, Mr. Davis noted that his office is prepared to issue the associated access permit with certain conditions such as the installation of a stop sign.

· The proposed access location is in response to requests by WVDOH and this office and represents the best location given site distance and configuration of the Hampton Avenue/Charles Avenue/North Willey Street intersection.

· I concur with WVDOH’s assessment that a traffic impact study would find that improvements would not be necessary to North Willey Street as a result of the proposed development. Specifically, the trips generated by the proposed development would not warrant nor justify the types of improvements that may be required for development resulting in higher trip generation. Further, such improvements may create hazardous conditions and/or adverse impacts to secondary roads. The following examples attempt to illustrate this point.

- Developing a center turn lane would create hazardous movements into and out of the Hampton Avenue/Charles Avenue/North Willey Street intersection.

- Developing a deceleration lane for southbound movements to enter the development would require additional property currently owned by West Virginia University and the relocation of a Dominion Hope facility.

- The configuration of the intersection(s) along with the existing and projected traffic counts do not warrant the installation of traffic controls (i.e. stop sign, traffic light) at the Hampton Avenue/Charles Avenue/North Willey Street intersection. Further, such traffic control devices would result in increased staging along Hampton Avenue and Charles Avenue and thereby increase traffic congestion into the adjacent neighborhood.

- Restricting left turn movements exiting the proposed development would potentially contribute to cut-through traffic in the adjacent neighborhood (i.e. Roosevelt Street, Charles Avenue) by motorists leaving the subject development bound for destinations to the north (i.e. Mileground, 705, etc.).

· The Planning Commission noted that left-turn movements from Charles Avenue to North Willey Street had been restricted at one time and that the related sign no longer exists. This office is researching the history of same and will report accordingly.

· The Planning Commission requested that the lighting in and around the Hampton Avenue/Charles Avenue/North Willey Street intersection be evaluated. The Engineering Department will review same once the final Lighting Plan is submitted by the developer. Existing off-site utility poles will also be reviewed in relation to the subject Lighting Plan.

Fletcher advised the Commission that a petition containing approximately 130 signatures was submitted at the last BZA meeting and copies were provided to the Commissioners. Fletcher stated that the petition addressed concerns with the billboard erected by the applicant at the site and requested that the sign be removed. Fletcher stated that the City has been working with the applicant’s surveyor to ascertain the location of the City’s corporate limits in relation to the billboard. The City’s position is that if the billboard is found to be within the City then action will be taken to remove the illegal sign. If the billboard is found to be outside the City’s corporate limits, than the City has no jurisdiction to enforce the removal of the billboard. Fletcher also stated that petition stated that 80 units was enough, but noted that the development includes less than 80 units.

Fletcher read a letter was received from Don DeVall questioning the current policy as it relates to sidewalks in front of properties; and whether this property will have common sidewalks. Mr. DeVall advised that he encountered a problem when building his home, in that it had to include sidewalks. Selin asked Fletcher to clarify the status of sidewalks for the present development on North Willey Street. Fletcher reminded the Commission that the site plan illustrated a six-foot sidewalk across the entire length of the development including ADA ramps at the driveway. Selin asked what the zoning requirements are for sidewalks in the City. Fletcher advised that sidewalks are required in all district; however, in the R-1 and R-1A districts, the City Engineer may waive this requirement for practicability reasons. Fletcher stated that he had no working knowledge of Mr. DeVall’s case as it occurred in the late 1970’s.

Selin asked Fletcher to update the Commission on what decisions the BZA had made concerning the site. Fletcher stated that the BZA held a special meeting on February 7, 2008 to hear twelve variance petitions and on conditional use petition. All petitions were approved as requested. The following variances were granted for each of the three buildings: relief from the maximum setback, relief from the minimum rear setback, relief from providing internal landscape islands at least every 15 parking spaces, and relief from the maximum number of parking spaces.

Selin asked if the site plan still meets the minimum interior landscaping without the required islands. Fletcher stated that the additional strip between the two parking areas of Building 1 and Building 2 sufficiently addresses the minimum landscaping requirement. Fletcher stated that the BZA stressed the importance of selecting appropriate landscape materials that achieves the required screening provisions for the parking areas from North Willey Street. Fletcher also noted that the parking area along Building 3 is 14 to 16 feet below North Willey Street and that landscaping will require time to mature in this area to achieve desired screening.

Selin asked for clarification on the variance to exceed maximum parking. Fletcher stated that the maximum parking provision is included in business districts regardless of the use. The BZA has granted variances to exceed the parking in these districts when multi-family development is proposes. The intent of maximum parking standards is to avoid the overdevelopment of parking commonly found in big-box type development. Multi-family residential development should include additional parking for guests, which often results in exceeding the maximum parking requirement. Fletcher noted that the maximum parking provision, as it relates to multi-family development, may need to be revisited by the Planning Commission in the future.

Fletcher was asked for clarification on the conditional use approval to grant off-site parking. Fletcher stated that because the Planning & Zoning Code requires only one principal building per parcel, the development required three separate parcels. The off-site parking approval provided flexibility for the residents and visitors to park anywhere within the development.

Selin questioned whether the greenery coverage is proper and correct. Fletcher advised the area designated for landscaping is sufficient. Staff will need to closely review the proposed planting materials to ensure they achieve the desired buffering and screening.

DeMasters again asked if the BZA had granted all the variances; Fletcher responded that the Board did grant all the approvals unanimously with the exception of the interior landscape islands, which passed 2-1.

Sam Bossio was present representing the applicant.

Shamberger asked for Public Comment, either in favor or in opposition. There being no comments in favor of the development, Shamberger asked for comments in opposition of the request.

Mark Furfari, Roosevelt Street, spoke against the site plan request. Furfari questioned whether Sam Bossio was there to speak on behalf of the developer or if his presence was simply as a citizen. Furfari noted that if the developer was not present to speak to the petition, tabling the item is proper procedure. Mr. Bossio then stated he was there to speak on behalf of the developer. Furfari stated he was going to present the petition earlier referenced by the Planner. Furfari stated that the petition stated 80 units but meant 80 beds. He stated prior to the last meeting before the vote for the service fee, he felt the board supported the fee. Now it is clear the community did not support it. He feels fingers should be pointed at WVU, government leadership and developers for the reason we are overdeveloped. Planning, congestion, and overbuilding are a problem. He believes in a residential community that 72 units is enough. This developer moves into a neighborhood and the first thing he does is erect a huge billboard. That intersection is very difficult. Two buildings are enough.

There being no additional public comments, Shamberger declared that the public comment portion was closed.

Shamberger asked if Mr. Bossio would like to offer any rebuttal to Mr. Furfari’s comments. Bossio stated that compared to larger cities, we actually do not have a traffic problem here. He is frustrated with hearing about developers causing all the problems for this community.

Fletcher read the Staff Report recommendation stating that Staff recommends approval with the following conditions:

1. That subdivision recordation documents include easements across parcels to address common access drive, vehicular circulation, solid waste storage/removal, U.S. Postal Service drop location, etc.

2. That a Landscape Plan be submitted with the building permit application for review and approval by the Planning Director. Variance approval must be obtained should the Landscape Plan not conform to the performance standards set forth in the City’s Planning & Zoning Code.

3. That a Lighting Plan be submitted with the building permit application for review and approval by the Planning Director. Variance approval must be obtained should the Lighting Plan not conform to the performance standards set forth in the City’s Planning & Zoning Code.

4. That a Sign Plan be submitted with the related building permit application for review and approval by the Planning Director. Variance approval must be obtained should the Sign Plan not conform to the performance standards set forth in the City’s Planning & Zoning Code.

5. That the petitioner obtains all appropriate access permitting from the West Virginia Division of Highways.

6. That a six-foot sidewalk be constructed along North Willey Street; said sidewalk must be designed and constructed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.

7. That the development meets all applicable Fair Housing and Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) standards to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and Chief Code Official.

8. That final building renderings and exterior cladding materials be submitted with the building permit for review by the Planning Director. Variance approval must be obtained should same not conform to the performance standards set forth in the City’s Planning & Zoning Code.

9. That the façade facing N. Willey Street include decorative shutter features to provide context to an otherwise blank wall.

10. That a final Site Plan be submitted prior to building permit issuance and include all required elements and be organized as set forth in Article 1385.08 of the Planning & Zoning Code.

11. That prior to the issuance of a permanent certificate of occupancy, the petitioner shall develop, with the technical assistance of Mountain Line Transit Authority pertaining to final location, a transit shelter facility as illustrated on the petitioner’s site plan. Said facility shall meet all reasonable design specifications set forth by Mountain Line Transit. Further, said facility shall be developed in a location and manner that optimizes access to and the enjoyment of same but does not create a hazard for pedestrian circulation and/or vehicular traffic, i.e. handicap accessibility, site triangle visibility, etc.

DeMasters questioned whether the four items that required a variance would go before the Planning Commission. Fletcher advised variances are heard and decided by the BZA. Fletcher noted that the applicant must meet landscaping and lighting standards or be required to obtain variance approval from the BZA.

Greever stated she was impressed by the number of people who signed the petition and feels it shows opposition to that area of development and the billboard. She feels the billboard is inappropriate and a highly visible public movement to insensitivity to people in that area. Greever stated that she feels that the developer has no social conscience.

Shamberger reminded the Commission that the billboard is not the issue this evening. Selin asked whether it could be discussed at the end of the meeting. She also suggested asking the developer to take it down as a sign of good faith.

Rich asked how many homes were proportionate to the number of people who signed the petition. Fletcher stated that he had quickly reviewed the petition and recognized addresses Fairmont, Cheat Lake, Bakers Ridge, and Suncrest areas. Fletcher also stated that he believed that the petition emphasized the billboard and speculated that some signatures may have been motivated by the billboard more so than the proposed housing. Fletcher stated that although Mr. Furfari clarified that the 80 figure used in the petition related to beds rather than units but speculated on whether the signatures understood the difference between bedrooms and units.

Fletcher stated that when the Commission is weighing its decision, it should also consider alternate development scenarios for this sight that are permitted in the B-2 District. Specifically, commercial development is permitted by-right but could arguably have a more significant impact on the character of the adjacent neighborhood and traffic congestion.

Greever questioned whether Fletcher was satisfied with what was proposed. Fletcher stated that Staff worked closely with the applicant to achieve maximum landscaping given the applicant’s development program; the utilization of one means of ingress/egress meets sound access management objectives; and, although not required, the provision of a bus shelter encourages public transit use by residents of the development and the adjacent neighborhood and increases transit visibility. The topography of the site is a challenge. Greever also questioned whether everyone would have a problem with the development if the billboard was not there.

Selin then thanked Fletcher for his efforts and believes for what is stated in the code, this development can’t be improved any further. Fletcher stated that the issue of lighting would be reviewed closely once the Lighting Plan is submitted. Staff will review the plan in relation to existing lighting and utility poles for the Willey/Hampton/Charles intersection as well.

Fletcher reminded the Commission that if it chose to deny the petition, that it must state its reasons. Failure to provide sufficient findings and conclusions could be argued as an arbitrary and capricious decision.

Selin moved to approve the site plan with the Staff’s recommended conditions; seconded by Greever. A roll call vote was taken on the motion and the following votes were recorded:

Fletcher reported that the motion failed to obtain a majority vote in favor by those present who could vote. Fletcher stated that the matter could be tabled so that an odd number of Commissioners could be present to break the tie. Fletcher stated that he did not have a copy of the Robert’s Rules to confirm this and would like to discuss the matter with the City Attorney. Demasters moved to table the agenda item; second by Rich. The motion passed 6-0 with Ferrell abstaining.

[NOTE: Staff erred in advising the Commission that the matter could be tabled so that an odd number of members could be present and potentially break the tie vote. Staff confirmed that the site plan petition was denied because the motion to approve failed to obtain a majority affirmative vote. As such, the action to table the item is moot.]

IV. NEW BUSINESS:

A. S08-01.III / Panico – Victory Holdings / 508 Beechurst Avenue. Request by Joe Panico for site plan approval of a Development of Significant Impact at property located on 508 Beechurst Avenue. Tax Map # 19 Parcels #57, 58, 59; B-2, a Service-Business District and Beechurst Overlay District. (REQUEST HAS BEEN MOVED TO THE MARCH 2008 AGENDA)

B. MNS08-02 / Moser Investments, LLC / Beechurst Avenue. Request by Moser Investments, LLC for minor subdivision approval for property located on Beechurst Avenue. Tax Map #19 Parcel #116; a B-2, Service Business District and Sunnyside South & Beechurst Overlay Districts.

Fletcher read the Staff Report stating that the petitioner seeks to combine an additional parcel to the previously approved (November 2005 and June 2007) minor subdivisions to combine parcels #111-115 for a mixed-use development on Beechurst Avenue. Addendum A of the report illustrates the location of the subject realty and the relationship between the previous approved minor subdivision and the subject petition. Subdivision details include:

· The petitioner purchased Parcel 116 of Tax Map 19 after the June 2007 approval to combine Parcels 111-115.

· A combined tract will be approximately 42,751.75 ft² or .98 acres, which exceeds the B-2 District minimum lot area standard of 6,000 ft² and minimum lot frontage standard of 60 ft.

· The existing single-family structure will be razed as a part of the proposed redevelopment project.

Fletcher noted that the petitioner requested to be represented by Staff.

Loretta asked for clarification on the existing house on the additional parcel. Fletcher noted that the applicant wished to raze the building and provide parking on this site. Fletcher also noted that the Staff Report includes a recommended condition to address the structure.

Shamberger asked for Public Comment, either in favor or in opposition. There being none, Shamberger declared that the public comment portion was closed.

Fletcher stated that Staff recommends approval with the following conditions:

1. That, prior to the issuance of a any Certificate of Occupancy for the proposed mixed-use development, the existing residential structure be razed so that a non-conforming parcel is not created by containing two principal structures on one parcel;

2. 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,

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

Demasters moved to approve the minor subdivision petition with Staff’s recommended conditions; second by Loretta. The motion passed unanimously.

C. MNSO8-03 / Diggins / Jackson & Lincoln. Request by Pamela Diggins for minor subdivision approval for property located on Jackson Avenue. Tax Map #36 Parcel #577; an R-1A, Single-Family Residential District.

Fletcher read the Staff Report stating that the petitioner seeks to subdivide an approximate 14,250 ft² parcel into two 7,125 ft² parcels. The existing parcel is considered a “through lot” in that it fronts both Jefferson Avenue and Lincoln Avenue. Under the proposed subdivision, one parcel would have approximately 95-foot of frontage on Jefferson Avenue and the other parcel would have approximately 95-foot of frontage on Lincoln Avenue. Fletcher noted that the applicant requested that Staff represent the petitioner.

Fletcher stated that the proposed parcels exceed the R-1A District minimum lot area standard of 3,500 ft² and minimum lot frontage standard of 30 feet. No setback encroachments will be created by the subdivision. Petitioner’s intent is to make into two lots, one facing Jefferson and one facing Lincoln. There is no house on this parcel.

Shamberger asked for Public Comment, either in favor or in opposition. There being none, Shamberger declared that the public comment portion was closed.

Fletcher stated that Staff recommends approval of the petition 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.

Demaster moved to approve the minor subdivision petition with Staff’s recommended conditions; second by Selin. The motion passed unanimously

V. OTHER BUSINESS:

A. Public Comments – None.

B. Staff Comments – None.

The meeting adjourned at 7:45 PM.