MORGANTOWN PLANNING COMMISSION

MORGANTOWN PLANNING COMMISSION

Minutes

6:30 PM January 8, 2009 Council Chambers

MEMBERS PRESENT: Sam Loretta, Tim Stranko, Barbara Ferrell, Kathryn Greever, Marti Shamberger, Peter DeMasters, Carol Pyles, Ken Martis, Jennifer Selin

MEMBERS ABSENT: None

STAFF: Christopher Fletcher, AICP

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

II. MATTERS OF BUSINESS:

A. 2009 Leadership Elections. Nominations were opened for President and Vice President for 2009. Selin moved to nominate Marti Shamberger for President and Peter DeMasters for Vice President; seconded by Stranko. Stranko moved to close nominations; seconded by Martis. The motion to close the nomination passed unanimously. Shamberger and DeMasters were elected by acclamation.

B. Approval of the November 13, 2008 minutes. Fletcher reported that the November 13^th minutes were not included in the meeting packets and that approval would be postponed until the Commission’s February meeting.

III. OLD BUSINESS:

A. MNS08-20/ Petitto Mine Equipment, Inc./ E. Brockway Ave: Request by Petitto Mine Equipment to amend minor subdivision approved by the Planning Commission on September 11, 2008 for property located on E. Brockway Ave; Tax Map # 30 Parcel #94 and Tax Map #35 Parcels #90, 92, 93, 94, & 103.1; IND, Industrial District

Fletcher read the Staff Report stating that in September 2008, the Planning Commission approved a subdivision as a part of a Development of Significant Impact Site Plan (S08-15.III) in which the petitioner proposed to combined seven (7) existing parcels consisting of approximately 13.3 acres (582,449.47 s.f.) into one parcel for the petitioner’s property on E. Brockway Avenue.

The petitioner now seeks an amendment to this approval by creating three (3) parcels rather than one in order to keep the existing structures separate from the proposed development. The following describes the proposed parcel configurations:

· Tract #1 will contain approximately 6.2 acres and have an 80’ foot of frontage on East Brockway Avenue and 30’ on Hirschman Street.

· Tract #2 will contain approximately 2.8 acres and have 157’ foot of frontage on East Brockway Avenue.

· Tract #3 will contain approximately 4.3 acres and have 407’ foot of frontage on East Brockway Avenue.

The proposed amendment meets all minimum lot provisions for the Industrial District. Addendum A of the report illustrates the location of the subject site.

Fletcher advised that the petitioner requested Staff to represent the application.

Selin questioned if there is an advantage to having three parcels instead of their original one parcel. Fletcher advised he did not discuss with the petitioner specific advantages that may result from subdividing the property into three parcels rather than one. Fletcher stated that parcel boundary configuration for industrial-type development can benefit corporate ownership, investment leveraging, financing, etc. Fletcher stated that the proposed configuration follows the pattern of existing building and potential building sites.

Shamberger asked for public comment, either in favor or against the request. There being none, she closed the public comment portion of the hearing 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 for approval with conditions recommended by Staff; seconded by Martis. The motion passed unanimously.

IV. NEW BUSINESS

A. S09-01.III / Platinum Properties / Morgantown Event Center Parking: Request by March Westin, on behalf of Mermaid, LLC, for Development of Significant Impact Site Plan Review for the Morgantown Event Center Parking Garage and surface lot in the Wharf District; Tax Map #37A portion of Parcel #3; B-4, General Business District.

Fletcher read the Staff Report stating that the City of Morgantown and a subsidiary of Platinum Properties are currently developing the Morgantown Event Center as a public-private, design-build project. The Event Center building is a City development project through the City’s Building Commission while the parking garage and surface parking area components are considered a private development project. As such, the former is not required under State Code to adhere to the City’s Planning & Zoning Code while the later is.

The petitioner seeks to construct a parking garage connected to the Morgantown Event Center that is currently under construction and surface parking to serve the Event Center, the Waterfront Jeep Dealership, and the Caperton Trail. General development program details include:

· Approximately 74,000 square foot parking garage that includes four (4) parking decks.

· Approximately eight (8) surface accessible and valet spaces in front of the garage structure.

· Approximately fifty-nine (59) spaces between the parking garage structure and the Waterfront Jeep Dealership.

· Approximately eight (8) parallel spaces along the Caperton Trail to be dedicated for trail use.

· Approximately three tour bus spaces behind the Waterfront Jeep Dealership.

· Approximately thirty-eight (38) spaces behind and to be dedicated for the Waterfront Jeep Dealership.

Both entrances to the site from University Avenue currently exist. The primary entrance is the intersection controlled by a traffic light in front of the Waterfront Hotel and WVU’s One Waterfront Place. The second entrance is near the Jeep Dealership above the existing pedestrian tunnel. The traffic impact analysis is considered a part of the City’s Event Center development project and not a part of the parking garage and surface lot development that is currently before Planning Commission.

For informational purposes, the City Engineer, West Virginia Division of Highways, and the project’s design professionals are currently reviewing a preliminary traffic impact analysis. The proposed site plan illustrates the City’s present desire to move the majority of exiting passenger vehicles through the intersection that is currently controlled by the traffic light.

The petitioner met with the Technical Review Team on Tuesday, December 9, 2008. All requested/suggested modifications were included in the final site plan submission.

Addendum A of this report illustrates the location of the subject site. Addendum B of this report contains the Planning Department’s Final Planning & Zoning Code Consistency Report.

Selin questioned whether parking for rail-trail users would be available. Fletcher stated that parking for the trail had to be provided and dedicated in accordance with agreements between the City and the developer. These spaces will not be metered, but will have signage. The logistics of enforcement has not been finalized.

Martis questioned whether the surface parking lot will be metered. Fletcher responded it would not be. It is privately owned and managed and intended for event center and hotel use. Martis stated that the event center is a wonderful idea, but wondered if, instead of the surface parking lot, more green space be provided.

Fletcher advised that initially, stormwater management planning included bioswales along the rail-trail facility. Staff advised the developer that this approach was not optimal due to required depth, fencing, and inability to included landscaping designed to screen the development site from the rail-trail. Instead, the developer was asked to design a hard edge separation between the event center site and the rail-trail facility that should include berming, tall trees and evergreens, decorative guard railing, etc.

Martis asked that if green space should be required along the trail.

Stranko also echoed Martis’ concerns regarding the surface parking area. He believes the water run off will be significant and asked why the surface parking area is necessary. Stranko stated while the Event Center is desirable, the aesthetics of the sight can’t be ignored. As it now stands, there is no green space within the surface parking area.

Loretta agreed the parking lot should be softened with some type of plantings.

Fletcher stated that the site plan illustrates landscaping surrounding the surface parking area and that the surface parking lot twenty or more feet below University Avenue. A couple of the landscaping areas were removed to develop refuge areas for pedestrian crosswalks.

Selin stated concerns with the road back to the Event Center. She asked if the road could be cut off somehow so things aren’t so crowded. The circular road seems too “busy”.

Fletcher advised the first site design showed two entrances on the south side of the surface parking lot but Staff requested modification to this design based on concerns with pedestrian safety and mitigate cut-thru traffic. The serpentine alignment was largely due to elevation changes and existing utilities that are significant and can not be relocated.

Stranko stated that if there is not an event, there is an empty parking lot. He said the Planning Commission needs to think hard about green space. Until the developer can show why the surface parking lot is needed, he does not support it.

Adam Feathers, March-Westin, appeared on behalf of the petitioner and stated that the road winding back to the event center was due to the location, depth, and pressure of the main water line feeding Morgantown. Concerning parking demand for the event center development, he stated that the cost of the parking garage and physical barriers due to utility lines on the east and west side of the parking garage necessitated the development of additional surface parking. The event center is being designed as a multi-use building that can accommodate 1000 people seated, or up to 2,300 for special events, i.e. boxing matches, theatre, plays, etc.

Stranko asked how many spaces would be available for the event center without the surface parking lot. Feathers stated there are approximately 250 spaces within and in front of the parking garage. The surface lot would provide an additional 56 to 59 spaces.

Stranko asked for additional information concerning stormwater management. Feathers stated that the developer agreed that the bioswales were not a feasible approach and that they are considering a buyout with MUB.

Fletcher added that the buyout is preferred by the developer rather than underground storage where the surface parking lot is shown on the site plan because the developer hopes to construct a building there in the future.

Selin commented that the surface parking lot may be a good idea because on busy summer weekends, the area could accommodate boats, motorcycles, trailers, etc.

Fletcher stated that he believed that the developer was looking at the surface lot as programming space for car shows, motorcycle rallies, Budweiser Clydesdales, etc.

Stranko asked Feathers if impervious pavement was a consideration for the surface parking area. Feathers stated conventional asphalt is being used because it is the least expensive material.

Stranko then asked if there were any discussions with the developer to reduce or eliminate the surface parking area. Feathers advised that the amount of spaces needed were calculated based on different programming scenarios within the event center, the conference center, the hotel, and the WVU Foundation building.

Shamberger then opened the public comment portion of the meeting, asking for comments either in favor or against the petition.

Justin Burns, 1238 Van Voorhis Drive, stated his concerns about stormwater runoff at the site. Also believes an impervious surface should be used instead of asphalt. During the time periods when no vehicles are parked on the lot, there will be a fair amount of drainage. He also feels there should be no buyout to MUB.

There being no additional comments, Shamberger closed the public comment portion of the meeting and asked for Staff’s recommendations.

Fletcher noted the buyout is an option under the City’s stormwater management ordinance administered by MUB.

Stranko stated his concerns that this run off will be pumped into the river and it is not a good environmental plan.

Fletcher stated staff recommended approval with the following considerations and conditions:

1. That the Planning Commission waive the submission of air flow and sunlight distribution analyses required for buildings taller than three stories because:

a. Existing air flow and sunlight distribution should remain relatively unaffected given the expansive area around the subject development created by its proximity to the Monongahela River and University Avenue right-of-way.

b. Any air flow and/or sunlight distribution disturbance that may be created will certainly be significantly less than that created by the construction of the Waterfront Hotel and One Waterfront Place (WVU) buildings.

2. That a Sign Plan be submitted with related building and/or electrical permit application(s) for review by the Downtown Design Review Committee 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.

3. That a Lighting Plan be submitted with related building and/or electrical permit application(s) 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 minor subdivision be approved by the Planning Commission prior to occupancy so that the proposed parking garage is on a lot separate from the realty on which the Morgantown Event’s Center is situated.

5. That, to the satisfaction of the Planning Director, all reasonable recommendations by the Downtown Design Review Team be included in final building permit drawings for the parking garage facility.

6. That, to the satisfaction of the Planning Director, the design of all crosswalks exceeds conventional painted techniques so as to emphasize quality and care in site design.

7. That, to the satisfaction of the Planning Director:

a. Brick veneer, identical to that used to finish the first level of the parking garage, be used to finish all sides of said dumpster enclosure.

b. Decorative opaque gates be installed for all access openings into said dumpster enclosure.

c. The northwest corner of the parking garage facility be used to completely obscure the dumpster enclosure from the view of oncoming vehicular traffic approaching the proposed parking garage facility from the south; said screening design should include the relocation of the transformer pad.

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

9. That, to the satisfaction of the City Engineering, wheel stops and/or extended curbs be provided for all parking spaces to ensure open pedestrian circulation and mitigate damage to other vehicles and landscaping.

10. That, if applicable, the petitioner obtains all appropriate access permitting and right-of-way utilization agreements from the West Virginia Division of Highways.

11. That all necessary signage and pavement markings (i.e., stop signs, etc.) be installed in accordance with the Manuel Uniform Traffic Control Device to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.

12. That internal roadway development and associated driveway entrances (i.e., Jeep Dealership, parking garage entrances, intersection with University Avenue, etc.) be designed and constructed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and City Fire Marshall.

13. That a Final Landscape Plan be submitted and approved by the Planning Director prior to installation and any occupancy that includes the following revisions and considerations:

a. That the Final Landscape Plan reflects the same roadway and parking geometry that is illustrated on the Proposed Site Plan dated November 7, 2008, Sheet Number C3.0, as well as the removal of previously contemplated bioswales. Further, the Final Landscape Plan shall meet the content requirements enumerated in Article 1367.04.

b. That, prior to Final Landscape Plan submission, the developer and the landscape design professional meet with the Planning Director, City Engineer, and West Virginia Division of Highways to establish the parameters of planting within the WVDOH right-of-way along University Avenue with the objective of planning a highly attractive landscape design.

c. That the buffer area between the rail-trail facility and the development be significantly enhanced by incorporating a combination of landscaping, berms, decorative guard rails, fencing, and/or walls so as to effectively mitigate potential adverse impacts relative to views, vehicular movements, noise, etc. The guiding principle in designing the buffer area must be to improve the quality, character, safety, and enjoyment of the community’s significant recreational and economic rail-trail asset. The Planning Director shall ensure that the developer’s landscape design professional consults with BOPARC Staff prior to Final Landscape Plan submission.

d. That internal islands shown on the Preliminary Landscape Plan and the Proposed Landscape Plan include suitable landscaping to meet or exceed 5% internal landscaping requirements.

14. 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.

Martis suggested adding an fifteenth condition, because of the concerns with the surface parking area, that would require the developer to considers keeping the surface parking area as green space until the parking requirements are properly determined. He believes the developer had a responsibility to be present at the meeting.

Stranko pointed out that the development of the new WVU Alumni Center showed sensitivity to the environment and aesthetics of the area. Old buildings were razed so that parking issues could be accommodated. The developer should look at setting an example and green space should be encouraged. Since the developer was not present to address the Planning Commission’s concerns, Stranko suggested tabling the issue until the next meeting and ask the developer to be present.

Fletcher stated that the developer asked if he could send a representative because of scheduling conflicts. Fletcher felt the issue could be handled without him present and advised that a representative should be sufficient. Fletcher stated that the design-build approach left little room for project delays and suggested that if the surface parking was the only remaining concern that the Commission could consider a fifteenth condition that would allow the parking garage facility to move forward and have the developer return to discuss the merits of the surface lot at a latter date.

Selin commented that no one seems to have a problem with the parking garage. The concern is the surface parking area.

Fletcher stated if the application were tabled, thirty days may present a construction scheduling problem for the parking garage. He did not feel waiting on the surface parking area would be a problem.

Selin and DeMasters asked Feathers if the surface parking area could be split off from the rest of the petition by approving the site plan as represented on C.3.1 with conditions, and the for the 59 surface parking lot component be brought back to the Planning Commission next month.

Feathers said he believed this would be acceptable since the parking garage would be the most critical component. He stated that the surface parking lot wouldn’t be completed until this summer.

Fletcher reminded the Planning Commission that as far as stormwater management is concerned, the developer appears to be complying with the City’s Stormwater Management Ordinance. He stated concerns of the Planning Commission requiring management measures beyond the scope of the City’s stormwater and whether or not these additional requirements could be uphold on appeal. He suggested that since the surface parking lot issue would be back on the agenda, drainage questions could be answered at that time.

Stranko asked that, based on the discussion, if Fletcher could offer a fifteenth condition that splits the surface parking lot from the remaining portion of the site plan.

Fletcher offered the following as a fifteenth condition:

“15. That the petitioner reconsider the design of the fifty-nine space surface parking area and resubmit same to the Planning Commission for approval.”

Stranko moved to approve the site plan application including the fourteen conditions recommended in the Staff Report and the fifteenth stated by Fletcher; seconded by Martis. The motion passed unanimously.

B. MNS09-01 / Tapper / 753 Augusta Avenue: Request by Joyce A. Tapper for minor subdivision approval for property located on Augusta Ave; Tax Map #42 Parcel #47; R-1 Single Family Residential District

Fletcher read the Staff Report stating that the petitioner seeks to divide Parcel #47 on Augusta Avenue into two (2) parcels. The new parcel will be approximately 12,346 square feet with 80 feet of road frontage. The remnant parcel will be approximately 14,661 square feet with 95 feet of road frontage.

The existing structure on the remnant parcel will be approximately 15 feet from the proposed boundary, which exceeds the minimum side setback standard of 10 feet for the R-1 District.

The proposed parcels exceed the minimum lot area standard of 7,200 square feet and minimum lot frontage standard of 70 feet in the R-1 District. Addendum A illustrates the location of the subject site.

Fletcher stated that the applicant asked to be represented by Staff. Fletcher advised that the request relates to a contract of sale for the property.

Shamberger asked for public comments in favor or against the request. There being none, she closed the public comment portion of the hearing and asked for Staff’s recommendations.

Fletcher stated that Staff recommended approval with the following conditions.

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

Martis moved to approve of the request with conditions recommended by Staff; seconded by Selin. The motion passed unanimously.

C. TX09-01 / Administrative / 1331.09 Demolition: An administratively requested text amendment to the Planning and Zoning Code Article 1331.09 “Demolition” AND Article 1351.01 “Performance Standards for Buildings in the General Business (B-4) District”, (G) “Vacant Lots” as they relate to sediment/erosion control and seeding/landscaping following demolition.

Fletcher read the Staff Report stating that the Planning & Zoning Code provides limited standards concerning the condition of vacant lots created as a result of demolition. There have been a couple of instances recently where lots were not suitably restored so as to properly address erosion and sediment control and/or mitigate continued blighting conditions.

The following provisions enumerate present responsibilities following demolition.

1331.09 DEMOLITION.

(A) The demolition of all structures within the South Park and Greenmont historic neighborhoods shall be reviewed for comment by the Planning Commission, which shall consult with the Historic Landmarks Commission as part of its review process. This review shall be completed prior to the issuance of any demolition permit.

(B) The demolition of all structures within the B-4 zoning district shall be reviewed for comment by the Design Review Committee. This review shall be completed prior to the issuance of any demolition permit.

(C) If the Chief Building Inspector certifies that a structure is in imminent danger of collapse or poses extraordinary threat to public safety, a review process shall not be required before the issuance of a demolition permit.

AND

1351.01 Performance Standards for Buildings in the General Business (B-4) District

(G) Vacant Lots.

(1) Vacant lots created as a result of building demolition shall be, at a minimum, seeded/landscaped to help mitigate standing water or erosion and shall be maintained by the owner. Such vacant lots shall be completely cleared, graded, and seeded within ninety (90) days of the time of demolition, unless redevelopment plans have been submitted to the City for approval within that time.

(2) Street frontages shall be either fenced or landscaped to avoid “gaps” in the architectural or urban facades/streetscapes.

(3) If the site is to be landscaped, a continuous evergreen shrub and/or tree screen shall be planted, with an installed minimum height of thirty-six (36) inches.

It is the opinion of the Planning Department that the Planning & Zoning Code should be strengthened to:

1. Ensure proper and timely sediment and erosion control practices; and,

2. Ensure that vacant lots where structures have been demolished, regardless of location, do not detract from surrounding properties or sustain blighting conditions.

Shamberger asked for public comments in favor or in opposition of the proposed text amendments. There being none, she closed the public comment portion of the hearing and asked for Staff’s recommendations.

Fletcher stated that Staff recommends that the following revisions be submitted by the Planning
Commission to City Council with an affirmative recommendation to amend the City’s Planning & Zoning Code accordingly (deleted matter struck through, new matter underlined):

1331.09 DEMOLITION.

(A) Vacant lots created as a result of building demolition shall be, at a minimum, seeded/landscaped to help mitigate standing water or erosion and shall be maintained by the owner. Such vacant lots shall be completely cleared, except when existing landscape features are to be preserved, graded, and seeded/landscaped within thirty (30) days of the time of demolition, unless redevelopment plans have been submitted to the City for approval within that time. This period may be reasonably extended and/or temporary alternate measures approved when inclement seasonal conditions impede effective seeding/landscaping.

~~(A)~~ (B) The demolition of all structures within the South Park and Greenmont historic neighborhoods shall be reviewed for comment by the Planning Commission, which shall consult with the Historic Landmarks Commission as part of its review process. This review shall be completed prior to the issuance of any demolition permit.

~~(B)~~ (C) The demolition of all structures within the B-4 zoning district shall be reviewed for comment by the Design Review Committee. This review shall be completed prior to the issuance of any demolition permit.

~~(C)~~ (D) If the Chief Building Inspector certifies that a structure is in imminent danger of collapse or poses extraordinary threat to public safety, a review process shall not be required before the issuance of a demolition permit.

AND

1351.01 Performance Standards for Buildings in the General Business (B-4) District

(G) Vacant Lots.

~~(2)~~ (1) Street frontages where vacant lots have been created as a result of building demolition shall be either fenced or landscaped to avoid “gaps” in the architectural or urban facades/streetscapes.

~~(3)~~ (2) If the site is to be landscaped, a continuous evergreen shrub and/or tree screen shall be planted, with an installed minimum height of thirty-six (36) inches.

Martis suggested that an additional text amendment be included for Article 1331.09 (B) so that “South Park and Greenmont” is replaced with “designated”. He also asked if standards were in place for vacant lots that are not a result of demolition.

Fletcher stated the ICC Property Maintenance Code regulates the conditions of vacant properties.

Shamberger questioned who is responsible for enforcing the code.

Fletcher stated the City Building Code Division is charged with enforcing ICC regulations.

Stranko moved to forward a positive recommendation to City Council for the text amendments proposed by Staff as well as a revision to strike “South Park and Greenmont” in Article 1331.09 (B) and replace same with “designated”; seconded by DeMasters. The motion passed unanimously.

D. TX09-02 / Administrative / Lodging & Rooming Houses: An administratively requested text amendment to the Planning and Zoning Code Article 1329 “Definitions” as it relates to “Lodging or Rooming House” AND Table 1331.05.01 “Permitted Land Uses” as it relates to “Lodging and Rooming House” uses in the B-4 District.

Fletcher read the Staff Report stating that the Planning Department has identified two areas within the Planning & Zoning Code that relate to “Lodging and Rooming House” uses which may lead to unintended consequences.

Concerning the issue of “portion thereof”, Fletcher stated that a “Lodging or Rooming House” use is defined in Article 1329.02 as:

“A building or portion thereof that does not qualify as a one- or two-family dwelling, that provides sleeping accommodations for no more than 16 people on a transient or permanent basis, without personal care services, with or without meals, but without separate cooking facilities for individual occupants. Also called a BOARDING HOUSE.” Emphasis added.

Fletcher stated that this definition allows for a “portion” of a building to be classified as a “Lodging or Rooming House” regardless of the present use(s) of the building. This has created an opportunity for a duplex structure to be split into two “Lodging or Rooming House” uses.

Fletcher stated that Staff is concerned that allowing this type of densification may serve to perpetuate a historical problem in Morgantown where increased residential densities have been allowed in structures that were never designed or constructed to accommodate higher occupant concentrations. Further, the resulting residential composition of a previous duplex (two-family dwellings) may lead to diminished quality of life for residents and overcrowded population within the immediate area (i.e., parking, functional green space, refuse storage and collection, etc.)

Fletcher stated that it is the opinion of the Planning Department that the definition should be amended so that the classification of a “Lodging or Rooming House” use relative to a portion of a building is limited to mixed-use buildings.

Concerning the issue of “Lodging or Rooming House” in the B-4 District, Fletcher stated that prior to the 2006 enactment of the major zoning ordinance amendment, “Lodging or Rooming House” uses were permitted in the B-4 District as a conditional use. Table 1331.05.01 “Permitted Land Uses” now permits this use by-right.

The preservation of commercial storefront uses has long been a supported objective in the B-4 District. Specifically, “mixed-use” and “over-store” dwelling uses are permitted by-right while “multi-family dwelling” uses are permitted as a conditional use.

Allowing “Lodging or Rooming House” to remain a by-right use appears to undermine preservation and continued development of at-grade commercial leasable space.

Mixed-use development and commercial storefront patterns contribute to the creation of places that enliven urban centers while meeting the everyday needs of the community. Mixed-use development offers many advantages over single-use development in fostering better urban environments including:

· Sense of Community – Mixed-use development provides opportunities for community interaction by catering to a diversity of people and uses in one place.

· Vitality – Diversified, mixed-use urban centers become community destinations.

· Convenient Access – The mixing of diverse uses within proximity of public spaces, services, and amenities makes it possible to reduce vehicle trips and encourage shared parking and transit ridership.

· Pedestrian-Friendly Environment – Mixed-use development provides more opportunities for convenient and safe pedestrian access.

· Longer Hours of Active Street Life – A range of uses are generally active at different times of the day or on different days of the week, which activates the space for longer hours than is possible for any one single use type.

· Safety – Mixing residential, commercial, and professional activities within a compact area ensures activity throughout the day and evening, creating a sense of safety.

Fletcher stated that it is the opinion of the Planning Department that Table 1331.05.01 is amended so that “Lodging or Rooming House” uses are permitted as a conditional use rather than by-right in the B-4 District.

Shamberger asked for public comments in favor or in opposition of the proposed text amendments. There being none, she closed the public comment portion of the hearing an asked for Staff recommendations.

Fletcher stated that Staff proposes that the following revisions be submitted by the Planning
Commission to City Council with an affirmative recommendation to amend the City’s Planning & Zoning Code accordingly (deleted matter struck through, new matter underlined):

ARTICLE 1329.02 DEFINITION OF TERMS.

LODGING OR ROOMING HOUSE – A building or portion ~~thereof~~ of a mixed-use building that does not qualify as a one- or two-family dwelling, that provides sleeping accommodations for no more than 16 people on a transient or permanent basis, without personal care services, with or without meals, but without separate cooking facilities for individual occupants. Also called a BOARDING HOUSE.

AND

Table 1331.05.01 Permitted Land Uses

Uses

R-1

R-1A

R-2

R-3

PRO

B-1

B-2

B-4

B-5

I-1

Supplemental

Regulations

Lodging or Rooming House

Stranko moved to forward a positive recommendation to City Council for the text amendments proposed by Staff; seconded by Selin. The motion passed unanimously.

V. OTHER BUSINESS

A. Public Comments – none.

B. Staff Comments

- Fletcher stated that the Downtown Strategic Plan update is in the analysis phase. The consulting team will facilitate the next round of meetings in February. Staff will email final dates to the Planning Commission along with a press release.

- Fletcher advised the Commission that an annual report has been completed and will be posted on the City’s website.

- Fletcher stated that new parking tags were available for Commissioners attending meetings at City Hall and that they would be distributed after the meeting.

- Martis reported that the Traffic Commission is very active in bicycle planning and pedestrian safety. Their plan will be posted on their website. The final report will be completed in February. Stranko asked for an update on the pedestrian bridge near the Coliseum. Martis advised that he was only aware of WVU’s interest in the project but no specific plans had been shared with the Traffic Commission. Stranko asked about the stated of the pedestrian path connecting the Evansdale Campus with the Sunnyside Neighborhood. Martis stated that he understands that the project has been prioritized by the Traffic Commission’s Pedestrian Safety Committee. Martis suggested that a Traffic Commission report be added to the Planning Commission’s agenda as well as Planning Commission comments so information could be shared from different boards and commissions. Fletcher stated that he would review the suggestion and report at the Planning Commission’s February meeting.

VI. ADJOURNMENT – meeting was adjourned at 8:50 PM.