Minutes
March 13, 2008
6:30 PM Council
Chambers
MEMBERS PRESENT: Marti Shamberger,
MEMBERS ABSENT: None
STAFF: Christopher Fletcher, AICP
I.
CALL TO
ORDER AND ROLL CALL: Shamberger
called the meeting to order at 6:30
II.
MATTERS OF
BUSINESS
A.
Approval
of February 14, 2008 Minutes.
DeMasters moved to approve the minutes of February 14, 2008 as
submitted; second by Greever. The motion
passed unanimously with Martis and Stranko abstaining from the vote due to
their absence.
III.
OLD
BUSINESS
A.
S08.01.111
/ Panico – Victory Holdings /
Stranko
moved to remove the item from the table; second by Martis. The motion passed unanimously.
Fletcher read the Staff Report
stating that the petitioner seeks site plan approval for a mixed-use building
located on
The following points highlight the
proposed development program:
·
The
development will include the razing of three existing structures totaling
seventeen units to construct one mixed-use structure that will contain
·
The
proposed structure will be four stories and contain eight (8) one-bedroom units
and twelve (12) two-bedroom units for a total of 32 bedrooms.
·
The
proposed structure will contain approximately 966 ft² for unspecified retail
space on the ground floor.
·
The
minimum-parking requirement for the dwelling units and commercial space is 19
spaces, 17 of which are located on-site and two are proposed off-site on
property owned by the applicant (Parcel 46, Tax Map 19; see Addendum A).
·
Addendum B of this report contains a Planning &
Zoning Code review with the related Sunnyside Overlay District and B-2 District
requirements and performance standards.
The following approvals must be obtained for the proposed project prior to building permit application:
· Minor Subdivision to combine existing parcels (Approved by the Planning Commission August 2006)
· Site Plan Review for a Development of Significant Impact
· Variances and Conditional Use:
-
V08-15............ Relief from the Planning and
Zoning Code, Article 1361.03 (E) and 1361.03 (O) (1) relating to ground floor
and front façade fenestration in the Sunnyside Overlay Districts.
-
V08-16:........... Relief from the Planning and
Zoning Code, Article 1361.03 (J) and 1361.04 (C) relating to build-to-line in
the Sunnyside Overlay Districts.
-
V08-17:........... Relief from the Planning and
Zoning Code, Article 1347.04 relating to setbacks and encroachments in the B-2
District.
-
V08-18:........... Relief from the Planning and
Zoning Code, Article 1361.03 (P) (1) and (2) relating to cladding materials in
the Sunnyside Overlay Districts.
-
V08-19:........... Relief from the Planning and
Zoning Code, Article 1361.03 (Q) (1) relating to retail space on the ground
floor in the Sunnyside Overlay Districts.
-
CU08-08:........ Conditional use approval from
the Planning and Zoning Code, Article 1365.07, Off-site parking.
Petitioner Joe Panico was present to
speak on behalf of the request. Panico
stated he would be removing the old structure and building and replace it with
a new one, maintain the same level as it now is. He explained the only variance needed was for
the rear setback encroachment. The site
plan fits all zoning codes and this development has the support of Sunnyside
Up. There will only be one door for a
commercial entrance. The setback will be
deeper than what is presently there and it will be 15 feet back from the
property line.
Stranko questioned why cement
fiberboard was being used. Panico
answered it is the material that everyone now seems to be using; it is an
imitation wood look siding that mimics cedar. The color has not yet been selected.
Stranko inquired about the location
of the electric meter boxes, stating his concern is that several buildings
along
Selin asked for clarification of
“ground floor façade fenestration”. Fletcher
referred everyone to Drawing Sheet A-3, which shows the commercial awning; the
two windows on either side of the front entrance contain commercial space while
the two outer windows contain residential units. The Planning & Zoning Code requires the first
floor to contain a minimum of 60% fenestration or window glazing. The portion of the first story that is
commercial has a higher level of fenestration but portion of the first story
that is residential has a lower level of fenestration due to the bathrooms being
located on the front wall. Fletcher also
pointed to the use of French doors on upper floors to increase fenestration
toward the 50% total front façade standard.
Fletcher also stated that Staff will be recommending to the Board of
Zoning Appeals that the related variance petitions be approved.
Panico stated it was his belief that
other people have been granted variances from fenestration, and that no member
of the Planning Commission actually questioned the site plan, but instead
focused on the design of the building. He believes those types of questions
should be dealt with by the BZA.
Panico noted that off-site parking
will be on property that he owns across the street from the site.
Loretta questioned the fact that not
much lighting was shown on the site plan. Panico assured him there would be
plenty of lighting and the stairwells will be well lit. Fletcher advised the petitioner would be
required to present a lighting plan prior to installation.
Shamberger then asked whether anyone
was present to speak in favor or against the petitioner’s request. There being
none, Shamberger closed the public comment portion of the hearing and asked for
staff’s recommendation.
Fletcher stated the petitioner met
with the Technical Review Committee in December 2007 and has incorporated all
suggested modifications. The Planning
Department recommends approval with the following conditions:
1.
That
the Landscape Plan be reviewed and approved by the Planning Director prior to
installation and occupancy. Variance
approval must be obtained should the Landscape Plan not conform to the
performance standards set forth in the City’s Planning & Zoning Code.
2.
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.
3.
That
a Sign Plan be submitted with the 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.
4.
That
the proposed structure be moved back two (2) feet to comply with the 15-foot
front building-to line.
5.
That
all related variance and conditional use petitions be granted by the Board of
Zoning Appeals.
6.
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.
7.
That
storm water management plans be approved by the Morgantown Utility Board.
8.
That
the dumpster enclosure(s) be constructed of masonry materials to reduce
potential fire vulnerabilities.
9.
That,
to the satisfaction of the Planning Director, wood and/or treated lumber may not
be used for external stairs unless covered and/or wrapped by a secondary
material which compliments the overall cladding of the structure.
10. That any significant change, as
determined by the Planning Director, to the architectural design, features, or
exterior cladding materials illustrated on the submitted renderings be reviewed
by the Planning Commission and the Board of Zoning Appeals (if a variance is
necessary) prior to construction/installation of same.
11. That tandem-parking stalls be
restricted to the same dwelling unit to mitigate potential conflict among
development residents. Further, that the
applicant implement measures, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, to
ensure efficient use and enjoyment of tandem parking for occupants of the
one-bedroom dwelling units. Said tandem
parking stall must be designated and marked to the satisfaction of the City
Engineer.
12. That the surface parking stalls
associated with the commercial use be dedicated and marked or signed
accordingly to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
13. That final site plan submission 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.
Stranko stated he would like to see
the inclusion of utilities and utility boxes in the site plan. He then moved to
table this issue until all missing information has been provided. The motion
died for lack of a second.
Fletcher then stated an additional
condition (#14) for approval be added under Staff Recommendation that would
read:
14. That the Planning Director must review and approve the placement of
utility services prior to building permit issuance so that same are not located
on the front façade of the proposed building unless no other location is
practicable.
Stranko moved that the additional
condition be included with the conditions presented in the Staff Report;
seconded by Selin. The motion passed unanimously.
Stranko moved to grant approval of
the site plan with said conditions; second by Martis. The motion passed unanimously.
Martis stated that a vision for
buildings on Beechurst needs to be addressed and suggested a workshop to
discuss some ideas. Fletcher stated that
since the defeat of the User Fee, the MPO has been working on other avenues for
the traffic problems on Beechurst. It
may be premature to have any type of discussion until the level and scale of
improvements and widening are decided for the Beechurst corridor.
IV.
NEW BUSINESS
A. RZ08-01 / Perilli & Hartman /
Fletcher
read the Staff Report stating that the petitioner seeks to reclassify Parcel
#350 of Tax Map #36 from R-1A to R-3 by adjusting the boundary of the adjoining
R-3 District. The following points
highlight the background and existing conditions of the subject site and immediate
area:
·
The subject parcel fronts
·
The existing use of the subject realty is
“Single-family Dwelling.” The structure
is registered as a rental unit with the City’s Rental Registration Program.
·
The site is located on the fringe of the
·
The rear yard of Parcel #350 is isolated due to
existing parcel configuration, topography, and limited access from
·
Addendum A of this report illustrates surrounding
zoning, aerial photography, and existing land uses of the immediate area.
·
Map 3 of Addendum A illustrates that the existing
land uses within the immediate area as predominantly nonconforming multi-family
rental units. Generally, identified
structures include single-family, two-family, and 4, 5, 7 10, and 16-unit
multi-family buildings. Staff suspects
that several of the single-family structures are either vacant or unregistered
rental units.
·
Addendum B of this report illustrates photographs of
the subject site and surrounding area.
·
The
adjacent property, formerly the
·
The petitioner also owns Parcel #332, which is not a
part of the present zoning reclassification, but is currently contemplated as
the driveway location to access the rear portion of Parcel #350 (see
illustration below).
·
The petitioner seeks to adjust the existing R-3
boundary for Parcels #348 and #349 (old Second Ward School) to include Parcel
#350 for the purpose of pursuing the development of four (4) to six (6)
townhouse or multi-family units.
Martis
asked to be excused from any discussion or decision due to the possibility of a
conflict of interest and left the room.
Gene
Perilli and Brad Hartman were present to speak on behalf of their
petition. Perilli stated he is the owner
of the old 2nd
DeMasters
asked whether parking will be contained in that area. Perilli stated it would be and it would be
well lit.
Shamberger
questioned the ingress and egress. Perilli
stated that their proposed 20-foot driveway would give adequate egress for
emergency vehicles, fire trucks, and garbage trucks for easy access and turning
radius. Hartman stated it was one of their goals to make sure there would be a
90-degree stop at the existing intersection.
Shamberger
then asked for public comment, either in favor or against. There being none, Shamberger
closed the public comment portion of the meeting and aske for staff’s
recommendation.
Fletcher read the Staff Report
stating that zoning map amendment requests should be evaluated on their
land-use merits alone. The applicant’s
development intentions are extraneous and the Commission should consider the
request on its merits as a land-use decision.
In conducting such an analysis, the Commission should determine if an
R-3 District is the appropriate zoning classification for the subject realty,
weighing all possible future development and permitted land use scenarios as
permitted by the zoning ordinance for the subject area (please refer to Table
1331.05.01 “Permitted Land Uses” of the Planning & Zoning Code).
The
Planning Department recommends that the Commission determine that there have been major changes of an
economic, physical or social nature to the degree of substantially altering the
basic characteristics of the area to the extent that a zoning reclassification
is justified based on the following findings:
1.
That
the predominant land use within the immediate area has been multi-family.
2.
That
the immediate area, and in particular the area east and south east of the old
Second Ward School, has experienced continued blight and deterioration which
have adversely affected the value of properties, physical character, and social
quality-of-life of the neighborhood.
3.
That
the R-1A zoning classification does not appear to have constrained the extent
of deterioration realized over the last decade nor facilitated a return to
desired single-family residential redevelopment.
4.
That
the development of one or two single-family structures on Parcel #350 does not
appear advantageous in terms of marketability due to substandard conditions of
adjacent properties nor in terms of probable development costs due to the
property’s physical isolation given existing parcel configuration, topography,
and access.
5.
That
new construction of well-designed and well-integrated multi-family units should
increase value of neighboring properties, provide equity for adjacent property
owners, and encourage rehabilitation and/or redevelopment.
6.
That
the development of one or two single-family structures on Parcel #350 does not
appear advantageous in terms of marketability due to substandard conditions of
adjacent properties nor in terms of probable development costs due to the
property’s physical isolation given existing parcel configuration, topography,
and access.
7.
That
new construction of well-designed and well-integrated multi-family units should
increase value of neighboring properties, provide equity for adjacent property
owners, and encourage rehabilitation and/or redevelopment.
As such, Staff advises the
Commission to forward a recommendation
to City Council to approve a zoning map amendment extending the adjacent R-3
boundary to include Parcel #350 of Tax Map #36 and thereby reclassifying same
from R-1A to R-3.
Selin
questioned whether there had been any adjacent property owners had contacted
the Planning Office, either in favor or against the development. Fletcher stated there was nothing in writing,
but did receive calls asking what was going to take place in that area.
Shamberger
felt this was a positive move for that area.
DeMasters
said he lives in that area and Perilli’s property is always very well kept.
Stranko
felt the area needed some revitalization and this would only help, and not
hurt, the area. Stanko questioned
Fletcher as to whether or not a study of the surrounding area noted in the
Staff Report should be done now or wait for the comprehensive plan to be done.
Fletcher
advised the RFP for the Comprehensive Plan should be released in June of this,
but some groundwork, such as identifying the properties, finding out the
present assessed values, obtaining socio-economic information from the census,
could be done now. Fletcher would prefer
to wait for the Comprehensive Plan but this information could be pulled
together sooner
Stranko
moved to recommend the zoning reclassification as requested; seconded by
Demasters. The motion unanimously passed
with Martis abstained from the vote.
B.
MNS08-05 /
Fletcher
read the Staff Report stating that the petitioner seeks to reconfigure two
parcels totaling 11, 512.71 ft² located on East St. John Street. The proposed reconfiguration will result in
Parcel A containing approximately 4,710 ft² with approximately 47 feet of frontage
and Parcel B containing approximately 6,804.7 ft² with 75 feet of
frontage.
The
reconfigured parcels will exceed the R-3 District minimum lot area standard of 4,000 ft2
and minimum lot frontage standard of 40 feet.
No setback encroachments will be created by the subdivision.
The applicant requested to be represented
by Staff. Fletcher referred to Addendum
A, one large parcel, 107 and parcel 106 which is 15 x 100 feet. The applicant wishes to relocate the line to make
two developable lots. Presently there is a structure on the property that will
be razed once the line is moved. Two
multi-family units are proposed.
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 recommendation.
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
multi-family development, the existing residential structure be razed so that a
non-conforming parcel is not created by containing two principal structures;
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 condition set forth above.
Martis moved for approval with
recommendations of Staff; seconded by Stranko. The motion passed unanimously.
C. TX08-04. An administratively
requested text amendment to the Planning and Zoning Code, Table 1365.04.04:
Minimum Off-Street Parking Requirements as it relates to Lodging or Rooming
House.
Fletcher read the Staff Report
stating that prior to the enactment of the 2006 major revision, the Zoning
Ordinance included a minimum-parking requirement for “Lodging or Rooming House”
uses of one (1) space per three (3) occupants.
Presently, Table 1365.04.01 of the Planning & Zoning Code does not
include a minimum parking requirement for this use. At its February 20, 2008 meeting, the Board
of Zoning Appeals requested that the Planning Commission consider recommending
a minimum parking requirement for this use to City Council.
Fletcher stated that “Lodging
or Rooming House” uses are defined in Article 1329 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.”
The following table illustrates where “Lodging or Rooming
House” uses are permitted either by-right or conditionally (Table 1331.05.01
“Permitted Land Uses”)
Addendum A of this report illustrates the following four
alternate minimum parking requirement standards:
·
Alternate
1 – 1 space per 3 occupants (pre-2006 standard)
·
Alternate
2 – 0.5 spaces per occupant
·
Alternate
3 – 1 space plus 0.5 spaces per occupant
·
Alternate
4 – 80% of occupancy
Fletcher reported that since the
February 2008 Board of Zoning Appeals meeting where the request for a change to
“Lodging or Rooming House” was made, the Planning Office has not received many
inquiries about this change.
Martis questioned how many requests
have been made for this type of change to date. Fletcher advised that during his two and a
half years with the City of
Shamberger asked for any public comment,
either for or against.
Joe Panico asked to speak, not in
favor or against, but to say that many houses, on
There being no further public
comments offered, Shamberger closed the public comment portion of the hearing
and asked for Staff’s recommendation.
Fletcher stated that as with all
parking issues related to student housing in
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission attempt to
strike a balance by submitting an affirmative recommendation to City Council to
amend Table 1365.04.01 “Minimum Off-street Parking Requirements” as follows
(new matter underlined):
|
Use |
Minimum Off-street
Parking Requirement |
|
Lodging or Rooming House |
0.5 spaces per bed but not less than two spaces |
Stranko moved to recommend to City
Council the text amended presented by Staff; second by DeMasters. The motion passed unanimously.
D. TX08-05. An administratively
requested text amendment to 1331.06 Supplemental Regulations Pertaining to
Permitted Land Uses Table as it relates to Home Occupations.
Fletcher read the Staff Report
stating that at its February 5, 2008 meeting, City Council requested that
additional revisions be made to the supplemental regulations for “Home
Occupation” uses. Specifically, City
Council expressed concerns with the present standards relating to the size of
vehicles and the possibility of trailers used for the operation of “Home
Occupation” uses. It appears that
Council’s primary concern rests with the issue of narrow streets and the availability
of on-street parking in residential neighborhoods.
The following Addendums
supplement this report:
·
Addendum
A – Timeline chronicling progress of the present zoning text amendments to
“Home Occupation” uses
·
Addendum
B – Comparative analysis of the 2006 and 1994 regulations pertaining to “Home
Occupation” uses
·
Addendum
C – Proposed text amendments
Council, in addition to the revision presented in Addendum
C, requested that the width of vehicles be restricted to 6 ½ feet. The information presented in the table
provided in the Staff Report has been taken from Planning and Urban Design Standards (2006); American Planning
Association; Part 3 “Transportation”; page 249.
Based on the information presented in said table, restricting the width
of vehicles related to “Home Occupation” uses to 6 ½ feet would eliminate some
vehicles common to average households.
Fletcher stated this issue has already
been passed by City Council on first reading twice but then tabled twice. Fletcher stated that he discussed the present
recommendation with Councilman Bryer and believes the Councilor agrees with the
information presented in the Staff Report.
Shamberger asked for any public
comment, either for or against the proposed text amendment. There being none, she closed the public
comment portion of the hearing and asked for staff’s recommendation.
Fletcher read the Staff Report
stating that based on the information presented herein and attached hereto,
there appears to be two alternate approaches to address Council’s concerns for
vehicle size and trailers.
Alternate 1 – Reinstitute policy provisions
provided in the 1994 regulations that restricts vehicle size and eliminates
trailers AND include a new provision that sets a maximum width standard of 7
feet for vehicles related to “Home Occupation”:
(vi)
Vehicles
used in association with the business cannot exceed 6000 lbs. gross vehicle
weight. Trailers used to transport
equipment, goods and materials used in association with the business cannot
exceed sixteen (16) feet in length, measured from the tongue to the farthest
rear extension of the trailer. Shall
have no more than one vehicle with business identification; shall have no
vehicle with greater than one (1.0) ton capacity nor wider than 7 feet; and,
shall not have any trailer.
Alternate 2 – Reinstitute policy provisions
provided in the 1994 regulations that restricts vehicle size and eliminates
trailers related to “Home Occupation” uses:
(vi)
Vehicles
used in association with the business cannot exceed 6000 lbs. gross vehicle
weight. Trailers used to transport
equipment, goods and materials used in association with the business cannot
exceed sixteen (16) feet in length, measured from the tongue to the farthest
rear extension of the trailer. Shall
have no more than one vehicle with business identification, and shall have no
vehicle with greater than one (1.0) ton capacity and shall not have any
trailer.
Fletcher stated that Alternate 1
appears to present unnecessary and cumbersome monitoring and enforcement
challenges. As such, Staff recommends
that the Alternate 2 revision stated above and in Addendum C of this report be
submitted to City Council with an affirmative recommendation to amend the
City’s Planning & Zoning Code accordingly.
Selin moved to recommend the text
amendment presented by Staff; seconded by Stranko. The motion passed unanimously.
VIII. OTHER BUSINESS
A.
Public Comments
Joe Panico spoke to the issue of
whether Moser or Biafora had to have approval of where electric meters were
placed.
Stranko then called for a point of
order stating public comment was not allowed on issues appearing the Planning
Commission’s agenda this evening.
Panico then stated the Planning
Commission overstepped their authority.
Stranko once again called for a
point of order. Shamberger directed
Panico to restrict his comments to matters not on the agenda this evening.
Panico stated these types of things
occur constantly. Developers have to
abide by laws and rules and so should the Planning Commission. They are constantly referring to things that
have nothing to do with the site plans. He
has never had to address this issue before. Conditions not in the ordinance cannot be
imposed. He just expects to be treated
fairly and it is his feeling that too many personal agendas come into play.
Fletcher stated that Mr. Panico will
be notified of the Planning Commission’s decision along with its conditions and
that he will have 30 days to appeal the decision to Circuit Court.
Greever stated she believes Panico
overreacted.
B.
STAFF COMMENTS:
1.
The
City Attorney has not prepared a response to the Biafora Circuit Court appeal
concerning the Planning Commission’s decision to deny the site plan for the
third building on
2.
Staff
met with Suncrest Neighborhood Association representatives to discuss their
interest in an overlay district for the commercial area along University. They have asked for a workshop with the
Planning Commission. If one is
scheduled, Staff will send invitation letters to property owners in the
affected area. Loretta asked if a
workshop on variances would be a good idea so there could be a consensus on how
the Planning Commission should view site plan that require variance approvals
from the Board of Zoning Appeals. Fletcher
stated that Staff could prepare a presentation. Shamberger inquired about the Bodner PUD on
the corner of
3.
Fletcher
stated that the Chief Building Code Official determined in late November 2007
that sufficient work had been completed on the Riverview site, which extended
the permit for an additional 180 days.
Fletcher stated that members of City Council have expressed concerns
with the current condition of the property.
Fletcher stated that he believes that the developer is working to secure
financing for the project. Fletcher also
stated that if the grading permit becomes in active, then the site plan
approval granted by the Planning Commission will void and a site plan approval
would have to start from the beginning.
4.
Stranko
asked Fletcher if there are any other lawsuits filed other than the Biafora’s. Fletcher stated that there are none to his
knowledge. He believes the Planning
Commission does a good job of applying the law fairly. Selin stated that regardless of the developer’s
history with the City, many things need considered and resident’s views need to
be heard. DeMasters added that after the February meeting Mr. Biafora called
him at home and shared his feelings about the Planning Commission.
The meeting adjourned at 7:20 PM.