Minutes
6:30 PM November
13, 2008 Council
Chambers
MEMBERS PRESENT: Marti Shamberger, Ken Martis,
Barbara Ferrell, Kathryn Greever, Carol Pyles
MEMBERS ABSENT: Peter DeMasters, Sam Loretta, Tim
Stranko, Jennifer Selin
STAFF: Christopher Fletcher, AICP
I. CALL TO
ORDER AND ROLL CALL:
II. MATTERS
OF BUSINESS:
A. Approval
of October 9, 2008 minutes. Martis moved for the approval of
the October 9, 2007 minutes as submitted; seconded by Greever. The motion unanimously passed. Shamberger then
welcomed new 7th Ward Planning Commission member
III. OLD
BUSINESS:
A.
RZ08-03 / SC Bodner / Stewart &
University Avenue: Request by SC Bodner for an amendment to the
Planned Unit Development (PUD) Outline Plan approved June 6, 2006 for property
located at the corner of
Fletcher read the Staff Report stating that in June
2006, City Council approved a PUD Outline Plan at the northeast corner of
Article 1357.06 “CHANGES IN THE APPROVED PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT” of the Planning & Zoning Code provides that:
(A)
Changes Requiring Outline Plan Approval.
Changes which alter the concept or intent of the Planned Unit Development
including but not limited to:
(1) Significant increases in density;
(2) Significant changes in the proportion or
allocation of land uses;
(3) Change in the list of approved uses;
(4) Changes in the locations of uses;
(5) Changes in functional uses of open space,
where such change constitutes an intensification of use of the open space;
and/or
(6) Changes in the final governing agreements
where such changes conflict with the approved Outline Plan.
It is the opinion of the Planning Department that the
proposed changes alter the concept and intent of the originally approved
Outline Plan to the extent that Planning Commission approval is necessary.
Although the original mixed-use concept has been replaced
with a multi-family development program and the project’s scale, scope, and
density have been reduced, it appears that the developer’s original intent of
addressing several key components of the 2004 SunnysideUp Redevelopment Plan
has been sustained in terms of delivering higher density, architecturally
valuable, new residential construction to the Sunnyside Neighborhood.
Further, it appears that the approach in which the general
provisions and review considerations set forth in the Planning & Zoning
Code (Article 1357.01 and Article 1357.05 respectively) were addressed in the
original Outline Plan have fundamentally guided the proposed amendments.
In closely studying the proposed Outline Plan site plan
drawing, it appears that further site design consideration is necessary to make
the best use of elevation changes and transitions and minimize the unnecessary
creation of voids. Further, more
consideration is necessary to enhance the creation and utilization of
functional and contributing open space.
Steve Bodner, SC Bodner Company, reported that this project
was a challenge. His company has
constructed many multi-family developments through the
Jim Childs, project Architect with James Childs Architects,
stated that the development will be a four-story structure at University &
Stewart streets. The lowest floor will
have an east/west exchange. The 2nd,
3rd and 4th floors are t-shaped; parking is east of the
structure. The entrance will be at 965-foot
elevation and the parking area will be at 975-foot elevation. The building will feature a common and fitness
area. The first floor is actually two
levels above
Steve Buchanan, project Engineer with Alpha Associates,
stated that the facility will have 55 parking spaces; eight spaces will have
access off of
Shamberger questioned whether the ingress and egress will be
from
Martis asked if these units are student-oriented with three
units per apartment. Bodner stated they
have designed one, two, three and four bedroom units, but the average is 3
bedrooms per unit.
Shamberger asked for public comment, either in favor or
against the request. There being none, she closed the public comment portion of
the meeting asked Staff recommendations.
Fletcher reminded the Commission that the document for
consideration was the proposed Outline Plan amendment and not a site plan
approval. He also stated the widening of
1.
That
the SC Bodner – Mountaineer Place Apartments Outline Plan Amendment document be
supplemented by this Staff Report and related addenda as the convention to be
used in evaluating the petitioner’s Development Plan.
2.
That
review and approval of the project’s Development Plan continue to be waived by
the Planning Commission and conducted at the staff level. However, should the Development Plan
substantially differ from this approved Outline Plan Amendment, then the
applicant must submit a subsequent Outline Plan Amendment to the Planning
Commission for approval.
3.
That,
in additional to the prescriptions set forth in the Outline Plan Amendment
document and the Planned Unit Development regulations, the following elements
be used not only to inform design but used by Staff to evaluate desired project
performance when reviewing and approving the PUD Development Plan:
a.
That
the project’s approach to improving pedestrian circulation in and around the
site exceed generally accepted minimum standards (i.e., University Avenue
sidewalk along the site be completed and widened where feasible; Stewart Street
sidewalk along the site be completed at a width of six to eight feet connecting
to the proposed five-foot sidewalk along Jones Avenue; etc.)
b.
That
the visual impact of retaining walls be strongly considered in addition to
their conventional functionality (i.e. type, material, pedestrian-scale, and
integration into proposed building and streetscape improvements; avoidance of
nondescript, graffiti inviting space; etc.).
c.
That
onsite open space be enhanced to maximize quality, function, and overall
contribution similar to the courtyard concept contemplated in the initial
Outline Plan.
d.
That
contributing streetscape elements be incorporated along
e.
That
creative solutions be considered to ensure fire truck access to the site from
Shamberger asked if any retail would
be added to the facility in the future. Bodner
stated that during the redesign, the project’s scale had to be reduced and the
self-contained parking had to be changed. The parking requirements dictated the size of
the project. If retail was included, the
additional parking could not be accommodated, so the retail component was
eliminated.
Fletcher reminded the Commission
that the Glenlock North development at the corner of
Martis stated he regrets there is no
inside parking or courtyard as was shown in the original concept but
understands why the changes needed to be made.
Shamberger stated the architecture
of the building is in keeping with the other WVU buildings.
Martis moved to approve the request
with conditions recommended by Staff; seconded by Greever. The motion passed
unanimously.
B.
RZ08-06 / Cavender /
Fletcher stated that the Planning
Department received e-mails and correspondence in opposition of the request and
that hard copies were distributed to the Planning Commission at the meeting. Correspondence was received from Bruce and Ann
Chase,
Greever asked to be recused from the
meeting stating that she had spoken in opposition of this request when it was
originally presented to the Planning Commission in 2005. She then left the room.
Fletcher read the Staff Report
stating that the petitioner seeks to
reclassify Parcel #60 of Tax Map #11 from PRO to B-1 by adjusting the boundary
of the B-1 District that is located across
·
The applicant requested a similar zoning map
amendment on September 8, 2005. At that
time, staff recommended that the request be evaluated under the amended zoning
ordinance, which became effective in January 2006. The Commission tabled the petitioner’s
request (see 09/08/2005 minutes attached hereto).
·
It must be noted that the type, scale, and scope of
development permitted in the B-1 Neighborhood Business District since January
6, 2006 are much different than those in effect in 2005.
·
The subject parcel fronts
·
The property is considered nonconforming because it
contains principal structures, which uses are “Professional Service
Establishment” and “Two-family Dwelling”.
·
The subject property is bordered on three sides by
·
Addendum A of this report illustrates the location
of the subject realty, surrounding zoning and land uses.
·
Addendum B of this report provides photographs of
the subject site and surrounding area.
According to Article 1341.01 of the
Planning & Zoning Code, the purpose of the PRO District is to:
“…provide for a mixed
use of professional, office and appropriate residential uses in transition
areas between more intensive commercial districts and less intensive
residential neighborhood districts.”
As Addendum A illustrates, the
closest parcel that is zoned R-1 and includes a single-family dwelling use is 175+
feet from the subject site.
The current zoning classification of
the subject site does not appear to meet the intended land use objectives of
the PRO District as it does not, in this instance, transition to or buffer
single-family dwellings from more intensive commercial uses.
Article 1345.01 provides that:
“The purpose of the
Neighborhood Business (B-1) District is to provide areas for convenient
business uses, which tend to meet the daily shopping and service needs of the
residents of an immediate neighborhood, and which contain pedestrian-oriented,
human-scaled construction that is designed to be compatible with the surrounding
neighborhood character. Because of the proximity to residential neighborhoods,
high quality design is essential in order to preserve the integrity of those
neighborhoods.”
In contrast, the purpose of the B-1
District focuses on integrating the appropriate type and size of commercial
uses that serve the consuming needs of the “immediate neighborhood” with great
emphasis on design compatibility.
The following table compares the development standards of
the PRO and B-1 Districts:
|
Standard |
PRO |
B-1 |
|
Minimum
lot size |
7,000 ft2 |
3,000 ft2 |
|
Minimum
lot frontage |
60 feet |
30 feet |
|
Minimum
lot depth |
N/A |
100 feet |
|
Maximum
lot coverage |
40% |
70% |
|
Minimum
front setback |
10 feet |
5 feet |
|
Maximum
front setback |
15 feet |
12 feet |
|
Minimum
side setback |
15 feet |
3 feet |
|
Minimum
rear setback |
40 feet |
20 feet |
|
Minimum
building height |
N/A |
2 stories |
|
Maximum
building height |
2.5 stories or 35 feet |
40 feet |
|
Maximum
gross floor area |
4,000 ft2 |
for non-residential: 5,000 ft2 (one-story) 10,000 ft2 (two-story) 15,000 ft2 (three-story) |
In comparing the development
standards as well as permitted land uses (see Table 1331.05.01), and
performance standards for both zoning districts, it appears that:
·
The
intended relationship between PRO development and surrounding single-family
neighborhoods is distance based on increased setbacks and lower maximum lot
coverage.
·
The
relationship between B-1 development and surrounding single-family
neighborhoods appears to be appropriate land uses, and integration and
compatibility based on design.
Dave Cavender,
Shamberger asked for public comment
in favor of the request. There was none. Shamberger then asked for public
comment against the request.
Charles Chico, 809 Riverview, stated
he is in opposition to this request and read two letters he had written to the
Planning Commission, one dated October 7, 2008 and another dated November 10,
2008. He stated he had spoken to the
Chases and they were under the impression that WVU had eminent domain and they
would just take the Chases’ property and they would not have any choice. They did not want to sell their property.
Fletcher stated that while it was
not procedural correct to answer questions during the public comment period, he
thought it would be important to clarify
Martis questioned whether apartments
could be built under B-1 on that property. Fletcher stated mixed-use and over-store dwellings
are permitted in the B-1 District but multi-family dwellings were not.
Shelia Saab, 897 Riverview, stated
that Evansdale Neighborhood Association opposed the request. She believes this request contradicts the
focus of
Brent Bailey, 915
Sam Chico, Jr., 820 Riverview, sated
that he has lived in the Evansdale area since 1943. He gave a brief history of changes in the
area. Residents were advised by city
fathers that whoever invested in the Evansdale area, it would always remain
R-1. It was changed to PRO zoning when
Dr. Trotter wanted to move his office from downtown
Nicole Panaccione, 876 Riverview,
stated that she opposed the request and that if the zoning were changed, it
would set a precedent for other properties. There are approximately 120/125 residences in
Evansdale whose values would be affected. She stated that Lincoln Hall is
nicely landscaped.
Suzanne McDonald, 911
Ed Pastilong, 874 Rawley, stated
that he opposed the change.
Tom Roberts, 819 Riverview, stated
that he has refurbished a house in the area and it is disconcerting to have
changes in zoning. He believes it would
set a precedent and is opposed to the request.
There being no further public
comments, Shamberger recognized Cavender to a five-minute rebuttal.
Cavender stated that he Appreciates
the residents wanting to protect the neighborhood. He asked what would happen if someone, past
Pat Stewart’s Realty property requested a change from PRO to B-1. The definition of PRO is to provide a buffer
between commercial and residential. There
would not be a buffer if there was a change. Pat Stewart was there before zoning started in
this manner. His parcel doesn’t have
anything to do with Evansdale. He has
duplex on one lot with students in it and there hasn’t been a problem. He
doesn’t see how his requested zoning change could be considered “creep” into
what is Evansdale. The University owns
everything on the other side of
Shamberger closed the public comment
portion of the meeting and asked for Staff’s recommendations.
Fletcher stated that he has never
come across a situation where it could be easily and reasonably argued either
way for a change in land use classification.
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 B-1 is the appropriate zoning classification
for the subject realty, weighing all possible future development and land use
scenarios as permitted by the Planning & Zoning Code (please refer to Table
1331.05.01 “Permitted Land Uses” of the Planning & Zoning Code).
The Planning Department encourages
the Commission to consider the following facts:
·
The
major zoning ordinance amendment enacted in January 2006 created true
“Neighborhood Business Districts” compared to that provided in the previous
ordinance.
·
The
construction of Lincoln Hall by
·
The
buffering and transitioning purposes of the PRO District does not appear
necessary for the subject site as Lincoln Hall’s scale and mass, which is much
greater than that permitted in either the PRO or B-1 Districts, provides a
physical barrier between the commercial developments along
·
There
are parcels on the Evansdale Neighborhood side of
Martis stated it was a difficult
situation. Zoning changes are taken very
seriously by the Commission. The idea of
precedent is an important one. While he
has sympathy for property owners, he believes it is necessary to listen to the
residents in the area. He would not support
a zoning change.
Pyles advised she drove around the
area, and agrees it is a difficult situation. She is concerned if the property is zoned B-1,
the alley behind Rawley would become a service area. She agrees with listening to the neighbors.
Farrell also agrees it is a
difficult situation. Cavender could
easily sell his property to WVU and they, in turn, could do whatever they
wanted with that property.
Shamberger stated zoning changes are
taken very seriously and it is a hard decision. B-1 could fit, but looking in to the future
with other requests, and with the history provided by Mr. (Sam)
Martis moved to send a
recommendation to City Council to deny this request; seconded by Pyles. The
motion passed unanimously with Greever abstention noted.
Greever returned to Council Chambers
and took her seat with the Planning Commission.
IV. NEW BUSINESS
A. MNSO8-22 / M-R Properties, INC /
Fletcher read the Staff Report
stating that the applicant seeks to
subdivide Parcel #4.1 of Tax Map #13 into two parcels on
The proposed parcels do not meet the
minimum lot area standard of 3,500 ft2 for the R-1A District, but
exceeds the minimum lot frontage of 30 feet.
Preliminary plats are enclosed illustrating current and proposed parcel
configurations.
The
following better describes the proposed parcel configurations:
·
Tract #A will contain approximately
3,309.6 square and have 40 foot of frontage on
·
Tract #B will contain approximately
3,289.4 square feet and have 40 foot of
frontage on
Article
1315.07 “Variances and Modifications” of the Planning & Zoning Code
provides that:
“Where the subdivider can show that a
provision of these Subdivision Regulations would cause unnecessary hardship if
strictly adhered to and where, in the opinion of the Planning Commission,
because of topographical or other conditions peculiar to the site, a departure
may be made without destroying the intent of such provision, the Commission may
authorize a variance. In granting
variances and modifications the Commission may require such conditions as will,
in its judgment, secure substantially the objective of the standards or requirements
so varied or modified. Any variance or
modification thus authorized is required to be entered in writing in the
minutes of the Commission and the reasoning on which the departure was
justified shall be set forth.
Rodney Simmons, M-R Properties
Shamberger asked for public comment
in favor or against the request. There being none, Shamberger closed the public
comment portion of the meeting and asked for Staff’s recommendation.
Fletcher stated that the Planning
Commission is inclined to grant relief as provided in Article 1315.07 of the
Planning & Zoning Code, Staff recommends that the following analysis be
considered to justify the departure from the R-1A minimum lot size requirement:
“It appears that the petitioner’s
proposed subdivision corresponds to the predominant lot and parcel
configuration that is peculiar to the block of lots and parcels bound by
Further Staff recommends 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 petitioner demonstrate, to the satisfaction of the Planning Director, that
the subject deck has been removed or reduced to meet or exceed the minimum
three (3) foot setback requirement for uncovered stairs, landings, or porches.
3.
That
the final plat is filed at the Monongalia County Courthouse within thirty (30)
days of meeting the conditions set forth above.
Martis stated that since it is so
close to the standard size, and the fact that there is an ability to provide
housing in the
Martis moved to approve MNS08-22
with conditions recommended by Staff; seconded by Greever. The motion passed unanimously.
B. MNS08-23
/ The Baldwin Group /
Fletcher read the Staff Report
stating that the petitioner seeks to combine parcel #283, 284, and 287 to
create a parcel that is approximately 8,394 square feet with 121 foot of road
frontage on
The applicant requested to be
represented by Staff.
Fletcher stated it was the
applicant’s intention to erase parcel lines for #283, #284 and #287 to create
one parcel. It is important to meet the
depth for B-2. Presently there are no existing
homes there as it is primarily hillside.
Martis asked that since the owners
owned all three parcels and wanted to build one large structure, would it be
necessary to combine the parcels. Fletcher
advised it could be done through a minor subdivision or by recording language provided
in the Planning & Zoning Code stating that, for planning and zoning
purposes, all parcels are considered one.
Shamberger asked for public
comments, 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.
Martis moved to approve MNS08-23
with all conditions recommended by Staff; seconded by Farrell. The motion passed unanimously.
C. MNS08-24
/ Pollard /
Fletcher
stated that the petitioner seeks minor boundary adjustment approval to combine
3,441 square feet from Parcel #228 to Parcel #140. Parcel #140 will contain 21,332 ft² and
provide approximately 149.31 feet of frontage on
The applicant requested to be
represented by Staff.
Fletcher reported the applicant
wants to add a part of parcel 228 to parcel 140 and that the applicant owns
both parcels.
Shamberger asked for public comment,
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
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.
Martis moved to approve MNS08-24
with conditions recommended by Staff; seconded by Farrell. The motion passed unanimously.
D. RZ08-07
/ Administrative Request. An Administrative request for a
zoning map amendment relating to the Sunnyside Central Overlay District and
adjoining neighborhood known as “Wiles Hill.”
Fletcher read the Staff Report
stating that in 2006, the City of
In reviewing the body of work that
led to the 2006 major zoning ordnance amendment, it appears that the small
portion of the Wiles Hill Neighborhood that is of present concern was
inadvertently included in the Sunnyside Central Overlay District by the
cartographer who prepared the official zoning map. It is important to note that the R-1A zoning classification
for the subject properties did not change in 2006 nor will it change as a
result of the proposed boundary adjustment.
The Planning Department is recommending a minor zoning map correction to
remove those affected R-1A District parcels from the Sunnyside Central Overlay
District. The affected parcels are
illustrated on Addendum A.
Martis asked if there were any
official neighborhood maps that show where Sunnyside and Wiles Hill are. Fletcher replied that some mapping has been
done for the Neighborhood Coordinating Council to show seeming neighborhood
boundaries but that no boundaries are formally established.
Shamberger noted that correspondence
was received from Mr. and Mrs. Inskeep of
Shamberger asked for public comment,
in favor or against the request.
Lois Kovac,
There being no further public
comments, Shamberger closed the public comment portion of the hearing and asked
for Staff’s recommendation.
Fletcher stated that it is the
opinion of the Planning Department that the proposed zoning map amendment be
reported to City Council with a favorable recommendation to amend the Official
Zoning Map by excluding R-1A District parcels from the Sunnyside Central
Overlay District that are currently included in same.
Martis moved submit a recommendation
to City Council to approve the proposed zoning map amendment to adjust the Sunnyside Central Overlay District boundary
as presented by Staff; seconded by Farrell.
The motion passed unanimously.
V. OTHER BUSINESS
A. Public Comments – None
B. Staff
Comments.
Fletcher providing a status report
on the Downtown Strategic Plan project. Staff
is working close with the consulting team, who should be back in town in
January, to provide visioning recommendations based on the stakeholder
workshops.
Martis reported that his Geography
capstone class has collected over 380 intercept surveys in one week’s time. The data was inputted and analyzed and then provided
to the consulting group.
Shamberger and Greever reported the
meetings were refreshing and stimulating.
Martis advised there was no Traffic
Commission Meeting held this month and again, asked about the voting status for
the Planning Commission member. Fletcher
advised City Council had changed the Traffic Commission Ordinance so that
Martis is now an official voting member.
VI. ADJOURNMENT – The meeting adjourned at 8:35 PM.