Minutes
6:30 PM October
9, 2008 Council
Chambers
MEMBERS
PRESENT: Marti Shambeger, Peter DeMasters,
MEMBERS
ABSENT:
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. Approval
of September 11, 2008 minutes. Stranko moved for
approval of the September 2008 minutes as submitted; seconded by Selin. The
motion passed unanimously.
III.
OLD BUSINESS: NONE
IV. NEW
BUSINESS:
A. RZ08-05 / First Presbyterian /
Before discussion of the request,
Shamberger stated that she was a former employee of the Westminster Foundation.
Although she has not been employed there
for the past five years, she wanted to avoid the appearance of any conflicts of
interest. She discussed the matter with
City Staff was advised the abstaining from the discussion and any votes was not
necessary.
Fletcher read the Staff Report
stating that some commentary about the Planned Unit Development (PUD) process
is in order. The PUD process consists of
three procedural steps. Step 1 is preliminary
consultations with staff.
Step 2 is the Outline Plan Phase, which is the issue before the Planning
Commission now. During this step, the
developer sets forth the “vision” or master plan for how the project will
evolve. A significant amount of planning
is necessary during this phase to establish the overall character of the
development, how it interfaces with its spatial context, the types of and
intensities of land uses, the amenities being offered, how the project will
affect transportation and pedestrian patterns in the area, and some general
rules for how the buildings will look and how they will be arranged.
Equally important is what is NOT
required during this phase. Such things
as detailed engineering studies of storm water control, utility services,
detailed engineering drawings of road improvements, detailed site and building
plans, etc. are NOT required at this stage of the process. It is simply unreasonable to expect that the
developer commit significant resources to dotting every “i” and crossing every
“t” at this point, on the hope that City Council reclassifies the
property to allow the development to proceed.
During the outline plan phase, Council simply decides whether or not to
accept the “vision” presented, based on the reasonable levels of supporting
data required. If the answer is yes,
then Council merely amends the zoning map, in this case from R-2, B-2, and B-4
to PUD, in order for the detailed analysis to go forward.
The attached Outline Plan for the
proposed zoning map amendment represents the land uses, development standards,
and other applicable specifications of the Planning & Zoning Code that will
govern the Westminster House PUD. If the
Outline Plan is silent on a particular land use, development standard, or other
specification of the Planning & Zoning Code, than the standard of the
underlying districts (R-2, B-2, and B-4) or applicable regulations will apply.
Step 3 is the Development Plan Phase.
During this phase, the developer has the confidence to go forward with a
detailed analysis of the project, knowing that the zoning reclassification is
in place. At this point, construction
plans are produced, drainage calculations are provided, detailed engineering
analyses of infrastructure improvements are done, final site and building plans
are prepared, etc. Staff will compare
the Development Plan components to be sure they conform to the parameters of
the Outline Plan, in terms of densities, architectural styles, land uses, open
space, etc. If the development plan substantially
complies with the Outline Plan, then building permits may be issued at the end
of the review. If however the plans are
substantially different from what was proposed in the Outline Plan, then
the developer will be required to seek an amendment to the approved Outline
Plan, a process that is fully vetted by the Planning Commission, with the usual
opportunities for public participation. If
the Outline Plan ultimately does not work and cannot be satisfactorily amended,
then the City will simply initiate a zoning map amendment of the property back
to its original classification (R-2, B-2, and B-4).
The zoning ordinance gives the
Planning Commission the discretion to review or not review the PUD Development
Plan for the proposed project. Because of
Westminster House’s scale, scope, and anticipated construction schedule, the
Commission should be inclined to allow PUD Development Plan review to proceed
at the staff level.
The applicant and the design team
were present to speak on behalf of the petition.
Chet
Parsons of 15 Meadowbrook Lane, Morgantown stated that he is the Chair of the
Westminster House Board of Directors. Parsons provided a
PowerPoint presentation and explained that due to new school construction, the
Mon County Board of Education put the old
Sharon
Portora, Director of the
Shelly
Barrick-Parsons, Director of the Presbyterian Campus Ministry, stated that the Ministry
started in 1886 and has been serving WVU since 1925. The Ministry is currently housed in the
Roger’s House at Price and Willey Streets. The building is functioning at capacity and is
booked six to seven days a week. The new
space presents opportunity for a new residence hall with dorm-style apartments.
There will be one resident advisor per
floor. She believes that the student
housing component is the best approach to making the endeavor financially
solvent. She hopes this facility could
be used as a teaching model. The project
will also be seeking LEED Silver Certification.
Ed Tucker,
project Architect with Ed Tucker Associates, discussed the Outline Plan site plan and stated that
it consists of 3.8 acres including the existing Presbyterian Church property. The proposal is for two six-story buildings
connected at the ground floor. They will
be patterned as the existing buildings in the area. The child care facility will be on the first
floor of the building because of the proximity to the church and gym. There will be several entry points to diffuse
traffic congestion. The building to the
east will house the campus ministry center on the first floor. A pedestrian walkway will be included. Green space will be adjacent to the church and
will be further developed as the project continues. The parking lot will be used for egress with
the entry point at Spruce and Forest Streets. The existing 130 parking spaces will be
shared, 100 new spaces will be added for a total of approximately 230. Bicycle storage will be available as well as
spaces for motorcycles. Parking will be naturally
buffered by the existing contours. All
materials used in construction will be natural colors with a two-brick color
scheme. Sustainable materials will be
used. Tucker stated that contours and
photographs are available for review.
Parsons stated some of the reasons
the Planning Commission should grant their request that were stated in the
Outline Plan include allowing mixed-use would minimize traffic congestion; the
project has been designed to be compatible with adjacent land uses thereby
protecting the character of the immediate area; the supply of quality rental housing
stock would be increased; pedestrian and traffic options would be increased; rental
pressure in adjacent owner-occupied neighborhood would be relieved; and,
environmental sensitivity will be incorporated as a result of pursuing Silver LEED
Certification.
Selin questioned whether the
Historic Landmark Commission has been contacted. Parsons stated they have been
but no response has been received. Selin
also questioned the top of the building overhangs. Tucker explained that all apartment units
overhang beyond the building line.
Stranko stated the presentation was
excellent but was disappointed to see there was not more green space. In addition, he is also concerned with stormwater
runoff from the uphill side.
Parsons advised that they also hoped
to provide more green space but had to trade it off to address parking issues.
Tucker stated KCI has looked at the
storm water retention issue and are aware of the regulations needed. Preliminary management studies have already
been done.
Rob Milne,
project Engineer with KCI Technologies stated that this issue has been looked at and they
have discussed using the existing parking lot as the potential underground
storage areas with storm water quality filters.
Martis questioned the number of
residents in the facility. Parsons
advised there would be 80 units, double occupancy with six students per unit,
totaling 470 students. This includes 10
resident advisors.
Stranko asked if there would be any
change with the traffic impact. Parsons
stated the main entrance for students would be the side off of
Loretta asked what will happen when
the existing 10,000 square feet
Selin referenced the green space
stating it is her feeling there will be more than is shown on the site plan.
She also would like to see a combination of grass and other material used for
the playground. Portora advised that under the regulations two different surfaces
are required.
Selin asked if students would have
to pay for their regular parking space. Parsons
stated that the cost for parking is in addition to their lease. If there are more students than spaces
provided, there is a possibility of using the nearby parking garage. They have met with the City’s Parking
Authority to see if space could be made available.
Loretta questioned if they would be
subject to B&O and property taxes. Parsons
advised that is something they are looking into.
Shamberger asked for public comment,
either in favor or against the request. There being none, she closed the public
hearing portion of the meeting and asked for staff’s recommendations.
Fletcher stated that the Planning
Department has worked closely with the petitioner’s design professionals to
prepare a development program and Outline Plan that highlight the project’s
observance of the PUD opportunities and objectives. In so doing, the proposed Westminster House
Outline Plan appears to adequately address the PUD general provisions provided
in Article 1357.01 of the Planning & Zoning Code (see Section 2 “Statement
of Character”, pages 5-8 of the Outline Plan).
Addendum A of staff’s report
addressed each of the review considerations provided in Article 1357.05 of the
Planning & Zoning Code. The Planning
Commission should carefully consider these evaluative recommendations as a part
of the applicant’s Outline Plan.
Based on the content of the subject
Outline Plan and the supportive considerations stated in Addendum A, Staff
advises the Planning Commission to submit an affirmative recommendation to City
Council to approve the Westminster House Outline Plan and the zoning
reclassification of the subject realty from R-2, B-2, and B-4 to PUD with the following
considerations:
1.
That
the Westminster House Outline Plan 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 be waived by the Planning
Commission and conducted at the staff level.
However, should the Development Plan substantially differ from the
approved Outline Plan, then the applicant must submit Outline Plan Amendment to
the Planning Commission for approval.
3.
That
the applicant obtain minor subdivision approval to reconfigure the existing
parcel boundaries in a manner that best meets the overall ownership,
development, and management objectives set forth in the Westminster House
Outline Plan.
Regarding the traffic impact
analysis, Fletcher explained that Staff was concerned that trip calculations
using a mid-rise apartment building use would most likely not accurately
reflect the actual type of occupancy proposed given student tenancy and
double-occupied bedrooms. Specifically,
five or six unrelated would most likely not function the same as a conventional
family units in terms of planning trips normally associated with daily
activities, household errands, etc. Because Staff suspects that the ITE manual does
not contemplate this type of household, the design team was asked to double the
number of units, from 80 to 160, to calculate trip projections. The levels of service for each affected
intersection remained the same even with the overstated number of units. When asked if the City Engineer had reviewed
the study, Fletcher stated that she had been involved from the beginning from
approving to the study’s scope of work to reviewing the final version.
Loretta asked if the PUD was
approved, would the Staff Report and PUD Outline Plan become the governing tool
for the PUD Development Plan. Fletcher responded that it would.
Loretta asked if improvements to
Stranko asked why Staff is
recommending that the review of the Development Plan be done by Staff. Fletcher responded that he has worked with the
developer to compile an Outline Plan that significantly exceeds the minimum
requirements provided by the PUD regulations so that the Planning Commission
has a comprehensive view of what the proposed development will involve. With the exception of one, Staff has made the
same recommendation of all previous PUD proposals.
When asked about the proposed number
of parking spaces, Fletcher explained that Staff provided an initial parking
calculation of 302 spaces based on 0.5 spaces per occupant, to reflect the
double-occupancy, the zoning ordinance’s standard child care use requirement,
and a very conservative number for the Campus Ministries use. Because the project is contemplating the
pursuit of Silver LEED Certification, the overdevelopment could adversely
affection LEED scoring. Fletcher stated
that the developer should only use parking reduction tools that are already
provided within the ordinance. The
Outline Plan narrative illustrates that the 302 parking spaces has been reduced
to 230 spaces using the standard reductions provided within the B-4
District. Fletcher stated that the
minimum number of spaces provided in the Outline Plan is 230. Fletcher noted that parking lot configuration
may change to accommodate potential fire lanes.
If it must change due to fire access or other similar necessities,
tandem parking could be used on some areas that are reserved for residential
parking.
Loretta asked Fletcher if a B-4
classification would be more suitable for this property than a PUD. Fletcher explained that because proposed PUD
area includes three zoning classifications, a rezoning would most likely be
necessary. The location and shape of the
property further complicates required orientation and setback
determinations. The proposed scale,
intensity, density and uses are all permitted either by-right or conditionally
within the three zoning districts. Staff
recommends the development be approached as a PUD because of the project’s
uniqueness and so the Planning Commission and focus on site and project design.
Fletcher discussed the provision of
open space and how the developer proposes to meet minimum open space
requirements. Fletcher stated that the
Commission must decide if what is being proposed meets the standards and intent
of the ordinance. Fletcher suggested that Staff, if directed, could work with
the developer to improve their open space proposal if necessary
Selin stated that she believes with
the amount of green space shown, it is important to be careful with the tree
choices and make sure to select for size and interest. She stated that Staff should ensure that the
development respects the character of the church and that streetscape-type
improvements along
Loretta stated he is concerned with
the double occupancy issue. City Council
is having problems with that issue, and if we approve the PUD, the Planning
Commission is saying six unrelated people are ok. Fletcher pointed out the building and fire
codes actually dictate the occupancy.
The “no more than three unrelated people” definition for family is a
zoning ordinance standard. The Square at Falling Run, the SC Bodner Properties,
and the Grand Central PUDs have all asked for and received approval for the
building code control of occupancy rather than the zoning ordinance’s
definition of family. Fletcher stated
that he believe the immediate issue of debate within City Council is how the
definition of family is impacting R-1 and R-1A areas, multi-family developments.
Fletcher stated that the
Selin asked if it would be possible for
the Planning Commission to review the Development Plan documents. Fletcher stated that the Planning Commission
determines who reviews of the Development Plan.
Staff’s intent was to require the developer to submit a thorough Outline
Plan so that the Planning Commission had complete confidence in what the final
development product would be. The
ordinance provides that any significant change between the Development Plan and
the Outline Plan be first approved by the Planning Commission.
Stranko stated that he supports delegating
review and approval of the Development Plan to Staff, subject to no significant
changes, and believes the Planner knows what guidance is needed.
Fletcher reminded the Planning
Commission that because the Outline Plan is so detailed, nearly any change
would have to come back to the Planning Commission for review and approval.
Stranko moved to recommend to City
Council that the Outline Plan and related zoning map amendment be approved
subject to the considerations and conditions set forth in the Staff Report;
seconded by Selin. The motion passed with
six members voting in favor of the motion and one member voting against the
motion.
B. RZ08-06 / Cavender /
Fletcher reported that Mr. Cavender
requested that his petition be tabled due to his inability to attend the
meeting. Selin moved to table the item as
requested by the applicant; seconded by Stranko. The motion passed unanimously.
C. S08-18.III / Wubbie Development Group, LLC.
Request by Wubbie Development Group, LLC for site plan approval of a
Development of Significant Impact for property located at
Fletcher read the Staff Report
stating that the petitioner seeks to convert a vacant structure at
Because the reuse of the existing
structure includes 12 or more dwelling units, the petitioner must obtain DSI
Site Plan approval. Addendum A of this
report illustrates the location and condition of the subject site.
General development program details
include:
·
The
ground floor will be converted into one one-bedroom unit, one two-bedroom unit,
storage, and parking.
·
The
second and third floors will be converted into six two-bedroom units ranging
from 738 ft² to 1,035 ft².
·
A
partial fourth floor will be constructed as a three-bedroom penthouse suite.
·
The
applicant met with the Downtown Design Review Committee to review preliminary
conceptual plans on August 27, 2008 and received a unanimous show of
support.
Richard Brant, President of Main
Street Morgantown, submitted a letter of support dated August 27 2008, which is
attached hereto, and states that, the applicant, for conditional use approval
CU08-14, has satisfied the objectives that will allow for its productive
integration in the downtown mix.
Concerning B-4 residential density,
Fletcher stated that Article 1349.07 of the Planning Zoning Code provides a
maximum residential density, which was calculated by divided 300 square feet by
the area of the lot. The maximum number
of units for the subject lot is twenty-seven (27).
Concerning parking, Fletcher stated
that Article 1349.08 (A) (1) provides a minimum parking requirement of one-half
a space (0.5) per bedroom for those dwelling units that exceed the criteria of
a Development of Significant. The
minimum parking standard for the subject development was calculated by
multiplying .5 spaces by 9 bedrooms (one, three-bedroom unit and three,
two-bedroom units), which is five (5) spaces.
There is sufficient access and area to provide at least seven (7) parking
stalls within the structure.
Concerning bicycle storage, Fletcher
stated that Article 1349.08 (C) requires one (1) indoor, secured, sheltered
bicycle storage space per dwelling unit.
The manner in which this required amenity will be incorporated has not
be finalized as the interior design plans will remain conceptual until all
Planning Commission and Board of Zoning Appeals approvals are rendered.
Michael Shuman of
Stranko commented that this is not
the first abandoned building the applicant has rescued. Shuman stated they recently converted the old Mason
Lodge at the top of High Street into a five-story nineteen-unit facility. It is a secure unit. The inside of the
building has been redone, but the integrity of the outside of the building
remained close to the same as it was.
Shamberger asked for public comment,
in favor or against the request. There being none, she closed the public
hearing portion of the meeting and asked for Staff recommendations.
Fletcher stated that Staff
recommends approval with the following conditions:
1.
That
the petitioner must meet with the Technical Review Committee and the Design
Review Committee prior to building permit issuance.
2.
That
the petitioner must provide at least five (5) on-site parking stalls. Conditional use approval must be obtained
prior to occupancy should the petitioner seek potential parking reductions
under Article 1349.08 (A) (4) and/or off-premise parking under with Article
1365.07.
3.
That
the petitioner must provide bicycle storage, as required under Article 1349.08
(C). Variance approval must be obtained
should the bicycle storage not conform to the performance standards set forth
therein.
4.
That,
to the greatest extent feasible, sufficient area be provided within the subject
building for the collection, storage, and removal of solid waste. Where internal areas are not feasible,
external solid waste containment facilities shall be enclosed with masonry
materials and an opaque gate.
5.
That,
to the greatest extent feasible, plumbing, electrical, and mechanical systems
serving the building and/or individual dwelling units must be located and
screened so that they are not visible from public rights-of-way.
Selin moved to approve the proposed Development
of Significant Impact site plan as requested with Staff’s recommended
conditions; seconded by Loretta. The
motion passed unanimously.
D. S08-19.III / Nagy-Callen /
Fletcher reported that Mr. Nagy
requested his petition be tabled so additional design work could be completed
as a result of the petitioner’s meeting with the Technical Review Team.
Stranko moved to table the item as requested
by the applicant; seconded by DeMasters. The motion passed unanimously.
V. OTHER
BUSINESS:
A. Public Comments – None
1.
Fletcher
reported that Ms. Carol Pyles has been appointed by City Council to fill the
unexpired term left my Theresa Rich’s resignation; shehas been sworn in by the
City Clerk; she will be meeting with the Planning Department for an orientation
next week; and, she is expected to attend next month’s meeting.
2.
Fletcher
reported that the Downtown Strategic Plan Update workshops have been scheduled
for Wednesday, November 12 and Thursday, November 13. Additional workshops will be scheduled for
January and February. The workshops have
been scheduled to coincide with the Planning Commission’s regular monthly
meeting. Fletcher stated that a workshop
schedule would be emailed to the Planning Commission. Fletcher stated he hoped that each workshop
could be attended by at least one Commissioner
Fletcher reported that Commissioner Martis
is working with Kennedy Smith to complete an intercept survey as a part of the
project. The task will be completed within
the next two to three weeks.
3.
Fletcher
stated that he is working to arrange a tour of a LEED-certified building as requested
of Commissioner Loretta.
4.
Fletcher
reported that the first reading of the Traffic Commission Ordinance changes has
been scheduled for next week’s City Council meeting.
Shamberger requested an update for
the Bodner PUD. Fletcher stated he has
met with project’s Engineer and had several discussions with the developer and
the project Architect. Parking is still
an issue and the Planning Commission may see a scaled-back version. It appears they are looking at an aggressive
construction schedule so the matter may appear on the Commission’s November
agenda.
Martis stated it look as if nothing
is being developed on the Riverview site or the Bodner site. Concerning the Bodner site, Fletcher stated
that the City recently contracted someone to clean up the vegetation at the
Bodner site. Concerning the Riverview
site, Fletcher stated that the City’s position is that the approvals granted by
the Planning Commission and the Board of Zoning Appeals are now null and void. City Council has directed the City Manager to
pursuing requiring the owner to return the site to its original state.
V. OTHER
BUSINESS:
At 8:20 PM, Stranko moved to adjourn
the meeting; seconded by Selin. The
motion passed unanimously.