Planning Commission

FAIRMONT PLANNING COMMISSION The regular meeting of the Fairmont Planning Commission was held on May 21, 2014 at 7:00 p.m. at the Public Safety Building located at 500 Quincy Street. President Oliver called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and asked for a roll call of members. ROLL CALL OF MEMBERS Members Present: Members Absent: President Oliver Commissioner Straight Vice President Majic Commissioner Parker Commissioner Richardson Commissioner Miller Commissioner Weber Commissioner Pitman Commissioner Greene City Staff Present: Director of Planning and Development – Kathy Wyrosdick Recording Secretary – Martha Richards PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE President Oliver: Motioned to approve the minutes from the April 16, 2014 meeting. Commissioner Weber: Motioned to approve minutes. Commissioner Greene: Seconded. Vote was 8-0 in favor. Motion Carried. 1 PUBLIC HEARINGS FOR MAY 21, 2014 President Oliver: Stoney Quinto, on behalf of S&S Auto Sales, is requesting a rezoning of his property located at 315 Morgantown Avenue from Neighborhood Mixed Use to Main Corridor Commercial. Tax Map 03-05 Parcels 103 through 110. Stoney Quinto, Jr.: Stated his representation of S&S Auto Sales at 317 Morgantown Avenue, along with his father, Stoney Quinto, Sr., owner of S&S Auto Sales. Mr. Quinto handed out a transcript supporting his request to rezone S&S Auto Sales to Planning Commission members, and read said transcript out loud to the commission and audience. A copy of the transcript is located in the City of Fairmont’s Planning Office. Quinto stated the staff report from a previous hearing (2010) has a credibility gap, with inconsistencies. He also added substantial financial changes have occurred recently within the city (e.g. Palatine Park). Quinto stated that his business has been in service for 64 years, and has no record of problems caused by our dealership from neighborhood residents. Commissioner Parker: What uses do you wish to employ that are denied by the current zoning situation? Mr. Quinto: Major concerns – “If our license is not renewed for two years, we would lose our grandfathering, so we could not come back in as an automobile dealership with a non-conforming use. We would not be able to enlarge our building; neighborhood mixed use is not going to allow this. What we were allowed for 46 years under Business B can’t be done under neighborhood mixed use.” Under confidentiality rules, Quinto would not say specifically what he would do with his property, but that it would be complimentary and it would be an investment. Quinto expounded on his investment in Fairmont, and closed by saying, “We are limited with neighborhood mixed use zoning, and we are chained in.” Commissioner Parker: You are constrained by the current zoning for what you want to do? And if it were rezoned, you are prepared to make capital investments and changes? Mr. Quinto: That is correct. We would make, as 1309.04 states, economic, physical, and social changes. But that cannot be done, with neighborhood mixed use. President Oliver: Any further questions? None. President Oliver: Is there anyone else here to speak for this request? None. President Oliver: Is there anyone here to speak against this request? 2 Rosemary Reese: Rosemary Reese, lives at 299 Maryland Avenue, and has lived in the home her parents built in 1942 for half her life. Her property is next to Mr. Quinto’s empty lot. The neighborhood has always had small businesses; it is zoned neighborhood mixed use. A petition was signed by 48 residents in the neighborhood and says the following people do not want the zoning changed from neighborhood mixed use to main corridor commercial. Petitioners asked the Fairmont Planning Commission to deny Mr. Quinto’s request. Their concern is that if the zoning is changed, large corporations could be put in, such as a motel, hotel, or 24-hour gas station. They are a family neighborhood. They would like the zoning to stay the way it’s been for the last 72 years. Ms. Reese handed out copies of the list of petitioners to Planning Commission members. President Oliver: Is there anyone else to speak against this request? None. City Planner Wyrosdick: Ms. Wyrosdick outlined the staff report findings considering the 1) rezoning request, 2) Mr. Quinto’s attempts to rezone in the past, and 3) what happens next. The request is to take the current zoning neighborhood mixed use to main corridor commercial, and… under main corridor commercial, something like an auto dealership would be a conditional use, and under its current zoning, it’s an excluded use, so their current operation is a non-conforming use with the ability for that use to continue to operate as it is today with the limitation that if it ceases or is abandoned for longer than a year than the use could not be reestablished. There is a similar sales lot across the street and that property has been leased, and as different lessors moved in and out of that space, the owner would maintain his business license so that he would not lose his non- conforming status, even though it was not in operation as a sales lot, he would continue his business license, and we’ve allowed businesses to do that. Four years ago, in August 2010, Mr. Quinto and other adjoining property owners (Woodchucks, Lion in the Sun, Richard Flug’s antique store) had requested rezoning. It was a larger area that expanded down to the corner of Morgantown and East Park that was under the requested rezoning. The Planning Commission at that time did not recommend approval of the rezoning for all of those properties and the requested rezoning was denied by City Council on September 8th, 2010. The Planning Commission is a recommending body, so your recommendation tonight will be to either approve the rezoning or deny the rezoning, but it will go in front of City Council either way, unless it is to be tabled for some reason. The zoning code states that applicants who are denied rezoning may not resubmit the same request within the year unless there has been a significant change. Since it has been three years, Mr. Quinto has the opportunity to come back and request a similar type of zoning, and he has done that. For your consideration, the Planning Commission, as part of their review must look at some very specific criteria and determine whether or not that criteria has been met. Those criteria include:  whether the need and justification for the proposed amendment exists,  whether the effect of the proposed amendment on the property and the surrounding property and the city as a whole is in alignment with the request, 3   the relationship of the proposed amendment to the comprehensive plan, and to the general planning program of the city,  whether there have been major changes of an economic, physical, or social nature within the area involved which were not anticipated when the comprehensive plan was adopted,  whether those changes have substantially altered the basic characteristics of the area,  whether the proposed amendment should or should not be adopted, and  whether all notice of requirements have been met. All notice of requirements have been met according to State Statute Chapter 8A, and according to the planning and zoning code of the City of Fairmont. Property owners within 200’ of the property under review received notice of the public hearing. The comprehensive plan for the city was duly completed and adopted by this body on March 30, 2005, and that was as evidenced by ordinance on July 12, 2005. It was completed in compliance with the provisions outlined in Chapter 8A, Article 3 of the West Virginia code, and provides the City of Fairmont with a document to guide the growth and development of the community for ten years after the date of adoption. The comprehensive plan includes a future land use map, and identifies all areas of the city which provides the basis for land development and use. The area under consideration for rezoning was designated as resident/commercial on said future land use map. On September 26, 2006, the City of Fairmont, after proper study and public hearings, enacted a new part 13 planning and zoning code, including an official zoning map which incorporated the goals and recommendations of the 2005 comprehensive plan. The area under consideration for rezoning tonight was zoned, at that time, neighborhood mixed use in conformance with that recommendation for resident/commercial use on the official zoning map enacted as part of the new planning and zoning code and in conformance with the recommendations of the comprehensive plan. Neighborhood mixed use district is coded to provide pedestrian scale, higher density residential homes, and opportunities for limited scale commercial activities in existing mixed use areas. This district permits newly constructed commercial buildings with a maximum floor area of 2500 sq. ft. A 5000 sq. ft. building could be built under conditional use. So you can go a little bit larger than that 2500 sq. ft. A neighborhood mixed use district accommodates the full use of existing commercial buildings regardless of square footage; some of you may remember a building in the Beltline area on 10th Street where it was larger than 2500 sq. ft. They wanted to utilize it for offices, and under the current zoning at the time, they weren’t technically allowed to use it because it was existing and we realize that the intent was to allow an existing building larger than 2500 sq. ft. to be used for neighborhood mixed use uses. That amendment was made to the zoning code about 3 or 4 years ago, so we did accommodate some existing uses. The neighborhood mixed use list of uses is a mixture of retail and commercial office; a true mix of residential/commercial uses. It was written that way because Fairmont has residential neighborhoods in close proximity, and intermixed, with small scale commercial. This area was specifically studied for that particular situation. A very similar situation is 10th Street and Gaston Avenue and the Beltline area. That area was also neighborhood mixed use in 2006. The main corridor commercial district, however, is coded to encourage development of large scale uses that 4 complement the surrounding neighborhoods, and are supported by existing and planned transportation networks. The district permits buildings up to 15,000 sq. ft. and expanded uses, such as auto service. In main corridor commercial zoning, you can go larger than 15,000 sq. ft. Main corridor commercial districts were primarily limited to major thoroughfares in and out of the city, such as Fairmont Avenue, Locust Avenue, Speedway, and there is a small portion of Morgantown Avenue that is coded for main corridor commercial. Primarily, significant transportation routes can accommodate higher levels of traffic and would not have a negative impact on neighboring residential areas because mixed uses are not going on. This is the pattern of development and why that occurred within the comprehensive plan, and was then translated into the zoning code. I would like to respond to Mr. Quinto’s statement of recent investments and how that meets the qualification of an economic change. There is some major investment that is happening in a number of parcels in this subject area. The $22 million investment into the East Fairmont Middle School, the million dollar investment into Palatine Park, and an additional investment with the city water department moving to the WesBanco building on Merchant Street. The fact that an investment is being made is a significant and wonderful thing and we want to encourage it, but it is my recommendation that it does not change the area. It doesn’t change the use, it doesn’t change the traffic pattern, it doesn’t change what the intent was. We don’t want to discourage investment, we want to encourage additional investment, but that does not speak to a change in the economic nature of the area. The school is still a school, Palatine Park is still a park, WesBanco Bank will still be used for office service. What was envisioned at the time that the comprehensive plan was being completed, and at the time that the 2006 zoning code was rewritten, was the Gateway Connector, which was seen as a benefit to alleviate the traffic on this East Park-Morgantown Avenue area. So it supports the idea of neighborhood mixed use and allows that to continue in that area without having pressure of additional traffic imposed on it. Traffic is increasing throughout the city and not because of any major improvement or investment going on in the East Park and Morgantown Avenue area. When you look at the general building form and the layout of this area, there has been no substantial change in the form, in the traffic patterns, in the transportation, or the use within the given area that would impact or justify this rezoning. I recommend that the Planning Commission make a recommendation of denial for rezoning, seeing that the criteria have not been met. President Oliver: This is spot zoning, which we do not do. I don’t want to turn any business away, but this business that has been there for 64 years and has done well, and we have people who have lived there for just as long and are upset and don’t want to see this change. Commissioner Parker: Neighborhood mixed use extends all the way up to East Park. All the businesses that front Morgantown Avenue are all grandfathered in to mixed use? City Planner Wyrosdick clarifies the zoning district uses by showing the zoning district map to the commissioners and to the audience, describing locations of various districts 5 and answering questions. Businesses are envisioned to occur in these areas, just not on a large scale basis; this is zoned for small businesses and services. President Oliver: We zoned this area specifically to avoid large scale commercial; no Sheetz, no Wendy’s, nothing that could be open 24/7 because of the residential zone behind it. This was a hard area to zone. President Oliver: Any other questions? Commissioner Parker: Have we ever allowed a rezoning based on this language before? President Oliver: No. Commissioner Parker: Then I question the language. How do you ever meet the requirement in the code? If there’s been a substantial change in the use of the property, you have to bring it to the board for approval, and, if our criteria is this language, we’re never going to approve it. So there can never be a change. The language prevents change. It’s an interesting conundrum. City Planner Wyrosdick: The language is trying to get to the importance of the overall confidence of the planning process, and as part of that process you’ve been given an opportunity to look at the entire community as a whole rather than individual spots or pieces. It would be easy to say that Fairmont followed that process as good as any community in the State of West Virginia. It was the very first city to follow it according to the new Chapter 8A standards after they were adopted by the state, which spoke to how important the comprehensive planning process was. And then you took that planning process that allowed you to consider not individual parcels, but the impact of the overall future development of the city, and turned that into your new zoning code. It’s important to look back at your comprehensive plan and establish that that was a valid process and the recommendations that you then turn into a new zoning code are valid. You can’t do that in a bubble; you have to account for the possibility that something might not have been envisioned at the time you wrote the 2005 comprehensive plan. The state also suggests you look at your comprehensive plan every ten years and look at the requirement of communities. Commissioner Parker: If this request is not approved, in 2015, do we have the opportunity to revisit that and say no, we don’t think this is appropriate, and change it? City Planner Wyrosdick: You absolutely do. That’s typically done as a comprehensive plan update. The Beltline area, and all of its uses, is zoned neighborhood mixed use. The area needs a closer look. As part of that process, an outcome will be a zoning change, but what that format will look like, we’re not sure. I’m not saying it can only be done according to an amendment to a comprehensive plan. If there’s clearly a change socially or economically, or some other way, if the Planning Commission feels there is a dramatic change to this area and zoning needs to be revisited, you have that option. 6 Commissioner Weber: I would like to make a motion that we deny the request that S & S Sales at 315 Morgantown Avenue, Parcels 103 to 110, for the reasons that the planning director has stated in the code we have today. President Oliver: Is there a second? Commissioner Miller: Seconded. President Oliver: Vote to deny Mr. Quinto’s request Vote: 7 in favor to deny; 1 abstain City Planner Wyrosdick: This item will go to City Council on June 24th at 7:00 pm for the first reading; it has to go to City Council even though it’s a denial. The second reading should be July 8th. We will give Mr. Quinto a call to remind him. Mr. Quinto: In that schedule, City Council can exercise the paragraph under Section G, they don’t have to follow this… as a governing body? City Planner Wyrosdick: This is just a recommendation. City Council can make their own separate decision. President Oliver: Public hearings to set for June 18, 2014. None. NEW BUSINESS None. CITIZENS PETITION None. OTHER BUSINESS Commissioners Comments Commissioner Parker: The minutes appear to be more of a transcript. I’m not sure we want to make our public record a transcript. I’m concerned that if all we are doing is replicating what’s on the tape, then there may be comments that we don’t really want out 7 there. Sometimes these comments come back to bite you, and the end up in the newspaper. I suggest we make the minutes briefer. Commissioner Richardson: It’s been a learning experience tonight. I’m sure my voice will be heard on some things and mute on others. It’s good to meet you all. Commissioner Weber: Welcomes Commissioner Richardson. We need to go back and look at the zoning language; we need it to be clear so that everyone understands it. Having said that, I agree with the 48 people who signed the petition. Commissioner Majic: I’d like to welcome Houston. Responding to a privacy issue brought up by Commissioner Majic, Ms. Wyrosdick responded, “People are not required to disclose what their intent is, nor should that be a factor, because you can’t rezone to a specific proposal. When you rezone, you have to look at all of the potential uses that could go on that site and how it could impact the area. Because what they say today could change tomorrow and that leads it open to any use that’s permitted in the district.” STAFF UPDATES City Planner Wyrosdick:  Houston Richardson Welcome  Main Street sponsored Developer’s Tour on June 11, 2014, at The Gathering  Upstairs Downtown Program on June 12, 2014, also at The Gathering  Bad Buildings Stakeholder Group Training on May 29th at 6:00 pm in the Babcock Room in the City building.  Leonard’s Station rezoning was approved by City Council. Fetty Avenue concern was discussed. The public hearing will be at the Board of Zoning Appeals on July 3rd. ADJOURNMENT President Oliver: Do I have a motion to adjourn? Commissioner Parker: Motioned to adjourn. Commissioner Weber: Seconded. 8