Planning Commission

FAIRMONT PLANNING COMMISSION The meeting of the Fairmont Planning Commission was held October 19th, 2022 @ 7:00 the Public Safety Building 500 Quincy St. Fairmont WV. President Greene called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and asked for a roll call of members. ROLL CALL OF MEMBERS MEMBERS ABSENT / PRESENT Commissioner Bledsoe Absent Commissioner Jura Present Commissioner Richardson Present Commissioner Straight Present Commissioner Wean Present Commissioner Yann Absent President Greene Present Commissioner Majic Absent Made a motion to excuse Commissioners Yann and Majic from the meeting. CITY STAFF Director of Planning and Development – Shae Strait Assistant Planner- Carly O’Dell Jones APPROVAL OF MINUTES from September 21st, 2022 President Greene asked for everyone to read of the previous months minutes and look for corrections or additions. A motion was made by Commissioner Straight to approve the minutes as amended. Commissioner Majic seconded the motion. All were in favor. Motion Passed. OLD BUISNESS Planning Director Shae Strait went on to discuss old business from the previous meeting concerning PC 22-10. The city of Fairmont petitioned to amend article 5.4 parking in the zoning code to create regulations permitting gravel driveways and residential uses and clarify language and organization of various regulations for amend in a parking layout chart and aisle and driveway width requirements to add standards for contacting car parking spaces. President Greene stated that there was no one in the audience so the opening and closing of public hearings will be rapid this evening. The public hearing is open. There's no one here to speak for or against. The hearing was then closed. At the previous meeting there was some debate and discussion on the initial proposed amendments. Staff went back to further work through some of the recommendations and review of the commissioners. The board had discussed the setback requirements for driveways, doing additional requirements if we were going to permit gravel driveways, such as landscaping berms, or landscaping timbers or other types of physical barriers to prevent gravel driveways from becoming a nuisance on the property or to adjacent properties. Here's a brief overview of what's changed since we went through and began to try to amend that. There is one thing to point out, we were out of indents, bold points and numbers that we could use at this point due to the way the parking code is laid out currently under Article Five for site standards. The subsection of exemptions and then additional requirements. After thorough review of this, staff decided to do in order to include those comments we've prepared. We have titled them in your packet alternatives, one so if you go through your packet here you can see at the top of the page there is one titled original text amendment proposal and read and then one titled alternative one and for a brief summary what we've done is reorganize the second section 5.4 which is parking so that we could accommodate further amendments under these subsections. And to also be able to address a couple issues with the parking section while doing that. Currently, the way it's written and in the original text amendment proposal, some things are a bit out of order. What we've done to highlight that, is in the staff report. We've created a two- column example of the current layout. We break it down into multiple primary sections, which is general parking access, vehicular circulation, curb cuts, driveways, parking lots, handicap parking standards, bicycle parking standards, and then the final section is required parking. In the proposed alternative one, not only does it reorganize everything and give us more room to work within the organization of this article, but it also outlines everything if we think about it from a physical, real-world perspective. We start with the intent and then general terms and land use. Next goes into accessing vehicular circulation, curb cuts, driveways. We just go down the list and in the order in which you need these questions answered. All of the same general amendments are in here. All the same graphics are in there and the charts as well. None of those measurements, or those distances have been changed. On page four of alternative one, gravel driveways are under letter J. Under here, you can see that gravel driveway shall be permitted for single family and two family uses on their own lawn with the following requirements: slope limitation, the public right away still has to be fully paved and in case the public right away, encroachment is small, there always has to be a minimum five feet. We did measurements now and it actually works out good in terms the yards of like concrete and so forth. That would almost be a minimum order and so it does end up being convenient for those dimensions as well if they meet the minimum thickness requirements set forth by public works. Next is containment, this is the discussing landscaping timbers or other types of physical barriers that can be put in place to prevent the gravel from leaving the designated area. For the driveway, we kept the original standards, which is that additional standards that the Director of Public Works or the planner may place additional requirements on gravel driveways if they deem necessary in order to prevent negative impacts on adjacent landowners or the public roadway. There was also the discussion about the compact cars. The adjustments to the chart are all on page five. The parking requirements chart was updated to a much more contemporary format. It had these very broad categories and then we as the staff are supposed to go well, we think your land use fits into this. The chart actually reflects our permitted use chart. It does begin to place in bike parking requirements for certain uses, such as assembly halls, civic uses institutional uses, larger medical facilities, in schools and so forth, and then as well. This chart also begins exempting certain land uses for many parking requirements, such as cemeteries, because it is traditional that we don't build designated parking lots for cemeteries. There are also no requirements for emergency shelters. Most of all agricultural uses except for the market garden, which is a retail store essentially, is exempted. All infrastructure stuff is exempted and in some of these numbers are actually updated too more contemporary. The number of spots required per square footage or per employee is to contemporary standards and we referenced a number of existing codes to get these recommended numbers. That is an adjustment there. Staff is recommending the approval of alternative one over the original text amendment that was proposed to you all. President Greene asked if there were any questions from the commissioners. Commissioner Straight wanted to know who would be approving the burials? Would it be code enforcement or the planning department Planning Director Strait responded anytime the word planner, planning director or other term like that, is referenced a staff member within the planning what that's really referencing is whoever is designated to be the zoning administrator. Whoever is in charge of administering and making determinations about this code at that point in time is so it could vary. Currently, it's myself as the planning director, I could delegate those tasks down to Alex Petry or Carly Jones, or in the event of my absence, that can also be delegated to any interim director. Whoever is placed in charge of the administration of this zoning code, so those terms are actually interchangeable. Anytime you see the word planner or director of planning there, they really all mean the same thing. Commissioner Richardson made a motion to approve the request, Commissioner Wean seconded the request. There was a roll call vote done. Roll Call Vote: Commissioner Greene- Yes; Commissioner Jura- Yes; Commissioner Richardson- Yes; Commissioner Straight- Yes; Commissioner Wean- Yes; Commissioner Majic- Yes MOTION was PASSED favorably to City Council. NEW BUSINESS / PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. PC 22-13 - Bennie Kyle of 139 Bourbon St is petitioning to amend Table 3.A – Permitted Use Chart to add Urban Farm as a permitted use to all districts except Technology, Industrial, and Educational. President Greene opened the public hearing. He stated that there was no one in the audience that’s night so the opening and closing of the public hearings will be rapid during the evenings meeting. The public hearing was then closed. Shae Strait spoke regarding the proposed petition. Mr. Kyle had come into City Hall to request a business license to open a farm to grow vegetables and food on a piece of property that he has recently acquired at the dead end of Bourbon Street. It is a very large six-and-a-half-acre piece of land up in that neighborhood. The property is zoned neighborhood residential but at this point in time, the city does not permit for any type of farming as a commercial land use. Currently we permit for you to have a small garden with your home, but nobody can grow food, keep livestock or do anything that is farming as a commercial activity. They were very particular that they wanted to be able to do that on property such as the one they had acquired so that they could grow food and sell it to local businesses. They were hoping to work out those deals and be able to provide fruits and vegetables or whatever they decide to grow there to local vendors. What they've requested is that we have a place where we have land use defined in the code that relate to this one. This is called an urban farm one in brief summary, we believe the definition of a farm means it's for your own self, to sustain yourself and the people who dwell there on the property right. In case you do something more than just a small little garden and you maybe grow very large crops; large quantities are made to deal with livestock. That's a farm but as soon as you get into commercial activity where you grow and sell your product that is an urban farm. Mr. Kyle worked with staff to get a petition submitted because obviously we were able to approve their business license since this use is permitted nowhere in the city. Their property is located in a neighborhood residential district. Staff has done some research about existing urban farming codes and standards references to the state code or a comprehensive plan. And there is a lot of information there concerning the land use and our research on that. We also looked at a number of codes across the country across the region and here in West Virginia as well. We prepared a number of things, including alternatives to Mr. Kyle's proposal, we got three different options to amend the permitted use chart we have an option in the staff report that will include use standards which I would strongly recommend in order to prevent negative impacts of farming if we're going to consider adding this to the chart. Mr. Kyle, nor any agent of business here this evening to present their case I just wanted to go ahead and fill you all in the best I could and I cannot speak for them. I think farming is very important. I think it's very important to understand how this impacts our local economy. But it's also important understand how this impacts adjacent land uses and its compatibility. If there are any questions or considerations staff would be happy to elaborate the best we can. Commissioner Richardson stated that where the property is located it’s on a one-way street. He then stated the roads would have to have development. He was also concerned about electrical, or water and whatever else would need to take place for development. After discussion took place Commission Richardson made a motion to table this item until the next meeting. Commissioner Straight seconded the motion. There was a roll call vote. Roll Call Vote: Commissioner Greene- Yes; Commissioner Jura- Yes; Commissioner Richardson- Yes; Commissioner Straight- Yes; Commissioner Wean- Yes; Commissioner Majic- Yes 2. PC 22-14 – City of Fairmont is petitioning to amend Article 5, Section 5.9 – Refuse Containment and Mechanical Equipment to eliminate the 5-foot setback required for all mechanical equipment installed for single-family residential uses. President Greene opened the public hearing. He asked if there was anyone here to speak in favor of the request. There was no one. He then asked if there was anyone where to speak against the request. There was no one. The public hearing was then closed. Planning Director Shea Strait spoke regarding the requested petition. A general guideline is if the board of zoning appeals grants some variances consistently then that's usually an indication that there's a problem with the code and that we should make an amendment. This year alone the BZA has granted three variances to this particular rule. There ruling was that overall, the particular sentence that staff listed here to strike through is an undue burden on all single-family land uses. Reason being is because this rule applies only to single family land uses. To talk through a hypothetical rule, we're talking about the sentence as mechanical equipment for single family residential uses shall be set back a minimum of five feet from the property line. That is the settings that are wishing to strike from section 5.9. Here's an example of some of the scenarios that the BZA discussed that this was an undue burden. If you have a large 30-unit apartment building next to a single-family home, the 30-unit apartment building may place their mechanical equipment anywhere in the side and rear yard as long as it meets the building or fire safety code. Any codes that apply to it because there are setback and like air flow requirements for all that equipment. As long as it meets those going to be placed anywhere, if you have a triplex, you can place this mechanical equipment anywhere within those rules. If you have a commercial business, you may place it anywhere within those roles provide it's also screened. This only applies to single family dwellings, which is also duplexes because they're a type of single-family dwelling or single family attached. And then there's also single family detached. Staff is proposing to remove that sentence and then what will happen here if this is forwarded to city council and then they ultimately approve it as that cable doesn't go unregulated, but it will simply be regulated by the building code and the National Fire Prevention code that we have adopted as well. And this does not permit for mechanical equipment to be placed anywhere outside of the side or rear yard still, so those rules would still apply. This is simply a five-foot setback requirement. President Greene asked for a motion for PC 22-14. Commissioner Wean made a motion to approve the request. Commissioner Jura seconded the motion. A roll call vote was done. Roll Call Vote: Commissioner Greene- Yes; Commissioner Jura- Yes; Commissioner Richardson- Yes; Commissioner Straight- Yes; Commissioner Wean- Yes; Commissioner Majic- Yes MOTION was passed to FAVORABLY FORWARD to City Council 3. PC 22-15 – City of Fairmont is petitioning to amend Article 2 – Definitions and Measurements to add a definition for Garden Walls and Retaining Walls. President Greene asked if there was anyone there in favor of the request to speak, there was no one. He then asked if there was any one there to speak against the request. There was no one. The public hearing was then closed. Planning Director Shae Strait stated PC 22-15 also relates to PC 22-16. Currently there are no definitions of what a retaining wall or a garden wall. Although a garden wall is referenced in our code, we don't actually say what that is. We currently have to make that interpretation, but we would like to make sure that it is clear for everyone involved in this code. We're proposing to submit two definitions, specifically a garden wall, a wall that holds back or retain soil and then has plantings in behind it for the purposes of gardening or decorative landscaping, versus a retaining wall, which is a structural component of a building or doesn't have to be but as you know, it's a wall of pulled back soil, not for landscaping purposes. Commissioner Straight wanted to know if the was being put in place because of something happened recently. To which the Planning Director stated this was prompted by a construction project that did occur within our corporate limits. We realized there were some things that were not addressed in the zoning code. And if it's not listed, it's technically prohibited. That's how the code is written. President Greene asked for a motion regarding PC 22-16. Commissioner Strait made a motion to approve PC 22-15. Commissioner Wean seconded the motion. Motion Passed and a roll call vote was done. Roll Call Vote: Commissioner Greene- Yes; Commissioner Jura- Yes; Commissioner Richardson- Yes; Commissioner Straight- Yes; Commissioner Wean- Yes; Commissioner Majic- Yes MOTION was passed to FAVORABLY FORWARD to City Council 1. PC 22-16 – City of Fairmont is petitioning to amend Article 5, Section 5.8 Fences and Vegetative Screen to add a General regulations section, add the definition of fence types of fences with additional clarification, to shorten each fence regulation section by referencing the new fence type section, clarify what a Garden Wall is and the setbacks required, add standards for masonry walls as site features, add standards for Garden Fencing, add standards for Recreational Facility fencing, and other amendments for clarification or organization. President Greene opened the public hearing. He asked if there was anyone here to speak in favor of the request. There was no one. He then asked if there was anyone where to speak against the request. There was no one. The public hearing was then closed. Planning Director Shea Strait stated this petition was prompted by a recent construction project along with multiple conversations between myself and the building official for the city of Fairmont and discussing how we currently regulate various types of financings and walls within zoning. The staff has included two alternatives that we would propose for your consideration. The first being that we're amending the section title of this to also make sure it's very clear that this section regulates walls. We're adding this general section at the front about why we regulate these things and where they're permitted, and how we deal with new construction or repair modification of existing fences. Currently there is not a set code, so we actually make a lot of interpretations about how we address changes to people's non-conforming fences. We're also adding one of the key sections, materials, we are specifically stating which materials are prohibited within this code. We have listed here barbed wire concertina wire, razor wire, electrically charged wire, exposed concrete masonry units, of any type, and then scrap metal tarps and other materials determined by the building inspector to be detrimental to the health and welfare. We then go on to fence types, which is a new subsection here, and we're adding in these are actually existing definitions and explanations. We're not changing any of the rules as it relates to residential uses a residential district fences and walls. We just made that clear for non-residential uses and residential districts which is item four. We do explain that garden walls shall not exceed one foot and height which is measured from the side with the higher ground elevation. Garden walls are different from masonry walls that are solid visual barriers. We're talking about these are decorative landscaping walls that you put bushes or flowers behind and so forth. We do add that there's a maximum kind of height limit there for non-residential uses in residential districts. Fences are stricter for commercial districts or commercial uses. We're not changing that. We added a brand-new section number six, which is garden fencing. What this will do is that if you want to use wire fencing to fence in your garden, you could do so and it would be exempt from a zoning permit as long as it met our setback requirements and height requirements or any other rules that you see listed here. And make sure it's made out of proper material and something you wouldn't need to get a permit for. But rules are written right now they're not exempted, which means technically citizens are supposed to be coming in to get a fence permit to put wire around their vegetable garden. We're just adding rules about that make are very clear about what a garden fence is and how it's different from a regular fencing so you can read those there. We've explained that it has to be made on a certain gauge wire or smaller. It can't be any taller than six feet. We also had section seven which is for recreational facility fences. This is something didn’t exist currently. Basically, we say you have a basketball court tennis court pickleball court you can have up to a 12-foot-tall fence. Currently we don't have that in here so technically it's prohibited. The final pages of the packet for petition are highlighted in red. Alternative added a section about walls, so what this would do if you all move to accept alternative one it would add rules so that people could put masonry walls on their property. We state that a masonry wall has to be brick or stone finished and has to be a height between two feet three and a half feet. Then you could then top it out. Side yards could be up to six feet in height and it could also be adorned with wrought iron or similar approved material on the top of the masonry wall. A recent issue prompted a review of the code and we found out it was basically prohibited because they weren't listed. There were no rules on them. Alternative two is on the final page, this came up between a conversation between myself and the building official. Currently some residents within the city of Fairmont do use electrically charged wire for their garden fencing. As previously mentioned electrically charged wire material is prohibited unless explicitly permitted otherwise in this code. If the planning commission finds it desirable to still permit for people to be able to do that for their garden fencing, we've provided an alternative to accommodate our residents. A building or a zoning permit would be required to build one of these. The electrically charged wires, which must be set back a minimum of five feet from all property lines are not permitted in a front yard. Where electrically charged wire fence is located must be fully enclosed by a fence of at least 18 inches in height, and setback at least three feet from that fence. You should have a fence around your electrically charged fence. We have children, the idea of maybe property lines probably doesn't resonate with them necessarily. We're asking that if they do build new ones, it has to be in an already fenced yard or they fence it in as well. That also stated here at the final point number four, that the planner or the building inspector reserves the right to order the removal of the electrical charge fence if it is deemed to be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare. Staff is recommending at minimum the adoption of the proposed text amendments plus alternative one. And then if desirable by the Commission we think alternative two has enough safeguards in it to permit for electrically charged fences still and to accommodate our residents who currently have them and maybe residents who would desire them in the future around our gardens. Commissioner Richardson asked the volage of the fences to which Commissioner Straight responded 110 115 Somewhere in there. President Greene stated concerns regarding putting a fence around a fence and the wording of the request. Assistant Planner Carly Jones suggested stating to word it the area which the electrically charged wire fence is located in must be fully enclosed. We are just changing the word yard to area President Greene made a motion to approve the request with the amended text as follows: 2.3 would be the area which the electrically charged wire fence is located must be fully enclosed by a fence of at least 18 inches in height and setback three feet or more from the electrically charged fence. Commissioner Straight seconded the motion. Roll Call was done. Roll Call Vote: Commissioner Greene- Yes; Commissioner Jura- Yes; Commissioner Richardson- Yes; Commissioner Straight- Yes; Commissioner Wean- Yes; Commissioner Majic- Yes MOTION was passed to FAVORABLY FORWARD to City Council ADJOURNMENT President Greene asked for a motion to adjourn meeting. Commissioner Straight motioned to adjourn the meeting; Commissioner Yann seconded the motion. All were in favor. Motion approved