Planning Commission

MORGANTOWN PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 6:30 p.m. February 9, 2017 Council Chambers COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Peter DeMasters, Carol Pyles, William Blosser, Sam Loretta, Bill Petros, Tim Stranko, and Bill Kawecki COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Michael Shuman STAFF PRESENT: Christopher Fletcher, AICP I. CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL: DeMasters called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. and read the standard explanation of the how the Planning Commission conducts business and rules for public comments. II. 2017 LEADERSHIP ELECTION – President and Vice-President: Stranko nominated Peter DeMasters as President and Carol Pyles as Vice President; seconded by Blosser. Motion carried unanimously with DeMasters and Pyles abstaining. III. GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENTS: None IV. MATTERS OF BUSINESS: A. Approval of the December 8, 2016 meeting minutes: Stranko moved to approve as presented; seconded by Petros. Motion carried unanimously with DeMasters abstaining due to his absence. B. Approval of the 2016 Annual Report to the City Council: Stranko moved to forward a the 2016 Annual Report to City Council as presented; seconded by Blosser. Motion carried unanimously. V. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: None. VI. NEW BUSINESS: A. MNS17-01 / Cymilo, LLC / 1360 Eastern Avenue: Request by Lisa Mardis of Project Management Services, on behalf of Cymilo, LLC, for minor subdivision approval of property located at 1360 Eastern Avenue; Tax Map 54, Parcel 23; R- 1, Single-Family Residential District. Fletcher presented the Staff Report. DeMasters recognized Lisa Mardis of Project Management Services, on behalf of Cymilo, LLC, who explained a variance relating to minimum lot frontage is needed along with the minor subdivision. Mardis stated other options were explored such as subdividing on the Aspen Street Morgantown Planning Commission Page 1 of 7 February 9, 2017 Minutes side, but noted that would result in a deficiency of the rear yard setback and therefore decided on the Eastern Avenue side. Mardis referred to the map submitted in the application and noted that two properties across the street had been subdivided in the same manner. Mardis noted the applicant intends to remove the existing carport structure and build a single-family house. Mardis stated the current structure will not be removed as it was built in 1904 and is structurally sound. Mardis explained the reason the subdivision was not taken down the middle is due to a retaining wall and mature vegetation. Mardis referred to the map submitted in the application and noted the properties with insufficient road frontage and properties that would require variances by today’s standards. DeMasters asked if 70 feet of road frontage could be obtained from Aspen Street. Mardis explained that Aspen Street would have 64 feet of road frontage. Mardis noted that the existing single-family structure faces Eastern Avenue and therefore a variance would be necessary for a rear yard setback and noted the other parcel would be significantly smaller road frontage than requested. Petros asked if the parking for the existing house would come off Aspen Street and parking for the new house would come off Eastern Avenue. Mardis confirmed. Mardis expressed that people are running out of places to build single-family houses and therefore more people will be building outside of the city limits, which will add to the traffic problem and urban sprawl. There being no further comments or questions by the Commission, DeMasters asked if anyone was present to speak in favor of or in opposition to petition. There being none, DeMasters declared the public hearing closed and asked for Staff recommendations, which were read by Fletcher. Stranko stated he was opposed the application and expressed that mistakes were made in the past and they are not obliged to make them again unless there is legal reason, in which there are not in this case. Stranko noted the home located on the property is a landmark and is located on a very busy intersection. Stranko stated they are not lawfully obliged to destroy the aesthetics of the community and the applicant is not lawfully entitled either. Stranko stated the proposed subdivision is incongruent with the neighborhood and the lot itself and disrespectful to the historical value of the lot and the home located on the lot. Petros noted there are many similar lots in the area that relate to the proposed subdivision. Petros expressed a single-family dwelling would look better than the existing carport on the lot. Blosser asked what type of house would be built on lot one. Mardis explained that a design has not been decided on yet as they would first need subdivision approval. Kawecki asked if surrounding neighbors received notification of the request. Fletcher stated the sending of neighbor notification letters is not required for minor subdivision petitions. Mardis asked if the frontage would be along Eastern Avenue if the house on Aspen and Eastern were to be torn down. Fletcher confirmed. Stranko expressed concerns for the trees and expressed that the trees probably won’t stay as contractors will eventually tear them down. Mardis noted that the contractor is also the owner. Morgantown Planning Commission Page 2 of 7 February 9, 2017 Minutes Pyles expressed concerns for the trees as well and stated the trees sometimes do not live after the ground is disturbed. Mardis referred to the application and stated there is a retaining wall and the new property line would be on the other side of the retaining wall. Mardis explained the retaining wall would be located on the same property as the existing house. Mardis noted this request is similar to a prior approved request made by Mottie Pavone on Windsor Avenue. Loretta expressed that a precedent was set when the Commission approved other applications. Stranko reiterated that the Commission is not obliged to follow precedent as every parcel is different. Blosser expressed that the existing building is being protected. Stranko disagreed and suggested to look at what has occurred in the Second Ward area. DeMasters noted that every case is different and evaluated on what is best for the property in that area and therefore does not feel a precedent has been set in the past. Fletcher suggested wording for findings both in favor or and in opposition to the minor subdivision petition based on the Commission’s comments and discussion. Petros asked if the house was registered as a historical landmark. Mardis stated it was her understanding that the house in not registered. Loretta asked what would happen to the property if the petition was denied. Mardis stated she would have to discuss that with the client. Loretta moved to approve Case No. MNS17-01 by granting the departure from the minimum lot frontage standard as requested, based on the findings that the proposed parcels will exceed the minimum lot area standard, which maintains the desired single-family development density in the R-1 District, and several neighboring parcels do not appear to meet the minimum R-1 District lot frontage standard. The motion was seconded by Stranko. The motion failed by a 4-3 vote with Loretta, Petros, and Kawecki voting aye and Stranko, Pyles, Blosser, and DeMasters voting nay. Kawecki asked if this was the best use for the land considering the location and development in the area and expressed concerns with promoting the proper type of development and not take advantage of a quick source of money. Stranko noted the house has become a landmark in the neighborhood and to grant a variance is short-sighted and would be a poor choice in a neighborhood that is lacking landmarks and distinctive properties. Stranko moved to deny MNS17-01 based on findings that the proposed subdivision and requested minimum lot frontage standard departure was incongruent with the neighborhood and the property itself and that the proposed subdivision and requested minimum lot frontage standard departure was disrespectful to the historical value of the subject property. The motion was seconded by Pyles. The motion passed by a 4-3 vote with Stranko, Pyles, Blosser and DeMasters voting aye and Loretta, Petros, and Kawecki voting nay. Morgantown Planning Commission Page 3 of 7 February 9, 2017 Minutes Fletcher stated a letter would be sent to the applicant concerning the Planning Commission’s findings and decision and appeal procedures. B. TX17-01 / Administrative / Accessory Structures and Uses: Administratively requested Zoning Text Amendments to Articles 1329.02 and 1331.08 thru 1331.10 concerning “Accessory Structure” and “Accessory Use”. Fletcher presented the Staff Report. Petros inquired if a fence could be higher than allowed on a slanted lot. Fletcher explained that a variance could be granted through the BZA review process. Pyles suggested different wording within the amendment relating to historic districts and the review process. Fletcher explained the proposed amendment strengthens consultation with the Morgantown Historic Landmarks Commission. Kawecki inquired about the wording used relating to lift stations. Fletcher explained what a lift station is and why it should be classified as an accessory structure. Kawecki inquired as to why the height of an accessory structure shall not exceed eighteen feet in height and how the number was determined. Fletcher explained he has no working knowledge on how the number eighteen was determined. Kawecki referred to the wording used relating to fencing being “open” and expressed that word is not descriptive and should be changed. Fletcher noted the wording was changed after the 2006 comprehensive zoning ordinance amendment and the contributing context of the how and why additional fence height was permitted by-right. Loretta referred to the Standard at Morgantown development project asking if many prior variances had been requested relating to accessory structures such as the lift station. Fletcher stated there have not been many if any related variances requested and noted that no prior questions or concerns had been raised regarding what a lift station is or how it should be classified. Loretta inquired how a separate building can be an accessory use if it is vital to a primary structure. Fletcher referred Loretta to the definition of accessory use explaining the issue is complicated by the limited examples provided in the Code that relate only to residential principal uses, particularly single-family dwellings. Loretta asked if mechanicals would be allowed in an accessory structure in a residential area as it is worded now in the ordinance. Fletcher confirmed and explained the use would be an accessory structure that contributes to the comfort, convenience, and necessity of the primary structure. Loretta suggested wording the mechanical structures separate from being accessory structures to eliminate confusion. Fletcher disagreed and expressed the current wording eliminated confusion. Loretta asked if an accessory structure and an accessory use are the same thing. Fletcher elaborated on how an accessory structure and an accessory use are parallel. Morgantown Planning Commission Page 4 of 7 February 9, 2017 Minutes Loretta expressed that the wording should not be changed as it has worked for years and only been an issue with the Standard at Morgantown development project. Fletcher expressed the wording worked for years until it was used to stop the project. Petros referred to cooking structures and asked if that meant a microwave would not be allowed in the pool house. Fletcher stated that would be determined with the assistance of the Building Code. Petros referred to the pool house and asked why it had to be within 10 feet of the pool. Fletcher explained that is the way the wording is now and Staff only looked at matters relating to code administration observations over the last 10 years. There being no further comments or questions by the Commission, DeMasters asked if anyone was present to speak in favor of or in opposition to petition. There being none, DeMasters declared the public hearing closed and asked for Staff recommendations, which were read by Fletcher. Kawecki moved to forward a favorable recommendation to City Council for TX17-01 as presented; seconded by Petros. Motion carried 7-1 with Loretta voting nay. C. TX17-02 / Administrative / Principal Uses and Premises: Administratively requested Zoning Text Amendments to Articles 1329.02 and 1363.04 concerning “Principal Use” and “Premises” and the number of principal buildings and accessory structures permitted on an industrial/manufacturing parcel. Fletcher presented Staff Report. There being no comments or questions by the Commission, DeMasters asked if anyone was present to speak in favor of or in opposition to petition. There being none, DeMasters declared the public hearing closed and asked for Staff recommendations, which were read by Fletcher. Stranko moved to forward a favorable recommendation to City Council for TX17-02 as presented; seconded by Kawecki. Motion carried 7-1 with Loretta voting nay. D. TX17-03 / Administrative / Maximum Parking: Administratively requested Zoning Text Amendments to Articles 1329.02, 1349.06 and 1365.04 concerning maximum number of parking spaces. Fletcher presented the Staff Report. Stranko asked what was being accomplished by removing Article 1329.02 provision. Fletcher explained that if maximum parking standards are narrowed to parking lots then there would be a conflict left if the definition was not addressed. Stranko asked if the accessory parking structure is no longer regulated by the maximum parking standards of the zoning ordinance. Fletcher confirmed and explained there are two separate definitions that include accessory parking structure and an accessory parking lot. Fletcher noted there have been several variances requested to exceed the maximum parking standards and explained that the reason for having a maximum parking standard is to eliminate Morgantown Planning Commission Page 5 of 7 February 9, 2017 Minutes excess parking spaces such as what you see at big box developments that are not fully utilized on the busiest parking demand day. Stranko referred to the parking lot at the old mall and noted it would be interesting to see how the excess parking areas affect the environment such as water velocity, water quality, and water volume. Loretta asked if the 115 percentage was added on to high density developments to cut down on traffic. Fletcher explained the percentage was added into the ordinance as a part of the 2006 comprehensive zoning ordinance amendment and explained that maximum parking requirements can be used to promote reduction of traffic and use of alternate transport modes. Loretta asked if more cars will be brought into town if changes are made to the ordinance that do not include maximum parking. Fletcher stated he did not believe there would be additional cars as a result of the proposed amendment. DeMasters expressed that the changes to the maximum parking would encourage developers to build a vertical parking as opposed to a surface parking lots. Loretta asked if there would be a limit on a surface lot. Fletcher confirmed. There being no further comments or questions by the Commission, DeMasters asked if anyone was present to speak in favor of or in opposition to petition. There being none, DeMasters declared the public hearing closed and asked for Staff recommendations, which were read by Fletcher. Stranko moved to forward a favorable recommendation to City Council for TX17-03 as presented; seconded by Petros. Motion carried unanimously. E. TX17-04 / Administrative / Gas Station Minimart: Administratively requested Zoning Text Amendments to Article 1329.02 and Table 1365.04.01 concerning “Gas Station Minimart” uses. Fletcher presented the Staff Report. DeMasters noted the only change is that square footage would be added to eating areas in gas stations with fast food areas. Kawecki asked what a typical eating area might require. Fletcher explained the eating area applies to where one sits down to eat whether it be indoor or outdoor. There being no further comments or questions by the Commission, DeMasters asked if anyone was present to speak in favor of or in opposition to petition. There being none, DeMasters declared the public hearing closed and asked for Staff recommendations, which were read by Fletcher. Stranko moved to forward a favorable recommendation to City Council for TX17-04 as presented; seconded by Blosser. Motion carried unanimously. Morgantown Planning Commission Page 6 of 7 February 9, 2017 Minutes VII. OTHER BUSINESS A. Committee Reports  Traffic Commission: Blosser stated that the Traffic Commission is moving forward in putting major projects online for public viewing.  Green Team: No report. B. Staff Comments:  Fletcher announced that Council Chambers will be undergoing renovations in March and that the March Planning Commission and BZA meetings will be moved to the Morgantown Airport. Additional information will be provided as arrangements are finalized.  Fletcher referred to the memo in the meeting packet regarding Staff project updates and provided further explanation on future area projects. Blosser requested an element for quality of life be included in the small area studies as neighbors would like a further scope of influence on surrounding developments. Discussion followed on how best to engage developers in achieving Comprehensive Plan goals and objectives. VIII. FOR THE GOOD OF THE COMMISSION: None. IX. ADJOURNMENT: 7:47 PM MINUTES APPROVED: March 9, 2017 COMMISSION SECRETARY: _____________________________ Christopher M. Fletcher, AICP Morgantown Planning Commission Page 7 of 7 February 9, 2017 Minutes