Planning Commission

MORGANTOWN PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 6:30 p.m. April 13, 2017 Council Chambers COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Peter DeMasters, William Blosser, Sam Loretta, Tim Stranko, and Bill Kawecki COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Bill Petros, Michael Shuman, and Carol Pyles STAFF PRESENT: John Whitmore, 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. GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENTS: None III. MATTERS OF BUSINESS: A. Approval of the March 9, 2017 meeting minutes. Stranko moved to approve as presented; seconded by Kawecki. Motion carried unanimously. IV. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: A. MNS17-03 / Strazanac / 912 Riverview Drive: Request by John S. Strazanac for minor subdivision approval of property located at 912 Riverview Drive; Tax Map 15, Parcel 30; R- 1, Single-Family Residential District. TABLED AT 09 MAR 2017 HEARING. APPLICANT REQUESTED THE MATTER REMAIN ON THE TABLE TO PERMIT ADDITIONAL TIME TO RESPOND. V. NEW BUSINESS: A. RZ17-02 / Good / 208 Putnam Street: Request by Gary Good for a Zoning Map Amendment to reclassify a portion of property from R-1A, Single-Family Residential District to B-1, Neighborhood Business District; Tax Map 24, Parcel 118. An administrative recommendation will be included with petition to also correct an apparent zoning map error concerning adjacent Parcels 117, 154, and 154.1. Whitmore presented the Staff Report. DeMasters recognized Mark Snider of Snider Realty Group, on behalf of Gary Good, who stated the previous owners were not aware of the split in zoning and now that the property is being sold they have decided to fix the map by doing an amendment to make it all a B-1 Zoning District. Morgantown Planning Commission Page 1 of 6 April 13, 2017 Minutes Snider explained the white building shown in the Staff Report is part of the property and is currently vacant. 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. DeMasters recognized Wes Thomas of 1284 Carlisle Avenue who noted the petitioner lives in Oklahoma and wants to buy the property and sell it and asked what businesses would be allowed on the property if it is zoned to a B-1 Zoning District. DeMasters explained that the property is currently split and zoned differently as R-1A and B-1, and the petitioner is trying to make the property zoned the same as a B-1 District. DeMasters explained the Commissioners are not supposed consider the type of business but rather evaluate what type of zone is best for the neighborhood. DeMasters noted that the Planning and Zoning Code does specify what businesses are allowed within that district. Thomas asked what businesses are allowed within the B-1 District. Whitmore referred to the Planning and Zoning Code to provide further explanation on the rules and regulations for that zoning district. Thomas asked if gambling would be allowed. Whitmore stated gambling is not allowed and provided some examples of businesses that are allowed within the B-1 District. Stranko stated that walkable and small businesses within a neighborhood align with the Comprehensive Plan and expressed the property would be useful and marketable. DeMasters recognized there are concerns with a Hot Spot and stated that is not allowed in the B-1 District. He noted the type of business would be more local and the buildings have a maximum height to adhere too. DeMasters recognized Kelsey Thomas of 1284 Carlisle Avenue who expressed concerns that a business would take away from a family atmosphere and would aid in declining property values. Thomas noted there are not many sidewalks in the neighborhood and therefore expressed that people would not be walking to these businesses and an increase in traffic is likely. DeMasters noted the building would have to fit into the footprint of the property and follow the guidelines of the Planning and Zoning Code. Stranko asked if Mr. Good is the owner. Snider confirmed and stated the current zoning is B-1 and the owner is just trying to fix the error in the map. There being no further public comments, DeMasters declared the public hearing closed. Whitmore noted an email was received by Andrea Soccorsi and asked for the correspondence to be part of the record. Stranko noted the email does not oppose the application, but rather acknowledges not being notified by a neighbor notice letter. Whitmore explained Ms. Soccorsi lives approximately 380 feet from the property and was not within the 200-foot buffer to receive a notice letter. Morgantown Planning Commission Page 2 of 6 April 13, 2017 Minutes Whitmore read the Staff recommendations. Whitmore stated that Staff verbally spoke with property owners involved in the zoning map error and there were no objections to the map amendment. DeMasters asked if those property owners provided in writing that they had no objections to the map amendment changes. Whitmore stated that could be included as a condition to the amendment and Staff will work to obtain documents to reflect no objections from said property owners. Blosser expressed favor in the conditional adjustments but noted that parcel 118 is a double lot and therefore would be encroaching further into the neighborhood. Blosser expressed he would be willing to do the adjustment to the other parcel but suggested leave Parcel 118 alone. Stranko expressed the application should not be a controversial issue and the property owners have been caught in an administrative error that should be fixed. However, Stranko referred to the email received by the President of Jerome Park Neighborhood Association Andrea Soccorsi, and suggested to table to the request to allow for more time to review by the neighborhood association. Loretta agreed. Kawecki expressed concerns with an absentee landlord and noted that sidewalks are needed in the area to provide walkability to the businesses. Kawecki expressed that delaying the petition a month would allow for neighbor involvement. DeMasters asked Snider if there is a contract in place with the property. Snider explained (inaudible) and noted that he was missing an Easter celebration with his kids to attend this hearing and expressed that he had ample notice about the hearing and feels others did too. Snider stated he would much rather be enjoying the Easter holiday as well and expressed that others could have sent someone on their behalf if they wanted to express concerns or provide comments. DeMasters stated that unless it can be shown that proper public notification was not given, then there is not a good reason to delay the petition. Loretta stated that if the petition is tabled then it would give Staff time to obtain written responses from the other property owners. DeMasters noted the initial petition application did not include the other property owners, but Staff decided to correct the errors all at once with this map amendment request. Blosser referred to the parcels in question and noted they would be considering a commercial property with the adjustments and extension. Blosser noted that Parcel 118 is large enough for a convenience for the neighborhood and does not need to be extended. Kawecki noted that Parcel 118 is for sale. DeMasters noted the request is for Parcel 118 and the other Parcels are being requested by Staff due to a mapping error. DeMasters expressed the zoning map needs to be adjusted to the parcel lines. Stranko noted he is persuaded by DeMasters’ argument to not table the petition and stated the map amendment is the result of a cartographic error. Morgantown Planning Commission Page 3 of 6 April 13, 2017 Minutes Loretta asked which Parcels would the Planning Commission be voting to change. DeMasters stated a condition would be included to obtain written approval from property owners of Parcels 117, 154, and 154 but Parcel 118 is the petition before them to be voted on by the Commission. Kawecki noted the public would have an opportunity to provide objections as the petition would have to go before City Council. DeMasters asked when the petition would go before City Council. Kawecki stated the petition would not be up for review by City Council until the following month and there would be an opportunity for public comment at those hearings. Stranko asked Staff to revise the grammar used in the conditions. Stranko moved to forward a favorable recommendation to City Council for RZ17-02 with Staff recommended conditions; seconded by Loretta. Motion carried 4-1 with Blosser voting nay. B. TX17-06 / Administrative / Administrative Office and Office Building: Administrative Zoning Text Amendment to Table 1331.05.01 “Permitted Land Uses” concerning “Administrative Office” and “Office Building” uses in the I-1, Industrial District. Whitmore presented the Staff report. Blosser referred to the chart within the Staff Report and asked if the “Administrative Office” use should be in the R-3 District as a conditional use and an “Office Building” use be omitted from conditional use in the R-3 District. Stranko suggested to change the wording to read “Administrative Office” use as a conditional use in the R-3 and PRO Districts. Blosser agreed to the change and suggested to remove “Office Building” from the R-3 District as it is a conditional use and there is a whole building. Stranko noted the scale of buildings are regulated in the R-3 District. Loretta asked if a building is required to have an office. DeMasters explained that companies such as Mylan have administrative offices located different places in the R-3 District and not just at the main plant. Blosser noted that with the proposed amendment that an office building could be a multi-story building in an R-3 which could be in a neighborhood. DeMasters stated the R-3 buildings must fall within the regulations for that District which limits the height. Stranko suggested Staff to review the R-3 conditional “Office Building” use as he did not want to omit anything without a good reason. Kawecki asked how Staff chose to focus on this particular issue. Whitmore explained Staff was looking at it from a perspective with the airport development and what is feasible in the industrial zones. Morgantown Planning Commission Page 4 of 6 April 13, 2017 Minutes 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 portion closed and asked for Staff recommendations, which were read by Whitmore. Stranko moved to forward a favorable recommendation to City Council for TX17-06 with Staff recommendations and for Staff to prepare a report regarding Table 1331.05.01 specifically with regard to “Office Building” conditional use in R-3 and “Administrative Offices” conditional use in R-3 and PRO; DeMasters asked if Staff should review issues listed in making a motion. Stranko amended his motion to include to forward a favorable recommendation to City Council for TX17-06 with Staff recommendations; seconded by Blosser. Kawecki called for further discussion. Kawecki expressed this is not an immediate need and would rather see the proposed amendment come back complete without requiring further amendments in the future. Stranko and Blosser both agreed to amend their motions. Stranko moved to table TX17-06; seconded by Blosser. Motion carried unanimously. C. TX17-07 / Administrative / Conditional Uses and Approval Expiration Provisions: Administratively requested Zoning Text Amendments to Articles 1379, 1381, and 1385 concerning conditional use permit application and review and expiration provisions for conditional use permit, variance, and site plan approvals. Whitmore presented the 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 Whitmore. Stranko asked if “physical change” is defined anywhere within the amendment and questioned the extent of modification that is necessary. Whitmore explained the actions are forms of development which includes reconstruction. DeMasters asked if it would be considered “site modification” if he were to put an awning up on a building. Whitmore confirmed. DeMasters asked if anything done to a building is considered site modification, construction or reconstruction. Stranko expressed he did not like that a surveyor and site plan would be needed to make any modifications. Blosser asked if any sized awning would require a survey and site plan. Whitmore explained that any awning would require a site plan with the building permit process. DeMasters asked if a building permit is required to place an awning on an existing building. Whitmore confirmed. Blosser expressed a site plan and survey should not be necessary to place an awning on a small business. DeMasters agreed and expressed the amendment is too restrictive. Morgantown Planning Commission Page 5 of 6 April 13, 2017 Minutes Stranko expressed that an out-of-town developer would have a hard time reading what site modification or alteration means. DeMasters agreed and noted developers need a “road map” within the code to learn what and how they are allowed to develop. Stranko expressed there are two alternative regulatory schemes and no way for sure to know the difference between the two. Kawecki asked if building elevations and a traffic impact study would be required for an awning. Stranko stated the words “if applicable” are used and expressed that if someone must talk to an administrator to get an interpretation then they are not doing a good enough job with the code. Stranko suggested a workshop to allow for further discussion and to learn more about the amendment in order to develop a clear and concise code. Kawecki agreed. Stranko moved to table TX17-07 with the intent for Staff to schedule a workshop; seconded by Loretta. Motion carried unanimously. D. TX17-08 / Administrative / Nonconforming Provisions: Administratively requested Zoning Text Amendments to Articles 1329 and 1373 concerning nonconforming provisions and related definitions. Stranko moved to table TX17-08 with the intent for Staff to schedule a workshop; seconded by Kawecki. Motion carried unanimously. VI. OTHER BUSINESS A. Committee Reports: None. B. Traffic Reports: None. C. Green Team: None D. Staff Comments: Whitmore informed Commissioners the Collaborative Planning Advisory Committee was scheduled to meet on THU, 27 APR at 5 p.m. at Star City Town Hall and the Area 2 Community Forum was scheduled for THU, 27 APR at 7 p.m. at Spruce Street United Methodist Church. Whitmore stated postcards have been sent out to property owners within the Area 2 vicinity to notify the public of the Community Forum. VII. FOR THE GOOD OF THE COMMISSION: None. VIII. ADJOURNMENT: 7:45 PM MINUTES APPROVED: May 11, 2017 COMMISSION SECRETARY: _____________________________ Christopher M. Fletcher, AICP Morgantown Planning Commission Page 6 of 6 April 13, 2017 Minutes