Board of Zoning Appeals - Regular Meeting

Does anyone want to read the meeting? Yes, sir. Good idea. Uh, first order of business is general public comments. Is there any comments on matters uh that are not on the agenda? Okay. The meeting minutes from August 14th second. All in favor and pass. Okay. Next matter is new business map 25-79 Jennifer Tucker 401. Good evening everyone. Um the applicant is here to answer any questions but I'll go through the the packet the slide here. Um the The location of the property is at the intersection of Van Go Foxman and Seward Street. You can see up on the screen involves two lots that are approximately when combined almost 7,000 square ft. Uh the lot that's adjacent to this particular property as well as it's kind of wedged between that and uh Steuart Street is owned by the city of Morgantown. So that that just as a a reference going forward. Um this is the zoning map that you can see here. Directly across the street is Skyline Apartments and the associated zoning with that as well as the zoning that's across the street on um pretty much all surrounded by R1A other than the R2 that's to the south where there were conditional use permits issued in the past to build um the apartment building that if you're going down approximately on your left hand side it's about 35 one-bedroom apartments that are located there. That's just south of the Skyline Apartments location. And then to the north you kind of see two different colors. You see this which is really interesting and I talked to the county about this. So this here is the west run planning district right there has zoning regulations associated with it. This area here is in the county but was not part of the west planning district. So it's in its own

it's in it own space. So I found that very interesting. So when I referenced in the staff report that to the north I said unincorporated and then the actual zone areas are to the north of that. So just for clarification purposes with the the map um the is looking east uh on Van Gilder the property subject property is on the right hand side. Um and then this is another area view with near map showing again subject site. So here's skyline apartments. Here's the two lots here on Van Gilder going down Prosman. This is where the other apartment uh complex is. That's R2 that got received a conditional use. And then this is in the county in the West Run Planning District. And you can see there's some town homes here. And then apartments start back up as you head north uh out of town. Uh the applicant did provide a real conceptual uh conceptual rendering of what's going on. Uh NAB can maybe talk about this a little bit more, but uh something we're looking having basically the units on the upper floor with parking underneath. Um because they realize that obviously Van Gilder is a pretty tight avenue, so they would put parking underneath the residential units above. Um this is uh excerpts from the comprehensive plan land management plan. Um the area shaded here in this uh uh purple color uh is representative what they call the residential mixed juice and basically the sliver that runs between the Wsville neighborhood um and where Proxman and Stewart Street that sliver is also considered residential mixed use up into the city's corporation boundaries. If you look at the uh compatible use types that are looked at in a residential mixeduse uh uh district uh or residential mixed use district, it would include two family multifamily some uh light commercial green space opportunities where they would permit themselves. I'm sorry.

Is that the star? Star. Here we go. Right. Look at that. Um, and then this just again showing the property looking eastward from the intersection at uh um uh Craftsman and Vanguard. That concludes fast. Uh hello. Hi, I'm Jennifer. Okay. Um, the conceptual drawings, I know there was two units in that, but it would just be the one building because I know we can't put that much there. And we do want to do the garage under with the units actually above them. Okay. And just curiosity on my part, how many units versus how many parking space in the garages? Um, six units. We were thinking six to eight, but like I said, this is just alter tentative right now. Um the parking there's going to be some one bedrooms and then the two bedrooms. So that would be you know per I guess per unit cuz you have to have what a parking space is it per bedroom. Is that correct? It's it's per occupant. So if you did let's say you did eight total units with two bedrooms each. You would have to have at least 12 off streetet parking. It's 75 spaces per occupant. So a two-bedroom apartment be 1.75 1.5 spaces. Whatever it is, I would like to get it built and be built so it's cohesive with the neighborhood. I don't want a big massive structure, you know, we just want to put some units there. I got the property from my father um some like 5 years ago when he passed away. So, we just been trying to see what to do with it. Um yeah, other than that, I don't know.

And right now, since their uh residential home that's it's going to be torn down. Yeah, we've gotten a couple estimates, you know, to get it tore down. They've been up there cutting the trees down and getting all that down. So, but that is still there as of today. Gotcha. Gotcha. And we have spoken with the developer, you know, that he's built some other units um down behind Shorty Anderson. I'm not sure what those are called. Um Gray Cliff, I'm not sure. I don't know. I mean, Marty Peron or whatever. We've been speaking to him about helping build it cuz he said he would, you know, be willing to go forward with that, but due to the area and where it's located at, um, R3, I think, is the first step we went with. And I do realize there's R2. That was going to be my question is, did you consider R2 and then applying for conditional use? No, I did not. I I just found out about that. So, I mean, if If that would be another direction I would have to go, then you know that could be looked at as well. Question. I have a freaking question for you. This is more than one parcel. So before anything's done, it have to be consolidated under minor subdivision. Yes. Pardon me. It would have to be consolidated under minor subdivision before anything's done anyway. Right. either needs to be consolidated or they could put a restriction in the deed that says for the planning and zoning purposes it can be considered one lot. Preference would be to be consolidated. Anybody else have any questions for the applicant? How large is the single family home on that property that's there now? It is. I think they have it listed as like a seven bedroom or something cuz there's like underneath

the red area. There's actually a bedroom. I view it down there. And I'm not too sure. I just My dad was just a hoarder. So, I don't know. I haven't even been down in that part that part of it. Yes. Yes, it is. But it's I think on the books it's like seven bedroom maybe two or three baths I believe. But as far as square footage, I'm really not. Is that modern HVAC? Is there air conditioning or forar heating or anything like that? No, there's no Well, I mean, no, there's no force AC. Thank you. Mhm. [Music] Anything you want to say? You want to say? That was about it. He the little report he turned in was pretty much what I was going to say as opposed to me printing up all my maps and stuff. And I just wanted to make it clear, you know, we were going to try to put some kind of parking underneath of the units, you know, and we didn't want to try to cram a bunch in there just so it wasn't obtrusive, you know, to the neighborhood, you know, we want to make it like fit in as much as possible. Really what we're working on today is not so much the build out. It is the classification of the property and whether whether that that you've requested is is properly consistent with the law. So Right. Right. right right I'm not sure of all how this process works but this is the first thing. So it works. Yes. Anything else? Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Anyone who would like to speak in favor of petition anyone in opposition

and I think yeah we just didn't know from the description what it was going to be. He's like why you change one party to other family? Is it going to be a five or six story thing whatever big parking is that intersection of street and mango they always call it the locals called spaghetti junction there's five streets trying right there they keep on reconfiguring it the worst intersection so we didn't know where come out and like metro place they had whole street taken parking park down low. They live on this side, so they take the whole street. So, but I think if we get um yeah, I guess they're lots nicer than what's there now is housing. I know some people were concerned because they didn't know what they were going to do. And if we get some cross walks in there and that was street cuz it is hard to cross cuz right down that street and take a a right is um the opening two openings to our green space which is run green space. So we got Kaiser and Brad up there and it was hard to cross there cuz I'm coming across but they don't stop. So and they talking it's so bad kind of there that the MMO for what he is talking about a random roundabout there. I mean it's tier four so they probably never get to it. But as long as you you know get enough stop signs and crosswalks and different things there and bigger mirror maybe then this extra things should follow. And like I said, it looks like it's going to look a lot less nicer than it is. Not sure how they enter. Does it look like the path looking a map partial view that the road maybe goes in through the um city thing with the driveway, you know, and everything. So yeah, right there close to the back of those vans. I didn't know whether they go through there, whether they

still pass, you know, pass through there, how go through or as long as it's okay with you all. This looks good. Crosswful cross doesn't um stop cuz it's too steep. So I get to go to space. Thank you. Anyone else would like to speak either opposition however you want. If you want to you can go m um councelor Michael third ward. So I a couple of the neighbors had asked me to come and they were concerned about the parking situation. I think we could all agree we need more housing. Um but the parking is an issue up there. I I took a drive over there and so if we can just focus and she seems to have you know a plan for that. So and underneath ground would be perfect. So So I think we're good. Okay. Anyone else would like to speak in favor of opposition? Okay. Staff recommendation please. After you staff would recommend that the proposed zoning map amendment is consistent with the comprehensive plan. Okay. Any discussion as far as the buildout goes counselor's concerns. This is not a deal developer significant impact right there. So, how would we regulate the buildout if we wanted to make sure that we met the concerns of the neighborhood to have more community engagement in that process? I mean, how do we make sure the parking is is is configured as we've discussed here this evening? So, right now it' be an administrative review and so we'd have everybody on the team that was responsible for looking at those including the city engineer m

everybody would be looking at that and that intersection is a concern of everybody as well. So that would be something that would definitely be taken into consideration. So but can I follow up? You want to follow up? No, sir. I think what the concern is we have a rendering. We have a plan. But there's nothing that's going to hold them to that plan. So once this is done, it can be like we can build what we want and just park it on the street. Is there any any and I'm not saying you'll do that. I'm just Just trying to echo what some concerns of the neighbors might be. It's been done before. Let's just Is there any way to ensure that it is done that way with the parking on the property however it may be either underneath what but not on the street? Not at this time. In terms of looking at conditions, I wouldn't think so. And based on other previous cases that we looked at imposing those conditions at a reasonzoning phase, I don't think the planning commission has thought that that was a, you know, a good approach towards that. That being said though, I think the existing setback requirements is something that really the applicants going to have to take a look at. The lot is only 100x 65 if you include both lots. So we're looking at a 6,500 ft lot and we'll have to look at realistically what's going to be possible because the setbacks minimum of 10 minimum side of five minimum rear of 20 that's really boxing in what's developable. So my s point in saying that is that if anything isn't to code then they'll have to get variance relief from the board of zoning appeals which will be another engagement process and public hearing. This was going to be my question. I I personally think R2 is a better fit for this area. I mean, a random spot of R3 in in that neighborhood where it's all

R1A and R2. The most adjacent properties are R2. Um if it were to be reszoned R2 and that's a conditional multif family would be a conditional use in that zone then they would have to go before the VCA for approval and at that time would they have to submit plans for what is being built for the conditional? They'd have to have more of a plan in place. Correct. More than just a conceptual at this point. So then they could ensure that the parking is being put in place. Yeah. And staff would be working with them through that too. So you know if they got to that point, what we would try to do from a development perspective is if they needed the conditional use, if they also need variance relief, we tie those things together and run it through. Um so we'd be consulting with the applicant the whole time whether they go the conditional use route or they have to get variance relief independent of a conditional use. Is there a reason that staff did not suggest R2 and instead proceeded with um an R3 recommendation? R Well, primarily because of what the the the comp plan and how it kind of identifies that corridor as being more overtime less single family, more multifamily, two family dwellings. And the other is because you do have a 35, 40 unit, 45 unit building across the street. And that area is zoned R3 up at that intersection. I went back and looked at our records going back to 2006 online. And I I can't find anything where this property was zoned R3, but it had to have been because in subsequent applications, there was a parking lot, I think, built back here eventually at one point. It references that that parcel was zoned R3. So what the applicant's requesting is adjacent to an R3 district already. I'm not mistaken in that our documentation says R that that big partial is R2, right? This this is R3. This

this is like so tiny. I can't I know. Yeah. So I was under the impression that that was R2. No, the area to the south that I referenced is and that's more if you look at the zoning map, it's much more broad and R2, but it encompasses a lot of the areas where you see some of the multifamily housing that exists along that particular corridor. This is a portion of it that's sneaking up. This is um this is Stewart coming from downtown in the campus area. And then this is the connection over to the intersection of Van Gil Van Gilder right here. Those three lots are where you see right now. I think they're either duplexes or multifamily on these two units at least where the B1 is zoned and this is vacant lot right now. Okay. But that orange chunk is R3 currently and I just attended the MMPO meeting. Um and this particular intersection has been identified as one of the places they want to look at. They're talking about roundabout. Um, and they said in order to do that, the intersection would have to be moved further up um, Stewart Street. Um, I can go back to how would how would that potentially affect any plans for this area? I mean, if um, if they needed if they need additional property, they're going to have to acquire that from those property owners. Right. Right. So, somebody's going to be impacted, right? uh it no matter which way you move it. Well, and I specifically asked about that piece of city property and was told that the city was holding on to it for reconfiguration of that intersection if needed. So, that's true. I mean, I agree it's like the I I consider it the worst intersection. It's actually pass through. I think most of the traffic on that is pass through. It's not this local traffic. I'm I'm not

really concerned with the amount of traffic out in here. Um, and that mirror is ridiculously small. You know, if they can put a stop sign at the top of a street, they can put a stop sign at the top of Roseman or whatever that street is there. So, I was I don't know why they don't cuz that would that would really alleviate a lot of the issues with understood. Um, again, I don't have a problem with this, but getting back to our discussion last time, if we were basing this on the comprehensive plan, if you go two streets up and take a right, there is some nice single family homes new that have been developed. I I don't remember what that street is, Cedar or something. Yeah. Yeah. Technically, they're in the they're in the pink zone here, so technically there could be apartments, but right next to them, and are we really going to follow a comprehensive plan that's going to tell us to do that? I think we need to revisit this whole issue. But that's just my same opinion. I don't know how we do it. But I I get it. We have to rule on what we have in place now. But we did not get this insular when we develop this plan as far as these micro areas and deciding, you know, what's going to be there if it's going to be R3 with apartments there or whatever. And uh I think we're getting into some sticky situations here because, you know, it's not that far away from those R3 apartments that's there now. And I I hate to use that as an argument. They're there. So you can make anything else happen in anywhere in that pink area. Yes. And so we're talking about um to your point, Mr. Petus, they're talking about this area right here where Kaiser and George streets are that come off Vin Gilder. Yes. Those are now there is a there is one I think complex there that is a duplex or town homes that's kind of set in there, but right there are many multi or new single family dwellings there. If we're going to go back and revisit that map, I would recommend that that be changed back to a uh lesser density than the mixed juice residential corridor. But this is making the argument that we really need to but this

particular center that this particular property is Yeah. Yeah. But the next application is right there. Exactly. Any other discussion? I I would echo um Commissioner Petra's concern there, especially with looking here, Ricky, the kind of the um uh josition or I guess conflict you would say from I guess there's the growth plan and there's the management plan. And so the first part, the residential type one to me kind of says is growth is kind of preserving what's already there. Um, so I I know I think councelor Whis made a very good point about that we want to include different types of of housing units. Um, this is a good candidate for it. I don't I think if if the community's concerns is with with the parking and we're being our proposed not necessarily today but parking underneath I really have concerns about the size of that lot and getting multiple units and providing parking on there. So I think it's going to kind of work itself out but I don't think I mean since there's nothing tying the or the developer hands to having parking underneath there very well could be just surface parking. Um uh so I don't think this is going to be very big but to mirror um uh Mr. Treasure's comments though those two those two like conflicts are are kind of bothering me where it kind of says one thing about where I think this type of um residential makes use of something along with all the apartments on university um with with um some commercial and big apartments multiple multiple stories I don't think that's going to be the case here you know so this is all to say is that for

discussion wise is that I don't need to go to an R3. I don't think we're going to get much just given the constraints of the lot itself. Um, so technically it does meet the comprehensive plan, but I just kind of want to put more in the record that my those are kind of my issues with this area and what the comprehensive plan saying for that particular spot. I think those are all excellent points. The question is how do we make sure that this parcel uh is productive provides a place where people live or otherwise tax revenues or you know the structure on there is obsolete and for us to think that somebody's going to drop that structure and put a single family residence right across the street from what's there I think is unrealistic. I just don't think that's going to happen. Um uh so you know I think the infrastructure does not support a large development but as as you as commissioner Williams just stated this is not going to be a large development and I think the marketplace is going to tell the builder or the developer you got to provide parking cuz who's going to buy an apartment out there when they can't find a place to put their car. So, but I wish we didn't have to rely on the marketplace to regulate this, but I think that's where we end up because it's not a development of significant significant impact. So, I support the application that it's not my favorite one and we've wrote that, but it's I think it's practically a move forward for the neighborhood. Mr. President, I forgot to ask one question, too. Um for R3, are there any density regulations as far as limitations of how many units can be or is this just going to be parking in the and the dimensional standard? Parking the dimensional standard. Thank you. Y what what's limiting us from I mean they can do what they want to do what they

want they're planning to do with an R2 correct with appropriate uh conditional use permits. I would think it might be unlawful spot zoning would be a problem. Yeah. When I mentioned R2, I totally thought that orange was R2 or traditional use. Um, I like it. It's very small. I thought my eyes were good, but not I mean, an argument can be made that the R2 wouldn't be considered spot zoning. If you look at the third def uh one of the observations that staff made in the packet is that it still allows for the intent of the residential mixed use only through a conditional use permit. Right? So if you wanted to do multifamily or um mixed use both residential and commercial, you'd have to get a conditional use permit instead of by right. So you you could potentially look at it that way if you wanted to. Okay. If you would support that and you're supporting R2 is not sponsor. That's your opinion. I think that would be another reasonable way to look at it. How would we present that to council? Will we deny this application or make a recommendation to council to I would I would want to consult with the the applicant and if they're amendable to that then that would be the recommendation that would be put forward. What will that we deny the application of the recommended speaking with the applicant during the hearing? The R2 recommendation was put forward by the planning commission as long as the applicant was agreeable to it. One more question before you do that. Yes. And the land behind it. I get it. It's in the county. Correct. If it was in the city, how would it be zoned with it current use? How would it be zoned? Yeah. Is it town houses? It would probably be a medium to higher density just because of the connection to the county apartments. Okay. Yeah. Just asking for consistency that matters. Consistency.

I'd like to know how much I came in here thinking R2 was the right choice, but no. I mean, R2 seems like a spot to me. Like you said, So realistically, so if and no one else complains then if we were resetting the whole area right now, we make it our chance. Yeah, absolutely. So maybe this is the start. We put a spot in. Well, I like it because it gives us that chance on the back end to make sure what gets put in there doesn't put on the neighbor. Yeah. Because my concern, granted, it's a very small lot and you can only do so much within the constraints, but if there's not a limitation, it's R3 uh and the project can't get built for whatever reason because of constraints. was to stop somebody from purchasing some more property down the line, consolidating build something and then they project there. that that's my concern because we we've seen sometimes projects like this just don't get built because they're too constrained and then you have somebody collecting lots and then all of a sudden you know that it seems very congested already like so R2 would kind of keep it from being what it lose the world. Well, that's always my concern, right? I bring myself almost every time we're asked to resolve something, it's not about what they're presenting to us that they intend to do. You have to think

anything in that zone, you know, in the future prepared for anything that's allowed in our ga is going to look at what's being put there. staff is going to look at it as well. Yes, sir. So, spoke with the applicant. Um, definitely a consideration at this point, but the one change that we discussed is that if you move to an R2, the setback requirements and those development standards change and I don't know how that would impact the the the property in terms of it be able to be developed because obviously if you go to R2, the dimensions and standards are going to change and get more restrictive, right? because you're moving back to. So for those reasons, staff would recommend that table this item from now, come back to the next meeting where staff can speak with the applicant and and and see what way to move forward. So will you be able to tell us if we will be able to tell right now what the setbacks are? And I guess, you know, my thing is I don't do math. So, so with the setbacks, they kind of wanted an idea of what's the buildable area in there and is there something that can be built R2 versus R3? And that's what the applicant needs to know. And yeah, sure. So, just I'll just pull this up really quick and and stop being just the changes. So, a minimum front step back in the R2 is 10. Maximum front set back is 20. So, that's the same in both the R2 and the R3. Minimum size set back is 5 foot. That's the same. minimum rear set back is 20 foot. So that is the same as well. So it's the same. Yeah. But I still think you want to give the applicant just to the standards. The lot coverage I know is different too. So 50% they loan over 50 uh 50% versus the R3 which I believe is 40%. All right.

Move to table application place on the next agenda. Second. All in favor. Anyone? Okay. Okay. Just to ask a follow up on that. Is the lot coverage something that variance could be applied for if she chose to. Okay. Committee report. You got nothing to say? Yeah.