2026-09-10 - Planning Commission

09:11Waiting for the red light. There we go.

09:15I get to hit the hammer. He's on.

09:19>> Yes, Brennan's online. Okay. Is the

09:21>> Are we supposed to be able to see him or

09:22No.

09:23>> Uh, no, cuz I'm I'm sharing the phone.

09:27>> Hi, Brennan.

09:30Yes,

09:33>> information. Okay.

09:34>> All right. We'll call to order uh

09:36meeting Morgantown Planning Commission.

09:39>> Um I'm not going to read the premeating

09:41announcements unless anyone really wants

09:43that read to. I'll just remind the

09:45audience that there's a five limit uh

09:47five minute limit comment on the

09:49speakers and we will do them in specific

09:51order.

09:53Um first uh any does uh anyone from the

09:57public have comments on matters not on

10:00the agenda tonight?

10:03Hearing none. Let's uh go on to the

10:05meeting minutes from June 11th. Can we

10:07do this without everyone being here?

10:09>> Yes.

10:10>> Yeah. Okay. Sure.

10:11>> We have any problems with

10:12>> Move to approve as presented.

10:15>> Second.

10:16>> Second. All right. So, approve.

10:21>> Okay. on to uh new business uh sub 2607

10:26John Jameson 710 Parkside Lane.

10:29>> So the applicant this evening is

10:31proposing a major subdivision of six

10:33parcels that are located along Parkside

10:35Lane. Uh the applicant resides at 710

10:38Parkside Lane, which is the parcel that

10:40is highlighted in yellow on the screen.

10:42The parcels uh to be subdivided are

10:45located in the R3 multifamily

10:47residential district. And this quick

10:50overview, uh, all of the parcels

10:51highlighted in blue are those with

10:53propos uh, proposed boundary adjustments

10:55under tonight's proposed major

10:57subdivision. Uh, do want to note that

10:59the larger parcel on the top half of the

11:01screen there is rather large. So to

11:03preserve the readability and zoom, I

11:05kind of cut off the northern tip of it.

11:07Um, but that red line that is there on

11:09the bottom half of that parcel is the

11:11only boundary that is proposed to be

11:13adjusted with the proposed subdivision.

11:16Um, the end result of the proposed

11:18subdivision/ consolidation will end with

11:20five new lots, all of which upon review

11:22were found to be compliant with the R3

11:25multifamily residential district. Uh,

11:27staff did review the provisions for flag

11:29and panhandle lots in section 1321.06.

11:33Uh, that was for those pink and orange

11:35highlighted parcels with met which met

11:37those definitions. Um, since the

11:38panhandles on both of those lots are

11:40pre-existing and the main portion of the

11:42lots still meet the requirements for the

11:44R3 district, they appear consistent with

11:46the code. Um, one issue that was noted

11:49during the preliminary staff review of

11:51this was the issue with the proposed

11:52subdivision of the accessory structure

11:54from the principal dwelling at 710

11:56Parkside Lane. Um, after the proposed

11:59subdivision, the accessory structure

12:00would be located on the parcel

12:02highlighted in pink. The primary

12:04structure would be on the parcel that is

12:05highlighted in green. Um and by

12:08definition in article 1329 accessory

12:11structures are subordinate to the

12:12principal. Um so staff consulted with

12:15the city attorney as that proposed

12:16subdivision separates the accessory

12:18structure from the principal ultimately

12:20landed on um including a deed

12:23restriction in the conditions the full

12:25language of which is in the staff

12:26report. Um, it uses the standard

12:28language from the planning and zoning

12:30code for deed restrictions that we have

12:32with the added notation that the

12:33accessory structure may at some time in

12:35the future be converted to a single

12:37family dwelling and that if and when

12:39that occurs, it may be jointly released

12:41by both parties. And as I said, the

12:43language of that is found in the staff

12:44report. Um, that'll conclude the staff

12:47report on this matter.

12:49>> Um, can I ask you a question about the

12:51red line?

12:52>> Yes. Uh, so is that to provide access to

12:57that little pie lot for the bigger lot?

13:00So there's like a walkway there. What

13:02What's the reason for the red line? Why

13:04Why is it

13:04>> Oh, I just highlighted it since I cut

13:06that parcel off because it was so large,

13:08I didn't want to make it so zoomed out

13:10that when I added it in the staff report

13:12and when I put it on the screen here

13:14that you wouldn't be able to see. Um,

13:16the red line is just to indicate that

13:18parcel boundary that's being adjusted on

13:20that parcel.

13:21>> Okay. So the the larger lot in 147

13:25includes that little pie that goes over

13:28to um White Avenue or whatever.

13:31>> Yes. So the proposed will take that

13:32straight red line and shunt it to the

13:36south just a little bit to include that

13:38little notch that comes off on the left

13:39there on the red highlighted parcel.

13:41>> Is that like a walkway access or

13:43something?

13:44>> I am unsure what it is. uh the parcel

13:46boundaries on these on both parcel

13:48viewer and near map both of the software

13:50that we use they're just kind of wonky

13:52boundaries so I'm unsure what there are

13:54a couple of those notches in this area

13:56and I don't know where they originated

13:58from

14:04>> yeah it seems like it's just the

14:06property lines were already

14:10like that I I believe originally and is

14:13that correct

14:14>> yes so if

14:15You can vaguely see it right here on

14:19parcel viewer.

14:20>> Yeah,

14:20>> that notch was there. And there's also

14:22another one right here which is very

14:24similar

14:25>> and I think there may be a third one on

14:26further down on another parcel but it's

14:29not involved in the major subdivision.

14:32>> Okay. So the D restriction with regard

14:34to the accessory accessory structure is

14:38such that the uh uh the property owner

14:41couldn't convey that uh that portion of

14:45the property as a separate parcel unless

14:48the accessory structure was turned into

14:51a primary residence.

14:52>> Correct. Is that what we're doing?

14:53>> Yes.

14:54>> And you said this that that uh deed

14:56restriction comes out of the the code.

14:58>> Yes. So, we've got the the first half of

15:00it is standard language from the

15:02planning and zoning code. I do not

15:03recall the specific section. Um, but it

15:06considers them part and parcel of the

15:07same where they cannot be sold or

15:09conveyed separately. Um, and then we

15:11added the notation that in the event

15:13that that does get converted to a single

15:15family dwelling, which the applicant

15:16indicated a potential that that may

15:18occur in the future. Um, in the event

15:20that that does occur, it could be

15:22jointly released by both parties. So

15:24that would prevent staff from having to

15:25do any type of enforcement or followup

15:27or making sure um in that regard that

15:30the parcels weren't sold off separately.

15:32>> Right. Chain chain of title takes care

15:34of that. Yes.

15:34>> Okay. Great.

15:40>> Any other questions?

15:42As far as the comprehensive plan, how

15:44does it identify this area or is it

15:46different than what it is now?

15:48>> I believe it's high intensity medium and

15:50highintensity residential I think are

15:51the two colors. I think it it kind of

15:53splits at some point because you're

15:55getting out of Greenmont and towards the

15:56kind of Saberton area, but it's both

15:59medium and high intensity residential.

16:01>> Okay.

16:04>> All right. We have the petitioner here

16:06to

16:09>> Yes, it's your turn. [laughter]

16:12Please state your name and and

16:14residence, please.

16:15>> I'm John Jameson. uh I'm the one that

16:18requesting the uh subdivision and it's

16:22basically turning six lots into five.

16:26The reason for the

16:29request, uh I live at 710 Parkside Lane.

16:32That's that's the highlighted green

16:33area. And when we built our house, I

16:36didn't own the property behind. I didn't

16:38own a property below. We had acquired

16:40those properties. Um, so I'm basically

16:43doing this to incorporate our backyard

16:46into our personal residence. So this

16:50isn't the the intent of this whole thing

16:52is not to build any new new buildings.

16:54It's just to clean up some leftover

16:56those little sliver lots. They were left

16:59over when those when I built the town

17:01houses and they got uh when they were

17:04deed off. So I'm just combining those

17:07little slivers into our backyard

17:09basically.

17:11and uh just readjusting some of the

17:14property lines uh that that that

17:17surround our personal dwelling.

17:19>> Can we please have no discussion in the

17:21room while the speak anyone is speaking?

17:23>> If you wanted talking, you can go

17:24outside and talk, please.

17:26>> Thank you.

17:26>> Thank you.

17:27>> So, um like I said, we're actually

17:30condensing a little bit. So, it's going

17:31from six lots down to five. Um uh and

17:36when he was talking about the other

17:38structure, the structure below our house

17:41was built before the our house was

17:43built. Uh I developed Parkside Lane. So

17:47we had built that other structure

17:50actually to store our belongings in

17:52there while we built built the house.

17:54And it's the structure down below is the

17:57same size as some of the other homes

17:58that I build on Parkside Lane. When it

18:00when it would be it's it's set up uh I I

18:04set up the windows and all to to turn it

18:07into a dwelling. It would be about a 24

18:11to 2500 ft dwelling uh once it was

18:14converted. Um but you know since we

18:18lived there we you know we just used it

18:20for stories. Kids played down there. But

18:22um

18:24so like I said, I just was trying to get

18:25these lot lines cleaned up, readjusted

18:27to fit what's actually what's actually

18:30there now and to clean up those two

18:32little slivers that was left over from

18:33the townhouse project. Um

18:37that's basically basically it. Um I

18:40don't know if there's any questions. I

18:42have some enlarged drawings if if

18:44anybody wants to see them.

18:50>> No question. questions.

18:54>> All right. Thank you.

19:01>> Um, now we'll have time for anyone uh

19:03first any members of the audience that

19:05want to speak in favor of this petition.

19:12Seeing none, we'll go on to uh those

19:15that want to speak in opposition to this

19:18pet petition.

19:19Please come up, state your name and res

19:22and address and uh you have five

19:24minutes.

19:25>> If you could also please sign in on the

19:28cheat right there.

19:29>> To make an X, you need three witnesses

19:30to know it's my ex. [laughter]

19:33>> Okay.

19:36Uh

19:45have a long name. It's

19:47>> all right. Take your title. We're not

19:50counting the five minutes yet.

19:56Okay. Uh,

19:59how old is the map you guys are using?

20:02Because I don't see three homes that

20:04were built on Vanelia

20:07in the map or on your

20:11and then a clarification.

20:14John, you said you're not going to build

20:15any more. No, we're just trying to Yeah,

20:18I'm just trying to If we ever go to sell

20:19our house, I just wanted to make sure.

20:21>> Well, the thing that they sent us says

20:22you The thing they sent us said you

20:24wanted to build

20:25>> No, I I I agree that it it looked like I

20:28was starting to

20:30>> build more condos.

20:31>> Yeah. No, I'm not. No, I'm just trying

20:33to if if if [clears throat]

20:36we wanted to downsize some we plan to I

20:39want to be able to sell my backyard with

20:40my house. Well, that's

20:43Yeah,

20:44>> basically why we're here is

20:46>> because you thought I was going to build

20:48>> because it said and according to this,

20:49you're going to build more condos down

20:51there.

20:52>> Just trying to fix some leftover stuff.

20:54U the other houses might be on here

20:57>> and the map you guys send can we can we

20:59see the letter that was sent out?

21:04>> There was an early version that had an

21:06error on it. Um but staff did pull those

21:10area.

21:11>> And what I wanted to know is where where

21:14where were these these lots

21:17>> or these the two houses?

21:20>> Wallally and Mary is Wallace is way down

21:22here.

21:23>> Okay. No, I'm here.

21:24>> Yeah.

21:24>> Spacious between

21:29it's just I'm just trying to put these

21:32pieces behind the town.

21:33>> So you're not building the

21:37>> hill commission.

21:42has

21:46>> Okay. Uh if you're going to speak, you

21:48need to speak at the microphones because

21:50we have people that are on might listen

21:53to the tape.

21:54>> But this says this says nothing about

21:56building. It says about parceling the

21:58land. There's nothing about right

22:01building town houses

22:03>> in this in your letter.

22:06>> Concern.

22:07>> Yeah. So it just talks about the parcels

22:10of the land.

22:13>> Stacia, you want to

22:17>> I will.

22:18>> Okay, that's fine. Thank you.

22:21>> I tend to as a retired teacher, they

22:23used to pay me to talk. [laughter]

22:26Now they pay me to go away. So

22:30>> does anyone else want to speak against

22:32this?

22:34>> If you could please sign your name on

22:35the signing sheet, please.

22:51All right. My name is Staca Harper. I

22:53happen to own property at 948 Vanalia

22:56Road. And my understanding is that that

22:59would be plot 97.

23:02Hold on. Let's make sure I have the

23:05right paperwork. And I have to keep

23:06switching my glasses from lovely aging.

23:10So me I am at 147.2.

23:14This application states that it is

23:17parcel 147. Now parcel 147 is divided

23:20into several subsections. The amount of

23:23information that we have been presented

23:24with is unclear and I don't know how

23:27you're all able to see exactly where the

23:29lines are. I'm quite confused and I

23:32would appreciate as a property owner

23:35that my property seems to be indicated

23:37at and I could be wrong that it's 147

23:40because I can't read these maps. I'm

23:43glad you all can. So, we need to improve

23:46our information and circulation because

23:49I don't not aware of a study. You have

23:52individual homeowners. But I also

23:53understand that one of these pieces, the

23:55parcel in the red line actually goes up

23:57to Mandalia Road, which would be zoned

23:59as an R2, not an R3. So redoing that

24:03changes that entire zoning to R3. The

24:06language on this letter states that the

24:10um that the approval for a major

24:12subdivision to me major subdivision

24:15means that you were going to be building

24:18and there's been for sale signs as far

24:20as

24:21>> this is not subdivision in contractor

24:23speak. This is subdivision in planning

24:25and zoning speak. It's

24:26>> and I apologize for my lack of knowledge

24:28but I the only information I have is

24:31two pieces of paper that were sent to

24:33me. I made a call to the city and was

24:37told that yes, the property affected is

24:39behind my house and they didn't have any

24:41more information to share with me. So, I

24:45don't know how this moves forward. I

24:46don't know how to get my questions

24:48answered. There are concerns of if there

24:50will be development. We're hearing

24:52there's not. Okay. Why are uh what's

24:57going on with 147? It's subdivided into

25:00four or five different sections or more.

25:02I'm not sure.

25:03Um,

25:05and then

25:08what about utility line maps, utility

25:10access, right of way, easements, are

25:12those going to be affected? How do we

25:15get more information and clarity on

25:18these maps with updated information?

25:22>> Um, correct me if I'm wrong. There is

25:25access to all these lots currently.

25:28>> Yes, correct. and easements and all of

25:30that stuff are requirements of a final

25:32platin a preliminary plat. So they don't

25:33have to appear on the preliminary platin

25:35approval

25:37>> and they're all already in the R3 zone.

25:40>> Yes. All the parcels they could be built

25:42upon right now as it stands.

25:44>> Correct. Yes. All of the parcels that

25:46are being subdivided are in the R3

25:47multifamily residential district.

25:50>> We're actually going from six parcels to

25:52five parcels. Less could be built.

25:55>> Yes.

25:56It's difficult to translate what you use

25:59in mapping to a piece of paper to really

26:02>> Yes, we rely on.

26:03>> So, can we talk about uh because there

26:05was a question about what mapping we use

26:08and the difference between what you look

26:09at on your great big screen and what we

26:11see on 8 by 8 and 1 half by 11.

26:14>> Yes. So, we rely on the Montangelia

26:16parcel viewer which is publicly

26:17available database.

26:18>> I do too.

26:19>> So, it reflects.

26:20>> So, do you have a shows the breakout of

26:22all the subdivisions in the 147? because

26:25the only thing that's stated on

26:26>> all of parcel 147 is one parcel. It

26:29takes up about I think five or six

26:31acres. Um the reason that it is cut off

26:34in that is because those boundaries are

26:36not proposed to be adjusted.

26:38>> So I saw 147.12.3.4

26:42>> right and that's you let him answer the

26:45question.

26:45>> That's the parcels here that are

26:46highlighted in blue. The large parcel is

26:49all one parcel. It's not divided into

26:52multiple sections. It's just one very

26:54large partial parcel that takes up quite

26:56a bit of area. And in order to include

26:59the entire zoom of that parcel on the

27:01screen, it would have been difficult to

27:03read because it would have required

27:04zooming out pretty far.

27:07Just just to be clear, um the way that

27:09things are labeled in the parcel map 147

27:13whatever

27:15has nothing to do with ownership even

27:16because it's 147, right? It could be

27:19147.2 two and could be owned by

27:20differently than 147.

27:22>> Correct. Often times the the point

27:25numbers that appear on the parcel map

27:27come from past subdivisions.

27:29>> So if 147 at one point in time was

27:31subdivided and there was already a 147,

27:33they would label it 147.1.

27:35>> There's no link to ownership and 147 as

27:39the truncated number.

27:40>> Yes. And so when you hit the parcel and

27:42actually click it on parcel viewer, it

27:44will present the owner information, the

27:46parcel ID and the parcel number as well.

27:50Thank you. Uh the last point I have is

27:54this is the red line. That's the access

27:55to Bandelia that changes. So my

27:59understanding is that would that is an

28:01R2. That would be preventing any

28:03development.

28:06I and I do not know if that's correct.

28:08>> That is the that's the zoning map. The

28:10orange is R3 and then around it is R1.

28:14I missed that. I don't know.

28:17>> It's all R3 right now.

28:18>> Yes. Every single parcel that is

28:20proposed to be subdivided is located in

28:22the R3.

28:25>> So, I just want to close with we just

28:27would really appreciate greater insight

28:30into these maps and details because it's

28:34quite confusing and it's hard to see.

28:39That's a fair point and it's something

28:41staff needs to address that people get

28:43to see all and receive all the

28:45information that they requested.

28:47>> The packets are uploaded

28:49typically about a week before they're

28:51available on the agenda center on the

28:52city's website. So

28:54>> just ask you to look again and make sure

28:56that we're as as open as we can possibly

28:58be with

29:03>> one last thing. looking on the green

29:04map. When I looked at this and looked it

29:06up on the tax on the parcel map, they

29:10were not connected. So the 147 was up

29:12here and all of the other numbers, the

29:15120s, 130s were down here. So that's

29:18part of leading to my confusion that

29:21we're not just talking about one area

29:23connected. It's the entire green piece

29:26here that is not connected.

29:34Well, just to be clear, all these

29:36parcels right now are connected.

29:38>> Yes. Correct. Yes. All of them. The I

29:40think the the issue and the confusion is

29:42the fact that the one parcel is so large

29:45that it kind of goes way back and then

29:47wraps around in another direction. Um,

29:50and it's just the nature of those

29:52parcels in that area that are

29:53pre-existing.

29:55>> Okay.

29:57Anyone else want to comment? uh

30:01in uh in opposition to the position.

30:05>> Uh there is one last point. There's a

30:08sign that says built.

30:11>> The last point is there is an existing

30:13sign in this area. It does say build to

30:15suit. So is that valid?

30:19And it's been there for two years, three

30:22years.

30:24>> Unaware. That has no pertinence on this

30:27particular case.

30:29>> No, people can't build things just

30:31because they want to build them. It has

30:32to be consistent with zoning.

30:34>> It's there. So, they can put up any sign

30:36they want, but you know,

30:38>> the question of intent for property

30:41development because it is listed with um

30:43reality firm.

30:44>> Thank you.

30:49Anyone else from the public want to

30:51speak in opposition?

30:56Okay, hearing none, we'll close the

30:58public portion of this. You have any

31:00discussion?

31:02>> Well, go ahead.

31:03>> I mean, Mr. Jameson was uh opening up to

31:06uh convey his plans for the property. Uh

31:10but that's not really in our

31:13jurisdiction. The ultimate buildout of

31:16the property or non-buildout of the

31:18property is not what we're reviewing.

31:20We're reviewing whether this property h

31:23property owner has by right uh the

31:25ability to subdivide this land as he's

31:27as he applied for and I think that's

31:29clear that he does.

31:32>> So if the chair is willing to entertain

31:35a motion I'm ready to make it.

31:37>> Still need the staff.

31:38>> Yeah we need the staff recommendations.

31:40Sorry I jumped the gun a little there.

31:42So go ahead. Uh

31:43>> given staff's analysis staff recommend

31:45approving subject to the conditions

31:46listed in the staff report.

31:50Motion to approve subject to staff

31:52conditions.

31:54>> Second.

31:56>> Any discussion?

31:59Those in favor?

32:01>> I

32:02Mr. Williams voting.

32:04>> Oh,

32:05>> he said, "Oh,

32:06>> yeah.

32:06>> Okay.

32:07>> Hi, Bren.

32:09>> Sorry to

32:12Okay, moving on. Um, any other

32:15business?" Committee reports. Any

32:17committee comments staff comments?

32:20>> None at this time.

32:22>> Anything for the good of the commission?

32:25>> No.

32:26>> Okay.

32:27>> Move to adjourn.

32:28>> Mayor's got dinner in the oven. Come on.

32:30>> Second.

32:31>> Done. Thank you.