Municipal Planning Commission — Charleston, WV
Date: 2023-10-04
Time: 15:00

Municipal Planning Commission
 City Service Center – 915 Quarrier Street – Suite 6
 Wednesday, October 4, 2023
 3:00 p.m.

 Agenda

1. Call to Order

2. Unfinished Business

 Text Amendment: Bill No. 8002 A bill to amend the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Charleston, as amended, by
 allowing “Firearms Sales Establishments” as a conditional use in the C-8 Village Commercial District.

3. New Business

 Text Amendment: Bill No. 8014 - A Bill amending the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Charleston, West Virginia,
 adopted January 1, 2006, as amended, by adding the definition of Digital Display Sign to Section 2-020,
 amending sections 24-050, 24-060, and deleting section 24-080-07 relating to authorizing the use of digital
 display signs.

4. Minutes of the September 6, 2023 MPC meeting

5. Announcements

6. Adjournment


 *Meetings may be recorded and broadcast via internet https://charlestonwv.civicclerk.com

Municipal Planning Commission
 City Service Center – 915 Quarrier Street – Suite 6
 Wednesday, October 4, 2023
 3:00 p.m.

 Agenda

1. Call to Order

2. Unfinished Business

 Text Amendment: Bill No. 8002 A bill to amend the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Charleston, as amended, by
 allowing “Firearms Sales Establishments” as a conditional use in the C-8 Village Commercial District.

3. New Business

 Text Amendment: Bill No. 8014 - A Bill amending the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Charleston, West Virginia,
 adopted January 1, 2006, as amended, by adding the definition of Digital Display Sign to Section 2-020,
 amending sections 24-050, 24-060, and deleting section 24-080-07 relating to authorizing the use of digital
 display signs.

4. Minutes of the September 6, 2023 MPC meeting

5. Announcements

6. Adjournment


 *Meetings may be recorded and broadcast via internet https://charlestonwv.civicclerk.com
 Bill No. 8002

 Introduced in Council: Adopted by Council:

 August 7, 2023 _ __

 Introduced by: Referred to:
 Municipal Planning Commission
 Michael Ferrell Planning, Streets and Traffic


 1 Bill No. 8002 - A BILL to amend the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Charleston, as
 2 amended, by allowing “Firearms Sales Establishments” as a conditional use permit in the
 3 C-8 Village Commercial District.
 4
 5 Now, therefore, be it ordained by the Council of the City of Charleston:
 6
 7 That Section 03-050 of the Zoning Ordinance for the City of Charleston, as amended, is
 8 hereby amended to read as follows:
 9
10 Sec. 3-050 Permitted Land Uses

 LAND USE R-2 R-4 R-6 R-8 R-10 R-O C-4 C-8 C-10 C-12 CBD UCD CVD PMC I-2 I-4 PUD SUPP.


 Firearms Sales
 C P P P
 Establishments

11
12
 Bill No. 8014

 Introduced in Council: Adopted by Council:

 October 4, 2023 _ __

 Introduced by: Referred to:
 Municipal Planning Commission
 Pat Jones Planning, Streets and Traffic


 1 Bill No. 8014 - A Bill amending the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Charleston, West
 2 Virginia, adopted January 1, 2006, as amended, by adding the definition of Digital
 3 Display Sign to Section 2-020, amending sections 24-050, 24-060, and deleting section
 4 24-080-07 relating to authorizing the use of digital display signs.
 5
 6 Be it Ordained by the Council of the City of Charleston, West Virginia:
 7 The Zoning Ordinance for the City of Charleston, West Virginia, effective January 1,
 8 2006, is hereby amended as follows:
 9
10 1) Sec. 2-20 Definition of Terms
11 Digital Display Sign: The portion of a sign message made up of internally
12 illuminated components capable of changing the message periodically. Digital
13 displays may include but are not limited to LCD, LED, or plasma displays.
14
15 Public Assembly Area, Major. Any stadium, gymnasium, auditorium or
16 performance hall with fixed seating for 1800 or more people and designed and
17 generally used for the purposes of attending, participating or observing programs
18 or events open to the public.
19
20 2) Sec. 24-050 Prohibited Signs
21 The following signs shall be prohibited in all districts, except as otherwise noted
22 herein:
23 A. Signs which incorporate in any manner flashing or moving lights or any
24 other visible moving or revolving part, attention attracting device, except
25 for time, temperature, or date signs.
26 B. Banners, pennants, flags, spinners, or streamers, except as permitted in
27 Sec. 24-070-03, Supplemental Regulations for Temporary Signs in
28 Residential Districts, and Sec. 24-080-03 Supplemental Regulations for
29 Temporary Signs Permitted in Commercial and Industrial Districts.
30 C. Signs which obstruct or impair the vision of drivers or obstructs or detracts
31 from the visibility of, or resembles, any traffic sign or traffic control device
32 on a public street or road, by reason of size, shape, location, color, or
33 illumination.
34 D. Signs which make use of words such as "STOP", "LOOK", "DANGER", or
35 other similar words, phrases, symbols, or characters in such a manner as
36 to imply the need or requirement of stopping or the existence of danger.
37 E. Sign which obstructs free ingress or egress for a door, window, fire
38 escape, or other exit way required by the Building or Fire Code.
39 F. Portable signs.
40 G. Signs containing graphics or lettering illustrating specified sexual activities
41 and/or specified anatomical areas, as defined within this ordinance.
42 H. Any sign which no longer advertises a bona fide business, activity,
43 campaign, service or product, including real estate signs.
44 I. Any sign not in compliance with regulations involving highway interstate
45 standards and specifications.
46 J. Roof signs.
47 K. Merchandise, equipment, products, vehicles, or other items not
48 themselves for sale and placed for attention-getting, identification or
49 advertising purposes.
50 L. Any sign erected on a tree or utility pole.
51 M. Any sign structure or frame no longer containing a sign.
52 N. Any sign that is structurally or electrically unsafe.
53 O. Temporary signs located in a public right-of-way.
54 P. Digital, LED or similar signs, except for time, temperature, or date signs,
55 except as permitted in Section 24-080-05.
56
57 3) Sec. 24-060 General Sign Regulations
58 A. All signs shall comply with the provisions of Section 21-030, Safety and
59 Vision.
60 B. A pole sign shall not extend over a public right-of-way.
61 C. A wall sign shall not extend above any roof line or further than twelve (12)
62 inches from the building, or part of the building, to which the sign is
63 attached.
64 D. No shingle sign or marquee sign shall be lower than nine (9) feet above
65 ground level.
66 E. No sign shall be permitted to be erected unless the back of such structure
67 is shielded from public view by a building, other structure, high planting, or
68 another sign of the same size (where permitted), or unless such back is
69 painted a neutral color or is enclosed in a solid metal backing that is
70 treated or painted against corrosion.
71 F. The painted portions of signs shall be periodically repainted and kept in
72 good condition.
73 G. The general area in the vicinity of a sign must be kept clear of weeds,
74 debris, trash and other refuse by the property owner.
75 H. The roofs of all marquees shall be properly guttered and connected by
76 down spouts to a sewer so that the water there from will not drip or flow
77 onto public property.
78 I. The allowed square footage of window signs in zoning districts R-O and
79 above shall not exceed 25% of the total square foot area of each window,
80 or up to 50% of the total square foot area of each window if there are no
81 wall signs on the premises. Window sign calculations shall include, but
 82 not be limited to, informational signage such as hours of operation and
 83 open/closed signs.
 84 J. Digital display signs shall be static and nonanimated and shall remain
 85 fixed for a minimum of 10 seconds. Messages must transition instantly,
 86 with no transition graphics. The luminance may not exceed 5,000 nits
 87 (candela per square meter) between sunrise and sunset or 250 nits during
 88 nighttime hours.
 89
 90 4) Sec. 24-080-07 Supplemental Regulations for electronic reader boards in
 91 the Central Business District
 92 A. Electronic message boards may be permitted in the Central Business
 93 District in lieu of a ground sign when accessory to a major public assembly
 94 area, provided the reader board displays:
 95 1. On-site events only and does not advertise products; and
 96 2. Motion or animation is limited to 10 seconds within any 60 second
 97 period.
 98 B. BZA #2095 authorized the Charleston Civic Center to erect two electronic
 99 reader boards. The signs shall be permitted to be replaced, provided that
100 the signs are not removed for a period of more than 6 months and the
101 height and area of the signs are not increased.
102
103 5) All prior ordinances or parts of ordinances, inconsistent with this ordinance are
104 hereby repealed to the extent of such inconsistency.
105
106
 Municipal Planning Commission
 City Service Center – 915 Quarrier Street – Suite 6
 Wednesday, September 6, 2023
 3:00 P.M.
Members Present Members Absent
Aric Margolis, Chair Justin Marlow
Quintie Smith Brady Campbell
Adam Krason
Shawn Taylor
Cory Stout
Lisa Fischer Casto Staff Present
Mary Beth Hoover Dan Vriendt
JoEllen Zacks (Joined by phone @ Bill No. 8009) Chad Webb
Alice Hypes
Shannon Ferrari
Terri Allen, Mayor’s Designee (Joined @ Bill No. 8009)
J.D. Stricklen, Kanawha County Representative
Brady Campbell
Doug Hartley
Alex Zurbuch


1. Call to Order

 Aric introduced Doug Hartley, a new member of the Municipal Planning Committee.

2. Unfinished Business - None

3. New Business

 Rezoning: Bill No. 8005 - A Bill amending the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Charleston, West
 Virginia, enacted the 1st day of January 2006, as amended, and the map made a part thereof, by
 rezoning from a R-6 district to a C-8 district, the parcel of land identified as 2417 Hampshire Drive,
 North Charleston District, Tax Map 16, Parcel 47 in the City of Charleston, Kanawha County, State
 of West Virginia.

 Dan explained Bill No. 8005. The subject property is along Route 21, where there is a lot of
 commercial property and there is an equal amount of residential property. The Hampshire Drive
 property is a vacant lot. It is a consolidated lot, and he is requesting that it be rezoned. Aric asked
 if he owned the property beside him. Dan said he did not own the adjacent lot. He is wanting to
 do a small auto repair shop on that lot. Aric mentioned that the road is very narrow.

 Dan further stated there are three houses on the road and a business. It is a narrow road, but a
 very lightly used road.

 Chad presented the staff analysis and recommendation.
 1
 Municipal Planning Commission
 September 6, 2023
APPLICABLE CODE: Charleston Zoning Ordinance, adopted January 1, 2006, Article 29.


STANDARD OF REVIEW: A rezoning is a change to the zoning map, which requires a legislative
decision. Therefore, the Commission’s role is to make a recommendation to Planning Committee
with final action being at City Council. The Commission should determine if the request is spot
zoning and if it is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. A rezoning is considered spot zoning
when all the following factors are present: A small parcel of land is singled out for special and
privileged treatment; The singling out is not in the public interest but only for the benefit of the
landowner; the action is not in accordance with the comprehensive plan. If a request is
inconsistent with the comprehensive plan, the commission should consider if the original zoning
classification was in error, or if the character of the area has changed significantly since the
adoption of the comprehensive plan. Proposed uses should be treated with care, because once
rezoned, any use that is permitted within the district would be permitted ‘by right’ with no review
by the Commission.
HISTORY:
The parcel in question is currently zoned R-6. The petitioner seeks to construct a garage for a
proposed auto repair shop on the property.
ANALYSIS:
Existing Land Use and Zoning: The parcel in question is currently zoned R-8 and currently consists
of an empty residential lot.
Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: The parcel currently resides in a Rural Neighborhood – as
defined by the future land use plan – with pockets of Traditional Neighborhood around the main
thoroughfare through the area.
Current Zoning: The current R-6 zoning allows for limited multi-family structures, single family
homes, and some limited educational uses.
Proposed Zoning: The proposed C-8 zoning allows for “a village concept” that seeks to provide “a
mix of residential uses adjacent to and/or above commercial uses to increase the intensity of the
activity in the area.” Looking at the increase in commercial uses to both the north and the south
of the parcel in question, a C-8 zoning would conform to the proposed use of the land and
wouldn’t breach the prohibition against spot zoning by further solidifying the area’s use as a
village commercial corridor.
Compliance with the Comprehensive Plan: The comprehensive plan’s future land use map
designates this property as being part of a Rural Neighborhood. The intent in these areas is to
maintain the rural character of the area while having more “flexible” standards than what’s typical
imposed in commercial areas and traditional neighborhoods. This expansion of the developing
commercial area within a rural residential one conforms with this less restrictive intent.




 2
 Municipal Planning Commission
 September 6, 2023
Summary: Petitioner seeks to add further commercial activity to the village corridor region
amongst rural neighborhoods. Such a change complies with the future land use map and the
stated purpose of the proposed commercial zoning.
RECOMMENDATION AND FINDINGS:
Staff recommends approval for the following reasons:
1. The rezoning is consistent with the future land use map in that it complies with the area’s
 designation as a rural neighborhood with relaxed development standards versus core
 neighborhoods and commercial nodes,
2. The rezoning allows for the development of further commercial uses in the area, and
3. The rezoning avoids spot rezoning by conforming the proposed commercial zoning to the
 surrounding development trends along the main artery of the area and maintains a
 confluence between the commercial and residential zones.
Aric asked if there was any knowledge as to why the petitioner was not present. Chad said he did
not. Aric asked if Chad had received any calls about this rezoning. Chad said he had not received
any calls from anyone concerning the rezoning.
Aric asked if anyone had any questions. Questions were asked by council and answered. One
question pertaining to cars parked in the business’s yard and if the neighborhood would have an
issue with that. Aric and Dan both pointed out there would be fencing requirements to hide the
cars from the view of residents in that neighborhood. Dan said if the car is having engine work,
the ordinance provides that it can sit outside a fence. The code says if the car has body damage,
it can only sit out for 48 hours. Otherwise, it must be behind the fence. The fence has to be
opaque.
Aric said that when the MPC reviews a rezoning request, the review is supposed to take in every
aspect of what could possibly go in a particular location. Anything that is approved in a C-8 can
go in this location, regardless of the applicant’s stated intentions. Therefore, the MPC looks at
everything that can be permitted in a C-8 district for the purpose of determining if there is any
permitted use for a C-8 that they do not want in that area.


 3
 Municipal Planning Commission
 September 6, 2023
A question was asked by a member of the MPC concerning parking requirements. Dan explained
that the ordinance does have onsite parking requirements that are based on the size of the square
foot and use of the building, which is in addition to any parking needed to conduct business.
Dan said there is three houses and a business that use this street. It is a substandard street but it
has low utilization. It is not a dead-end street.
Aric closed the case and entertained a motion.
MOTION AND VOTE: A motion was made by Adam Krason to adopt Bill 8005. The motion was
seconded by Quintie Smith and passed by a majority vote of 8-2.
Rezoning: Bill No. 8006 - A Bill amending the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Charleston, West
Virginia, enacted the 1st day of January 2006, as amended, and the map made a part thereof, by
zoning the previously unzoned parcel to a R-4 district, that parcel of land identified as 2155
Presidential Dr, which is located at Loudon District 19, Tax Map 04, Parcel 181.7 in the City of
Charleston, Kanawha County, State of West Virginia.

Chad presented the staff analysis and recommendation.

APPLICABLE CODE: Charleston Zoning Ordinance, adopted January 1, 2006, Article 29.
STANDARD OF REVIEW: A rezoning is a change to the zoning map, which requires a legislative
decision. Therefore, the Commission’s role is to make a recommendation to Planning Committee
with final action being at City Council. The Commission should determine if the request is spot
zoning and if it is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. A rezoning is considered spot zoning
when all the following factors are present: A small parcel of land is singled out for special and
privileged treatment; The singling out is not in the public interest but only for the benefit of the
landowner; the action is not in accordance with the comprehensive plan. If a request is
inconsistent with the comprehensive plan, the commission should consider if the original zoning
classification was in error, or if the character of the area has changed significantly since the
adoption of the comprehensive plan. Proposed uses should be treated with care, because once
rezoned, any use that is permitted within the district would be permitted ‘by right’ with no review
by the Commission.
HISTORY:
The parcel in question was previously unincorporated and is now in the process of annexation.
Therefore, it does not have a previous zoning designation.
ANALYSIS:
Existing Land Use and Zoning: The parcel in question is currently unzoned and consists of a single-
family home.
Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: The parcel is currently a single-family home, and the proposed
zoning is R-4, which would make it the same as the surrounding single-family residences.
Current Zoning: As it has just been annexed, the parcel has no current zoning.
Proposed Zoning: The proposed R-4 zoning allows for the continued focus on single-family homes
and the desirability of the surrounding neighborhood.
Compliance with the Comprehensive Plan: The comprehensive plan’s future land use map
designates this property as being part of a Suburban Neighborhood. The intent in these areas is
 4
 Municipal Planning Commission
 September 6, 2023
to preserve a predominantly contemporary single-family area with less focus on walkability and
more focus on larger, non-square lots. The current residence at 2155 Presidential fully conforms
with the surrounding character of the neighborhood and the intent of the Suburban
Neighborhood land use.




Summary: Petitioner seeks to add this now annexed parcel into the zoning map by zoning it R-4.
Such a zoning fully complies with the purpose of the zoning designation and the parcels place in
the future land use map.


RECOMMENDATION AND FINDINGS:
Staff recommends approval for the following reasons:
 1. The zoning is consistent with the future land use map in that it complies with the
 area’s designation as a suburban neighborhood with a focus on single family homes
 and a more modern suburban character,
 5
 Municipal Planning Commission
 September 6, 2023
 2. The zoning allows for the parcel to be cohesively incorporated into the existing zoning
 map, and
 3. The rezoning avoids spot rezoning by conforming the proposed residential zoning to
 the development trends of the residental area surrounding it.
Aric closed the case and entertained a motion.
MOTION AND VOTE: A motion was made by Cory Stout to adopt Bill 8006. The motion was
seconded by Doug Hartley and passed by a unanimous vote of 10-0.
Rezoning: Bill No. 8011 - A Bill amending the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Charleston, West
Virginia, enacted the 1st day of January 2006, as amended, and the map made a part thereof, by
zoning the previously unzoned parcels to a R-2 district, those parcels of land located at Loudon
District 19, Tax Map 08, Parcels 90.15 through 90.20 in the City of Charleston, Kanawha County,
State of West Virginia.

APPLICABLE CODE: Charleston Zoning Ordinance, adopted January 1, 2006, Article 29.
STANDARD OF REVIEW: A rezoning is a change to the zoning map, which requires a legislative
decision. Therefore, the Commission’s role is to make a recommendation to Planning Committee
with final action being at City Council. The Commission should determine if the request is spot
zoning and if it is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. A rezoning is considered spot zoning
when all the following factors are present: A small parcel of land is singled out for special and
privileged treatment; The singling out is not in the public interest but only for the benefit of the
landowner; the action is not in accordance with the comprehensive plan. If a request is
inconsistent with the comprehensive plan, the commission should consider if the original zoning
classification was in error, or if the character of the area has changed significantly since the
adoption of the comprehensive plan. Proposed uses should be treated with care, because once
rezoned, any use that is permitted within the district would be permitted ‘by right’ with no review
by the Commission.
HISTORY:
The parcels in question were previously unincorporated and are now in the process of annexation.
Therefore, they do not have a previous zoning designation.
ANALYSIS:
Existing Land Use and Zoning: The parcels in question are currently unzoned and consist of single-
family homes and one empty developable lot.
Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: The parcels are currently a part of a subdivided development,
and the neighborhood consists of solely single-family homes.
Current Zoning: As it has just been annexed, the parcel has no current zoning.
Proposed Zoning: The proposed R-2 zoning allows for the continued focus on single-family homes
and the desirability of the surrounding neighborhood.
Compliance with the Comprehensive Plan: The comprehensive plan’s future land use map
designates this property as being part of a Suburban Neighborhood. The intent in these areas is
to preserve a predominantly contemporary single-family area with less focus on walkability and
more focus on larger, non-square lots. The current residences at along Stonehenge Drive fully


 6
 Municipal Planning Commission
 September 6, 2023
conform with the surrounding character of the neighborhood and the intent of the Suburban
Neighborhood land use.




Summary: Petitioner seeks to add these now annexed parcels into the zoning map by zoning it R-
2. Such a zoning fully complies with the purpose of the zoning designation and the parcels place
in the future land use map.
RECOMMENDATION AND FINDINGS:
Staff recommends approval for the following reasons:
 1. The zoning is consistent with the future land use map in that it complies with the
 area’s designation as a suburban neighborhood with a focus on single family homes
 and a more modern suburban character,
 2. The zoning allows for the parcels to be cohesively incorporated into the existing
 zoning map, and
 3. The rezoning avoids spot rezoning by conforming the proposed residential zoning to
 the development trends of the residental area surrounding it.

 7
 Municipal Planning Commission
 September 6, 2023
Aric entertained a motion.
MOTION AND VOTE: A motion was made by Cory Stout to adopt Bill 8011. The motion was
seconded by Doug Hartley and passed by a unanimous vote of 10-0.

Text Amendment: Bill No. 8009 – A bill to amend the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Charleston,
as amended, by updating section 3-070 relating to temporary construction fencing.

Mary Beth Hoover presented the reason behind the proposal for Bill No. 8009. Mary Beth stated
that matter regarding temporary fencing, especially in the downtown area, was brought to the
attention of herself and Chad Robinson.

Adam Krason suggested 90 days after construction is halted or no activity is concerned, temporary
fencing shall be removed. Dan said the aforementioned 90-day period is a requirement of the
Building Commission.

Aric asked delay on a job due to an unforeseen condition, such as a DEP requirement, influence
this 90-day period. Dan said there is an existing provision that states that the maximum duration
is 90 days or as other required by the Planning Director. This provision allows for latitude in
granting an extension of the 90-day period due to unforeseen circumstances.

Adam Krason asked what the recourse was if the fence is not removed. Dan said it would be a
zoning violation, which could be a $300/per day fine or any other remedy necessary, including
filing a lawsuit in circuit court.

JD inquired about the same requirement on residential structures in disrepair and require
demolition. Could a lien be placed on the property? Dan said it would be an option of last resort.
Dan said the city would pursue their options in court first.

Dan stated that, if this bill passes, the company would be put on notice that the fence has to come
down and provide them with the language from the code that the site is supposed to be
reclaimed.

Chad went over the staff’s analysis and recommendations.

APPLICABLE CODE:
Charleston Zoning Ordinance adopted November 21, 2005, Article 3, Sec. 3-070.
STANDARD OF REVIEW:
The amendment is a change to the zoning ordinance, which requires a legislative decision. The
Commission is charged with conducting a public hearing and making a recommendation to
Planning Committee with final action being at City Council. The Commission should determine if
the text amendment is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan.
HISTORY:
Before you today is a proposed text amendment to make the following change:

 8
 Municipal Planning Commission
 September 6, 2023
 1. That Section 3-070(c)(2) of the Zoning Ordinance for the City of Charleston, as amended,
 is hereby amended to read as follows:

 “In any zoning district, temporary construction fencing may be authorized to enclose an
 active construction site if necessary to protect materials and equipment, to prevent
 unauthorized entry to the site, or to mitigate a threat to public safety. The fence shall be
 removed when construction activity has been completed or discontinued or the hazard
 has been resolved. Maximum duration: 90 days or as otherwise required by the Planning
 Director.”

 2. Correct the numbering of the following subsections of Section C.

 ANALYSIS:
 At the request of Council Members Chad Robinson and Mary Beth Hoover, we considered what
 would be the easiest solution for construction site managers and the City. The proposed change
 would allow for full temporary fencing around construction sites for the purpose of securing
 equipment left on site. Such an accommodation would be in the best interest of both the city and
 the citizens involved in such construction jobs because it still limits temporary fencing from being
 left up permanently and provides the level of security necessary.
 RECOMMENDATION AND FINDINGS:
 Staff recommends approval for the following reasons:
 1. The proposed change to temporary uses suits both the city and residences best interests
 and
 2. Puts no substantial burden on the city from effectively enforcing its zoning ordinances.

 MOTION AND VOTE: A motion was made by Adam Kraus to adopt Bill 8009. The motion was
 seconded by Quintie Smith and passed by a unanimous vote of 10-0.

4. Minutes of the August 9, 2023 MPC meeting

 MOTION AND VOTE: A motion was made, seconded and passed by a unanimous vote to approve
 the minutes from the August 9, 2023 MPC meeting.

5. Announcements

6. Adjournment




 9
 Municipal Planning Commission
 September 6, 2023

Municipal Planning Commission
 City Service Center – 915 Quarrier Street – Suite 6
 Wednesday, September 6, 2023
 3:00 P.M.
Members Present Members Absent
Aric Margolis, Chair Justin Marlow
Quintie Smith Brady Campbell
Adam Krason
Shawn Taylor
Cory Stout
Lisa Fischer Casto Staff Present
Mary Beth Hoover Dan Vriendt
JoEllen Zacks (Joined by phone @ Bill No. 8009) Chad Webb
Alice Hypes
Shannon Ferrari
Terri Allen, Mayor’s Designee (Joined @ Bill No. 8009)
J.D. Stricklen, Kanawha County Representative
Brady Campbell
Doug Hartley
Alex Zurbuch


1. Call to Order

 Aric introduced Doug Hartley, a new member of the Municipal Planning Committee.

2. Unfinished Business - None

3. New Business

 Rezoning: Bill No. 8005 - A Bill amending the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Charleston, West
 Virginia, enacted the 1st day of January 2006, as amended, and the map made a part thereof, by
 rezoning from a R-6 district to a C-8 district, the parcel of land identified as 2417 Hampshire Drive,
 North Charleston District, Tax Map 16, Parcel 47 in the City of Charleston, Kanawha County, State
 of West Virginia.

 Dan explained Bill No. 8005. The subject property is along Route 21, where there is a lot of
 commercial property and there is an equal amount of residential property. The Hampshire Drive
 property is a vacant lot. It is a consolidated lot, and he is requesting that it be rezoned. Aric asked
 if he owned the property beside him. Dan said he did not own the adjacent lot. He is wanting to
 do a small auto repair shop on that lot. Aric mentioned that the road is very narrow.

 Dan further stated there are three houses on the road and a business. It is a narrow road, but a
 very lightly used road.

 Chad presented the staff analysis and recommendation.
 1
 Municipal Planning Commission
 September 6, 2023
APPLICABLE CODE: Charleston Zoning Ordinance, adopted January 1, 2006, Article 29.


STANDARD OF REVIEW: A rezoning is a change to the zoning map, which requires a legislative
decision. Therefore, the Commission’s role is to make a recommendation to Planning Committee
with final action being at City Council. The Commission should determine if the request is spot
zoning and if it is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. A rezoning is considered spot zoning
when all the following factors are present: A small parcel of land is singled out for special and
privileged treatment; The singling out is not in the public interest but only for the benefit of the
landowner; the action is not in accordance with the comprehensive plan. If a request is
inconsistent with the comprehensive plan, the commission should consider if the original zoning
classification was in error, or if the character of the area has changed significantly since the
adoption of the comprehensive plan. Proposed uses should be treated with care, because once
rezoned, any use that is permitted within the district would be permitted ‘by right’ with no review
by the Commission.
HISTORY:
The parcel in question is currently zoned R-6. The petitioner seeks to construct a garage for a
proposed auto repair shop on the property.
ANALYSIS:
Existing Land Use and Zoning: The parcel in question is currently zoned R-8 and currently consists
of an empty residential lot.
Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: The parcel currently resides in a Rural Neighborhood – as
defined by the future land use plan – with pockets of Traditional Neighborhood around the main
thoroughfare through the area.
Current Zoning: The current R-6 zoning allows for limited multi-family structures, single family
homes, and some limited educational uses.
Proposed Zoning: The proposed C-8 zoning allows for “a village concept” that seeks to provide “a
mix of residential uses adjacent to and/or above commercial uses to increase the intensity of the
activity in the area.” Looking at the increase in commercial uses to both the north and the south
of the parcel in question, a C-8 zoning would conform to the proposed use of the land and
wouldn’t breach the prohibition against spot zoning by further solidifying the area’s use as a
village commercial corridor.
Compliance with the Comprehensive Plan: The comprehensive plan’s future land use map
designates this property as being part of a Rural Neighborhood. The intent in these areas is to
maintain the rural character of the area while having more “flexible” standards than what’s typical
imposed in commercial areas and traditional neighborhoods. This expansion of the developing
commercial area within a rural residential one conforms with this less restrictive intent.




 2
 Municipal Planning Commission
 September 6, 2023
Summary: Petitioner seeks to add further commercial activity to the village corridor region
amongst rural neighborhoods. Such a change complies with the future land use map and the
stated purpose of the proposed commercial zoning.
RECOMMENDATION AND FINDINGS:
Staff recommends approval for the following reasons:
1. The rezoning is consistent with the future land use map in that it complies with the area’s
 designation as a rural neighborhood with relaxed development standards versus core
 neighborhoods and commercial nodes,
2. The rezoning allows for the development of further commercial uses in the area, and
3. The rezoning avoids spot rezoning by conforming the proposed commercial zoning to the
 surrounding development trends along the main artery of the area and maintains a
 confluence between the commercial and residential zones.
Aric asked if there was any knowledge as to why the petitioner was not present. Chad said he did
not. Aric asked if Chad had received any calls about this rezoning. Chad said he had not received
any calls from anyone concerning the rezoning.
Aric asked if anyone had any questions. Questions were asked by council and answered. One
question pertaining to cars parked in the business’s yard and if the neighborhood would have an
issue with that. Aric and Dan both pointed out there would be fencing requirements to hide the
cars from the view of residents in that neighborhood. Dan said if the car is having engine work,
the ordinance provides that it can sit outside a fence. The code says if the car has body damage,
it can only sit out for 48 hours. Otherwise, it must be behind the fence. The fence has to be
opaque.
Aric said that when the MPC reviews a rezoning request, the review is supposed to take in every
aspect of what could possibly go in a particular location. Anything that is approved in a C-8 can
go in this location, regardless of the applicant’s stated intentions. Therefore, the MPC looks at
everything that can be permitted in a C-8 district for the purpose of determining if there is any
permitted use for a C-8 that they do not want in that area.


 3
 Municipal Planning Commission
 September 6, 2023
A question was asked by a member of the MPC concerning parking requirements. Dan explained
that the ordinance does have onsite parking requirements that are based on the size of the square
foot and use of the building, which is in addition to any parking needed to conduct business.
Dan said there is three houses and a business that use this street. It is a substandard street but it
has low utilization. It is not a dead-end street.
Aric closed the case and entertained a motion.
MOTION AND VOTE: A motion was made by Adam Krason to adopt Bill 8005. The motion was
seconded by Quintie Smith and passed by a majority vote of 8-2.
Rezoning: Bill No. 8006 - A Bill amending the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Charleston, West
Virginia, enacted the 1st day of January 2006, as amended, and the map made a part thereof, by
zoning the previously unzoned parcel to a R-4 district, that parcel of land identified as 2155
Presidential Dr, which is located at Loudon District 19, Tax Map 04, Parcel 181.7 in the City of
Charleston, Kanawha County, State of West Virginia.

Chad presented the staff analysis and recommendation.

APPLICABLE CODE: Charleston Zoning Ordinance, adopted January 1, 2006, Article 29.
STANDARD OF REVIEW: A rezoning is a change to the zoning map, which requires a legislative
decision. Therefore, the Commission’s role is to make a recommendation to Planning Committee
with final action being at City Council. The Commission should determine if the request is spot
zoning and if it is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. A rezoning is considered spot zoning
when all the following factors are present: A small parcel of land is singled out for special and
privileged treatment; The singling out is not in the public interest but only for the benefit of the
landowner; the action is not in accordance with the comprehensive plan. If a request is
inconsistent with the comprehensive plan, the commission should consider if the original zoning
classification was in error, or if the character of the area has changed significantly since the
adoption of the comprehensive plan. Proposed uses should be treated with care, because once
rezoned, any use that is permitted within the district would be permitted ‘by right’ with no review
by the Commission.
HISTORY:
The parcel in question was previously unincorporated and is now in the process of annexation.
Therefore, it does not have a previous zoning designation.
ANALYSIS:
Existing Land Use and Zoning: The parcel in question is currently unzoned and consists of a single-
family home.
Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: The parcel is currently a single-family home, and the proposed
zoning is R-4, which would make it the same as the surrounding single-family residences.
Current Zoning: As it has just been annexed, the parcel has no current zoning.
Proposed Zoning: The proposed R-4 zoning allows for the continued focus on single-family homes
and the desirability of the surrounding neighborhood.
Compliance with the Comprehensive Plan: The comprehensive plan’s future land use map
designates this property as being part of a Suburban Neighborhood. The intent in these areas is
 4
 Municipal Planning Commission
 September 6, 2023
to preserve a predominantly contemporary single-family area with less focus on walkability and
more focus on larger, non-square lots. The current residence at 2155 Presidential fully conforms
with the surrounding character of the neighborhood and the intent of the Suburban
Neighborhood land use.




Summary: Petitioner seeks to add this now annexed parcel into the zoning map by zoning it R-4.
Such a zoning fully complies with the purpose of the zoning designation and the parcels place in
the future land use map.


RECOMMENDATION AND FINDINGS:
Staff recommends approval for the following reasons:
 1. The zoning is consistent with the future land use map in that it complies with the
 area’s designation as a suburban neighborhood with a focus on single family homes
 and a more modern suburban character,
 5
 Municipal Planning Commission
 September 6, 2023
 2. The zoning allows for the parcel to be cohesively incorporated into the existing zoning
 map, and
 3. The rezoning avoids spot rezoning by conforming the proposed residential zoning to
 the development trends of the residental area surrounding it.
Aric closed the case and entertained a motion.
MOTION AND VOTE: A motion was made by Cory Stout to adopt Bill 8006. The motion was
seconded by Doug Hartley and passed by a unanimous vote of 10-0.
Rezoning: Bill No. 8011 - A Bill amending the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Charleston, West
Virginia, enacted the 1st day of January 2006, as amended, and the map made a part thereof, by
zoning the previously unzoned parcels to a R-2 district, those parcels of land located at Loudon
District 19, Tax Map 08, Parcels 90.15 through 90.20 in the City of Charleston, Kanawha County,
State of West Virginia.

APPLICABLE CODE: Charleston Zoning Ordinance, adopted January 1, 2006, Article 29.
STANDARD OF REVIEW: A rezoning is a change to the zoning map, which requires a legislative
decision. Therefore, the Commission’s role is to make a recommendation to Planning Committee
with final action being at City Council. The Commission should determine if the request is spot
zoning and if it is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. A rezoning is considered spot zoning
when all the following factors are present: A small parcel of land is singled out for special and
privileged treatment; The singling out is not in the public interest but only for the benefit of the
landowner; the action is not in accordance with the comprehensive plan. If a request is
inconsistent with the comprehensive plan, the commission should consider if the original zoning
classification was in error, or if the character of the area has changed significantly since the
adoption of the comprehensive plan. Proposed uses should be treated with care, because once
rezoned, any use that is permitted within the district would be permitted ‘by right’ with no review
by the Commission.
HISTORY:
The parcels in question were previously unincorporated and are now in the process of annexation.
Therefore, they do not have a previous zoning designation.
ANALYSIS:
Existing Land Use and Zoning: The parcels in question are currently unzoned and consist of single-
family homes and one empty developable lot.
Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: The parcels are currently a part of a subdivided development,
and the neighborhood consists of solely single-family homes.
Current Zoning: As it has just been annexed, the parcel has no current zoning.
Proposed Zoning: The proposed R-2 zoning allows for the continued focus on single-family homes
and the desirability of the surrounding neighborhood.
Compliance with the Comprehensive Plan: The comprehensive plan’s future land use map
designates this property as being part of a Suburban Neighborhood. The intent in these areas is
to preserve a predominantly contemporary single-family area with less focus on walkability and
more focus on larger, non-square lots. The current residences at along Stonehenge Drive fully


 6
 Municipal Planning Commission
 September 6, 2023
conform with the surrounding character of the neighborhood and the intent of the Suburban
Neighborhood land use.




Summary: Petitioner seeks to add these now annexed parcels into the zoning map by zoning it R-
2. Such a zoning fully complies with the purpose of the zoning designation and the parcels place
in the future land use map.
RECOMMENDATION AND FINDINGS:
Staff recommends approval for the following reasons:
 1. The zoning is consistent with the future land use map in that it complies with the
 area’s designation as a suburban neighborhood with a focus on single family homes
 and a more modern suburban character,
 2. The zoning allows for the parcels to be cohesively incorporated into the existing
 zoning map, and
 3. The rezoning avoids spot rezoning by conforming the proposed residential zoning to
 the development trends of the residental area surrounding it.

 7
 Municipal Planning Commission
 September 6, 2023
Aric entertained a motion.
MOTION AND VOTE: A motion was made by Cory Stout to adopt Bill 8011. The motion was
seconded by Doug Hartley and passed by a unanimous vote of 10-0.

Text Amendment: Bill No. 8009 – A bill to amend the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Charleston,
as amended, by updating section 3-070 relating to temporary construction fencing.

Mary Beth Hoover presented the reason behind the proposal for Bill No. 8009. Mary Beth stated
that matter regarding temporary fencing, especially in the downtown area, was brought to the
attention of herself and Chad Robinson.

Adam Krason suggested 90 days after construction is halted or no activity is concerned, temporary
fencing shall be removed. Dan said the aforementioned 90-day period is a requirement of the
Building Commission.

Aric asked delay on a job due to an unforeseen condition, such as a DEP requirement, influence
this 90-day period. Dan said there is an existing provision that states that the maximum duration
is 90 days or as other required by the Planning Director. This provision allows for latitude in
granting an extension of the 90-day period due to unforeseen circumstances.

Adam Krason asked what the recourse was if the fence is not removed. Dan said it would be a
zoning violation, which could be a $300/per day fine or any other remedy necessary, including
filing a lawsuit in circuit court.

JD inquired about the same requirement on residential structures in disrepair and require
demolition. Could a lien be placed on the property? Dan said it would be an option of last resort.
Dan said the city would pursue their options in court first.

Dan stated that, if this bill passes, the company would be put on notice that the fence has to come
down and provide them with the language from the code that the site is supposed to be
reclaimed.

Chad went over the staff’s analysis and recommendations.

APPLICABLE CODE:
Charleston Zoning Ordinance adopted November 21, 2005, Article 3, Sec. 3-070.
STANDARD OF REVIEW:
The amendment is a change to the zoning ordinance, which requires a legislative decision. The
Commission is charged with conducting a public hearing and making a recommendation to
Planning Committee with final action being at City Council. The Commission should determine if
the text amendment is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan.
HISTORY:
Before you today is a proposed text amendment to make the following change:

 8
 Municipal Planning Commission
 September 6, 2023
 1. That Section 3-070(c)(2) of the Zoning Ordinance for the City of Charleston, as amended,
 is hereby amended to read as follows:

 “In any zoning district, temporary construction fencing may be authorized to enclose an
 active construction site if necessary to protect materials and equipment, to prevent
 unauthorized entry to the site, or to mitigate a threat to public safety. The fence shall be
 removed when construction activity has been completed or discontinued or the hazard
 has been resolved. Maximum duration: 90 days or as otherwise required by the Planning
 Director.”

 2. Correct the numbering of the following subsections of Section C.

 ANALYSIS:
 At the request of Council Members Chad Robinson and Mary Beth Hoover, we considered what
 would be the easiest solution for construction site managers and the City. The proposed change
 would allow for full temporary fencing around construction sites for the purpose of securing
 equipment left on site. Such an accommodation would be in the best interest of both the city and
 the citizens involved in such construction jobs because it still limits temporary fencing from being
 left up permanently and provides the level of security necessary.
 RECOMMENDATION AND FINDINGS:
 Staff recommends approval for the following reasons:
 1. The proposed change to temporary uses suits both the city and residences best interests
 and
 2. Puts no substantial burden on the city from effectively enforcing its zoning ordinances.

 MOTION AND VOTE: A motion was made by Adam Kraus to adopt Bill 8009. The motion was
 seconded by Quintie Smith and passed by a unanimous vote of 10-0.

4. Minutes of the August 9, 2023 MPC meeting

 MOTION AND VOTE: A motion was made, seconded and passed by a unanimous vote to approve
 the minutes from the August 9, 2023 MPC meeting.

5. Announcements

6. Adjournment




 9
 Municipal Planning Commission
 September 6, 2023