MUNICIPALITY OF MONROEVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 15, 2015 MINUTES The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. by Mr. Robert Williams. ROLL CALL The Recording Secretary, Sharon McIndoe, called roll and the following were present: Robert Williams, Ed Diel, Daren Morgante, Georgiana Woodhall, Dennis Biondo, Anthony Pokusa, Paul Hugus, Darren Meyer and Dyane Dice. Ms. Krivda was absent. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE AND MOMENT OF SILENCE The Pledge of Allegiance was recited and a moment of silence was observed. APPROVAL OF MINUTES No minutes were distributed to be approved at this time. OLD BUSINESS TABLED ITEMS 14-8-ST IMAMIA ORGANIZATION OF PITTSBURGH The applicant is requesting site plan approval to construct an 8,094 square foot church and associated site amenities. The property is located at 351 Old Haymaker Road in the M-1 Planned Industrial and R-2, Single-Family Residential Zoning District 14-5-C IMAMIA ORGANIZATION OF PITTSBURGH The applicant is requesting conditional use approval to construct an 8,094 square foot church and associated site amenity. The property is located at 351 Old Haymaker Road in the R-2, Single-Family Residential Zoning District.
Regular Meeting 2 July 15, 2015 14-5-SUB IMAMIA ORGANIZATION OF PITTSBURGH The applicant is requesting final subdivision approval of Parcel No. 855-K-201 and Parcel No. 855-K-381 to create Lot 1-R totaling 1.11 acres and Lot 2-R totaling 0.24 acres. The property is located at 351 Old Haymaker Road in the R-2, Single-Family Residential Zoning District. Mr. Robert Deglau, Allstate Surveying and Mapping, came forward along with Mr. Ameer Ali, Board Member of the Imamia Organization of Pittsburgh to present the application. Mr. Ali reviewed his background and the community of the Imamia Organization which was founded in 1998 and has grown to 100 to 150 families. He explained a lot of the members come from around the United States and world. He stated since 2005 they had a building in Plum which fit their needs then had a problem with the sprinkler system that prohibited them from using it. He explained how they could not find an existing building so decided to build one in Monroeville. He reviewed their proposed 8,000 square foot building and stated the first floor will be the pray area, and the basement will be the kitchen and storage area. He stated the occupancy is 90 and they usually have 70 to 80 people. He indicated their community wants to have its own house of worship and looks forward to completing the planning commission process. Mr. Williams inquired whether they were a nonprofit and Mr. Ali answered affirmatively. Mr. Williams questioned whether the house would be nonprofit or on the tax rolls. Dr. Hashim Raza, a board member, came forward to review his background. He answered the house is currently on the tax rolls and will stay on the tax rolls. He added that is why they need separate parcels. Mr. Williams questioned what they were planning on doing in the community since they are a tax-exempt organization and will not pay taxes. Dr. Raza was uncertain. Mr. Williams suggested other churches have made commitments to help with pregnancy crisis and other things. He mentioned UPMC was committed to investing in the community and different programs. Dr. Raza indicated they were open to that kind of work for the community. Mrs. Woodhall questioned when their services were held. Dr. Raza answered they are once a week on Fridays but there are some months when they have multiple days a week and there are some weeks they do not have services. He added they may have Sunday school once that program starts. Mrs. Woodhall inquired whether there would be any type of daycare or restaurant and Mr. Ali answered negatively. He explained the kitchen is just to warm food they bring in for the services and there are no plans for daycare. Mrs. Woodhall inquired whether there would be 90 in attendance at a service and Mr. Ali answered they were expecting approximately 70 to 80. Mrs. Woodhall pointed out that two-lane road is very busy. She referred back to the 2005 Comprehensive Plan that indicates that intersection is misaligned. She reported she did a site visit to observe the flow of traffic and she was concerned with the access. Mr. Ali explained the 70-80 was estimated on the occupancy number and 70-80 would be their
Regular Meeting 3 July 15, 2015 maximum congregation. He further reviewed his estimates. Mrs. Woodhall inquired about the status of their highway occupancy permit from PennDOT and Mr. Deglau answered the organization hired a traffic consultant and they have reviewed all the traffic concerns. Mrs. Woodhall questioned when it was done and Mr. Deglau answered a while ago. Mr. Myer referred to the Trans Associates Trip generation letter which does address the anticipated traffic generation letter they reviewed and determined no further traffic analysis was required but he could not comment on the PennDOT Highway Occupancy. Mr. Deglau answered the PennDOT permit has not been acquired yet because they just received approval of their storm water management from Chester Engineers. He explained PennDOT will only review the permit application if they have approval from the municipality and the storm water management. He indicated when they originally looked at the site, the senior construction inspector supervisor from District 12 verbally indicated the site distance was fine so they prepared a PennDOT drawing for it. Mr. Meyer explained they met with Bill Lesterick to look at the site distance because there is a horizontal curve on the inside and there are vertical restrictions to the east. He also mentioned vegetation would restrict site distance at the driveway. He stated that was not included but it was in their comment letter because it would fall under acquiring the PennDOT HOP. He indicated the concern is whether the applicant is confident that they can obtain a PennDOT HOP and there is adequate driveway site distance. Mr. Deglau answered the site distance has been verified by PennDOT and they do not see any objections from them on obtaining the permit. He explained the permits take longer to acquire but as far as the site distance, their visit, the existing driveway and the one opposite it, they positioned the driveway per PennDOT to be located across from the Guardian Storage. Mr. Williams explained no occupancy permit will be issued until that is cleared with PennDOT. He questioned the maximum number of people allowed with the occupancy permit. Mr. Deglau answered 90 was based on the plans prepared by the architect and the square footage of the largest meeting hall. Mr. Williams clarified there would be a sidewalk on Haymaker Road the length of the property and Mr. Deglau answered affirmatively if it is required along the state road. Mr. Hugus pointed out that would have to be included in the HOP because it would be within PennDOT s 60-foot right-of-way. Mrs. Woodhall inquired how long it has been since their last contact with PennDOT concerning the HOP and Mr. Deglau answered a year. He did not expect them to change their mind but the project was started with a different layout of the building that was turned in a different direction. He explained the construction was more expensive but they made the structure much smaller. Mr. Hugus suggested the applicant has to make a HOP application prior to the council meeting and Mr. Deglau added their drawings are completed. He stated the main issue is the site distance and this is not a 24-hour business retail but is a worship area that is used on off-peak times on a Sunday. Mrs. Woodhall asserted things can change in the future and Mr. Deglau answered the building is limited to the parking stalls. He stated if
Regular Meeting 4 July 15, 2015 they grow they will have to relocate to another building because it is limited by the architect s designs and the parking stalls. He indicated there is no room to grow. Mr. Williams inquired about the storm water management and Mr. Hugus answered they got approval from Chester Engineers the previous day. He explained they have gone through many changes with storm water management and they are going to install a combination of underground piping systems and an above ground pond to contain their storm water from their site. He added there are other details that need to be worked out but in theory they are good. Mr. Morgante inquired whether there were any issues that were not addressed and Mr. Hugus answered negatively. He added they are well enough along to make their application to PennDOT for their HOP and the issue of the sidewalk which is a condition of their site plan. Ms. Janice Olszewski, a resident, came forward to question the hours on Friday and Mr. Ali answered noon. Ms. Olszewski mentioned Friday is a heavy traffic day and the traffic stacks in that area. She questioned whether the housing that would remain would be used for residential housing and Mr. Ali answered it would be a rental property. Ms. Olszewski inquired whether he looked at the site distance from the intersection as well as the stacking of the traffic. Mr. Williams indicated the traffic engineer could answer. She pointed out he indicated there are 100 to 150 families but there are only 90 members and Mr. Williams asserted the occupancy permit allows 90 people. Ms. Olszewski questioned whether the 100 to 150 exceeds what has been submitted. Mr. Ali explained the 100 to 150 is all of the family members that would be associated with them. He added he would be very happy to see 150 families attend at once and he was hopeful that it would grow to that level. Ms. Olszewski inquired whether it could accommodate that number and Mr. Ali answered negatively. He stated the occupancy is 90 but they do not see it progressing beyond that any time soon. Whereupon, Mr. Morgante duly made a motion to approve Site Plan Application No. 14-8-ST with the conditions set forth and the additional ones that they receive the highway occupancy permit prior to the council meeting and the condition for the sidewalks. Mr. Pokusa seconded it. Upon a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously. Further, Mr. Morgante duly made a motion to approve Conditional Use Application No. 14-5-C with the conditions set forth and Mr. Biondo seconded it. Upon a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously. Furthermore, Mr. Biondo duly made a motion to approve Final Subdivision Application No. 14-5-SUB with the conditions as previously stated and Mr. Morgante seconded it.
Regular Meeting 5 July 15, 2015 LANCASTER LAND L.P., DONNA M. TAYLOR KENNETH E. AND MICHELE A. MACHA The applicant is requesting rezoning of a 21.6 acre parcel from R-2, Single- Family Residential and S, Conservancy to R-5, Multi-Family Residential and allowing for the construction of Senior Market Rate Apartments. The parcel is located at 4514 Northern Pike and is owned by Donna M. Taylor and Kenneth E. Macha. The parcel abuts properties belonging to Grace Baptist Church and the Municipality of Monroeville located to the southeast; properties belonging to the Municipality of Monroeville, LaVale Land, L.P. and Alpha East Associates, L.P. to the southwest; properties belonging to LaVale Land L.P. and Richard P. and Virginia M. Beech to the west and S.R. 2054 Northern Pike to the north. Mr. Jack Finnegan, attorney, came forward representing the applicant along with Mr. Curt Messke with Clover Group and Mr. Dub Reinhardt from Trant Corporation. Mr. Finnegan gave a brief overview of the request. He reported this is for 120 units and four stories and will sit in the back portion of the site. He felt the rezoning is appropriate for the area because the uses in the R zoning district are compatible and there is R-4 in the area. He suggested looking at the whole picture going out Northern Pike where there are mixed uses with residential properties and the zoning varies from R-1, R-2, R-2T, R- 3, R-4 and R-5. He felt it is compatible because it is located in the transitional area. Mr. Finnegan briefly explained the map. He indicated several pieces of R-4 touch their property. He pointed out the R-2 property in orange and the S zoning district is shown in white. He stated the rezoning is 9.708 acres and the S will remain at 11.99 acres. Mr. Williams inquired whether the applicant would consider donating the S- Conservancy property to the municipality. Mr. Finnegan was uncertain but felt the applicant would have to go onto the property for maintenance reasons. Mr. Messke indicated they did not consider it but it is possible. Discussion ensued regarding donating the property to the municipality. Mr. Williams indicated there are wet lands in the area. Mr. Messke agreed the developable property is limited and he felt it could be turned into green space. Mrs. Woodhall asserted originally the applicant requested the entire property be rezoned then it was decreased. She questioned whether the applicant had a plan for the 11 acres being referred to for donation and Mr. Messke answered negatively. He indicated it was more practical at the time and the building was repositioned so the S zoning district would not have to be disturbed. Mr. Finnegan reported it was discussed with administration to determine what was appropriate. Mr. Morgante also questioned why they requested rezoning less of the property and Mr. Messke answered they determined a way to refigure the building inside.
Regular Meeting 6 July 15, 2015 Mr. Williams inquired whether it would be a completely for profit business. Mr. Messke gave an overview of the Clover Group and explained how it was designed for the seniors. He reviewed their amenities and commended the community on the senior center. He pointed out how this is different from multi-family because it does not bring peak traffic times. Mr. Williams pointed out all the other units are on the tax rolls and Mr. Messke agreed. He added they are strictly a market-rate product. Mrs. Woodhall inquired whether they typically place these structures among single-family residential homes. Mr. Messke explained the concept for these people is to allow them to age in place. He stated the 5-miles radius area surrounding this site has 18,000 people over age 65 years and another 21,000 between 55-65 years old. He indicated the growth rate of the aging is 5 to 7 percent for the next 20 years for the baby boomers to get older. Mr. Williams explained the reason for these questions is to determine whether this is a good fit in the community. Mr. Messke answered their purpose is to provide a product that enhances the community choices and opportunities for the citizens. Mrs. Woodhall requested the definition of spot zoning. Mr. Finnegan explained spot zoning could be any size. He indicated it is singling out a tract to be totally different from the surrounding area and it is a form of discrimination in favor of that tract. He did not feel this is spot zoning because the tract is not being treated differently than anything else in the surrounding area. Mr. Dice explained when considering spot zoning the following should be considered: the general welfare of the community, the comprehensive plan and surrounding structures. Mr. Messke explained he met with the Grace Baptist Church to show them the plans and they expressed no opposition and offered to show their support at the council meeting. Mr. Lou Smith, a resident, came forward to express his concerns regarding a recent landslide behind Bert Drive off of Abers Creek Road. He was very concerned that the entire hillside would slide once they start digging. He reported they have high-rise buildings on Northern Pike and he felt it would impact the traffic in the area if another one was constructed. He was concerned once rezoning starts in the area it could be changed into something else then it is developed into more than what it should be. He indicted he walks around Turnpike Gardens and most of the neighbors do not want this apartment building and they want to see it denied. Mr. Ronald Backer, attorney, came forward representing the property owners in the area. He introduced Mr. Jim Rumbaugh one of the owners of LaVale Apartments, Ms. Chris Braden, manager of LaVale and Mr. Bob Mitale. He addressed the rezoning from R-2 to R-5 and he defined an R-5 district has as a permitted use apartments, and R-2 is allows single-family. He explained once it is rezoned it can be any type of apartment
Regular Meeting 7 July 15, 2015 and there is no limitation on the kind of use. He stated the rezoning is to allow apartments and they would be dense apartments not just senior apartments. Mr. Rumbaugh came forward to briefly explain how he has developed in Monroeville for many years. He felt there is no reason why this property could not be used for single-family development or why it has to be rezoned. He indicated it could stay R-2 and 30 single-family residential homes could be built and the traffic would only increase slightly. He reviewed how ten years ago he had requested rezoning property elsewhere in the community on the same evening there was a request to rezone this property. He explained they requested 6.4 acres of property to be rezoned from R-4 to R-2 to put a 24-bed hospice and it was denied. He read a letter dated February 22, 2005 from Shelly Kaltenbaugh into the record stating the reasons for the denial (see attached). He felt once this is rezoned there is no reason why the church could not get a rezoning then sell it for another use. He then distributed information provided by Mr. Mitale concerning how the property could be developed. He asserted once the property is rezoned there is no reason why the developer has to build what is being proposed. He suggested he could sell the property with the R-5 and it could be used for 282 apartments instead of 30 single-family residential homes. He also referred to the traffic and indicated at 10 units per single-family residential there would be 300 trips per day compared to 1,875 trips per day for 282 apartments with 6.65 trips per day. He reported that Google Earth has Northern Pike in 2003 having 14,145 vehicle trips a day. He stated this traffic increase is an overflow of the current by an increase of over 13 percent. He requested as an adjacent property owner to deny this request. He stated there is no such thing as contract zoning. Mr. Backer explained this is a classic case of illegal spot zoning. He stated the potential owner is requesting the property be changed from R-2 to R-5 which is an island among the other zones. He pointed out there are no other R-5 zones in the area and they are primarily R-2, S and one R-4 and they are all low residential density uses. He stated they are requesting the highest possible density in a residential area, R-5 and R-4 district which would generate six times the amount of traffic as an R-2. He indicated it would be spot zoning because an R-5 would be surrounded by other zones. He read a definition of spot zoning: the arbitrary and unreasonable classification of a small parcel of land that is usually set apart or carved out of a surrounding or large neighboring tract with no reasonable justification for the differential zoning. He stated this property could easily be developed for a 30-lot single-family development and there is no reason to change the zoning. He agreed with Mr. Finnegan concerning the case law that finds large parcels to be spot zoning. He stated the issue is whether a single parcel is being single out for a special designation which is being done here. He referred to the Monroeville Comprehensive Plan of 2005, Page 21, states that the high density residential areas are intended to provide the community with a buffer or transitional zoning between low residential and core commercial. He pointed out there is no commercial in the area and it would violate the Comprehensive Plan of Monroeville. He respectively requested the planning commission deny the request for zoning because of the legal reasons and reasons previously stated.
Regular Meeting 8 July 15, 2015 Mr. Williams requested the definitions of R-4 and R-5. Mr. Hugus explained the R-4 is multi-family residential and the permitted uses are agricultural, garden apartments, one-family residential, parks and recreation, two-family houses, town houses and there is a list of accessory structures for conditional use. Mr. Williams questioned whether there is a height limit in that zone and Mr. Hugus answered 35 feet or three stories. Mr. Williams inquired about the uses in an R-5 and Mr. Hugus explained it is multi-family residential and the permitted uses are apartments, garden apartments, one-family residential, parks and recreation and a list of accessory uses under the conditional uses. Mr. Williams inquired about the height limit and Mr. Hugus answered 100 feet or ten stories. Ms. Janice Olszewski, a resident, came forward to express her concerns and voiced her opposition to the rezoning of this parcel. She stated the comprehensive plan stipulates that the property should conform to the neighborhood and rezoning it to R-5 would not. She distributed a list of seventeen apartment complexes in Monroeville (see attached) which would provide thousands of rental units available for transient housing. She felt by rezoning this property it would increase transient housing and decrease the ability to put in more single-family residents. She suggested the municipality should look to the residents and provide more permanent residential housing and not transient housing. She stated the traffic conditions are extreme on that roadway and mentioned the peak traffic hour is at 3 p.m. She felt because this is proposed as a senior market rent area that it will mean there will be less traffic on the roadway because people are working well past 55 years of age. She reported because of the seventeen apartment complexes the municipality does provide transient housing for all economic status groups. She mentioned there is subsidized, luxury and moderate housing in the municipality. She reported there are also several assisted living facilities. She felt the municipality should not diminish the single-family residential areas and should comply with the comprehensive plan. She suggested a high density development would create more problems given the soil conditions in the area. She requested the planning commission deny this application. (A brief break was taken at 8:40 p.m.) Mr. Jonathan Beech came forward representing his mother to explain how this proposed development will affect them. He pointed out his mother s property that borders the proposed development to the west. He reviewed his family history in the community and on Northern Pike. He felt Northern Pike is already over burden from a traffic stand point and he explained how the traffic backs up. He reported they attended the meeting ten years ago objecting to the proposed hospice center for that property. He indicated a traffic study was done at the time which indicated there were 15,000 vehicles per day but Northern Pike was still considered a minor arterial roadway according to the comprehensive plan. He felt to suggest that the roadway would not be overburdened by the additional traffic generated by the proposed development is disingenuous. He indicated they discussed the issue about the residents leaving at 10 a.m. and returning at 3 p.m. with the representatives and he felt adding more traffic at non-peak hours makes an already over congested roadway even worse. He reported the initial site plan submitted
Regular Meeting 9 July 15, 2015 had the entrance to the proposed development coming ten feet off his mother s property line. He stated the revised plan moved it down an extra 20 feet and he pointed out that regardless of the distance the traffic will be stacked in front of his mother s home and felt turning out of that development will be a nightmare at any time of day. He objected also because of the impact it would have on the value of his mother s property. He indicated they are the only landowners that border this property that resides there and he mentioned the church, vacant property and all the other houses across from Northern Pike are vacant. He reported those homes are in disrepair and it is their belief that those property owners are waiting for this type of development to permit a reclassification to do whatever they wish. He reported they walked the property with the developers representatives in February because they wanted to find out where the building would be located. He pointed out his mother s property and the proposed development. He reported one corner of the building would be raised 40 feet and then there would be a four-story building or another 40 to 50 feet. He stated there would be an elevation change of 80 to 90 feet from the existing topography. He indicated he was informed that they would not see the structure from their home because of the existing natural vegetation and topography. He reported this proposed development will be in their back yard. He stated because of the noise and traffic on Northern Pike a majority of the activity at their house is done in the rear of the property. He also pointed out the swimming pool in the yard and how the residents on the third and fourth floor of this high rise will be able to watch them swim in the pool. He reported when the representatives were asked how this would affect the property value of this mother s home they were told that the value of the home would most likely increase only if they had the current R-2 zoning classified to a different classification. Mr. Beech was concerned this development would change the nature of Northern Pike. He referred to the 2005 Comprehensive Plan where it designated this portion of Northern Pike as residential neighborhood area not high density residential. He felt if the proposed development is approved this section of Northern Pike would be bordered on one end by Deauville and LaVale and the other end by the proposed development. He suggested this would land lock the R-2 development which is a small group of six homes. He stated this does not signify a residential area if the residential area is put on an island between apartment complexes. Mr. Beech objected to this proposed development because they feel the sole reason for rezoning the property is to maximize the value of this property. He stated they do not begrudge the owners from wanting to sell the property but none of them live there or have any emotional ties to the property. He questioned whether the sale of the land is contingent on the rezoning classification. Mr. Williams asserted that is not the planning commission s concern. Mr. Beech stated the applicant is not applying for a plan of single-family homes with sidewalks, trees and open space that conforms to the residential area that the last comprehensive plan called for. He explained he inquired about why the proposed plan had to be four stories and the representatives answered that the four-story apartment building made the project economically feasible. He suggested the applicant s potential profit margin should not be the test as to whether this parcel should be rezoned.
Regular Meeting 10 July 15, 2015 Mr. Beech explained how when big business wants to get something pushed through they use their clout and resources to achieve their goals. He hoped the members of the commission would empathize with his family on how this proposed development would affect their property. He respectfully requested the planning commission deny the request. Mrs. Donna Meyer, a resident of Berkley Way, came forward to express her concerns. She reported Berkley Square is a planned residential development and it is an R-2T zoning classification. She stated it is not a mixed use zone. She pointed out that all the properties along Northern Pike are R-2 and there are only two R-4 zoning districts. She represented the Berkley Square Homeowners Association and explained they have 60 units and four condominium buildings with four families in each building. She stated there are seven villas which are side by side duplexes and four single-family homes. She reported they were deeded in 2002 as a planned community association but they are a PRD. She voiced her concern for traffic and she explained how much it has changed since 2004. She reported how dangerous it is to get out of the plan because of traffic. She referred to a report from 2001 from Shelly Kaltenbaugh concerning a traffic study for their site. She stated the report does not include a crash analysis of the study area. She read, given the geometry and limited sight distances along Northern Pike a crash history would help clarify the extent, severity and any impact of any deficiencies. She reported someone was killed in the area some time ago but since she has lived there, there have been numerous minor accidents. She explained one more serious accident and indicated it has become more of a problem with the amount of traffic increasing. She submitted a petition with signatures of residents in the area in opposition and she reported not everyone had an opportunity to sign it (see attached). Mrs. Meyer also reported the state will never put traffic lights along Northern Pike. She stated they tried to get a traffic light at their plan and they do have flashing lights but no one pays attention to them. Mrs. Meyer then referred to how the comprehensive plan talks about developing the neighborhoods. She felt plunking a building down in nine acres with 116 units with two people in it seems to be a stretch for the amount of people in one area. She explained how their area has 17½ acres with 60 families. She felt 116 families in nine acres is too dense a population. Mrs. Meyer referred to the Municipal Planning Code, Section 604, the provisions of the zoning ordinance should be designed to promote, protect and facilitate any of the following: practical community development and proper density of population. She felt that is too many people for one area and it is not a practical community development because the seniors would not have access to anywhere. She reviewed how the comprehensive plan encourages the residents to participate in neighborhoods. She read, to prevent overcrowding of land and congestion and travel. She stated those two things are the most prominent things that are going to happen with this development. She felt that once the R-5 is allowed the property owners on the other side will want to change
Regular Meeting 11 July 15, 2015 their zoning. She reported everyone is using Northern Pike as a short cut to get to Murrysville. Mr. Meyer reported how the comprehensive plan refers to Northern Pike and what can be done to make it more useable. She stated it was discussed about putting in an additional third lane but it was not done because there was not adequate sight distance. She added Northern Pike will never be widened and it should remain a residential area. She inquired whether any traffic studies were done by this group and Mr. Hugus answered it is not required at this point in time because it is a rezoning. He explained if the applicant is successful in going through the entire process they would have to submit a full land development package which will include a traffic study. Mrs. Meyer suggested it is a moot point to do a traffic study after it has been rezoned and the density is put in. Mr. Ralph Greco, a resident, came forward to inquire whether this land has been tested for landslides and Mr. Hugus answered negatively. He stated the rezoning is being considered at this time and when they submit a full land development package that information will be required. Mr. Greco inquired whether once the property is rezoned whether it could be sold for another use at that time and Mr. Williams answered affirmatively. He stated the new owner would have to submit a site plan. He indicated only the rezoning is being discussed at this time and then it could be used for something different. Mr. Greco felt our forefathers zoned the property this way so that it would have property around it with trees. He suggested Monroeville is going to be all asphalt if the development continues and Mr. Williams indicated that is why he requested the S zoning district be contributed to the municipality. Mr. Greco indicated the people in Turnpike Gardens are against this development. Mr. Stan Pittman, a resident, came forward to address the planning commission. He was happy to hear mention of the Comprehensive Plan and he assumed that the planning commission is familiar with it. He had questions and concerns about what will happen to this property futuristically but he was also curious about how it will comply with the comprehensive plan. He cited a few of the strengths and weaknesses noted in the document: That Monroeville has a predominantly sound housing stock, and there is a wide range of housing opportunities with many defined and established neighborhoods. We have a diverse mix of housing types and there is a large concentrated area of woodlands. He stated if the document is accurate and relevant there is no need for this project but it could be argued that it would not be detrimental. He reviewed the noted goals in the document such as the impact of maintaining neighborhood quality, reducing traffic congestion and maintaining magnificent vistas. He pointed out the weaknesses of past developments, steep slope areas, soil limitations and landslide prone soils. He referred to how theses factors were ignored and a recent project was approved. He reviewed documentation was presented and pictures were submitted but the project was approved. He explained how these strengths and weaknesses were presented in the comprehensive plan to use as a guide not as positives or negatives. He felt this plan would be utilized for improving the neighborhoods. He suggested the comprehensive plan is not always referenced during the decision making process.
Regular Meeting 12 July 15, 2015 Mr. Pittman reported that after identifying the strengths and the weaknesses a citizens group was commissioned to develop a vision statement citing their aspirations for the community. He stated this document details the significance the vision will serve in determining the goals, objectives and strategies the municipality must adopt to guide the vision. He briefly reviewed the goals in the comprehensive plan. He felt this project is directly contradictory to accomplishing those goals. He questioned how seriously the plan is considered when the residents worked so diligently to create it. He suggested this project cuts deeply into the strengths of the municipality, particularly the adjacent neighborhood and contributes to the weaknesses sited in the plan. He stated it has a negative impact for accomplishing all the goals. He suggested there is no pressing need for this project. He questioned whether the commission is going to contribute to known problems and ignore lessons learned from the past or do the right thing which is to follow the plan that was developed by the residents. Ms. Virginia Beech, a resident, came forward to express her concerns. She indicated she has discussed this issue with her neighbors, family and friends and they are all tired of the slow progress of urbanization that is taking place. She asserted they moved here because they liked the suburbs and requested they be left to maintain that life style. She requested the commission not make the eastern corridor Northern Pike an island among high rises. She questioned whether they would like a vinyl four-story apartment building in their back yard. Mr. Williams indicated he was not excited about rezoning the property and allowing a hundred feet of high rise. He stated he would be more comfortable with an R- 4 zoning district. Mr. Morgante requested clarification of spot zoning. Mr. Dice explained there is nothing clearly that defines spot zoning in the law. He suggested the commission has to think less about the law and more about what is wanted in the community. Mr. Morgante stated the ambiguity exists and Mr. Dice agreed. Mr. Morgante inquired whether there was other R-5 in the area and Mr. Hugus answered negatively. Mr. Morgante questioned whether there was R-4 in the area and Mr. Hugus answered affirmatively. Mr. Morgante pointed out the difference in R-4 and R-5 is the height restriction and Mr. Hugus agreed. He added in R-4 a three-story garden apartment is permitted and R-5 up to 100 feet is allowed. Mr. Morgante clarified that the commission has to determine whether that excessive height is enough to make it fit into the community plan or not. Mr. Williams answered affirmatively and explained the planning commission makes a recommendation to council. Mr. Morgante stated regardless of the emotions and the potential of the development he wanted to emphasize that point. Mrs. Woodhall questioned whether the plan for the proposed four-story building could be changed the day after it is approved and Mr. Hugus answered affirmatively. Mr. Williams added the property owner could sell the property to anyone after it is rezoned.
Regular Meeting 13 July 15, 2015 Whereupon, Mrs. Woodhall duly made a motion to deny Application No. 15-1-Z. The motion died for lack of a second. Further, Mr. Diel duly made a motion to table Application No. 15-1-Z and Mr. Pokusa seconded it. Upon voice vote, the motion carried with five affirmative votes and one negative vote by Mrs. Woodhall. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Planning Commission, at this time, Mr. Diel duly made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 9:30 p.m. and Mr. Morgante seconded it. Mr. Serafini stated this property was not properly posted. He indicated no signs were placed on the poles and no letters were sent to the neighbors. He felt any action taken at this meeting is moot because it was not done properly and Mr. Hugus disagreed. Further discussion ensued. Whereupon, the motion to adjourn carried with five affirmative votes and one negative vote by Mrs. Woodhall. Respectfully submitted, RW/sam Robert Williams Chairman