Meeting Agenda State College Borough Planning Commission. February 18, Room 304 / 7:00 p.m.

Transcription

1 Page 1 of 11 Meeting Agenda State College Borough Planning Commission Room 304 / 7:00 p.m. I. Call to Order II. Roll Call Michael Roeckel, Chair Anita Genger, Vice Chair Zoe Boniface Charles Dumas Scott Dutt Jon Eich Richard Kalin III. Approval of Minutes February 3, 2016 IV. Chair Report V. Public Hour - Hearing of Citizens VI. Community Planning A. Consideration to Amend the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance to Re-evaluate the Distribution of Affordable Units in a Building. During the January 11 meeting, Borough Council forwarded a request to review the distribution of affordable units in a project as required in the zoning ordinance. Council established a deadline of March 1, 2016 for the Commission to forward a recommendation. Attached to the agenda on pages 10-11, is the January staff memo to assist with the discussion. During the February 3, 2016 discussion, the Commission determined they needed additional time to consider the request and would discuss again at this meeting. The Chair suggested the following language (in red). Development compostion. Inclusionary units shall be mixed with, and not clustered together or segreagated in any way from market-rate units unless the inclusionary units are within ¾ mile of the Penn Sate University campus and the market rate units will be student rentals. In that case the inclusionary units may be clustered to separate students and inclusionary units in a manner acceptable to both the developer and the State College Borough Council.

2 Page 2 of 11 But, due to time constraints it was determined more discussion was needed at this meeting. Planning Staff has the following observations to offer: Consider getting the building constructed and see how the current ordinance works. Changing the ordinance now could make the ordinance more permissive and once changed cannot be made more restrictive. Planning Commission Action: The Commission should review the current ordinance and memo and work toward forwarding a response to Borough Council. Commission action options are listed below. Recommend no change to the current ordinance. Recommend removal of the ordinance language which will allow the owner/developer to determine the location of the affordable units within the building. No recommendation for Council. B. Consideration to Amend the Zoning Ordinance to Exempt the Ph.D. Candidates from the Student Home Zoning Ordinance Requirements. During the February 3, 2016, meeting the Planning Commission continued the discussion on this request. Staff provided a brief presentation on the Graduate School meeting. Commissioners comments from the February 3 meeting included: Expressed concern how this change would address the loss of additional owner-occupied homes in the Borough. Indicated more information is needed to clarify the ill that needs a cure. A question was posed is there really a shortage of rental properties? A comment was made that there are misconceptions about where graduate students can live. It was also noted there is already plenty of rental housing available to graduate students and we need to keep housing available for all types of people. This proposal breaks down into three kinds of issues: 1) focusing on the definition of students, 2) what kind of students would qualify for this kind of exemption, 3) the impact on our affordable housing programs and drawing a balance between rental and owner-occupied units.

3 Page 3 of 11 Staff stated their observations: Concern related to Borough resources being used to promote owneroccupied housing but, at the same time, making a legislative change that would induce more conversions to rental housing in the Borough. Enforcement and non-conforming status challenges. Not clear on how this amendment provides benefit to the Borough over the current conditions. Staff recommends that no change occur at this time. Staff views this as a premature change by looking at one subset of the population without the whole picture reviewed. They suggest this review be done at a later date. Staff notes that there should be more information and education on rental properties in the Borough. Planning Commission Action: The Commission should continue discussions on this topic and provide a recommendation. VII. Official Reports and Correspondence A. Borough Council (BC) B. Land Development Plans C. Staff Updates fence ordinance VIII. Upcoming Meetings Wednesday, March 2, 2016 at 12 p.m. Thursday, March 17, 2016 at 7 p.m. IX. Adjournment

4 Page 4 of 11 Meeting Minutes State College Borough Planning Commission February 3, 2016 The State College Borough Planning Commission (PC) met on Wednesday, February 3, 2016 in the State College Municipal Building, 243 South Allen Street, State College, PA. Chairman Roeckel called the meeting to order at 12:01 p.m. Members Present Michael Roeckel, Chairman; Anita Genger, Vice-Chairman; Zoe Boniface, Charles Dumas, Scott Dutt, Jon Eich and Richard Kalin Also Present Ed LeClear, Planning Director; Anne Messner, Planner/Zoning; Denise Rhoads, Staff Assistant; Mark Saville, Sweetland Engineering; Margaret Gray, Penn State University (PSU); Danile DeBoo, HOK Architects; David Stone, 539 E. Foster Avenue, Peter Morris, 1820 Bayfield Drive and other interested parties Approval of Minutes A motion was made to approve the January 21, 2016 minutes as amended by Mr. Dumas and seconded by Mr. Dutt. The vote was unanimously in favor. Chair Report Chairman Roeckel had nothing to report. Public Hour No one was in the audience who wished to discuss items not on the agenda. Land Development Preliminary Plan New Academic Building, Replacement of Fenske Lab for Chemical Engineering and Biomedical Engineering, UPD Sub-district 5 Zoning District, The Pennsylvania State University (PSU), owner, Sweetland Engineering, Engineer and HOK, Architect Proposal Description from the Engineer, Mark Saville from Sweetland Engineering The new Chemical Engineering and Biomedical Engineering Building will be constructed on the present site of Fenske Laboratory across from Eisenhower Auditorium. It will occupy basically the same footprint area but, will be expanding the total growth square footage. The project will result in a 194,500 square foot facility providing programmable space to meet the growing needs of the two departments.

5 Page 5 of 11 There is an identification of a greenway that they want to build. They will be increasing the impervious area by 77,000 square feet. This project includes the demolition of Fenske Laboratory. They will be looking to advance the Eisenhower walkway. The proposal also includes the preservation of existing major trees, the removal of selected trees and shrubs surrounding the buildings to accommodate construction. There will be a net loss of seven parking spaces that are currently being used for offices in that building. Mr. Saville also discussed storm water management and an underground retention facility. He stated they will be reducing the net run off quality and will be placing a super-extended detention area for this site that will discharge into Thompson Run. Ms. DeBoo, Architect for HOK, gave a brief presentation which included: She stated the first floor is the prominent floor which is 67 feet above street level. She noted the remaining two to four stories of the building are laboratories, graduate student offices, etc. She also noted the intent is to have a green roof. The materials will be like the existing materials; red brick, glass enclosures, using vertical windows to accentuate the height and metal panels alongside the building. Commissioners comments were: Mr. Dumas asked what the increased water usage will be. Mr. Saville stated he could find that number for Mr. Dumas. Mr. Kalin stated he is concerned that the parking lot across from Eisenhower Auditorium will be removed or reduced. Mr. Saville stated there will be a parking presentation forthcoming. Mr. Eich asked what staff s recommendations are. Ms. Messner stated staff believes this proposal is meeting the ordinance requirements. She noted the Design Review Board (DRB) were appreciative of the design. They liked the variety of the stone, brick and glass. They were also appreciative of the green space and the preservation of trees. Mr. Eich asked if there will be LEED standards. Mr. Saville stated they will be pursuing LEED certified and the target is Silver. Mr. Eich asked how the hazard materials in these labs would be disposed of. Ms. DeBoo stated they are working with PSU on this. Mr. Dumas asked if there are any long range plans to deal with the loss of parking across from Eisenhower Auditorium. Mr. Saville stated this project does not impact the public portion of parking. Ms. Boniface asked if any thought has been given to wind tunnel effects. Ms. DeBoo stated in the next two weeks there will be a wind effect study to discuss this issue. Chairman Roeckel asked if you can see the items on top of the building from Eisenhower Auditorium. Ms. DeBoo stated you will be able to see the stacks.

6 Page 6 of 11 Public Comments: Mr. Stone, 539 E. Foster Avenue, stated staff should ask if there will be any incineration of waste on site. Chairman Roeckel asked Ms. DeBoo the question and she stated there will not be any incineration of waste on site. The sites are to be used for the labs. Ms. Messner stated staff will summarize the Commissions comments and forward the comments to the applicant as part of the preliminary plan review letter. Mr. Eich stated he would encourage the Borough to encourage the highest LEED possible. Community Planning Consideration to Amend the Zoning Ordinance to Exempt the Ph.D. Candidates from the Zoning Ordinance Staff noted they were successful in scheduling a meeting with Penn State representatives, including the Graduate School Dean, Dr. Vasilatos-Younken and Director of Local Government and Community Relations, Margaret Gray, to obtain additional information to assist with this zoning amendment request. Highlights of their discussion included: Graduate students do receive stipends. This could be challenging going beyond the doctorate level. There was a discussion on the summary of needs for Ph.D candidates. It was noted some prefer to live alone, some want the most inexpensive housing they can find, some students who bring families would not want to live with other students and most prefer a quiet setting with a convenient location due to hours spent on campus and the lack of transportation. Public Comments: Mr. Stone stated he is concerned about how this proposal can be done in such a way that does not create more density of these types of students. He suggested members and community take the time to find a way to make this work. Mr. Morris, 1820 Bayfield Drive, stated he supports the proposal. He urged the Commission to keep their eye on the prize. He noted graduate students are a distinctive type of student and would make very good neighbors. He also noted Master and Law students should be included in the definition. He urged the Commission to accept this proposal. Commissioners comments included: Ms. Genger asked Mr. Morris how he would handle the issue of losing owner-occupied homes to this proposal. Mr. Morris stated he does not

7 Page 7 of 11 believe this is a problem. He believes this proposal will improve the neighborhood. Mr. Dutt asked for the official definition of a student home. Mr. LeClear read the student home definition directly from the ordinance. Mr. Kalin asked Ms. Klinetob what is the ill she is trying to cure. Ms. Klinetob stated she is trying to change the perception of what graduate students really are. Ms. Boniface stated the question to be considered is: if there is a shortage of rental properties, do these people have a right to rent a house rather than some other kind of facility? It was suggested amending the CID district to be more in line with the Collegiate Overlay. Ms. Genger stated there seems to be some misconceptions. She stated there is already plenty of housing available to graduate students. She noted we need to keep housing available for all types of people. Mr. Eich asked if Ph.D students qualify for the Borough housing programs. Ms. Messner stated staff would bring back an answer to this question at the next meeting. Mr. Eich also noted the Borough is the size of a postage stamp. We do not compare with our Peer Communities. Mr. Eich stated this proposal breaks down into three kinds of issues: 1) focusing on the definition of students 2) what kind of students would qualify for this kind of exemption, 3) the impact on our affordable housing programs and drawing a balance between rental and owner-occupied units. Staff stated their observations are: Concern related to Borough resources being used to promote owner-occupied housing but, at the same time, making a legislative change that would induce more conversions to rental housing in the Borough. Enforcement and non-conforming status challenges. Not clear on how this amendment provides benefit to the Borough over the current conditions. Staff recommends that no change occur at this time. Staff views this as a premature change by looking at one subset of the population without the whole picture reviewed. They suggest this review be done at a later date. Mr. LeClear stated one good thing that has come out of the presentation is the need for more education. Chairman Roeckel asked how staff would go about this. Mr. LeClear stated there are things staff can do such as putting together a Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) s sheet but, it would require staff time. Mr. Dumas stated this is a social/emotional issue and noted we are already moving in the direction that Ms. Klinetob has presented.

8 Page 8 of 11 Chairman Roeckel stated if the problem can be solved with the current ordinance, why change it. Consideration to Amend the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance to Re-evaluate the Distribution of Affordable Units in a Building. Chairman Roeckel stated he reviewed the Council meeting of January 11. He noted those members who spoke at that meeting were looking for flexibility. Chairman Roeckel stated he believes those students who live three quarters of a mile from downtown are easier to get along with than those who live downtown. Mr. Kalin asked if this is enforceable and do we have a definition of student rentals? Mr. Eich stated there seems to be a change being contemplated to suit the desires of one proposed unit. He stated he does not want to rush into making a change. Chairman Roeckel did not agree. Staff presented a memorandum to assist with this discussion. Past Commission comments included: Recommend no change to the current ordinance. Recommend removal of the ordinance language which will allow the owner/developer to determine the location of the affordable units within the building. No recommendation for Council. Mr. Dutt suggested this topic be put on the next agenda. Staff stated this could be done. Work Item A motion to nominate Ms. Boniface as the Centre Region Planning Commission (CRPC) alternate was made by Chairman Roeckel and seconded by Mr. Dumas. The vote was unanimously in favor. Official Reports and Correspondence Borough Council (BC): Mr. LeClear reported Council is thinking of moving forward on the Martin Luther King Plaza in the near future. Land Development Plans: Ms. Messner reported there is a plan coming up for the Ag Engineering Building. She also noted there was a scoping meeting for the traffic study for The Rise project. She stated the developers need to put together a report with current traffic counts and give them to staff. Staff Updates - Fence Ordinance: Ms. Messner distributed the ordinance in a formatted style for adoption for the Commission to review.

9 Page 9 of 11 Mr. Eich suggested setting up a meeting to hear what the changes are for The Metropolitan. Ms. Messner asked what type of information he is looking for because the FAR has not changed. Upcoming Meetings include: Thursday, at 7 p.m. Wednesday, March 2, 2016 at 12 p.m. Adjournment With no further business to discuss, Mr. Dutt made a motion to adjourn this meeting at 2:29 p.m. Respectfully submitted by, Denise L. Rhoads, Staff Assistant

10 Page 10 of 11 STATE COLLEGE BOROUGH interoffice MEMORANDUM PLANNING DEPARTMENT to: Planning Commission from: Planning Staff subject: Inclusionary Housing Text Amendment date: January 15, 2016 During the January 11, 2016 Council meeting, Council authorized re-examining the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance limited to the requirement to distribute affordable units throughout the building. Background During Council s review and discussion of the recently approved Conditional Use Permit for 532 and 538 East College Avenue, there was some discussion on the current Zoning Code requirements for the affordable units to be mixed with the market-rate units. Council indicated during the December 21, 2015 meeting this specific requirement should be revisited for a possible Zoning Ordinance text amendment. Council motioned to ask the Planning Commission to review the current specific requirement contained in the Zoning Ordinance that prohibits inclusionary housing units from being segregated from market rate units, and provide a recommendation as to whether or not this section of the inclusionary housing requirements should be amended. Council set a deadline of March 1, 2016 for the Planning Commission to take up this issue and develop a recommendation for Borough Council. Council also supported the Staff recommendation that consideration only be given to this narrow request for review and recommend action only on the unit distribution/segregation issue. Any broader review and discussion of the inclusionary housing requirements contained in the Zoning Code should be taken up as part of the comprehensive Zoning Code review and update. Current Requirements The current Zoning Ordinance requirements found in Section 1952.a. General Requirements for Inclusionary Units.(2) Development Composition. Inclusionary units shall be mixed with, and not clustered together or segregated in any way from, market-rate units. 1

11 Page 11 of 11 Staff Review and Recommendations to Consider Planning staff reviewed other inclusionary ordinances that have been enacted by other municipalities throughout the country. Two themes emerged from the review and they are listed below. 1. Roughly half of the ordinances reviewed had language similar to the Borough s current requirements. 2. The remaining ordinances reviewed noted a negotiation occur with the developer (but gave no guidance for such a negotiation) or the ordinance was silent as to the distribution of the units. It should be noted staff did not find any ordinances that mandated a certain type of distribution or specific way (or threshold) for clustering of units within their ordinances. Staff believes based on the review of other ordinances two options emerge for the location of the affordable units within a building and they are listed below: 1. Recommend no change to the current ordinance. 2. Recommend removal of the ordinance language which will allow the owner/developer to determine the location of the affordable units within the building. 3. No recommendation for Council. 2