The Morgantown Planning Commission on a motion tabled a zoning map amendment request from Jennifer Tucker to reclassify two adjacent lots at the intersection of Van Gilder, Proxman and Stewart streets, citing unresolved questions about parking, lot constraints and appropriate zoning. The commission asked staff to meet with the applicant and return the item to the next agenda.

The rezoning request — identified in the meeting packet as MAP25-79 — would change the property from its current single-family classification toward a multifamily district. Jennifer Tucker, the applicant, told the commission she plans “to put the parking underneath and the residential units above” and that she is considering about “6 to 8” rental units on the site. Tucker said she inherited the property from her father and that the existing single-family structure would be removed before any development.

The proposal prompted sustained discussion about whether R‑3 (multifamily) or R‑2 with a conditional-use approach would better match the neighborhood. A planning staff member explained the staff recommendation that the rezoning is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the land-management guidance for the corridor; staff also noted an existing apartment building across the street and several multifamily parcels nearby. The same staff member said the combined parcel measures roughly 100 by 65 feet (about 6,500 square feet), and that dimensional standards — minimum front setback 10 feet, side setback 5 feet and rear setback 20 feet — and lot-coverage rules will strongly constrain what can be built.

Neighbors raised traffic and pedestrian-safety concerns at the spotty intersection that residents call “Spaghetti Junction.” David, who identified himself as a resident at 301 Raymond Street, said crossing to nearby green space is difficult and urged attention to crosswalks and stop controls. A commissioner and staff pointed to recent regional planning discussions (at the MMMPO) that have identified the intersection as a possible site for reconfiguration should right-of-way become available; staff said the city holds an adjacent parcel for that potential project.

Commissioners debated how to secure neighborhood goals such as on-site parking and a design that fits the area. A planning staff member said parking requirements are keyed to unit bedroom counts and gave one example: “If you did 8 total units with 2 bedrooms each, you would have to have at least 12 off-street parking” under current rules. Commissioners noted that a rezoning to R‑3 would allow broader by-right uses later, and that R‑2 would preserve the conditional-use review step that requires more detailed plans and public hearings before multifamily construction.

Because rezoning to R‑2 could also change development standards (including lot coverage — staff said R‑2 allows about 50% lot coverage versus roughly 40% in R‑3) and might make the site harder to develop given setbacks, staff recommended additional consultation with the applicant. The commission voted to table the item and asked staff to return with the applicant’s preferences and any technical analysis of what could be built under R‑2 versus R‑3, including whether the lots must be consolidated or handled by deed restriction or minor subdivision before development.

The item will return to the commission’s next meeting for further action after staff and the applicant meet to clarify the development path and required approvals, which could include conditional-use review or variance requests to the Board of Zoning Appeals if dimensional standards cannot be met.