Board of Zoning Appeals

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS The regular meeting of the Board of Zoning Appeals was held on May 1, 2014 at 7:00 p.m. in the Public Safety Building located at 500 Quincy Street. Vice President Kevin McClung called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and asked for a roll call. ROLL CALL OF MEMBERS Present: Absent: President Richard Wood Vice President Kevin McClung Alternate Mike Burkovich Board Member Raymond Friend Board Member John Six Board Member Joe Manchin City Staff Present: City Planner Katherine Wyrosdick Recording Secretary Martha Richards APPROVAL OF MINUTES Vice President Kevin McClung asked for a motion to approve the minutes from April 3, 2014. Board Member John Six motioned to approve the minutes. Board Member Raymond Friend seconded the motion. Minutes were approved 4-0. PUBLIC HEARINGS FOR May 1, 2014 Vice President Kevin McClung: Public hearings for May 1, 2014, first public hearing is Rudy Zaccagnini is requesting to rebuild a nonconforming carport in the front of his home at 178 Circle Drive which was destroyed by heavy snow. Section 1317.01(d)(4) requires all accessory buildings be located within the rear yard. (Tax Map 01-18, parcel 147) I ask for a staff report for this. City Planner Katherine Wyrosdick: Thank you. The applicant is requesting a variance to rebuild a carport that was destroyed during inclement weather during this past winter. As the article 1317.01(d)(4) requires all accessory structures must be located in the side or rear yard. Because the carport is located in Mr. Zaccagnini’s front yard, a variance is being sought. There are two issues under consideration by the Board of Zoning Appeals; the location of the carport in the front yard, and the location of the carport within 2’ of the side yard which would normally require a setback of 5’. The proposal is only 2’ because that is where the carport had been originally located. Due to the slope of the lot, and that the home takes Page 1 of 17 up the side yard of the home, there really is no other location but the front of the home, so staff is recommending approval of the carport being located in the front of the home. Staff does not see justification to allow the carport within 5’ of the property lines; staff does not support the variance to allow it to encroach within 5’ of the side yard setback. And with that, that concludes my recommendation. Vice President Kevin McClung: With that said, we’ll open the public hearing portion, and I’ll ask if there is anyone present to speak for the request before the Board? Mr. Zaccagnini: I am Rudy Zaccagnini. We’ve been in that residence for 55 years. I built the awning when I was a contractor, and I was a contractor under North Central Builders Supply for 50 years. I installed this awning with the men that I had working with me at that time, and it is a very sturdy awning, with heavy duty aluminum. But the 4’ of snow and ice crumbled it, of course, and it came down on my car. I would like to replace it with good heavy-duty treated lumber, and I’m going to use 6’ by 4’ posts, and it will be a very stout subject. It will give me someplace to put my car I have a garage that we keep our family car in, but my van I use, would be outside constantly and not very comfortable when it’s cold. I need to use it. That’s about it. I hate to lose the ability to use it, and have my automobile covered. Thank you. Vice President Kevin McClung: Is there anyone else present that wishes to speak for this request? None. Vice President Kevin McClung: I’ll ask is there anyone present that wishes to speak against this request before the BZA? Mr. Moroose: My name is Mark Moroose. I live at 180 Circle Drive. I actually live to the right-facing side of this carport. This carport, actually, I know you have pictures of this carport, but you probably don’t have pictures of when it was actually up and where it was constructed under the old map. City Planner Katherine Wyrosdick: We do. We pulled it off Google Earth. Mr. Moroose: So you can see how close it is. City Planner Katherine Wyrosdick: Yes. Mr. Moroose: Ok. Also, the corner of the concrete slab, it is actually from the corner of my house to the corner of the slab, 4’ 2”. Is that way too close? City Planner Katherine Wyrosdisck: The required setback for the structure is 5’ from the property line, and that is what we’re recommending and that it be upheld, but that the structure can be rebuilt in the front yard. Mr. Moroose: Well, I’m opposed to it, because, like I said, it’s right on top of my house. I am concerned, of course, if there is ever a fire, it’s just way too close. Vice President Kevin McClung: Thank you. Is there anyone else present to speak against this request? None. Page 2 of 17 Vice President Kevin McClung: Are there were any agency comments against this request? City Planner Katherine Wyrosdick: There were no negative comments regarding this request. Vice President Kevin McClung: I will now look for a motion to close this Public Hearing. Board Member Joe Manchin: Motion to close. Board Member John Six: Second. The vote is 4-0 to close the public hearing. Discussion between McClung, Six, Friend, Manchin, Wyrosdick, and Mr. Zaccagnini about Mr. Zaccagnini’s options to rebuild his carport. If Mr. Zaccagnini meets the 5’ setback requirement, he won’t be able to turn into his carport. Detailed discussion about the possibility of rebuilding the carport over the whole driveway would give him room to make a turn more conveniently into his property. Mr. Zaccagnini: I’ll do it! Thank you for explaining it to me. More discussion between the Board and Mr. Moroose, clarifying code details. Mr. Moroose: Yes, that’s fine. Mr. Zaccagnini: I had a fence along the side of the neighbor’s yard; would that fence still carry there? I don’t think it’s going to be a problem. Vice President Kevin McClung: Your fence can stay there. City Planner Kathy Wyrosdick: A fence in the front yard, so if it goes in front of your house, can be no higher than 4’, so it can be on the property line. Vice President Kevin McClung: Any further discussion? None. Vice President Kevin McClung: Do we have a motion? Board Member John Six: I make a motion that would allow Mr. Zaccagnini to rebuild a carport in the front, considering that he stays within the 5’ boundaries of the property line, the setback on the property line, and has agreed to build the carport on the other side of the driveway to allow access. Vice President Kevin McClung: The motion, as I understand it, is to allow Mr. Zaccagnini to build a carport in his front yard, however, he is to maintain the 5’ side yard setback. Do I have a second? Board Member Raymond Friend: Second. Motion approved 4-0. Vice President Kevin McClung: Public hearing #2, which is Greg Hrapchak representing BGP LLC is requesting to expand a non-conforming use within an existing building located at 425/425 1/2 Walnut Page 3 of 17 Avenue. The applicant wishes to renovate and occupy seven apartments at this location where only four may be permitted. Ordinance 1331.02(z). (Tax Map 01-02, parcel 27) Board Member Joe Manchin: Excuse me, is that to occupy ten apartments or seven? My statement says it will occupy ten apartments. City Planner Katherine Wyrosdick: It’s ten. There are two buildings. Vice President Kevin McClung: Kathy, will you please give us a staff report? City Planner Katherine Wyrosdick: Thank you. The property in question, 425/425 ½ Walnut Avenue is currently zoned neighborhood residential. Because of that zoning district, the number of dwelling units that are permitted on a piece of property is based on the size of the lot. The size of this lot would allow only four residential dwelling units to be built, if they were built new. There currently are two buildings on this property that occupy, or have a total of, ten apartments within the two buildings. The apartments have not been registered with the city for a number of years, therefore, the property has lost its grandfathering. This issue has come before the Board of Zoning Appeals on a number of cases, so it is not new to the Board. Typically, when a request to expand a non-conforming use, which is what’s under consideration tonight, is brought, the issue at hand is really looking at can parking be accommodated for what’s being proposed because, if parking cannot be accommodated, it will have a significant negative impact on the surrounding residents in those neighborhoods. So, the proposal is to re-occupy two of the buildings with three one-bedroom apartments with the building in the front, and three one-bedroom apartments to two-bed apartments or, perhaps, seven one-bedroom apartments with the building in the back. It’s a total of ten apartments, and 12 parking spaces, by my calculation, that would be required. This would be a one-to-one ratio, one parking space for every bedroom that’s in an apartment. In order to accommodate this, the applicant has proposed a site plan for the parking. As you can see, by the site plan that was submitted, there would be three parking spaces accommodated on street on Walnut Avenue, and there are an additional, excuse me there are ten parking spaces that are required, and there are seven that the applicant is proposing to incorporate within the interior of the lot between the front and the back building, with two of the parking spaces being within garages that are existing in the building. With this proposal, and I’ve just had an opportunity to review it… the applicant had designed and submitted it with the request for the expansion of the non-conforming use to the Board… the concerns that staff has noted with this proposal are that these parking spaces, although the dimensions of each space meet our requirements, the landscaping, internal circulation, and the access to and from these spaces do not meet city code requirements. There is a very small, narrow 8’ driveway that would be accessed off of the alley that exists now. You have pictures within your staff report, but also I took some new pictures today to share with you, particularly with that 8’ access, and typically we would require a 24’ wide driveway, or two-way access, and this would be two-way access. There’s a one-way in and one-way out. And given that the building is built right up on the alley, there is no site distance for people leaving the site and it’s a very tight turn. I’m not sure people can get in and out of that site with that very tight turning radius. There would be very little landscaping, and the internal circulation, I can’t see where it could be achieved for people getting in and out of those spaces. Because of that issue, because those parking spaces do not meet current city code standards for parking, access, and internal circulation, staff does not support the expansion of the non-conforming use to this extent. Staff would support the three apartments within the front building because they could be accommodated with on-street parking. But staff does not support the back building being re-occupied with the current parking the way it is. And with that, I will end my staff report. Vice President Kevin McClung: Is there anyone here this evening wishing to support this request? If so, please step forward and state your name and address. Page 4 of 17 Mr. Hrapchak: Greg Hrapchak. Vice President Kevin McClung: Explain your reason for being here. Mr. Hrapchak: The reasons why I need this to happen… number one, the property was valued at $110,000, and I have a two-year old appraisal on the property, and, of that $110,000, obviously, there’s a note on that, and it would definitely prove hardship if I couldn’t develop both buildings at this time. We are planning on putting upwards of $100,000 into the two buildings. We’ll be sprinkling the front building. The rear building will be total new construction, gutted inside, firewalls, everything brand new, front and back. We’re looking at its value of $110,000 right now, we putting in $100,000 in it, we’re going to have a $240,000 piece of property on Walnut Avenue. I’m doing something good for the community here by cleaning up a neighborhood that’s obviously going a long way. If I can’t continue, it will definitely create a hardship with me being on the property and not have the opportunity to recoup my investment which I have there. I’m asking the zoning committee what other alternatives can there be to this; I’ve given ample evidence of on-street parking, I’ve met earlier with people in the city building, and this is something new to me. This is the first I’ve heard of this. I don’t know where to go from here. If you’re opposed to it, I guess I have to go to the next level, unless there’s something that can be worked out. Vice President Kevin McClung: Any questions? Board Member John Six: You were only planning access to the area around the front building by the back alley? Mr. Hrapchak: No. The front building is 78’… we can put three cars in the front with on-street parking, for the front. For the rear building, you come off the alleyway, and there’s a driveway right there. And, you said by city code, you require 24’ – is that correct? Is that what you said? City Planner Katherine Wyrosdick: Yes. Two-way. Mr. Hrapchak: Like I said, in earlier discussions, this was never brought up to me. I would’ve been prepared for this. City Planner Katherine Wyrosdick: To respond to that, Mr. Hrapchak, as you may recall, we just had aerials to respond to. I did mention that parking did have to meet city code, and the first time I had a site plan was when you brought this application in and did not have an opportunity to properly review it at that time, up until the night of this meeting. Mr. Hrapchak: I’m definitely doing justice to the neighborhood. Can I bring some pictures forward? Discussion about descriptions of pictures which are of the apartment building, and the alleyway. Mr. Hrapchak: Anticipating also, on the front of the building, we’re tearing this whole porch down clear around the building, taking the fire escape down, sprinkling the building, off street parking right here… aluminum fencing on both sides of the property… security in the building, cameras. Board Member John Six: You’re tearing the fire escape off? Page 5 of 17 Mr. Hrapchak: Ken was checking on that. He seems to think, if we sprinkle the front building, and I’m going to sprinkle the front of the building, that the fire escapes are a thing of the past, that’s a big thing Rick MacRoy was doing and he feels we won’t be needing the fire escapes, and it will clean up the landscape of the building, take the porch off clear around, and put a new entrance to the front. And that building, we’re going to restore all the woodwork and put three studio apartments in there. Board Member John Six: Would that give opportunity for driveways from the front? Mr. Hrapchak: Well, you’d have to cross the sidewalk. City Planner Katherine Wyroskdick: But, you can get a driveway permit to do that. Mr. Hrapchak: That’s an alternative, and we have no problem with that. Maybe a driveway permit, an entrance in the front and exit out the back. It would be a lot easier to exit the back, then to turn into the back and come in. Vice President Kevin McClung: What’s in the rear – a courtyard, near parking space #6? Mr. Hrapchak: That’s a little building we’re going to tear down, again to clean it up. Vice Presidente Kevin McClung: No, here. Mr. Hrapchak: Yes, I’m sorry, that’s a courtyard. Vice President Kevin McClung: My concern is you’ve got double stack parking here, and only one 8’ driveway out. Mr. Hrapchak: I mean, if you guys can grant me a variance to cross that sidewalk… City Planner Katherine Wyrosdick: There is no variance to cross a sidewalk. You’d have to get a permit. Mr. Hrapchak: I can’t be denied that, is that what you’re saying? City Planner Katherine Wyrosdick: No. I’m not saying that. You’d have to build it to city specifications, and it would be dependent on the Public Works approval of your driveway permit. Mr. Hrapchak: No one else has taken on improvement of Walnut Avenue. Discussion about improvement of the neighborhood and Hrapchak investment. More discussion about parking requirements, city code, width of a one-way driveway, counting spaces, garages within the building. Calculating apartment ratios to parking spaces. City Planner Katherine Wyrosdick: I’d like to remind everyone that the public hearing is still open, and, after the hearing I would be happy to talk more with Mr. Hrapchak. Or you can call my office to speak further. Mr. Hrapchack: In closing, I certainly hope you guys will work with me on this. It’s a $100,000 I’m investing right now. I please hope you’ll work with me on this. Thank you very much. McClung: Anyone else present wishing to speak for the variance presented? Page 6 of 17 None. Vice President Kevin McClung: Is there anyone present wishing to speak against the variance? Mr. Zicafoose: My name is Mr. Zicafoose, and I live on 429 Walnut Avenue. I’m the blue house just to the left of his. The only thing that has me concerned about having multiple parking in the back yard, is that there used to be a firehouse substation behind my house, in 2003, I think the deed said, they went and tried to replace the roof on the property, and the property fell in. And I have a wall that’s starting to lean up against that property line… that brick wall that you see against that property line. The only issue that I’m seeing is, if I put in a wall back there, and I put something in to hold back everything that needs to be held back, back there, is the traffic that’s going to be coming in, and up and down that road, right on my property line, going to cause me an issue down the road. That’s the only concern I see. I’m for anybody wanting to put money into my block; I’m for anybody wanting to add value to my property and the quality of life on that street. My concern is, is that traffic going to cause me issue when I go to get my permits to put a wall up back there with my 5’ variance off of that to do everything, because I’ve looked at the code… when I go to put that wall up, is the traffic going to cause me an issue? City Planner Katherine Wyrosdick: I don’t know that anyone on this Board can sit here today and tell you yes or now to that. Only time will tell, and only the final design of that site will eventually may, or may not, impact your property. We just don’t know that at this time. Vice President Kevin McClung: Are you asking because you’re about to build… ? Mr. Zicafoose: No, I’m not going to build anything. But because the codes are in for the 5’ variance, and the ways you have to build, what I’m saying is, those codes are there for a purpose and the purpose is usually because engineers have noticed, over time, that problems occur. And with the traffic, coming up and down that, 3 times a day, 7 cars a day, is that going to be an eventful issue for me, and that’s what I have to think about – and something you need to think about. City Planner Katherine Wyrosdick: The most that we can require of a property owner when they improve their property, is to meet the codes and standards that we have on our books, and to engineer the site to uphold those codes and standards. We take them through that process and they do everything they’re supposed to do, so the city has met its obligation. If it becomes a civil issue, and it’s negatively impacting your property, then it becomes a civil issue. We can’t do any sort of premonition about what might happen. Mr. Zicafoose: I understand that. I’m neither for nor against this. It was a personal concern that I had. Whatever you decide. Vice President Kevin McClung: Anyone else present who’s against this? None. Vice President Kevin McClung: Any agency comments on this? City Planner Katherine Wyrosdick: There were no negative agency comments. Vice President Kevin McClung: I need a motion to close the public portion of the hearing. Page 7 of 17 Board Member Joe Manchin: Motion to close. Board Member John Six: Second Motion is 4-0 to close the public hearing. Vice President Kevin McClung: Any Discussion? Board Member John Six: If you’re talking about this second driveway, that just changes the whole layout of the parking. City Planner Katherine Wyrosdick: My recommendation is, we would like to see a redesign of the site, and that you table the matter and give Mr. Hrapchak an opportunity to redesign the site. That would also give staff ample time to review that against our standards rather than trying to site design his property tonight. This will give Mr. Hrapchak the opportunity to meet with his architect to review his site. If you choose to do this, please table it to a specific date so we don’t have to re-notice the public hearing. If that’s going to be next month, please make that as part of your motion to table it to next month. Board Member Joe Manchin: Is this with the consideration that he could apply for driveway permits, as far as a redesign. Is that part of the options that are available to him? City Planner Katherine Wyrosdick: Yes. If that is the direction you want to go, it would allow him to try to redesign the site to accommodate all of the parking, with the thought that there would be a secondary point of access to Walnut Avenue. Discussion between Manchin, Friend, and Mr. Hrapchak about logistics of cars coming in and out of driveway at various times of the day, blocking each other in, etc. Board Member Joe Manchin: Kathy is asking to make this date specific so you don’t have to send out notice again. What is the date that you would recommend? City Planner Katherine Wyrosdick: I would suggest next month, if you think you can get the site redesigned. Mr. Hrapchak: I can have it done by next week. City Planner Katherine Wyrosdick: If he can have the redesign of the site by next week, we need the application materials 25 days prior to the next month’s meeting, would be appropriate, and then at that time if there’s something else that needs to happen, you can table it again to the next month. Mr. Hrapchak: What do you mean by table it? City Planner Katherine Wyrosdick: That means you would need to bring your information back to the BZA, and they would wait on their decision until the next time. Mr. Hrapchak: Do I need to resubmit to the city also? City Planner Katherine Wyrosdick: Yes. Mr. Hrapchak: Do I have to pay the application fee? Page 8 of 17 City Planner Katherine Wyrosdick: No. But you will need to resubmit by next week, if you think you can do that. If you need more time, then I suggest we table it until July. Mr. Hrapchak: No. I want to start this right now. Can I ask one more question? Am I wasting my time here? Is this something that’s workable? City Planner Katherine Wyrosdick: That would be dependent on how you work with your designer and how you design the site. If you want to come in and have another meeting with me prior to finalizing your plans, then that’s what I suggest you do. You can call my office tomorrow morning. Mr. Hrapchak: I’ll call your office in the morning. Thank you very much. Vice President Kevin McClung: We need a motion? Board Member Raymond Friend: I make a motion, based on the information I have now, to table this hearing until the next BZA meeting next month. Vice President Kevin McClung: Do we have a second? Board Member John Six: Second Vote is 4-0 to table the hearing. Vice President Kevin McClung: Your request is tabled until the next BZA meeting. Mr. Hrapchak: I need to have my plans in by when? Board Member Raymond Friend: 25 days before the next meeting. City Planner Katherine Wyrosdick: When we talk tomorrow morning, I will give you the deadline. Mr. Hrapchak: May I ask for an extension, if need be? Like a couple days beyond whatever… City Planner Katherine Wyrosdick: When we talk tomorrow, we’ll figure that out. Vice President Kevin McClung: Moving on to Public Hearing #3. Michael DeVault of DeVault Brothers LLC on behalf of Gwynn Tire, is requesting a variance from the Fairmont City Code, Section 1763.09 (b) (1) (On Premise Signs for Zoning Districts, Business Districts) at his business which requires that the aggregate area for all signs and be limited to one (1) square foot per one (1) lineal foot of street frontage with a maximum aggregate area of one hundred (100) square feet. The proposed wall sign to be placed is approximately 144 square feet. (Tax Map 01-05, parcel 09). Kathy, will you please give us a staff report. City Planner Katherine Wyrosdick: Thank you. The property in question is zoned main corridor commercial. The request is for a wall sign to be placed on a building that exceeds the maximum square footage that is permitted under our sign code. The maximum that is permitted is 100 square feet and the proposed is 144 square feet. There are individual letters that are to be placed on top of a wall that faces Fairmont Avenue, for a total of 144 square feet. This is a variance request, not a request for a non- conforming use or anything like that because I think you’ve had those brought before you. And, with a Page 9 of 17 variance request, there are five findings of fact that the Board must find affirmatively all five have been met in order to approve a variance. The five findings of fact, as required in our code for the Board of Zoning Appeals states that the proposal will not adversely affect the public health, safety, or welfare rights of the adjacent property owners’ residents or the neighborhood. Staff comment to this fact is the sign standards are meant to reduce the visual impact of signs within the city, the applicants request has not been justified by any features to the site. However, the applicant, and I know there is a representative here tonight, states that the size of the building is what justifies the requested variance. However, the size of the building is not unique to any of the buildings along the corridor. Second, that the variance arises from special conditions or attributes pertaining to the property seeking the variance. The property in question is similar in scale and size to other properties within the same corridor. The property is a standard shaped lot, with 160’ of frontage along Fairmont Avenue with no unique or challenging features, and the building is existing. Three, that the variance request will eliminate an unnecessary hardship and permit a reasonable use of the land. No unnecessary hardship has been identified for the requested variance. That it will allow the intent of the zoning ordinance to be observed and substantial justice done, and that variance standard is usually reserved for discussion by the Board of Zoning Appeals, whether or not… (could not hear). And, five, is this the minimum variance that will accomplish the purpose? The applicant is requesting an increase in allowable signage for the business due to a recent building remodel. This criteria cannot be determined with this review. With that, staff does not recommend the variance request because all five findings of fact have not been met. Vice President Kevin McClung: Thank you, Kathy. Is there anyone present to speak for the request? Please state your name and address. Mr. DeVault: Tyler Devalut, 750 Fairmont Avenue. We refaced the front of the building operated on Fairmont Avenue. We’re going to put the name across the top of the building with 4’ letters, right in the center. I have pictures, I assume you have pictures, too. We’re not obstructing anyone’s view, it’s on the corner of the street, I can see 100 square foot on the corner of the street, and it is attached to the building, not lit up on the building, I don’t see why 144 square feet… (could not hear). The whole frontage of the building has 3124 square feet, so a small percentage of the building… I took a few pictures of other businesses in Fairmont; Shop N’Save, they have 288 square feet, 48’ long by 6’ tall letters, and 4’ letters. Also, Radio Shack sign is approximately 120 square feet, and Radio Shack’s building compared to Gwynn Tire’s building, percentage-wise, isn’t even close. Rite Aid has two signs at the corner, they’re approximately 150 square feet each. Both signs, totaling 300 square feet. And Thompson Repair Service, on Morgantown Avenue, their letters are about 3’ tall and 21 letters. We’re doing 4’ tall and 9 letters. So, obviously, their square footage is way bigger than ours. So, those are a few examples in town I thought would be brought up tonight. I can show you the pictures of the businesses. Board Member Joe Manchin: Sir, how long has Gwynn Tire been at that location? Mr. DeVault: We’ve been at that location since 1993, and in business since 1938 in Fairmont. Board Member Joe Manchin: And you’re local; are you a franchised business? Mr. DeVault: No. Homegrown. I’m Charlies’s son, my grandfather owned the business. They’re both out of town this evening. I work there fulltime, and it’s going to be mine eventually, and we’re going to go on with the family business. So, I’m here to speak on my behalf and my father’s behalf, and I’m looking at from now forward. So, to close, obviously, I thought it would be a percentage of the front of the building, not just 100 square feet. I think it should be a percentage of the entire building. Like, Shop N’ Save is 288 square feet; our building size is at least as big as theirs, as far as the frontage of the building, and we’re worrying about 44 square feet, I don’t think it’s a big issue. Page 10 of 17 Photos get passed around; there is discussion about the photos. Vice President Kevin McClung: Is there anyone else present wishing to speak who may have something to add that hasn’t already been presented? Please step forward and state your name and address. Mr. Bennett: My name is Gary K. Bennett, I am managing member of Bennett, Dobbins, ??, LLC, Accounting Firm located at 317 Cleveland Avenue. I’m here tonight to speak in favor of the variance for Gwynn Tire. First of all, it’s important for you to know that Gwynn Tire is not my client. My client represented tonight is the City of Fairmont; tomorrow, I’ll probably be looking for a job. But, I want to do what is right. Gwynn Tire has operated in the City of Fairmont and owned by the DeVault family since 1961 in three different locations in Fairmont. In August 2008, Gwynn Tire was recognized by the Marion County Chamber of Commerce as the Small Business of the Year. This is a business that wants to give back, and is known for supporting the community whether it’s through their little league baseball teams or local golf tournaments. At their initiative, the DeVault family decided to renovate their facility on Fairmont Avenue. From a business perspective, I think this was a mistake. This will not increase their business one dollar. Their customers are there because of the quality, work, and service which they provide. It has nothing to do with what the building looks like. That was their decision. This, again, them wanting to do that is an example of good citizens of the friendly city. They even received a letter from the City of Fairmont congratulating them on making this renovation, to make a facelift for Fairmont Avenue. The next week, they received your letter saying, “Sorry! You cannot put up your sign.” I believe what is needed, in the planning area of the City of Fairmont, needs to do a better job of communicating all of the requirements of a project, not just dealing with questions asked. To use the “gotcha” method, is not working. To say you should have asked, or you should have known, doesn’t really get it. These people are in the tire business and auto repair business. I think this illustrates tonight, you didn’t ask. As an example of the current mode of operation, recently cost the city 50 fulltime high paying jobs with Rogers Electrical. After changing the requirements on them three different times, the owner said, I’m sure Pleasant Valley would like to have me, and he went there. I respectfully request that the variance request be granted. This city needs to do everything it can to encourage business, not to just continually have some reason to say, “Oh, no, you shouldn’t do that.” Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Vice President Kevin McClung: Thank you. Is there anyone else here wishing to speak for the request? Mr. Wyant: I am Jim Wyant of JD Signs, and we’re the ones proposing the job with Gwynn Tire. We operate in probably 30 some cities that we have licenses and get permits for throughout the State of West Virginia. On occasions, we do have to get a variance for a sign. We are rarely, rarely ever denied. We’ve never been completely denied. We may get partial granting of what we’ve requested, but we have a success rate of 99% for any variance that we’ve ever gone for in any other city. This request for this small, larger portion of this signage, we think is very reasonable for the size of the building, the store front, personally I think it could even be there… but, if you want to get technical about it, the actual strip of each letter, say the letter “I,” 4’ tall, say it’s 12” wide, if we make it through the entire set of Gwynn Tire, we are shy of 72 square feet, of actual signage. We don’t have a sign background, we’re using the building as the background. So, technically, we are using 72 square feet for signage. I think it’s a good request. It ought to be a reasonable variance. Vice President Kevin McClung: Thank you. Is there anyone else present wishing to speak to the proposal? Page 11 of 17 Mr. VanGilder: I am Ernie Vangilder with the County Commission. Two weeks ago we also commended the DeVault’s for the work they’ve done beautifying the downtown entrance, and I commended them on using their own money and their facilities, and I agree with Mr. Bennet, as well, that it may not have been the best business decision, but it sure says they care an awful lot about their community, about their downtown, and I would hope you would grant them this variance. We need to keep people like him in this community, and we should reach out for more just like him. Vice President Kevin McClung: Thank you. Anyone else present wishing to speak? None. Vice President Kevin McClung: Is there anyone wishing to speak against this request? None. Vice President Kevin McClung: Were there any agency comments? City Planner Katherine Wyrosdick: There were no negative agency comments. Vice President Kevin McClung: I’ll ask for a motion to close the public hearing. Board Member Joe Manchin: So moved. Board Member Raymond Friend: Second. The vote is 4-0 to close the public hearing. Vice President Kevin McClung: Board discussion. Board Member John Six: They bring up an interesting point about the full coverage of each letter. Is that designated in there? City Planner Katherine Wyrosdick: The typical way of calculating a wall sign is that you draw a box around the words, instead of following the lines of each letter, and that is what we’ve consistently applied. The only change to that would be if the height of the letter would vary, so, say the G or T were taller, then you wouldn’t start your box at that height, you would drop down and following the top and bottom of each word. Traditionally, we have looked at the entire word, instead of each individual letter. Now, there would be some spacing in between the two words, but not each individual letter. Board Member John Six: But, it will not drop them below 44 ft. City Planner Katherine Wyrosdick: No, it will not drop them below 44 ft. Board Member Joe Manchin: I’m glad that people actually came to speak in support of this. I think it’s very important that local businesses are appreciated, and stood up for. Looking at this sign – it’s esthetically pleasing, and, really, it is very noticeable the changes that have been made to that building. I’ve been a customer there for years, myself. And this has nothing to do with the staff, what they do, they’re just following by the book. But, I just feel there are situations sometimes where if a person needs a little bit of help, that we stand up and say we appreciate you. And, if no one was here to stand up for you tonight, I was ready to do so. That’s why I asked how long you’d been here, if you’re franchised, if Page 12 of 17 you’re local, I was trying to stress that point. I don’t know if there’s further discussion, but I would like to make a motion that we do approve the variance that is requested. Vice President Kevin McClung: There is a motion that we approve the request. Board Member John Six: Second. Vice President Kevin McClung: We can have a discussion. Board Member John Six: Mr. DeVault, are these letters made? Mr. DeVault: Yes. Board Member John Six: They’re ready to be applied? Mr. Wyant: Yes. Vice President Kevin McClung: So we have a motion to accept the variance request and a second. Motion to approve is 4-0. Vice President Kevin McClung: Let the record show that Ray Friend recused himself from the next public hearing due to being a member of the South Ridge church. Is there any way we can combine these last two since they’re the same? City Planner Katherine Wyrosdick: Well, actually, they are a little different this time. Vice President Kevin McClung: Hearing #4. Seth Broadhurst, representing South Ridge Church, is requesting a Conditional Use permit to add a parking lot to their existing parking lot at their location on Fairmont Avenue. Churches are a conditional use within the General Residential and, therefore, any expansion must be approved by the Board. (Tax Map 02-06, parcel 6.2) Kathy, would you please give us your staff report. City Planner Katherine Wyrosdick: Thank you. The property is zoned general residential, and churches are a conditional use within that zoning district. Because the church would like to expand the parking lot, we have to view it as an expansion of that conditional use and bring that back to the Board of Zoning Appeals for approval of that expansion. There are going to be 165 new spaces added to the site. There is a site plan attached, and we have conceptually reviewed the plan at the Development Review Committee. The landscaping that you see will accommodate the landscape requirements. The exterior, or buffer, landscaping is going to be added in addition to maintaining the existing vegetation that is on site. There is a stormwater detention area, as you can see on the site plan, that will accommodate the new surface area, and I believe even reduce the stormwater runoff even more than what’s occurring on the site. Because of the meeting of the landscape requirements and the parking requirements, the internal circulation requirements will also have been met. Staff is supporting the approval of the conditional use request. Vice President Kevin McClung: Is there anyone present to speak for this request? Please come forward and state your name and address. Page 13 of 17 Mr. Broadhurst: My name is Seth Broadhurst, and I live at 1610 Michael Lane. This request is quite simple. Since moving into the facility a year ago, we’ve grown from a 450-person church to an 800- person church, and we just need more parking. Vice President Kevin McClung: That’s a good problem. Is there anyone else present who would like to speak for the request? None. Vice President Kevin McClung: Is there anyone to speak against the request before the BZA; please step forward and state your name and address. Ms. Petrolo: My name is Josephine Petrolo and I live on Otlahurst Drive, and we can’t get out of Otlahurst Drive now with the way traffic is. So, we think they should try to have a service on Saturday evening, and Sunday, too, to see how that would work out. Vice President Kevin McClung: Thank you. Does anyone else want to speak against the request? None. Vice President Kevin McClung: I’ll Kathy if there are any agency comments. City Planner Katherine Wyrosdick: There were no negative agency comments. Vice President Kevin McClung: I ask for a motion to close the public portion of this hearing. Board Member John Six: Motion to close public hearing. Board Member Joe Manchin: Second. The vote is 3-0 to close the public hearing. Vice President Kevin McClung: Any Board discussion? Board Member Joe Manchin: The services that are offered now, are they just the Sunday services? Mr. Broadhurst: Two weeks ago we started a Saturday, 6:00 pm, service that will run indefinitely. Board Member Joe Manchin: And then your Sunday services are 9:00 and 11:00? Mr. Broadhurst: We have contracted Marion County sheriff’s department to help us with traffic. City Planner Katherine Wyrosdick: To add to that, Joe, we had preliminary discussions with the thought of adding a secondary access off of the back that would eventually connect to Mary Lou Retton, and that’s something that we had envisioned five years ago. And, when you have that amount of traffic, for public safety reasons, it makes a lot of sense to have a secondary access out of that site, so there’s additional private property between this side and Mary Lou Retton that would have to be dealt with, but I think that eventually that’s the direction we would be going with. Page 14 of 17 Board Member Joe Manchin: Do you buy that entire parcel; wasn’t there something like 20 acres. Mr. Broadhurst: No, we only bought 8 acres, originally. But, we are in conversation with Mr. Ci___ ?? about the property between our property and Mary Lou Retton. Board Member Joe Manchin: What’s the acreage there? Mr. Broadhurst: I don’t know. City Planner Katherine Wyrosdick: There’s a four acre parcel behind this, and a smaller parcel that would eventually get you to Mary Lou Retton. Even if it’s not a full access driveway, and just an emergency access driveway, we would allow something smaller for emergencies. That really should be contemplated because, again, if something were to happen on 250 and there’s a fire at that church, there’s a secondary point of access for those church goers. Manchin and Petrolo discussed the amount of traffic, speed limits, police patrol, and interstate exit problems that affect route 250, and the dangers involved to residents of the Otlahurst area. Traffic needs to be addressed by the state, not just the City of Fairmont. Residents should contact the state department of transportation. Vice President Kevin McClung: Do we have a motion to approve the conditional use? Board Member JohnSix: Motion to approve. Board Member Joe Manchin: Second. The vote is 3-0 to close the discussion and hearing. Vice President Kevin McClung: Hearing number five. Seth Broadhurst, representing South Ridge Church, is requesting a variance from Section 1345.03(b)(3) Interior Plantings which requires that no parking space be further than 60 feet from a tree within an interior landscaped island. The property is at the same location. (Tax Map 02-06, parcel 6.2) Kathy, do you have a staff report? City Planner Katherine Wyrosdick: I do. I’ll try to do my best to explain the situation. This variance is a request for a retroactive variance for the parking that’s existing on this site. During our review of the conditional-use permit, we just made consideration of, it was discovered that the interior islands were never installed the way they should’ve been when the site was developed. There are two options: that we require the church to go in and install those landscape islands, or that they request a variance from that requirement. Having said that, typically, staff does not support going back and fixing a problem, but this is a little unique situation in that interior landscape islands we have traditionally viewed as additional landscaping, and the intent of the interior landscaping is to break up the visual impact of a sea of parking. We’ve also supported variances that took the landscaping that would typically be required within the interior of a parking lot and if it’s provided along the boundary line of the parking lot, we’ve allowed that to accommodate soil typology, variations in the lot, or other unique circumstances. This situation needs both of those qualifications, in that there is a very large expanse of pavement in the interior, but you do not see it from the road because it is hidden by the hillside, by the landscaping on the hillside, and by the building itself. So, the visual impact of parking is already mitigated at the existing site. Additionally, the Page 15 of 17 buffer area around the parking lot, will be maintained with the new parking; that buffer area is heavily vegetated with existing vegetation that will be maintained and is being supplemented with plantings as you see in their drawings. So, you do have supplemental plantings even occurring around the existing parking lot. Normally, you would not see this type of situation come before the Board of Zoning Appeals; it’s very rare that you would see something like this. But, because of all of those things that we typically look for in order to approve a variance, staff feels the requirements have been met with not only the existing site development, but the proposed development. So, staff is supporting this request. Vice President Kevin McClung: Thank you, Kathy. Is there anyone present wishing to speak in support of the request? Mr. Broadhurst: Seth Broadhurst, 1610 Michael Lane. I think Kathy has done a tremendous job in explaining what I tried to write down on paper for a variance request. Quite frankly, the difference between what was presented in the additional permits and what resulted in the end, I’ll take responsibility for. I was in the business of pastoring, not in the business of building a building, and it was an oversight on my part or the Board’s part. I know that during the construction process, one of the concerns was with the soil. It is a sandy soil, and the civil engineers were working very hard to get surface water moving in the right direction, and to the appropriate ponds, and not down to 250. And that was part of the concern at the time. Vice President Kevin McClung: Thank you. Is anyone present to speak in favor of this proposal at this time? None. Vice President Kevin McClung: Is anyone wishing to speak in opposition of the request before the Board? None. Vice President Kevin McClung: Are there any negative agency comments? City Planner Katherine Wyrosdick: There are no negative agency comments. Vice President Kevin McClung: I look for a motion to close the public hearing. Board Member John Six: Motion to close Board Member Joe Manchin: Second Motion to close 3-0. Vice President Kevin McClung: Discussion? Board Member Joe Manchin: My only concern is with the woods and vegetation that is available, can they use some of the existing trees instead of bringing in new trees in little planters by the parking lot? Group discussion about mature, existing trees versus new plantings. Page 16 of 17 City Planner Katherine Wyrosdick: If you look at the site plan, you see a squiggly line, that’s existing vegetation that will remain. My sense is that a lot of that has probably already been removed for the new building. But, the existing vegetation is better growth and better screening from the neighbors and headlights from the road, and we know that existing vegetation will be preserved. More discussion about preservation of existing vegetation, screening between properties, Manchin’s concerns about clear cutting, and landscape discussions during Development Review Committee meetings. Vice President Kevin McClung: Is there a motion? Board Member John Six: Motion to approve. Board Member Joe Manchin: Second Motion to approve 3-0. DISPOSITION OF PAST CASES None OTHER BUSINESS City Planner Katherine Wyrosdick: Welcome Martha. It was quite a first meeting. Vice President Kevin McClung: Anything for the good of the order? Ok. I will entertain a motion to adjourn. Board Member Joe Manchin: Motion to adjourn Board Member John Six: Second The vote is 4-0. Page 17 of 17