Board of Zoning Appeals

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MINUTES 6:30 p.m. July 19, 2017 City Council Chambers MEMBERS PRESENT: Leanne Cardoso, Harrison Case, and George Papandreas MEMBERS ABSENT: Jim Shaffer and vacancy due to Mr. Colin Wattleworth’s recent resignation. STAFF: John Whitmore, AICP and Phillip Avis, Intern I. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL: Cardoso called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. and read the standard explanation of the how the Board conducts business and rules for public comments. II. MATTERS OF BUSINESS: A. Minutes for the June 21, 2017 hearing. No corrections noted; minutes approved as presented. III. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: None. IV. NEW BUSINESS: A. V17-16 / Garlow / 332 Kingwood Street: Request by John Garlow for variance relief from Article 1335.04 as it relates to encroachments into required setback standards; Tax Map 36, Parcel 135; R-1A, Single-Family Residential District. Whitmore presented the Staff Report. Cardoso recognized John Garlow of 17 Highland Street who stated he purchased 332 Kingwood Street with intentions to live at the property after remodeling the single-family home. Garlow referred to the proposed enclosure of the carport and porch area and noted the project was created that made the most sense rather than to avoid the required setbacks. Garlow referred to a PDF document that was given to Board members showing the property and a renewed proposal based on the Staff Report recommendations. Garlow stated the renewed proposal would leave 1.5 feet between the garage and the carport, which would reduce his variance request to 2.5 feet. Garlow stated he would rather build the garage and carport rather than a fence as it would be more obtrusive and encroach on the usable space of the neighboring parking area. Garlow stated he would not consider constructing the garage on the opposite side of the building as he would have to cut into a very old stone wall that adds to the neighborhood. Cardoso asked for the location of the referenced stone wall. Garlow referred to the PDF document to explain the location of the stone wall. Morgantown Board of Zoning Appeals Page 1 of 7 July 19, 2017 Minutes Papandreas asked if the property owner of 357 Demain Avenue had offered comments on the project. Case asked if there are plans for the North side of the yard. Garlow explained that area would have a patio extending from the garage and he has no plans to subdivide the area. Case referred to the Staff Report and noted that moving the garage towards Kingwood Street would cause problems with the power line support. Garlow confirmed. Case asked what exterior materials will be used on the garage. Garlow stated he would frame the garage and use cedar siding. There being no further questions or comments by the Board, Cardoso asked if anyone was present to speak in favor of or in opposition to the petition. Cardoso recognized Tim Guminey of G & G Rentals who stated he owns the property next to 332 Kingwood and noted that a variance request of 2.5 feet would not include the roof overhang which would bring the setback to zero feet. Guminey provided further explanation on how his structure is situated on his property and expressed the setback should remain at four (4) feet. Cardoso recognized Jay Guminey of G & G Rentals who expressed concerns with the proximity of the carport and the roof overhang as it will overlap his. Cardoso offered Garlow a chance for rebuttal. Garlow expressed the points made by the Gumineys are valid concerns and stated he is confident he could do the project the proper way. There being no further public comments, Cardoso closed the public portion and asked for Staff recommendations, which were read by Whitmore. Papandreas expressed he did not feel closing in the carport would make it worse but understands the argument with airflow and keeping it open. Papandreas referred to the garage and noted that 2.5 feet makes little difference but appreciated the intent to modify the project. Cardoso expressed the project would be a self-imposed hardship as the garage could be erected on the other side of the house. Cardoso stated she personally understands how living in close quarters can affect surrounding neighbors and stated that a couple of feet can make a difference. Papandreas referred to the bottom left window of the house and asked if that window could be turned into a door to allow access to the garage. Garlow explained that the window is directly in the middle of the kitchen and therefore it would be difficult. Case noted he understands why the adjoining property owner objects to the project due to the roof overhang and a zero-lot line that comes with enclosing the porch. Case noted he understands why the owner does not want to place the garage on the opposite side of the house as there is easier parking access and the stone wall would not have to be torn down. Case inquired if the roof overhang would be reviewed by planning during the building permit process and expressed that most concerns seem to relate to the construction of the project. Morgantown Board of Zoning Appeals Page 2 of 7 July 19, 2017 Minutes Cardoso inquired if tabling the petition would allow for the applicant to come back before the Board with a different design. Whitmore explained that the Board can approve the application, approve with conditions, table the petition, or deny the petition, which allows for the applicant to submit a different proposal. Whitmore stated that if the petition is tabled, he would not be able to alter his proposal, as described in the variance petition. Cardoso inquired if the Board could grant an approval based on the information presented at the meeting. Whitmore referred to the Staff Report and reiterated that Staff is recommending denial but offered guidance should the Board grant approval based on the information presented at the hearing. Board members discussed if the petition should be delayed versus denied and noted that if the petition would be delayed then the same plan would be presented again in August. Papandreas suggested moving the carport structure towards the house as it would allow more room between the properties. Case suggested the applicant discuss an alternate plan with the adjacent property owners to see if they can find a solution and then come back before the Board in August. Cardoso inquired if the request could be granted with the condition that the applicant completes the project based on the presented proposal. Whitmore explained that the first action of the Board would be approving the Findings of Facts for the petition and the following action would be to approve or deny the variance petition. Whitmore stated the Board needs to determine the point in which the petition should become a new application. Further discussion ensued on what would be best for the applicant regarding whether to table or deny the petition. Cardoso asked Garlow for comments on how he felt about tabling the petition versus denying the petition. Garlow noted his confusion lies on when the petition should become a new application. Cardoso asked Whitmore for further clarification on whether the petition should be a new application. Whitmore explained that the petition is for the rear yard setback and a lot of unforeseen components could change with a new development plan. Papandreas noted that if the variance is denied, it canno be brought in front of the Board for a year. Papandreas expressed there would be no damage in denying the petition as a different plan will be needed to go forward. Garlow said that made sense. Papandreas made a motion to find in the negative presented in the Staff Report for V17-16; seconded by Case. Motion carried unanimously. NOTE: The following findings were included in the motion. Negative Finding of Fact No. 1 – The variance will adversely affect the public health, safety or welfare, or the rights of adjacent property owners or residents, because the extent of requisite variance relief sought gratuitously undermines the purposes of Article 1335 to protect single-family residential areas from intrusion that may cause deterioration and provide for adequate quiet and privacy for neighborhood residents. Morgantown Board of Zoning Appeals Page 3 of 7 July 19, 2017 Minutes  Negative Finding of Fact No. 2 – The variance does not sufficiently arise from special conditions or attributes which pertain to the property for which the variance is sought and which were not created by the person seeking the variance, because alternate design scenarios appear readily available to the petitioner to establish enclosed off-street parking in conformity with minimum building envelope requirements or in a manner that reduces the extent of variance relief sought. Negative Finding of Fact No. 3 – The variance will not eliminate an unnecessary hardship and permit a reasonable use of the land because, alternate design scenarios appear readily available to the petitioner to further develop the site in keeping with the intent of R-1A District site development standards. Negative Finding of Fact No. 4 – The variance will not allow the intent of the zoning ordinance to be observed and substantial just done, because alternate designs could in effect alleviate existing nonconformities with the rear porch/carport, instead of intensifying the rear yard setback nonconformity. Papandreas moved to deny Case No. V17-16; seconded by Case. Motion carried unanimously. Cardoso informed Garlow that the petition was denied and stated he would be receiving written notification from the Planning Division. B. V17-18 / Marriott / 2 Waterfront Place: Request by Crystal Miller of City Neon, Inc., on behalf of Marriott, for variance relief from Article 1369 concerning signage; Tax Map 37A, Parcel 3.1; B-4, General Business District. Whitmore presented the Staff Report. Cardoso recognized Crystal Miller of City Neon, Inc. who stated that City Neon, Inc. was hired to “clean up” an error from the previous sign company that was hired initially to install signs for the Marriott. Miller stated the previous designs changed without consulting the City and therefore the variance is needed to allow for signs to remain at that location. Miller provided further clarification on the proposed signs and where they will be located. Papandreas asked if the monument was already installed. Miller confirmed and stated the wall sign has not been installed yet. Papandreas referred to the wall signs and asked for further clarification on the increase of the square footage from the previously approved signs. Miller explained the differences in square feet from the previously approved wall signs and noted there was an increase by 24 square feet. Papandreas referred to the previous variance request and asked if the petition was approved or if they approved less than requested. Whitmore referred to the signs on the eighth-story and stated the City is under the impression that they did not change. Whitmore referred to the Staff Report and stated the front façade has changed and explained how the calculation for the square footage was determined. Case asked if blank space is calculated towards the square footage. Whitmore noted there will always be an area not being used within a sign face and stated the calculation was determined by using the sign envelope as established by the Code. Morgantown Board of Zoning Appeals Page 4 of 7 July 19, 2017 Minutes Papandreas asked if it is a difference in calculation that creates the additional 104 square feet or if it was a blatant disregard for what was approved. Whitmore explained it was not a blatant disregard but stated that modifying the logo changed the way it was measured when abiding by the Code. There being no further questions or comments by the Board, Cardoso asked if anyone was present to speak in favor of or in opposition to the petition. There being none, Cardoso closed the public portion and asked for Staff recommendations, which were read by Whitmore. Papandreas stated he does not have a problem with the sign but rather with how this takes away from the validity of the prior variance that was approved. Papandreas inquired if the Board should grant a variance that is different from a prior approved variance petition as this is a self-imposed hardship. Cardoso agreed and stated this would undermine the process. Case stated the original company is no longer involved with the signs and noted the error was not made by the petitioner. Case expressed the company has been punished enough and did not have a problem with the proposed signs. Papandreas stated there is no punishment but rather the Board should remain consistent on self- imposed hardships. Case expressed that if the sign does not seem reasonable then they should not approve it but stated he did not see a problem with either sign and does not feel the petition should be denied. Cardoso expressed she was “on the fence” with her decision. Case asked if the applicant had to complete a new application and pay a fee for this request. Whitmore confirmed and stated this petition has a new case number. Whitmore stated the petitioner is seeking a variance because for whatever reason the property’s user does not feel the prior approved signage variance is sufficient and suggested the Board consider the case on whether the proposed signage fits the structure. Case expressed the Board needs to consider this case based on the merits before them. Cardoso noted the City has already let them move forward with the signs and expressed the signs are appropriate for the building. Papandreas agreed but expressed that everything the Board approves becomes a precedent. Papandreas made a motion to find in the affirmative for the all the Findings of Facts for V17-18; seconded by Case. Motion carried unanimously. NOTE: The following findings were included in the motion. Finding of Fact No. 1 – The variance will not adversely affect the public health, safety or welfare, or the rights of adjacent property owners or residents, because: Monument Sign: The added width of the monument does not affect visibility of the entrance. The extended width of the sign was to allow the Marriott sign to utilize the existing foundation of the Waterfront sign so that there will be no waste of materials. The interior supports are spaced at 6’ apart. Morgantown Board of Zoning Appeals Page 5 of 7 July 19, 2017 Minutes  Wall Sign: The number of wall signs and area is consistent with what might be expected at a hotel of its size. The two approved signs are 160’ above the street and other facades of the building. Finding of Fact No. 2 – The variance arises from special conditions or attributes which pertain to the property for which a variance is sought and which were not created by the person seeking the variance, because: Monument Sign: The added width to the sign allowed installation onto the existing foundation without demolition of the existing foundation. This allows the sign to be visible along a four-lane roadway. Wall Sign: The height of the structure and location of signage requires increased area to effectively communicate the business use. Finding of Fact No. 3 – The variance will eliminate an unnecessary hardship and permit a reasonable use of the land, because: The increased dimensions will allow for the signage to be functional and in keeping with V15-50 related sign variances. Finding of Fact No. 4 – The variance will allow the intent of the zoning ordinance to be observed and substantial justice done, because: The increased areas will effectively communicate the general commercial hotel use to the public and provide for continued investment in the Wharf District. Papandreas moved to grant approval for Case No. V17-18 as presented; seconded by Case. Motion carried unanimously. Cardoso reminded Ms. Miller that the Board’s decision can be appealed to Circuit Court within thirty days of receiving written notification from the Planning Division and that any work related to the Board’s decisions during this period would be at the sole financial risk of the petitioner. C. V17-19 / MVB Bank / 51 Donahue Drive: Request by Crystal Miller of City Neon, Inc., on behalf of MVB Bank, for variance relief from Article 1369 concerning signage; Morgan District, Tax Map 4, Parcels 18.5, 19 and 20; B-5, Shopping Center District. Avis presented the Staff Report. Cardoso recognized Crystal Miller of City Neon, Inc. who stated that most businesses in the shopping plaza have received variance relief as the location is not easily visible from the road. Papandreas referred to the signs in the tower and asked if they were the same size. Miller stated they were smaller and gave the measurements of those signs. There being no further questions or comments by the Board, Cardoso asked if anyone was present to speak in favor of or in opposition to the petition. There being none, Cardoso closed the public hearing and asked for staff recommendations, which were read by Avis. Papandreas made a motion to find in the affirmative for the all the Findings of Facts for V17-19; seconded by Case. Motion carried unanimously. NOTE: The following findings were included in the motion. Morgantown Board of Zoning Appeals Page 6 of 7 July 19, 2017 Minutes  Finding of Fact No. 1 – The variance will not adversely affect the public health, safety or welfare, or the rights of adjacent property owners or residents, because: A larger sign will help promote the business within the unique conditions of the Plaza’s location without compromising public health, safety, or welfare. Finding of Fact No. 2 – The variance arises from special conditions or attributes which pertain to the property for which a variance is sought and which were not created by the person seeking the variance, because: The shopping plaza is setback from the four-lane roadway in which cars are traveling at a fast pace. In order for the sign to be visible at high speed and distance, it needs to be larger. Finding of Fact No. 3 – The variance will eliminate an unnecessary hardship and permit a reasonable use of the land, because: The larger sign will help promote business more effectively than a conforming sign. Finding of Fact No. 4 – The variance will allow the intent of the zoning ordinance to be observed and substantial justice done, because: The bank will be visible and identifiable to members of the community. Papandreas moved to grant approval for Case No. V17-19 without conditions; seconded by Case. Motion carried unanimously. Cardoso reminded Ms. Miller the Board’s decision can be appealed to Circuit Court within thirty days of receiving written notification from the Planning Division and that any work related to the Board’s decisions during this period would be at the sole financial risk of the petitioner. V. ANNOUNCEMENTS: • Resignation of Collin Wattleworth. • Election of Vice-Chair to fill unexpired 2017 term to be included on the Board’s 16 AUG agenda. • Whitmore recognized Philip Avis, Planning Intern, and explained his role in the Planning Division. • Cardoso thanked Wattleworth for his dedication and service to the Board. • Papandreas urged the Planning Staff to address the signage issues in Morgantown. VI. ADJOURNMENT: 8:00 p.m. MINUTES APPROVED: August 16, 2017 BOARD SECRETARY: _____________________________ Christopher M. Fletcher, AICP Morgantown Board of Zoning Appeals Page 7 of 7 July 19, 2017 Minutes