Board of Zoning Appeals

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MINUTES 6:30 p.m. August 16, 2017 City Council Chambers MEMBERS PRESENT: Leanne Cardoso, George Papandreas, and Jim Shaffer MEMBERS ABSENT: Harrison Case STAFF: John Whitmore, AICP 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. LEADERSHIP ELECTION – Vice-Chair. Shaffer made a motion to elect George Papandreas as the Vice-Chair; seconded by Cardoso. Motion carried unanimously. III. MATTERS OF BUSINESS: A. Minutes for the July 19, 2017 hearing. No corrections noted; minutes approved as presented. IV. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: None. V. NEW BUSINESS: A. CU17-06 / Kalaparambath / 218 Prospect Street: Request by Jerril Kalaparambath for approval of a conditional “Restaurant, Fast Food” use; Tax Map 26, Parcel 126; B-1, Neighborhood Business District. With no objections from the Board, the petitioner, or the public, Whitmore presented the combined Staff report for CU17-07, V17-23 and CU17-07. Cardoso recognized Jerril Kalaparabath of 321 Brockway Avenue who stated that he and his business partner owned High Street Canteen, formerly known as “Nick’s Canteen” and they have ten years combined experience in the restaurant industry. Kalaparambath expressed that they want to offer a healthy alternative to the downtown area and the restaurant would complement the goals of the Comprehensive Plan. There being no 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 declared the public portion closed and asked for Staff recommendations, which were read by Whitmore. Papandreas made a motion to find in the affirmative for all the Findings of Facts for CU17-06; seconded by Shaffer. Motion carried unanimously. Morgantown Board of Zoning Appeals Page 1 of 9 August 16, 2017 Minutes NOTE: The following findings were included in the motion. Finding of Fact No. 1 – Congestion in the streets is not increased, in that: This restaurant will be strictly takeout and delivery. It is meant to cater to the students and residents that live around the area. Finding of Fact No. 2 – Safety from fire, panic, and other danger is not jeopardized, in that: This restaurant will only serve cold items, dry goods, and fresh vegetables. It is located on the ground level. All related Building Code and Fire Code safety requirements will be observed. Finding of Fact No. 3 – Provision of adequate light and air is not disturbed, in that: The store will be open only 11AM – 8PM. No vent will be needed that causes anything to affect the air. The Fast-Food Restaurant use will occupy existing tenant space and not result in an expansion of the building footprint or building height. Finding of Fact No. 4 – Overcrowding of land does not result, in that: The store will be delivery and carry out. Customers will be in and out within a few minutes. The Fast- Food Restaurant use will occupy existing tenant space and not result in an expansion of the building footprint or building height. Finding of Fact No. 5 – Undue congestion of population is not created, in that: The area is already supporting a restaurant (High St. Canteen). The area will not get crowded due to the carry out nature of the business. The Fast-Food Restaurant will not result in an increase in the number of dwelling units. Finding of Fact No. 6 – Granting this request will not create inadequate provision of transportation, water, sewage, schools, parks, or other public requirements, in that: The site was previously used commercially and as a residential use, it already has water, sewage attachments. It is within walking distance for targeted customers. Finding of Fact No. 7 – Value of buildings will be conserved, in that: There will be no exterior construction being taken place only interior renovations. Finding of Fact No. 8 – The most appropriate use of land is encouraged, in that: It will allow customers fast, easy healthy food options that’s currently not being met in the immediate area. Shaffer moved to grant conditional use approval for Case No. CU17-06 as presented with Staff recommended conditions; seconded by Papandreas. Motion carried unanimously. NOTE: The following conditions were included in the motion. 1. That variance relief from minimum parking requirements be granted under Case No. V17-23 OR that conditional “Off-Site Parking Facility” use be approved under Case No. CU17-07. 2. That the beneficiary of this conditional use approval is specific to the business organization that owns this specific restaurant establishment at the time of this conditional use approval. Said beneficiary may not be transferred without prior approval of the Board of Zoning Appeals. Morgantown Board of Zoning Appeals Page 2 of 9 August 16, 2017 Minutes  B. V17-23 / Kalaparambath / 218 Prospect Street: Request by Jerril Kalaparambath, for variance relief from Article 1365.04 concerning minimum parking requirements; Tax Map 26, Parcel 126; B-1, Neighborhood Business District. Cardoso asked for discussion from the Board members. Shaffer noted that “Nick’s Canteen” has operated well for many years with no problems. Papandreas agreed and said it is not likely for people to drive from Suncrest to get a salad. Cardoso noted that both employees and customers will most likely be within walking distance of the restaurant. Papandreas made a motion to find in the affirmative for all the Findings of Facts for V17-23; seconded by Shaffer. 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: The adjacent commercial canteen use does not have off-street parking and appears to have functioned well for nearly 50 years while not encouraging additional road congestion or harming adjacent uses or properties. There appears to be sufficient public parking within the immediate area to serve the existing canteen and proposed Fast-Food Restaurant use. 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 existing mixed-use building within which the proposed Fast-Food Restaurant use will occupy was developed and expanded overtime to cover nearly the entire parcel, leaving no physical space or access to develop onsite parking. Finding of Fact No. 3 – The variance will eliminate an unnecessary hardship and permit a reasonable use of the land, because: The existing mixed-use building within which the proposed Fast-Food Restaurant use will occupy was developed and expanded overtime to cover nearly the entire parcel, leaving an inability for any new, permitted use to occupy any portion of the subject building and meet minimum B-1 District onsite parking requirements. Finding of Fact No. 4 – The variance will allow the intent of the zoning ordinance to be observed and substantial justice done, because: The variance will allow the business to open to carry out and delivery business model oriented to pedestrians and not customers with vehicles. Papandreas moved to grant variance approval for Case No. V17-23 as presented without conditions; seconded by Shaffer. Motion carried unanimously. Morgantown Board of Zoning Appeals Page 3 of 9 August 16, 2017 Minutes  C. CU17-07 / Kalaparambath / 218 Prospect Street: Request by Jerril Kalaparambath for approval of a conditional off-site parking use; Tax Map 26, Parcel 126; B-1, Neighborhood Business District. Cardoso asked if the petitioner to wanted to withdraw the conditional use requested under Case No. CU17-07 as it is no longer needed with the variance relief granted under Case No. V17-23. Kalaparambath thanked the Board for their support and officially withdrew Case No. CU17-07. Cardoso reminded Mr. Kalaparambath 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. D. V17-20 / Express Care by Valvoline / 1385 Earl L. Core Road: Request by Stephen P. Finn, on behalf of Express Care by Valvoline, for variance relief from Article 1369 concerning signage; Tax Map 31, Parcels 100 and 100.2; B-5, Shopping Center District. Whitmore presented the Staff Report. Cardoso recognized Stephen Finn, of 244 Ponderosa Ponds Road, who stated they own the Chestnut Mountain Boys Ranch which is a children’s home and school. Finn explained they opened the Chestnut Thrift Store on Don Knott’s Blvd. as source of revenue for the ranch but also a place to employ young men to teach life skills and earn a paycheck. Finn stated they purchased the Valvoline establishment as they expressed an interest in partnering with the program and explained that certain signage is required by their corporate headquarters. Finn noted that many improvements have been made to the establishment and expressed the sign package is aesthetically pleasing and a nice addition to the structure. Shaffer asked how far back the establishment sit from the road. Finn guessed the store is located sixty (60) yards from the road. 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 declared the public portion closed and asked for Staff recommendations, which were read by Whitmore. Shaffer made a motion to find in the affirmative for the all the Findings of Facts for V17-20; seconded by Papandreas. 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: The proposed wall signage does not appear to adversely affect the adjacent business/owners. This signage is attached flat to the building’s façade and does not appear to be intrusive in any way. Very similar wall signage has been used by previous “Oil Change Facility” or “Automotive Repair Shop” uses to advance customer recognition of the building and its use without appreciable adverse impact on the surrounding land uses, properties, or the built environment. 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: Morgantown Board of Zoning Appeals Page 4 of 9 August 16, 2017 Minutes  The building provides very limited wall surface above the vehicle bay doors to place a wall sign without extending above the roofline, which is prohibited at this site. The building is diminutive compared to the adjacent shopping center building, fast food building, and car dealership building. The building sets back approximately 150 feet from the centerline of Earl L. Core Road and is situated below the grade of Earl L. Core Road. The commercial copy content of the proposed sign is significantly less than the 165-square foot total sign area, which is based on the Code’s inflexible sign area calculation standard. The substantial portion of the proposed sign is blue color banding to accentuate the top of the otherwise insipid, white/grey, cinderblock building. Very similar wall signage has been used by previous “Oil Change Facility” or “Automotive Repair Shop” uses in this building to advance customer recognition of the building and its use. Finding of Fact No. 3 – The variance will eliminate an unnecessary hardship and permit a reasonable use of the land, because: The proposed signage is appears to be compatible with the building and the surrounding premises. It fits into the signable area of the building’s façade and does not intrude onto adjacent building or land. The building is diminutive compared to the adjacent shopping center building, fast food building, and car dealership building. The building sets back approximately 150 feet from the centerline of Earl L. Core Road and is situated below the grade of Earl L. Core Road. Finding of Fact No. 4 – The variance will allow the intent of the zoning ordinance to be observed and substantial justice done, because: This variance, if granted, would improve the aesthetic appeal of the business Very similar wall signage has been used by previous “Oil Change Facility” or “Automotive Repair Shop” uses in this building to advance customer recognition of the building and its use. Shaffer moved to grant approval for Case No. V17-20 as presented without conditions; seconded by Papandreas. Motion carried unanimously. Cardoso reminded Mr. Finn 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. E. V17-21 / Konchesky / 708 Madigan Avenue: Request by Michael and Donna Konchesky, for variance relief from Article 1335.04 concerning setback encroachments; Tax Map 39, Part of Parcels 35 and 36; R-1A, Single-Family Residential District. Whitmore presented the Staff Report. Cardoso recognized Michael Konchesky of 708 Madigan Avenue who explained that he owns the property directly behind where he is requesting the variance. Konchesky explained the proposed house does meet all setback requirements but they would like to set the two-car garage back farther into the setback to allow ample room for off-street parking. Konchesky added that he is aging and would like to have the garage attached to the house so he does not have to go outside in the winter. Cardoso asked if he intends to keep both properties. Konchesky stated he would like to sell the other property in the future. Cardoso referred to a letter of support stated in the Staff report and asked where this person lives in relation to his property. Konchesky stated he does not know the person who wrote the letter but noted she lives on Elysian which is a couple streets over. Morgantown Board of Zoning Appeals Page 5 of 9 August 16, 2017 Minutes Cardoso asked if he had heard any comments from other neighbors. Konchesky stated a neighbor asked him about the petition after receiving a neighbor notice letter and had no objections to the project. Konchesky added he has had no objections from surrounding property owners regarding the variance petition. Papandreas noted the property beyond the proposed variance is steep. Konchesky agreed and stated he pushed the setback to the five-foot minimum requirement due to the steepness of the hill. 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 declared the public portion closed and asked for Staff recommendations, which were read by Whitmore. Papandreas made a motion to find in the affirmative for the all the Findings of Facts for V17-21; seconded by Shaffer. 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: Callen Avenue is one of the main entrances and exits to the neighborhood. Callen Avenue is traveled by both residents and nonresidents of the neighborhood. No street parking is provided on this block of Callen Avenue. This variance would actually provide for the public health, safety, or welfare, or the rights of adjacent property owners or residents by providing off-street parking for the residence of the proposed development of the single-family house with an attached garage by providing off-street parking for the residents or guests of the residents, in a manner that appears to advance desired lines of sight for vehicles exiting both the proposed attached garage and the site. 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: Site development challenges, including topography and probable stormwater management measures, appear to limit creating a single-family dwelling that would be in keeping with the predominate development pattern of the neighborhood. Finding of Fact No. 3 – The variance will eliminate an unnecessary hardship and permit a reasonable use of the land, because: The resident of the house will be able to enter the garage directly from the house without having to go outside and enter the garage possibly in the inclement weather. Also, the proposed development of the single-family house with an attached garage will face Callen Avenue. Callen Avenue is one of the main entrances and exits to the neighborhood. Callen Avenue is traveled by both residents and nonresidents of the neighborhood. No street parking is provided on this block of Callen Avenue. This variance would allow off-street parking, a reasonable use of the land, in a manner that appears to advance desired lines of sight for vehicles exiting both the proposed attached garage and the site. Finding of Fact No. 4 – The variance will allow the intent of the zoning ordinance to be observed and substantial justice done, because: The house currently located at 708 Madigan Avenue, Morgantown, WV 26501, which is located behind the proposed development of the single-family house with the attached garage, has a forty-foot rear setback. The proposed development of the single-family house with an attached garage will face Callen Avenue. Callen Avenue is one of the main entrances and exits to the neighborhood. Callen Morgantown Board of Zoning Appeals Page 6 of 9 August 16, 2017 Minutes  Avenue is traveled by both residents and nonresidents of the neighborhood. No street parking is provided on this block of Callen Avenue. Papandreas moved to grant approval for Case No. V17-21 as presented without conditions; seconded by Shaffer. Motion carried unanimously. Cardoso reminded Mr. Konchesky 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. F. V17-22 / Hidden Treasures / 1279 University Avenue: Request by Crystal Miller of City Neon, Inc., on behalf of Hidden Treasures, for variance relief from Article 1369 concerning signage; Tax Map 26A, Parcel 19; B-4, General Business District. Whitmore presented the Staff Report. Cardoso recognized Crystal Miller of City Neon, Inc., on behalf of Hidden Treasures, who stated the thrift shop is moving in to the old Cardello building and is being remodeled to include a different roof line which will incorporate a more modern look and signage to include pin mount letters versus a box sign. Miller noted the proposed sign is non-illuminated but includes a plastic formed letter in place of metal or other high-end materials. Papandreas asked if the sign would be lit in the future. Miller stated there are no plans for the sign to be lit in the future. Papandreas asked if the picture presented is measured to scale. Miller confirmed. 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 declared the public portion closed and asked for Staff recommendations, which were read by Whitmore. Papandreas made a motion to find in the affirmative for the all the Findings of Facts for V17-22; seconded by Shaffer. 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: The proposed signage along with the remodeled roofline have a modern, clean aesthetic that will not detract from the streetscape or cause harm to the residents. 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: University Avenue is a very busy and traffic laden street during normal business hours. The larger signage would be more effective in advertising to both pedestrian and vehicular traffic from both sides of the five-lane street. Finding of Fact No. 3 – The variance will eliminate an unnecessary hardship and permit a reasonable use of the land, because: Morgantown Board of Zoning Appeals Page 7 of 9 August 16, 2017 Minutes  The business will be able to effectively advertise to potential customers along a busy, traffic laden, five- lane street. Finding of Fact No. 4 – The variance will allow the intent of the zoning ordinance to be observed and substantial justice done, because: The larger signage will increase advertising to potential customers and allow the business to flourish. Papandreas moved to grant approval for Case No. V17-22 as presented without conditions; seconded by Shaffer. 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. G. V17-24 / Papa John’s / 51 Donahue Drive: Request by Crystal Miller of City Neon, Inc., on behalf of Papa John’s, for variance relief from Article 1369 concerning signage; Morgan District, Tax Map 4, Parcels 18.5, 19 and 20; B-5, Shopping Center District. Whitmore presented the Staff Report. Cardoso recognized Crystal Miller of City Neon, Inc., on behalf of Papa John’s, who concurred with the Staff Report. There being no 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 declared the public portion closed and asked for Staff recommendations, which were read by Whitmore. Shaffer made a motion to find in the affirmative for the all the Findings of Facts for V17-24; seconded by Papandreas. 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: 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 travelling at a fast pace. In order for the sign to be more visible and functional 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, given the façade’s its distance from the four-lane, higher roadway speed frontage. Finding of Fact No. 4 – The variance will allow the intent of the zoning ordinance to be observed and substantial justice done, because: Morgantown Board of Zoning Appeals Page 8 of 9 August 16, 2017 Minutes  The tenant will be more visible and identifiable to members of the community. Shaffer moved to grant approval for Case No. V17-24 as presented with Staff recommended conditions; seconded by Papandreas. 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. VI. ANNOUNCEMENTS: • Shaffer informed the Board of his resignation with the Board of Zoning Appeals following this evening’s meeting and expressed his appreciation for Staff with the help and professionalism they have provided over the years. Shaffer expressed pride with the BZA as they have made solid and unbiased decisions based on the Code and encouraged continued transparency within the City of Morgantown. Cardoso thanked Shaffer for his service and expressed that he has been beneficial for the Citizens of Morgantown while serving on the Board. • Whitmore informed the Board that the September BZA hearing has been moved to Monday, September 25, 2017 at 6:30 p.m. in City Council Chambers due to lack of quorum anticipated on the regular monthly meeting date. VII. ADJOURNMENT: 7:30 p.m. MINUTES APPROVED: September 25, 2017 BOARD SECRETARY: _____________________________ Christopher M. Fletcher, AICP Morgantown Board of Zoning Appeals Page 9 of 9 August 16, 2017 Minutes