Board of Zoning Appeals

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MINUTES 6:30 p.m. September 25, 2017 City Council Chambers MEMBERS PRESENT: Leanne Cardoso, Harrison Case, and Tom Shamberger MEMBERS ABSENT: George Papandreas 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. MATTERS OF BUSINESS: A. Minutes for the August 16, 2017 hearing. No corrections noted; minutes approved as presented. III. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: None. IV. NEW BUSINESS: A. BA17-03 / HTM Properties / 44 Highland Avenue: Consideration of canceling special meeting, scheduled for 6:30 p.m. on 04 OCT 2017 in City Council Chambers, to hear Administrative Appeal Case No. BA17-03 due to the appeal being filed after 30 days of the original determination. Whitmore presented the Staff Report. Cardoso noted the case is on the agenda for the Board members to discuss and make a determination on whether or not the untimely filing of the appeal affects the decision to review the item on October 4, 2017 at the BZA Special Hearing. Cardoso recognized Julie Chico Abbitt of 820 Riverview Drive, on behalf of HTM Properties, who stated they did not feel the appeal was filed in an untimely manner. Abbitt explained the letter that rendered the ruling had a date of July 31, 2017, but was never mailed. Abbitt noted that Lisa Mardis, HTM Properties representative, picked the letter up on August 18, 2017. Abbitt stated it is her understanding that City staff have utilized certified mail in the past as a way of calculating the 30 days of the appeal process, and noted it was not used in this case. Abbitt stated the appeal was submitted on September 11, 2017, which was within 30 days of receipt of the letter that had been picked up on August 18, 2017. Abbitt referred to the Code Citations of the West Virginia Rules of Civil Procedure that require a court of body issuing an order to certify and send the document and expressed there is not a practical reason to deny the appeal. Morgantown Board of Zoning Appeals Page 1 of 13 September 25, 2017 Minutes Papandreas asked when the Abbitt was notified of the existence of the letter. Abbitt stated she was informed of the ruling two or three days before the letter was written, at which time Abbitt asked for a document to be sent in writing so she could review the ruling. Abbitt noted the document was never received and therefore they picked the letter up on August 18, 2017. Shamberger asked if the correct address is listed on the letter. Abbitt confirmed. Cardoso asked whether Abbitt or the client dealt directly with the City. Abbitt stated she had an initial meeting with the City but has dealt with the issue very little. Abbitt noted that Lisa Mardis had conversations with City officials and there was no mention of the letter until August 11, 2017. Case referred to the letter and stated the date is noted with expiration of 30 days from July 31, 2017. Case asked if August 18, 2017 was the first time the client’s representative had reviewed or received the letter. Abbitt confirmed. Papandreas referred to the letter and asked if the representative received communication that a letter would be forthcoming prior to July 31, 2017. Abbitt confirmed and stated she was verbally informed of the finding and then requested a document to reflect that discussion. Papandreas asked if communication was initiated by the client or the City on or prior to August 18, 2017 that the letter had not been received. Abbitt stated it is her understanding that the City informed the client that the writing was available which was picked up by Mardis. Abbitt stated it is her understanding that the City Manager should not have issued the order and it should have been mailed via certified from Chris Fletcher, City Planner, as the statute states. 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 hearing the petition on October 4, 2017. Cardoso recognized John Lozier of 345 Virginia Avenue who stated the applicant had been verbally informed of the deadline and whether it was received in a physical form is irrelevant. Lozier expressed it is a bad precedent to allow appeals based on slack readings of the deadlines as it is very procedural. Cardoso recognized Jane Lefevre of 301 Raymond Street who stated that the City needs to stick to regulations and the owners were aware they were not allowed to have more bedrooms. Cardoso recognized Bette Garrett of 36 Highland Avenue who stated that Mr. Shephard is nine (9) days late and should not be allowed to present at the Special Hearing. Cardoso recognized Jimmie Simmons of 127 Willowdale Road who stated the issue is moot when deadlines are missed. Cardoso recognized Robert Johnson of 521 Overhill Street who stated the client’s representative was made aware of the ruling verbally two days prior to July 31, 2017 and a physical document is just a courtesy and expressed the Special Hearing should not be allowed. Cardoso recognized Linda Morton of 436 Center Street, Secretary of the Wiles Hill Neighborhood Association, and asked who the letter was directed toward. Cardoso stated the letter came from the City Manager’s Office and was addressed to Doug Shephard. Morton stated they have not heard from Shephard to see if he received the letter and asked if that would be addressed as they Morgantown Board of Zoning Appeals Page 2 of 13 September 25, 2017 Minutes have only heard from his representative. Cardoso stated there would be a discussion after all public comments are received. Cardoso recognized Doug Shephard of 906 Stewart Place who stated the Board has a duty to hear the case as they have operated within the confinements and have been open and honest with the entire situation. Shephard stated they have the right to present this appeal. Cardoso asked Shepard if he had received the letter. Shepard said a letter was never received and he was notified of the letter during the timeframe mentioned by Abbitt. Shephard stated previous letters had been received via certified mail from the Development Office with a return receipt. There being no further comments, Cardoso declared the public hearing closed and offered Abbitt a chance for rebuttal. Abbitt noted that the letter was never read verbally to them and the writing to the Board by the City does not imply anywhere that a letter was mailed, rather said that a termination was “issued”. Case asked if the timeline issue would still be considered at the Special hearing should the Board decide to hear the case on October 4. Cardoso said she did not believe the timing issue would be brought up again at the special hearing if they decide to proceed with the appeal. Shamberger referred to the BZA Pre-Meeting Announcement read allowed verbally where it states, “Applicants and requesting parties will be notified in writing by the Planning Division of the Board’s findings and conclusions. Regardless of whether a request is approved or denied, decisions of the Board can be appealed to the Circuit Court of Monongalia County within thirty (30) days upon receipt of the written notification. Any work done relating to decisions rendered by this Board during this thirty-day period is at the sole financial risk of the applicant.” Cardoso noted that refers to the Circuit Court of Monongalia County. Papandreas stated the verbiage used in the Pre-Meeting Announcement is not the same body but concerns a similar subject with planning and zoning issues and expressed it would be a stretch to hold an applicant responsible for communication not received. Papandreas expressed that the City has an ethical obligation to provide a written letter and verbally communicating is not the same as receiving something in writing. Papandreas expressed the applicant has not been treated in a manner with how the City normally does business through planning and zoning. Cardoso noted that sometimes she receives communication for court ordered appointments that give a 30-day deadline, but she knows she may only have 25 days as it took a few days to mail the letter. Cardoso expressed that notification given to the applicant was significantly less than 30 days since the applicant did not receive the letter and compared it to asking court for an extension. Case noted that the Board has not heard from the City Manager, City Attorney, or other Staff regarding why the letter was not received by the applicant and expressed that only one side of the story is being heard. Case suggesting going forward with hearing the appeal but expressed that a representative from the City be present to provide explanation on what happened and then decide whether they have jurisdiction to hear the appeal. Case noted he would appreciate a letter Morgantown Board of Zoning Appeals Page 3 of 13 September 25, 2017 Minutes or attendance from the City Attorney to provide a position on whether the Board has jurisdiction to hear the appeal. Cardoso noted that the applicant could go directly to Circuit Court and skip the BZA hearing. Papandreas moved to hear the Administrative Appeal at 6:30 PM on 04 OCT 2017 in City Council Chambers; seconded by Case. Motion carried unanimously. B. V17-25 / R & L Rentals, LLC / 311 First Street: Request by Lucy Chen of R & L Rentals LLC, for variance relief from Articles 1347 & 1361 concerning the location of parking on the parcel; Tax Map 20, Parcel 136 B-2, Service Business District & SSOD, Sunnyside South Overlay District. Whitmore presented the Staff Report. Cardoso recognized Benjamin Bryan of Grafton, on behalf of R & R Rentals, LLC, who stated he was contacted by the applicant to concrete the parking lot to benefit the students that live there. Cardoso asked how many spaces are on the parking lot. Bryan stated there are currently 4 spots available and that will remain the same after laying gravel on the lot. Shamberger referred to the drawing in the Staff Report and noted there is 25 feet in width on the left of the sidewalk. He noted that the drawing is not to scale and there should be 25.5 feet reflected on the sidewalk since a parking spot reflects 8.5 feet wide. Shamberger asked if there is more than 25.5 feet to the alley. Bryan confirmed. Shamberger suggested a driving apron and a curb cut with the plan. Bryan stated he did not have that in the plans but it can be done. Case expressed that a new stretch of sidewalk needs to be constructed to ensure that the transition between the street, sidewalk and parking area is all smoothed out. Case asked if Staff would require the sidewalk be integrated into the design. Whitmore stated Staff could make that as a condition from the Board’s decision. There being no further questions or comments by the Board, Cardoso asked if anyone was present to speak in favor of the petition. Cardoso recognized Nick Ramoni of 315 Joe’s Run Road who stated the improvements to the parking lot would benefit the neighborhood and surrounding properties. Cardoso recognized Robert Mac of 814 Louise Avenue and stated the petition should be granted as it is improving the property and the neighborhood. Cardoso recognized Dow Jones of 2041 University Avenue who expressed favor to improving the parking and stated that all of his yards on Grant Avenue should be allowed to have parking. Jones stated that granting this request would help allow for parking of other properties in Sunnyside. Cardoso asked if anyone was present to speak in opposition to the petition. Morgantown Board of Zoning Appeals Page 4 of 13 September 25, 2017 Minutes Cardoso recognized Dow Jones of 2041 University Avenue who stated the parking spot to the right has never been surveyed and could potentially be on his property and therefore requested that a survey be completed prior to starting any work. Cardoso offered Bryan a chance for rebuttal. Shamberger noted the structure is older and nonconforming to the standards and stated there is no room for parking in the rear. Bryan confirmed. Case asked if Bryan could provide comments related to the survey request made by Jones. Bryan stated he does not own the property but noted there would be a few feet in between the retaining wall and parking lot. Shamberger referred to the picture in the Staff Report and noted that garbage cans are located on the sidewalk and asked where they would be located. Bryan stated that question would be directed towards Nick Ramoni. Cardoso recognized Nick Ramoni of 315 Joe’s Run Road and expressed the garbage cans do look bad and he plans to erect a structure on the side to where the garbage cans will be stored. There being no further comments Cardoso declared the public portion closed and asked for Staff recommendations, which were read by Whitmore. Papandreas expressed favor in the project as it would clean up the area tremendously but suggested replacing the sidewalk with curb cuts along with mandating a survey. Case noted that a new parking area is not being created, but rather improvements are being made to an existing one. Case expressed this is not a precedent for the Sunnyside area as there are yards and not parking spaces. Case expressed favor in the petition with the condition of a sidewalk being constructed in accordance to City Code, a survey to establish boundary lines, and an enclosure for the garage containers. Cardoso inquired if the garbage containers would go outside the scope of the petition. Whitmore noted that improvements to the side or rear of the property would most likely include variances as it is a nonconforming structure and suggested a condition to include the trash containers that would not interfere with parking. Papandreas made a motion to find in the affirmative for all the Findings of Facts for V17-25; 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: Concrete parking areas will improve the street and overall appearance of the neighborhood. 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 5 of 13 September 25, 2017 Minutes  The proposed paving improvements will improve the deteriorating condition of the existing gravel parking area. Finding of Fact No. 3 – The variance will eliminate an unnecessary hardship and permit a reasonable use of the land, because: It will permit improvements to the property as required for off-street parking spaces serving a multi- family dwelling use, regardless of parking area location. Additionally, multi-family residential dwelling uses require on-site parking. Finding of Fact No. 4 – The variance will allow the intent of the zoning ordinance to be observed and substantial justice done, because: The proposed paving improvements to the existing nonconforming parking feature should serve to address otherwise deteriorating and blighting conditions. Papandreas moved to grant conditional use approval for Case No. V17-25 as presented with conditions; seconded by Case. Motion carried unanimously. NOTE: The following conditions were included in the motion. 1. The applicant shall re-construct the sidewalk on the front of the parcel, with an acceptable curb- cut/driveway apron, as required by the City Engineer; 2. The applicant shall obtain a survey of the property to establish where the improvements will be located on the applicant’s property; and 3. Waste storage containers will not interfere with on-site parking and be moved to another location on-site. Cardoso reminded Mr. Bryan 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. V17-26 / Walmart / 75 Retail Circle: Request by Sunday Bougher of SGA Design Group, on behalf of Walmart, for variance relief from Article 1369 concerning signage; Tax Map 9, Parcels 1 and 2; B-5, Shopping Center District. Whitmore presented the Staff Report. Cardoso recognized Sunday Bougher of SGA Design Group, on behalf of Walmart, who stated they were made aware that a variance is necessary for existing signage while they were adding an online grocery pick up service to 75 Retail Service. Bougher stated the original signs on the building were done by a company that no longer exists and therefore she had no access to paperwork for those signs. Bougher expressed that most sign ordinances do not take into account the size of their buildings. She stated that as the ordinance now allows, only 3 percent of signage is allowed for her building façade and noted that the signage proposed currently is for 4.7 percent of the façade. Bougher expressed that the signage proposed is proportionate to the building and looks pleasing. Papandreas referred to the drawing in the Staff Report and asked if the signage was to scale. Bougher confirmed and noted the drawing is not of the actual building on Retail Circle but rather serves as an illustration to reference. Morgantown Board of Zoning Appeals Page 6 of 13 September 25, 2017 Minutes 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 all the Findings of Facts for V17-26; 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: Granting the variance will in no way have a negative influence on the public health, safety or welfare or the rights of adjacent property owners or residents. The proposed signage appears to be proportionate to the building and serves to aid the customers to safely navigate throughout the development, which is emphasized by the change in façade color at the corner of the building where the proposed sign and merchandise pickup facilities are proposed. 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 site and structure is larger than the typical single use development. The existing Walmart currently offers groceries, pharmacy, general merchandise, and tire and lube service. The proposed wall signage appears to serve more as wayfinding for onsite customers to access recently established on- site merchandise pickup facilities rather than communicating the presence of Walmart to off-site passersby. Finding of Fact No. 3 – The variance will eliminate an unnecessary hardship and permit a reasonable use of the land, because: The approval for the variance will provide the necessary signage for customers to identify and safely navigate through the development to the fixed location of merchandise pickup for which the subject wall sign is proposed. Finding of Fact No. 4 – The variance will allow the intent of the zoning ordinance to be observed and substantial justice done, because: The scale of the subject Walmart building, the expanse of parking between the building and the entrance, the diversity of goods and services, and the multiple access points to those goods and services within the subject Walmart building do not appear to be adequately recognized by the maximum wall sign area standard. Papandreas moved to grant approval for Case No. V17-26 as presented without conditions; seconded by Shamberger. Motion carried unanimously. Cardoso reminded Ms. Bougher 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. V17-27 / Long John Silver’s / 1381 Earl L. Core Road: Request by Jim Weaver, on behalf of LJS Opco One, LLC, for variance relief from Article 1369 concerning signage; Tax Map 31, Parcel 100.2; B-5, Shopping Center District. Whitmore presented the Staff Report. Morgantown Board of Zoning Appeals Page 7 of 13 September 25, 2017 Minutes Cardoso recognized Shawn Marti of 213 Harrison Avenue, on behalf of LJS Opco One, LLC, who stated that Long John Silver’s is undergoing renovations and the menu board signage is part of the updates being completed. Shamberger referred to the application that states a smaller menu board is not possible and asked for further explanation. Marti confirmed and explained that the design proposed is used for all Long John Silver’s establishments. Papandreas asked if there are three 55-inch televisions mounted vertical. Marti confirmed. Case asked if there are any houses surrounding the property. Marti stated there are no houses surrounding the property and provided further explanation on the location of the proposed sign. 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 all the Findings of Facts for V17-27; 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: The sign will improve the customer’s ability to view LJS’s menu and be more visually appealing to all close up and also from a distance. 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 menu board was specifically designed by a licensed engineer to house 3 55” outdoor rated monitors for optimal operation and viewing capabilities. No other designs are available for this configuration. Finding of Fact No. 3 – The variance will eliminate an unnecessary hardship and permit a reasonable use of the land, because: There is currently no alternate design for this menu board other than what is presented. Smaller screens are not an option as the configuration would not allow for the smaller size. Finding of Fact No. 4 – The variance will allow the intent of the zoning ordinance to be observed and substantial justice done, because: The impact of the extra surface area will be negligible to the public and will not cause any adverse effect to the public or environment. The replacement will be more useful to the public and allow for a better experience. Papandreas moved to grant Case No. V17-27 as presented without conditions; seconded by Case. Motion carried unanimously. Cardoso reminded Mr. Marti 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. Morgantown Board of Zoning Appeals Page 8 of 13 September 25, 2017 Minutes  E. V17-28 / Lorban Holding, LLC / 100 Third Street: Request by Crystal Miller of City Neon, Inc., on behalf of Lorban Holding, LLC, for variance relief from Article 1369 concerning signage; Tax Map 19, Parcel 120; R-3, Multi-Family Residential District & SCOD, Sunnyside Central Overlay District. Whitmore presented the Staff Report. Cardoso recognized Crystal Miller of City Neon, Inc., on behalf of Lorban Holding, LLC, who stated that the owner, Jim Lorenze, wants to invest in Sunnyside to clean up the area and make it more attractive to the City. Miller stated the company wants to identify their buildings by erecting signs for each unit with development to provide better visibility. Cardoso asked if Lorban Holding desires to use the same design elements on all their buildings that mostly exist on residential type properties. Miller confirmed. Case noted that the next four cases are by the same petitioner with the same design elements and asked if they could be combined. Miller noted the proposed signs are the same font and design but with different orientation on the buildings. Cardoso noted the petitions are different properties with the same design elements. Whitmore noted there are three distinct property areas and the other one is located farther away and stated the cases could be combined but the Findings of Facts would have to be reviewed separately. Cardoso expressed the Board could discuss the design elements all together but consider the petitions separately as they are all located on different properties. Case noted that the larger developments in that area already have signs erected and asked if this company is wanting more of an urban look to their properties. Miller confirmed and explained that the company is trying to be competitive and noted that the larger developments mentioned are mixed use and therefore allowed to have signage. Case asked if any signage would be illuminated. Miller stated the signs proposed would not be illuminated but rather pin mounted. Papandreas noted the lettering proposed is thin which leaves a lot of empty space and asked if the awnings had been removed. Miller confirmed and stated the signage was removed from two of the awnings on the buildings as they felt the pin mount letters projected better. 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 all the Findings of Facts for V17-28; 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: While larger than the city code states a sign in the R-3 district should be, it is non-illuminated and is unobtrusive to drivers and pedestrians like a monument or post and panel sign might be at this site. Morgantown Board of Zoning Appeals Page 9 of 13 September 25, 2017 Minutes  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: To be competitive in the off-campus housing market the building would like to identify itself with a project name rather than street numbers, the permitted sign area for which would not appear legible to either pedestrian or vehicular passersby. Additionally, parking stalls between the front façade of the building and the sidewalk and street within the right-of-way along with a utility pole prohibit a ground sign to be erected closer to and legible from the public realm. Finding of Fact No. 3 – The variance will eliminate an unnecessary hardship and permit a reasonable use of the land, because: The building will be able to effectively identify and showcase itself in the highly competitive market of off-campus housing. The setback of the building from Third Street diminishes the legibility and effectiveness of a wall sign meeting the maximum area standard of 6.8 square feet. 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 building identification sign will effectively market the building. Papandreas moved to grant Case No. V17-28 as presented without conditions; 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. F. V17-29 / DD Holding, LLC / 512 Beechurst Avenue: Request by Crystal Miller of City Neon, Inc., on behalf of DD Holding, LLC, for variance relief from Article 1369 concerning signage; Tax Map 19, Parcels 57, 58 and 59; B-2, Service Business District & BCOD, Beechurst Corridor Overlay District. Whitmore presented 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. Papandreas made a motion to find in the affirmative for all the Findings of Facts for V17-29; 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: The apartment building is located in a business zone, but is limited in its signage allotment by the Land Usage (multi-family dwelling). A business with building frontage of 81ft in this zone would be allowed to have 48.6 sq. ft., whereas the multi-family dwelling is only allowed to have 8 sq. ft. The signage proposed for this building is actually under the maximum allowed by the businesses in this area. Unlike businesses in this area, the signage is non-illuminated. Aesthetically, it matches with the trim color of the building for a streamlined look that allows people to identify the building easily without distraction. Morgantown Board of Zoning Appeals Page 10 of 13 September 25, 2017 Minutes  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: Many apartment buildings in this zone have commercial businesses in the lower floor allowing them to claim mixed-use and thus are allowed to have a larger signage allotment. This building would like to be competitive in the off-campus housing market and would like to have a larger sign. The setback of the building from Beechurst Avenue and the building’s elevation above Beechurst Avenue diminishes the legibility and effectiveness of signage meeting the maximum area standard of eight (8) square feet. Finding of Fact No. 3 – The variance will eliminate an unnecessary hardship and permit a reasonable use of the land, because: The building will be able to effectively identify and showcase itself in the highly competitive market of off-campus housing. The permitted sign area of eight (8) square feet would not appear legible to either pedestrian or vehicular passersby. 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 building identification sign will effectively market the building for a B-2 Zoning District Permitted use. Papandreas moved to grant Case No. V17-29 as presented without conditions; 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. G. V17-30 / Lorban Holding, LLC / 102 Third Street: Request by Crystal Miller of City Neon, Inc., on behalf of Lorban Holding, LLC, for variance relief from Article 1369 concerning signage; Tax Map 20, Parcel 53; R-3, Multi-Family Residential District & SSOD, Sunnyside South Overlay District. Whitmore presented 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. Papandreas made a motion to find in the affirmative for all the Findings of Facts for V17-30; 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: While larger than the city code states a sign in the R-3 district should be, it is non-illuminated and is unobtrusive to drivers and pedestrians like a monument or post and panel sign might be at this site. Morgantown Board of Zoning Appeals Page 11 of 13 September 25, 2017 Minutes  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: To be competitive in the off-campus housing market the building would like to identify itself with a name rather than street numbers, the permitted sign area for which would not appear legible to either pedestrian or vehicular passersby. Additionally, the view of the subject building, although addressed to Third Street, is obstructed by another large multi-family building located between it and Third Street. Finding of Fact No. 3 – The variance will eliminate an unnecessary hardship and permit a reasonable use of the land, because: The building will be able to effectively identify and showcase itself in the highly competitive market of off-campus housing. The view of the subject building from Third Street is obstructed by another large multi-family building fronting Third Street, which negates legibility and effectiveness of signage meeting the maximum area standard of 7.1 square feet. 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 building identification sign will effectively market the building. Papandreas moved to grant Case No. V17-30 as presented without conditions; 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. H. V17-31 / Lorban Holding, LLC / 521 Beverly Avenue: Request by Crystal Miller of City Neon, Inc., on behalf of Lorban Holding, LLC, for variance relief from Article 1369 concerning signage; Tax Map 15, Parcel 262 and 263; R-3, Multi-Family Residential District & SCOD, Sunnyside Central Overlay District. Whitmore presented 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. Papandreas made a motion to find in the affirmative for all the Findings of Facts for V17-31; 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: While larger than the city code states a sign in the R-3 district should be, it is non-illuminated and is obtrusive to drivers and pedestrians like a monument or post and panel sign might be at this 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: Morgantown Board of Zoning Appeals Page 12 of 13 September 25, 2017 Minutes  To be competitive in the off-campus housing market the building would like to identify itself with a name rather than street numbers, the permitted sign area for which would not appear legible to either pedestrian or vehicular passersby. Additionally, parking stalls between the front façade of the building the Beverly Avenue appear to prohibit a ground sign to be erected closer to and legible from the public realm. Finding of Fact No. 3 – The variance will eliminate an unnecessary hardship and permit a reasonable use of the land, because: The building will be able to effectively identify and showcase itself in the highly competitive market of off-campus housing. The setback of the building from Beverly Avenue diminishes the legibility and effectiveness of a wall sign meeting the maximum area standard of 7.2 square feet. 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 building identification sign will effectively market the building. Papandreas moved to grant Case No. V17-31 as presented without conditions; 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. V. ANNOUNCEMENTS: • Cardoso recognized Tom Shamberger who has rejoined the BZA. VI. ADJOURNMENT: 8:20 p.m. MINUTES APPROVED: October 18, 2017 BOARD SECRETARY: _____________________________ Christopher M. Fletcher, AICP Morgantown Board of Zoning Appeals Page 13 of 13 September 25, 2017 Minutes