Board of Zoning Appeals

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MINUTES 6:30 p.m. October 18, 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 September 25, 2017 hearing. No corrections noted; minutes approved as presented. III. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: None. IV. NEW BUSINESS: A. CU17-08 / Glenmark Holding, LLC / 1389 Earl L. Core Road: Request by Andrew Rankin, on behalf of Glenmark Holding, LLC, for approval of a conditional “Personal Storage Facility” use; Tax Map 31, Parcel 149.3; B-5, Shopping Center District. With no objections from the Board, the petitioner, or the public, Whitmore presented the combined Staff Report for CU17-08 and V17-33. Cardoso recognized Andrew Rankin, on behalf of Glenmark Holding, LLC as their corporate Counsel, who stated they are requesting a setback but noted they do own the adjacent land. Shamberger asked if Glenmark Holding, LLC owned the rail-trail facility. Rankin confirmed and noted it is presumed to a license, which is relocatable but stated there is no intention to do that at this point. Shamberger referred to the drawing in the Staff Report and noted it appears the structure would keep in line with the Asian restaurant. Rankin confirmed. Case asked if there would be lighting on the rear of the structure that would reflect onto the Rail Trail. Rankin stated there will be minimal lighting from the front and sides of the buildings but noted there will be some security flood lights in the rear as it will be accessible 24/7. 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 either the conditional use and/or variance petition. Morgantown Board of Zoning Appeals Page 1 of 10 October 18, 2017 Minutes There being none, Cardoso declared the public portion closed and asked for Staff recommendations, which were read by Whitmore. Case made a motion to find in the affirmative for all the Findings of Facts for CU17-08; seconded by Shamberger. Motion carried unanimously. NOTE: The following findings were included in the motion. Finding of Fact No. 1 – Congestion in the streets is not increased, in that: The subject site is located in the Sabraton Plaza, which contains 93,731 square feet of gross leasable area that encompasses seven buildings, and approximately 420 standard parking spaces, including and/or in addition to fifteen (15) accessible spaces. There will only be a 1,200 square foot addition to the footprint of Sabraton Plaza. The parking requirement for the Personal Storage Facility is 3 spaces, plus 1 per 100 units. The subject site contains more than adequate parking spaces available daily for this 16 until facility and the other current uses. It is anticipated that there will be approximately six employees. Mountain Line Transit Authority offers two bus lines that provide convenient linkages to alternate modes of transport that may reduce auto dependency and mitigate traffic congestions. According to the Planning and Zoning Code, the purpose of this district is to permit a group of establishments to be planned, constructed and managed as a total entity. Typically, B-5 districts are located along major thoroughfares, such as the heavily traveled corridor of Earl Core Road. According to the 2015 Annual Traffic Report prepared by the Morgantown Monongalia Metropolitan Planning Organization, for the year 2015 the ADT was 17,648 for this vicinity. 16 units of a typically low-use personal storage facility will not add a large volume of traffic to the already highly traveled corridor. The units will be located at the rear of the shopping center, which is lightly trafficked and will not impede center patrons during their shopping experience. Finding of Fact No. 2 – Safety from fire, panic, and other danger is not jeopardized, in that: The subject location will remain accessible to emergency responders. The storage structure will meet all applicable life and safety standards in regards to Fire and Building Codes. The Personal Storage Facility will be located in the Sabraton Plaza that currently contains numerous buildings, types of commercial, and related parking. The units will be located at the rear of the shopping center, which is lightly trafficked and will not impede or congest center patrons during their shopping experience. Finding of Fact No. 3 – Provision of adequate light and air is not disturbed, in that: The subject site is located in the Sabraton Plaza which contain 93, 731 square feet of gross leasable area which encompasses seven building, and approximately 420 standard parking spaces, including and/or in addition to fifteen (15) accessible spaces. The Personal Storage Facility will not alter existing light distribution and air flow patterns within the general vicinity. Finding of Fact No. 4 – Overcrowding of land does not result, in that: The Personal Storage Facility is low use and low impact and will be located at the rear of Sabraton Plaza, which does not receive substantial traffic. Sufficient parking continues to exist within the Sabraton Plaza, which does not experience high volume traffic as currently constituted. Finding of Fact No. 5 – Undue congestion of population is not created, in that: Morgantown Board of Zoning Appeals Page 2 of 10 October 18, 2017 Minutes  The Personal Storage Facility is low use and low impact and will be located at the rear of Sabraton Plaza, which does not receive substantial traffic. Sufficient parking continues to exist within the Sabraton Plaza, which does not experience high volume traffic as currently constituted. 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 nature of the conditional “Personal Storage Facility” use does not appear to require public services and/or facilities that are not already available to and serving the site and general vicinity. Finding of Fact No. 7 – Value of buildings will be conserved, in that: The subject site is located in an existing B-5 shopping center within a commercial development. The applicant owns the surrounding shopping center and does not forsee an impact to the shopping center or real estate’s value. The structure will meet all life safety and building codes. Finding of Fact No. 8 – The most appropriate use of land is encouraged, in that: The subject site is located in the Sabraton Plaza which is zoned B-5, Shopping Center District. According to the Planning and Zoning Code, the purpose of this district is to permit a group of establishments to be planned, constructed and managed as a total entity. Typically, B-5 districts are located along major thoroughfares, such as the heavily traveled corridor of Earl Core Road. The Sabraton Plaza currently contains 93, 731 square feet of gross leasable area which encompasses seven buildings, and approximately 420 standard parking spaces, including and/or in addition to fifteen (15) accessible spaces. The proposed Personal Storage Facility is the highest and best use for the location within the development because it is tucked to the rear of the center, and not easily seen from Earl Core Road. Where other commercial uses may not have success due to the location within the development, the proposed use is more of a commercial destination. Case moved to grant conditional use approval for Case No. CU17-08 as presented with Staff recommended conditions; seconded by Shamberger. Motion carried unanimously. NOTE: The following condition was included in the motion. 1. That variance relief must be granted under Case No. V17-33 to encroach into the minimum rear setback standard OR the proposed “Personal Storage Facility” must observe the minimum rear setback standard. B. V17-33 / Glenmark Holding, LLC / 1389 Earl L. Core Road: Request by Mark Nesselroad, on behalf of Glenmark Holding, LLC for variance relief from Section 1353.04 to encroach into minimum rear setback standard; Tax Map 31, Parcel 149.3; B-5, Shopping Center District. Case made a motion to find in the affirmative for all the Findings of Facts for V17-33; seconded by Shamberger. 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 subject site is located in the Sabraton Plaza, which contains 93,731 square feet of gross leasable area that encompasses seven buildings, and approximately 420 standard parking spaces, including and/or in addition to fifteen (15) accessible spaces. There will only be a 1,200 square foot addition to the footprint of Sabraton Plaza. Morgantown Board of Zoning Appeals Page 3 of 10 October 18, 2017 Minutes  The Personal Storage Facility use will be exceptionally low impact with only 16 units and will be at the rear of the property where minimal traffic currently exists. Additionally, applicant owns the adjacent real property, so there will be no impact on adjacent owners. 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 subject site is located in the Sabraton Plaza, which contains 93,731 square feet of gross leasable area that encompasses seven buildings. There is little use for the rear of the property commercially or for parking as it is located farthest from the major right-of-way of Earl Core Road. The rear of the property adjoins a trail which applicant also owns. The Personal Storage Facility located so close to such a unique, low impact use as the trail will not impact either use in a material way. Finding of Fact No. 3 – The variance will eliminate an unnecessary hardship and permit a reasonable use of the land, because: The subject site is located in the Sabraton Plaza which is zoned B-5, Shopping Center District. According to the Planning and Zoning Code, the purpose of this district is to permit a group of establishments to be planned, constructed and managed as a total entity. Typically, B-5 districts are located along major thoroughfares, such as the heavily traveled corridor of Earl Core Road. The Sabraton Plaza currently contains 93,731 square feet of gross leasable which encompasses seven buildings, and approximately 420 standard parking spaces, including and/or in addition to fifteen (15) accessible spaces. The proposed Personal Storage Facility is permitted conditionally in the B-5 District. The proposed Personal Storage Facility is the highest and best use for the location within the development because it is tucked to the rear of the center, and not easily seen from Earl Core Road. The variance will allow maximum usage of the shopping center and the lack of setback will allow applicant to utilize the back portion of the shopping center without impacting the more commercial elements of the shopping center. 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 intent to protect righ-of-ways and maintain visual continuity intended by requiring setbacks given the intended use as a Personal Storage Facility at the rear of the shopping center adjacent to land already owned by the applicant with a low impact use as a trail. The unique uses as a Personal Storage Facility, with its low height and minimal us, coupled with the adjoining property owned by applicant and used as a low-use trail will not impact any right of way, business or residential site line, and will not impact any neighboring use in any material way. Case moved to grant variance relief for Case No. V17-33 as presented without conditions; seconded by Shamberger. Motion carried unanimously. Cardoso reminded Mr. Rankin 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 4 of 10 October 18, 2017 Minutes  C. CU17-09 / Mountain Mama’s Tavern, LLC / 1137 Van Voorhis Road: Request by Jacob Samples, on behalf of Mountain Mama’s Tavern, LLC, for approval of a conditional “Restaurant, Private Club” use; Tax Map 6, Parcel 37; B-1, Neighborhood Business District. Whitmore presented the Staff Report. Whitmore referred to a memorandum that was distributed to Board members, which included field notes from the site visit to the Mountain Mama’s Tavern establishment on October 17, 2017. Cardoso recognized Jacob Samples of 1137 Van Voorhis Road who stated the restaurant had moved from a Star City location and noted they serve American Classic and West Virginia style food. Case asked if the establishment would include video lottery machines. Samples stated they do not have machines at this time but may explore that option later as an additional revenue stream. Whitmore referred to the Planning and Zoning Code and stated limited video lottery machines are only allowed in the I-1 Industrial District. Cardoso asked how long Samples owned his previous restaurant. Samples stated he operated his previous restaurant for one year and has now moved to a new location because the old environment was not family friendly. Cardoso asked if they would be open for lunch. Sampled confirmed and stated the establishment would be open from 11:00 a.m. to 12:00 a.m. and would serve a late-night menu after 10:00 p.m. Cardoso asked if they would be offering a take-out menu. Samples 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. Cardoso stated it is for the Board to decide whether to waive the one-year “bona fide restaurant” requirement. Shamberger expressed favor in the restaurant as it was operated successfully for a year prior to relocating. Cardoso agreed and stated the site visit was successful in showing the establishment is set up and intended as a restaurant. Case apologized for not attending the site visit but expressed favor in waiving the one-year “bona fide restaurant” requirement as it was noted in the memorandum that the establishment had operated successfully for a year and all resumes show restaurant experience. Shamberger made a motion to waive the one-year “bona fide restaurant” requirement; seconded by Case. Motion carried unanimously. Shamberger made a motion to find in the affirmative for all the Findings of Facts for CU17-09; seconded by Case. Motion carried unanimously. Morgantown Board of Zoning Appeals Page 5 of 10 October 18, 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: The space/property has been used as a restaurant, so my restaurant should not change the congestion. Finding of Fact No. 2 – Safety from fire, panic, and other danger is not jeopardized, in that: The property has passed inspection with previous restaurants and I will continue to operate within the proper guidelines. Finding of Fact No. 3 – Provision of adequate light and air is not disturbed, in that: Nothing is being changed except a few more interior lights are being added. Finding of Fact No. 4 – Overcrowding of land does not result, in that: Using the space/property the same was as previous tenants. Crowding should not change. Finding of Fact No. 5 – Undue congestion of population is not created, in that: The space/property is beings used as before. There is a large parking lot and lots of room to prevent any congestion. 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: This business type has operated at this location for years without creating inadequate provisions on any of these aspects. My business will no further impact. Finding of Fact No. 7 – Value of buildings will be conserved, in that: There are going to be no real changes. Finding of Fact No. 8 – The most appropriate use of land is encouraged, in that: This place has been used as a restaurant for many years and that is my intention. Shamberger moved to grant conditional use approval for Case No. CU17-09 as presented with Staff recommended conditions; seconded by Case. Motion carried unanimously. NOTE: The following conditions was included in the motion. 1. That the petitioner must maintain compliance with all supplemental regulations set forth in Section 1331.06(27) of the Planning and Zoning Code. 2. That the petitioner must obtain permitting as a “restaurant” from the Monongalia County Health Department under the Monongalia County Clean Indoor Air Regulations. 3. That the “Restaurant, Private Club” use shall be limited to the interior design and identified areas of the subject building as illustrated on the drawings submitted with the application and reviewed and approved by the Board of Zoning Appeals. Any expansion of the conditional use or significant deviation from said facility layout design, operations, or proposed dining experience must first be approved by the Board of Zoning Appeals. 4. That, to ensure that the petitioner’s business description and plans are executed as described and considered in granting the one-year “bona fide restaurant” waiver, the subject “Restaurant, Private Club” use must: Morgantown Board of Zoning Appeals Page 6 of 10 October 18, 2017 Minutes  a. Be open to the general public a minimum of 11:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. Monday through Friday for the purpose of serving lunch as generally described in the menu submitted with the petitioner’s conditional use application. b. The petitioner shall voluntarily submit all necessary financial information to the City for the subject establishment following its first twelve (12) months of operation as a “Restaurant, Private Club” use to ensure compliance with Section 1331.06(27)(e) provisions, which requires the sale of food and non-alcoholic beverages to comprise a minimum of 60 percent of total gross sales of all food and drink items in each calendar month. 5. That any regulated signage shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Division prior to sign permit issuance for same. 6. That the beneficiary of this conditional use approval is Mountain Mama’s Tavern LLC, which may not be transferred without prior approval of the Board of Zoning Appeals. Cardoso reminded Mr. Samples 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. V17-32 / Adkins / 1417 Mayfield Avenue: Request by Ricky Adkins for variance relief from Section 1335.04 to encroach into minimum side setback standard; Tax Map 31, Parcel 73; R-1A, Single-Family Residential District. Whitmore presented the Staff Report. Cardoso recognized Rick Adkins of 1417 Mayfield Avenue who stated they would like to have a garage to the side of the house and noted there is nothing in that area but a fence along the side of the property. Adkins noted that he has spoken with adjacent property owners who do not have a problem with the proposed garage. Shamberger asked if 20 feet in width is the minimum required for a two-car garage. Whitmore referred to the Planning and Zoning Code to provide further explanation on minimum parking widths. Case asked if Adkins is sure of the property boundaries. Adkins stated that the adjacent neighbor installed and owns the fence so he was assuming that is the property line. Shamberger noted the variance would be from the property line and not the fence. 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. Board members decided to review the Findings of Fact separately. Shamberger expressed that fences are not a permanent structure and suggested rewording Finding of Fact 1. Cardoso and Case agreed. Cardoso referred to Finding of Fact 2 and inquired if the garage could be constructed without a variance. Shamberger expressed the only way a garage will fit without a variance is if it is Morgantown Board of Zoning Appeals Page 7 of 10 October 18, 2017 Minutes constructed as a one-car garage. Case agreed and noted that the a garage would need a variance no matter where it is placed on the property as it is a smaller lot. Shamberger made a motion to find in the affirmative for Findings of Fact 1 as amended for V17- 32; 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: It is a standard garage with no other uses and is in-keeping with the other residential uses on Mayfield Avenue. There have been no objections presented by neighbors. Shamberger made a motion to find in the affirmative for Finding of Fact 2 as amended for V17- 32; seconded by Case. Motion carried unanimously. NOTE: The following findings were included in the motion. 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 spatial location of the garage is similar to neighbors’ accessory structures, and provides required off-street parking not enabled by the driveway. Shamberger made a motion to find in the affirmative for Finding of Fact 3 as amended for V17- 32; seconded by Case. Motion carried unanimously. NOTE: The following findings were included in the motion. Finding of Fact No. 3 – The variance will eliminate an unnecessary hardship and permit a reasonable use of the land, because: The space is currently being used for parking cars and will continue to be used for the same purpose. The only difference is that the vehicles will be able to be parked inside of a building out of the elements. Shamberger made a motion to find in the affirmative for Finding of Fact 4 as amended for V17- 32; seconded by Case. Motion carried unanimously. NOTE: The following findings were included in the motion. Finding of Fact No. 4 – The variance will allow the intent of the zoning ordinance to be observed and substantial justice done, because: The garage will be closer to the fence property line and its location appears to be in-keeping with other residential uses on Mayfield Avenue. Shamberger moved to grant variance approval for Case No. V17-32 as presented; seconded by Case. Motion carried unanimously. Cardoso reminded Mr. Adkins 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 10 October 18, 2017 Minutes  E. V17-34 / Casca Signs, Inc. – Caleb Tench / 117 Belmar Avenue: Request by Brian Konoff, on behalf of Casca Signs, Inc. – Caleb Tench, for variance relief from Article 1369 concerning signage; Tax Map 20, Parcel 653; R-2, Single- and Two- Family Residential District. Whitmore presented the Staff Report. Cardoso recognized John Freudenthal, the registered agent for the Pi Kappa Alpha House, who discussed the overall project, and the signage program for the fraternity house. Shamberger asked about the sign’s viewing audience in relationship to High Street. Freudenthal confirmed and expressed the goal of the sign program. Case noted the use of similar signage in the area. Shamberger and Case both discussed the lighting of the signs as being preferred. Case made a motion to find in the affirmative for all the Findings of Facts for V17-34; seconded by Shamberger. 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 signs appear to be consistent with other fraternity/sorority houses near campus, which do appear to have deleteriously impacted the public realm, the built environment, or private properties. 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: This property, designed for use by Pi Kappa Alpha fraternity, is being renovated to improve the overall wellbeing of its residents. A fraternity house is different than a typical house of residence, lending to unique signage expectations. The subject building has historically contained larger Greek lettering wall signage on the gable of the Palladian portico as the building enjoys a unique vista of and is visible from areas downtown and extending south along the Monongahela River. Finding of Fact No. 3 – The variance will eliminate an unnecessary hardship and permit a reasonable use of the land, because: By allowing an additional square foot allowance, this building will be able to obtain signage that is appears to be proportionately adequate aesthetically. Also, due to the height of this building, larger signage appears appropriate to identify the structure. The purpose of the proposed signage, particularly the larger sign on the Palladian portico, is to message to onlookers located well below and at a significant distance from the sign. Specifically, the façade on which the larger sign is proposed is not adjoined by a public street or sidewalk from which it would be visible to pedestrian and/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 proposed wall signs appear to be consistent with past signs on the subject building and in harmony with similar fraternity/sorority house signage near campus. Morgantown Board of Zoning Appeals Page 9 of 10 October 18, 2017 Minutes Case moved to grant variance approval for Case No. V17-34 as presented; seconded by Shamberger. Motion carried unanimously. Cardoso reminded Mr. Freudenthal 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: Staff noted that a fifth BZA member had been confirmed by City Council and that he should be present at the next public hearing. VI. ADJOURNMENT: 7:32 p.m. MINUTES APPROVED: November 30, 2017 BOARD SECRETARY: _____________________________ Christopher M. Fletcher, AICP Morgantown Board of Zoning Appeals Page 10 of 10 October 18, 2017 Minutes