Board of Zoning Appeals

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MINUTES 6:30 p.m. November 30, 2017 Council Chambers MEMBERS PRESENT: Leanne Cardoso, Harrison Case, Tom Shamberger, Kevin Meehan 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 October 18, 2017 hearing. No corrections noted; minutes approved as presented. B. 2018 Board of Zoning Appeals Calendar. Whitmore noted a modification was made for the November meeting due to the Thanksgiving holiday. The Board accepted the 2018 meeting calendar as presented. III. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: None. IV. NEW BUSINESS: A. V17-35 / Popeye’s Louisiana Kitchen / 1589 Earl L. Core Road: Request by Ahmad H. Abulaban, on behalf of Popeye’s Louisiana Kitchen, for variance relief from Article 1369 concerning signage; Tax Map 31, part of Parcels 105.1 and 111; B-2, Service Business District. Whitmore presented the Staff Report. Cardoso recognized Van Abulaban of 1589 Earl. L Core Road who stated the current sign is not visible and needs raised up higher to be visible. 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 variance petition. There being none, Cardoso declared the public portion closed and asked for Staff recommendations, which were read by Whitmore. All the Board members expressed favor in the sign as the current sign is not visible. Case made a motion to find in the affirmative for all the Findings of Facts for V17-35; seconded by Shamberger. Motion carried unanimously. NOTE: The following findings were included in the motion. Morgantown Board of Zoning Appeals Page 1 of 11 November 30, 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: The request is to raise the height of the existing signage, which other similar signs within the Earl Core Road commercial corridor do not appear to have had a deleterious impact on the public realm or private property. 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 ground sign is blocked from view of traffic from both directions until at the entrance of the restaurant. The raised sign will increase business opportunities and will provide the commercial use with equal opportunity to have the outdoor sign be more visible at eye level. Finding of Fact No. 3 – The variance will eliminate an unnecessary hardship and permit a reasonable use of the land, because: The site is located within heavily, vehicle-oriented commercial corridor with a posted speed limit of 35 miles per hour, the conditions of which appear to warrant an increase in sign height above the maximum height standard to ensure effective communication. 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 height of the refashioned ground sign appears to correspond with those of other fast- food restaurant establishments within the Earl Core Road commercial corridor. Case moved to grant approval for Case No. V17-35 as presented; seconded by Shamberger. Motion carried unanimously. Cardoso reminded Ms. Abulaban 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. B. V17-36 / Oryza Group, LLC / 51 Donahue Drive: Request by Bob DeRiggi of J.D. Signs Inc., on behalf of Oryza Group, LLC, for variance relief from Article 1369 concerning signage; Tax Map 4, Parcels 18.5, 19, and 20; B-5, Shopping Center District. Whitmore presented the Staff Report. Cardoso recognized Bob DeRiggi of J.D. Signs Inc., on behalf of Oryza Group, LLC, who stated a bigger sign is necessary to be identified from the road and noted they will be serving dinner into the evening hours and therefore illumination is essential. Shamberger asked if this sign is comparable with the surrounding businesses. DeRiggi confirmed and stated the sign is around the same size as the other businesses and noted it has to be approved by the landlord in addition to the BZA. 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 variance petition. There being none, Cardoso declared the public portion closed and asked for Staff recommendations, which were read by Whitmore. Morgantown Board of Zoning Appeals Page 2 of 11 November 30, 2017 Minutes Case expressed the petition is consistent with the other signs that have been approved previously for that development. Shamberger made a motion to find in the affirmative for all the Findings of Facts for V17-36; 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: With the proposed sign positioned in the sign designated space (6’8” tall x 9’10” wide) located completely above the customer entryway, there will be no harm due to projections or pedestrian interference would be considered. This request appears consistent with adjacent signs, some with previously granted variance relief, traditional with these shops. 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: With parallel visibility distances from the main Artery (State Route 705) ranging from approx. 200’ to 600’ + in both directions, the requested sign with letters of 25” (ORYZA) appears most suitable for the distances seen and again consistent with the existing signs at the Shops. Finding of Fact No. 3 – The variance will eliminate an unnecessary hardship and permit a reasonable use of the land, because: When exploring other sizing options, decreasing the proposed size would decrease the sign legibility from State Route 705. Doing so can create a hardship for the client when exposure here is most important with the considered prime vehicular daily viewing, in addition to the set back of the property from the main artery. 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 sign would be visible from the targeted concerned distances of outreach, compliant with the shops, and as mentioned, consistent and complimentary with other neighboring tenants in the shops. Shamberger moved to grant approval for Case No. V17-36 as presented; seconded by Case. Motion carried unanimously. Cardoso reminded Mr. DeRiggi 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. V17-37 / Metro Properties, LLC / 507 Burroughs Street: Request by Bob DeRiggi of J.D. Signs Inc., on behalf of Metro Properties, LLC, for variance relief from Article 1369 concerning signage; Tax Map 55, Parcel 35.1; B-2, Service Business District. Whitmore presented the Staff Report. Cardoso recognized Bob DeRiggi of J.D. Signs, Inc., on behalf of Metro Properties, LLC, who expressed that a pylon sign would take away from the architecture of the building and therefore Morgantown Board of Zoning Appeals Page 3 of 11 November 30, 2017 Minutes they are requesting a multi-tenant monument sign. DeRiggi noted they have worked with Planning Staff to move the sign back to be 30 feet off the center of the road which will allow for an open parking space. DeRiggi stated they designed the sign on a pedestal so it would not be sitting on the ground and will sit higher to be more visible and noted the monument will allow for the businesses to advertise from the road. Case asked for further clarification on where the sign will be located on the property. DeRiggi referred to the Staff Report to explain the location of the proposed monument sign and noted it would be set back enough to allow for a hundred feet of visibility in each direction. 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 variance petition. There being none, Cardoso declared the public portion closed and asked for Staff recommendations, which were read by Whitmore. Case noted that his concerns with visibility issues were addressed by the applicant and expressed favor in the sign. Shamberger expressed favor in the sign as it would help identify the businesses located within the complex. Case expressed the petition is consistent with the other signs that have been approved previously for that development. Case made a motion to find in the affirmative for all the Findings of Facts for V17-37; seconded by Meehan. 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 Visual Enhancement Monument proposed, provides a point of communication between the tenants and the customer at the primary entry to the development as well as assisting customers with wayfinding. Placement considered is outside the State right-of-way having one full parking space open between the sign and the main road to assist with egress visibility. All electrical components of sign would be internally concealed. 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 allowable free-standing sign sizing for this development is less than some permitted signs for an individual business. Proposed signage appears not only consistent with other regional development signs, but in most cases, is considerably smaller in size and height. (see examples). Combining the tenants’ signs into a monument style sign, appears to be of good use with the limited spacing available. Sign would also serve for purposes. The storefronts within the development face the internal parking area, so individual storefront signage is not visible to passersby along Burroughs Street. The proposed ground sign appears to overcome this messaging challenge for commercial tenants within the Burroughs Place development. 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 4 of 11 November 30, 2017 Minutes  A multi-tenant monument sign will assist the development with the request of their tenants for additional signage viewed from Burroughs Street, and provide roadside visibility for tenants further back into the Burroughs Place development. Finding of Fact No. 4 – The variance will allow the intent of the zoning ordinance to be observed and substantial justice done, because: The signage will not only satisfy tenant request for additional visibility, but help accentuate the main entry of the development. Case moved to grant approval for Case No. V17-37 as presented; seconded by Meehan. Motion carried unanimously. Cardoso reminded Mr. DeRiggi 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. V17-38 / Volcano Japanese Restaurant / 372 Patteson Drive: Request by Crystal Miller of City Neon, Inc., on behalf of Volcano Japanese Restaurant, for variance relief from Article 1369 concerning signage; Tax Map 11, Parcel 2; B-2, Service Business District. With no objections from the Board, the petitioner, or the public, Whitmore presented the combined Staff Report for V17-38 and V17-39. Cardoso recognized Crystal Miller of 1095 Chaplin Road who stated the two businesses are located within the Suncrest Plaza. Miller stated that Volcano’s sign meets code but gets “lost” beside the new Pizza Hut sign and therefore they are requesting a variance for a larger sign to aid in visibility. Miller stated that Fruit Life and Volcano are owned by the same person, located next to each other, and they would like a variance for Fruit Life as well to keep consistency and provide better visibility of their signage. Case asked if the Pizza Hut sign is nonconforming or if it is larger because they have a bigger store front. Miller stated that Pizza Hut does have a larger store front but is not aware if they obtained any variances and noted that they just completed restorations which included a new sign. Cardoso asked if a variance had been obtained for Pizza Hut. Whitmore stated he is unaware of any variances obtained for the Pizza Hut on Patteson Drive. Case noted that Famous Hair and Tanning World have larger signs located in the same Plaza. Whitmore noted there is a non-conforming pylon sign located on the site as well. Shamberger asked if there are plans for the owner of the plaza to create a standard for the signage as other plaza’s have done in recently. Miller expressed she did not feel there would be a standard set by the owner as the plaza is older compared to the newer developments in Morgantown who have set standards when constructing developments. 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 of the two (2) variance petitions. There being Morgantown Board of Zoning Appeals Page 5 of 11 November 30, 2017 Minutes none, Cardoso declared the public portion closed and asked for Staff recommendations, which were read by Whitmore. Case expressed the proposed signs are consistent with the surrounding businesses. Cardoso agreed and noted the signs are smaller than the non-conforming signs and expressed that smaller signs would get lost in the mix. Case made a motion to find in the affirmative for all the Findings of Facts for V17-38; 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: A larger sign will help promote the business within the unique conditions of the plaza’s location. 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 set back from the very busy five-lane roadway. In order for the sign to be more visible and functional from that 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 the existing conforming sign which is not very legible from the five-lane roadway given the setback. (See attached pics from Google maps). Finding of Fact No. 4 – The variance will allow the intent of the zoning ordinance to be observed and substantial justice done, because: The tenant will be more visible and identifiable to members in the community. Case moved to grant approval for Case No. V17-38 as presented; seconded by Shamberger. Motion carried unanimously. E. V17-39 / Fruit Life / 370 Patteson Drive: Request by Crystal Miller of City Neon, Inc., on behalf of Sellaro Enterprises, for variance relief from Article 1369 concerning signage; Tax Map 11, Parcel 2; B-2, Service Business District. Case made a motion to find in the affirmative for all the Findings of Facts for V17-39; 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: A larger sign will help promote the business within the unique conditions of the plaza’s location. 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 6 of 11 November 30, 2017 Minutes  The shopping plaza is set back from the very busy five-lane roadway. In order for the sign to be more visible and functional from that 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 from the five- lane roadway, given the setback. Finding of Fact No. 4 – The variance will allow the intent of the zoning ordinance to be observed and substantial justice done, because: The tenant will be more visible and identifiable to members of the community. Case moved to grant approval for Case No. V17-39 as presented; seconded by Shamberger. 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. V17-40 / Defense in Depth, LLC / 1389 Earl L. Core Road: Request by Mark J. Nesselroad, on behalf of Defense in Depth, LLC, for variance relief from Article 1369 concerning signage; Tax Map 31, Parcels 100 and 101.1; B-5, Shopping Center District. Whitmore presented the Staff Report. Cardoso recognized Andy Rankin, on behalf of Defense in Depth, LLC, who stated larger signage in necessary to be visible as the shopping center sits far from the road. Rankin noted that the entrance sign is comparable to other business signs in the center and stated the proposed pylon sign is the same height as the existing pylon sign and will be modified to look more modern. Case asked if the existing pylon sign is being replaced. Rankin explained that two panels will be replaced along with a digital board and a new top in a diamond design but noted the height will remain the same and only an increase in square footage. Shamberger asked if the pylon sign will be consistent for all the businesses in the center. Rankin confirmed and stated the sign will service the entire center and will be approved by the landlord as well. Case referred to the LED signage and asked what would be shown on that screen. Rankin explained it would be a digital screen to advertise all businesses one at a time and will not be a streaming message. Whitmore noted that per the code, the LED signage would not classify as a billboard as the messaging has to include what is occurring onsite. Case asked if the proposed wall signage would be illuminated. Rankin confirmed and stated the wall signage is consistent with other signage in the complex. Morgantown Board of Zoning Appeals Page 7 of 11 November 30, 2017 Minutes Cardoso asked if the entrance is off to the side. Rankin 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 variance petition. There being none, Cardoso declared the public portion closed and asked for Staff recommendations, which were read by Whitmore. Case asked if there are regulations for LED signage. Whitmore stated LED signage is permitted in certain zoning districts and noted that there is design guidance from the International Sign Association (ISA) that promote best practices for electronic signage. Whitmore noted that if the light causes a glare or there are complaints, then a lighting study would be requested. Cardoso expressed that the wings on the proposed sign are different from other surrounding signage. Case noted the wings as well but expressed that the proposed sign is better than what is there now and stated that Sabraton is a commercial strip full of lighted signs. Shamberger referred to the wings and expressed that less is more when it comes to signage but noted he would be more concerned if they were requesting to go higher with the sign. He noted the entrance is to the side of the building and expressed that signage is necessary for advertisement. Cardoso agreed. Case made a motion to find in the affirmative for all the Findings of Facts for V17-40; 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: Wall Signage The area of the proposed signage is consistent with the predominant commercial signage patterns along Earl Core Road, which do not presently appear to harm public welfare, adjoining properties, or improvements. Examples include but are not limited to Advance Auto Parts, US Cellular, AutoZone, CVS, former Walgreens, Kroger, and Sheetz. Allowing for vital visibility to a large anchor tenant occupying a rear corner space in a multi-tenant shopping center will limit confusion as to such tenant’s location and will enhance prospective commerce to all surrounding businesses. Post and Panel Sign The lighting, height and area of the reformatted multi-tenant sign appears to be consistent with the predominant commercial signage patterns along Earl Core Road, which do not presently appear to harm public welfare, adjoining properties, or improvements. 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: Wall Signage The subject site is situated in one of the most heavily traveled corridors within the region where the predominant commercial signage and messaging patterns exceed the maximum area standards set forth in the Planning and Zoning Code. Compliance with said maximum standards may result in a competitive disadvantage for less visible locations within the Earl Core Road commercial corridor. Post and Panel Sign Morgantown Board of Zoning Appeals Page 8 of 11 November 30, 2017 Minutes  The subject site is situated in one of the most heavily traveled corridors within the region where the predominant commercial signage and messaging patterns exceed the maximum height and area standards set forth in the Planning and Zoning Code. Compliance with the “Directory” sign design standards may result in a competitive disadvantage for less visible locations within the Earl Core Road commercial corridor. Finding of Fact No. 3 – The variance will eliminate an unnecessary hardship and permit a reasonable use of the land, because: Wall Signage It appears that the majority of commercial signage along the Earl Core Road commercial corrido, particularly those servicing multi-tenant developments, are nonconforming as most do not meet maximum area standards set forth in the Planning and Zoning Code. Additionally, similar variance relief has recently been granted along Earl Core Road. Examples include but are not limited to Advance Auto Parts, US Cellular, AutoZone, CVS, former Walgreens, Kroger, and Sheetz. Post and Panel Sign It appears that the majority of commercial signage along the Earl Core Road commercial corridor, particularly those serving multi-tenant developments, are nonconforming as most do not meet design standards set forth in the Planning and Zoning Code. Additionally, similar variance relief has recently been granted along Earl Core Road. Examples include but are not limited to Sterling Commons (Shoney’s, Suburban Extended Stay Hotel, JD Byrider), MVB Bank, Dunkin’ Doughnuts, Kroger gas station, Kroger supermarket, Jones Plaza (Dollar General & Habitat for Humanity), CVS, CSC, Wendy’s, and Glenmark’s Sabraton Plaza. Finding of Fact No. 4 – The variance will allow the intent of the zoning ordinance to be observed and substantial justice done, because: Wall Signage On a multi-occupancy building, each occupant with an outside entrance serving the general public may have a separate wall sign. Corner tenants with a door or window on their side walls and tenants with a separate outside entrance serving the general public where such entrance is on a different exterior wall from any other entrance for which such tenant shall be allowed one additional wall sign. The zoning ordinance allows for variances as to a total signage area. Post and Panel Sign The illumination, height and area of the reformatted multi-tenant sign appears to be consistent with the predominant commercial signage patterns along Earl Core Road, which do not appear to diminish the Market value or vitality of the well-established commercial corridor. Variance relief relative to height and area cannot contribute to nor mitigate existing traffic volumes on neighboring streets. Case moved to grant approval for Case No. V17-40 as presented; 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. G. V17-41 / Musick / 70 Wilson Avenue: Request by Mark Musick for variance relief from Sections 1331.08 and 1335.05 as they relate to accessory structure setbacks; Tax Map 36, Parcel 4.1; R-1A, Single-Family Residential District. Whitmore presented the Staff Report. Morgantown Board of Zoning Appeals Page 9 of 11 November 30, 2017 Minutes Cardoso recognized Mark Music of 70 Wilson Avenue who stated the variance request is to allow for a 4-foot by 8-foot storage shed to be erected to the back side of the existing garage which is currently in an area of un-used space. Cardoso referred to Addendum A in the Staff report and noted there is not a lot of room to maneuver. Musick confirmed and explained it they decided on 8 feet to allow for space to get in and out. Cardoso noted the property is an odd shaped lot. Musick confirmed and stated they would be building more than a foot away from the neighboring fence. Case asked if he had discussed this project with the neighbors that own the fence. Musick stated the neighbors had moved but noted there have been no objections by other neighbors. Case asked if staff had received any objections. Whitmore stated there was one phone call that asked where the structure would be located but stated there were no objections. 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. There being none, Cardoso declared the public portion closed and asked for Staff recommendations, which were read by Whitmore. Cardoso noted the lot is an odd shape and there have been no objections from the neighbors. Shamberger agreed and noted there are similar setback issues in that neighborhood. Case noted the shed will be in the rear of the property and wont’ affect curb appeal. Shamberger made a motion to find in the affirmative for all the Findings of Facts for V17-41; 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 appears existing fencing and/or retaining walls delineate the individual premises for each of the buildings located on the subject two parcels, which do not appear to be encroached upon by the proposed location of the accessory structure. 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: Issues surrounding the location of the accessory structure are caused by existing parcel and building encroachments, as three (3) structures appear to occupy two parcels in close proximity, creating zoning nonconformities. Finding of Fact No. 3 – The variance will eliminate an unnecessary hardship and permit a reasonable use of the land, because: This area currently is unusable and can become overgrown. The shed would eliminate this issue and allow for additional storage while enhancing the area’s appearance. Morgantown Board of Zoning Appeals Page 10 of 11 November 30, 2017 Minutes  Finding of Fact No. 4 – The variance will allow the intent of the zoning ordinance to be observed and substantial justice done, because: The shed will not encroach the neighbor’s boundaries. It will be within the petitioner’s property lines and will provide accessory storage as is afforded to neighboring properties. Shamberger moved to grant approval for Case No. V17-41 as presented; seconded by Case. Motion carried unanimously. Cardoso reminded Mr. Musick 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 stated that George Papandreas would no longer be serving on the Board and noted that a potential replacement member was scheduled for council consideration in the near future. VI. ADJOURNMENT: 7:45 p.m. MINUTES APPROVED: December 20, 2017 BOARD SECRETARY: _____________________________ Christopher M. Fletcher, AICP Morgantown Board of Zoning Appeals Page 11 of 11 November 30, 2017 Minutes