Board of Zoning Appeals

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MINUTES 6:30 p.m. March 14, 2018 Council Chambers MEMBERS PRESENT: Harrison Case, Tom Shamberger, Kevin Meehan and Chris Benison MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF: John Whitmore, AICP I. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL: Case called the meeting to order 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 February 21, 2018 hearing. No corrections noted; minutes approved as presented. III. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: A. V18-01 / TLC Dental / 1801 Earl L. Core Road: Request by Dr. Robert Martino, on behalf of TLC Dental, for variance relief from Article 1369 concerning signage; Tax Map 33, Parcel 48; B-2, Service Business District. TABLED 21 FEB 2018. Whitmore presented the memo associated with Case V18-01 in the meeting packet. Case recognized Todd Thompson of 2000 Industrial Road who stated they would take two of the signs down. Meehan made a motion to find in the affirmative for all of the Finding of Facts for V18-01; 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: All signage is limited to the business storefront, both parking lot side and street side, and does not interfere with any other businesses’ space. Wall signs are constructed from lightweight, durable sign material (Piopanel) and secured to the metal face of the business with a variety of appropriate screws. 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 allowed sign square footage for this location would limit the business to extremely small signs relative to storefront area available. Morgantown Board of Zoning Appeals Page 1 of 20 March 14, 2018 Minutes  Finding of Fact No. 3 – The variance will eliminate an unnecessary hardship and permit a reasonable use of the land, because: The variance will allow for reasonably sized signs to advertise the dental office location and eliminate any confusion for clients trying to locate the business. Signs on the street side and parking lot side will both help to indicate to clients where to pull in and where to park. While there is a pylon sign at the entrance to Jones Plaza containing a cabinet sing along the road, it consists of one 3ftH X 8ftW cabinet sign that needs to share space for both TLC Dental and Super Kid Dental. Because both offices share the same cabinet sign on the pylon, the text is smaller that it would be otherwise and is not as noticeable as full-sized language on the street side of the building. 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 for reasonable sized signs to indicate the dental office location. The desired signage size is in line with the average standard in similar plazas. Shamberger moved to grant approval for Case No. V18-01 as revised; seconded by Bension. Motion carried unanimously. Case reminded Mr. Thompson 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. V18-02 / Supercuts / 1429 Earl L. Core Road: Request by Ismail Latif, on behalf of Supercuts, for variance relief from Article 1369 concerning signage; Tax Map 31, Parcel 100; B-5, Shopping Center District. TABLED 21 FEB 2018. No representative was present for V18-02. Whitmore presented the memo associated with Case V18-02 in the meeting packet. Case noted the email in the meeting packet by the petitioner states they do not wish to undergo any design modifications with the current signage. Case asked if the petitioner was notified of the date and time of the hearing. Whitmore confirmed. There being no further questions or comments by the Board, Case asked if anyone was present to speak in favor of or in opposition to the variance petition. Case recognized Garrett Richards of Glenmark Holding, who stated they own the building and expressed the proposed signage is aesthetically pleasing and will be functional with other signage located in the plaza. Richards stated Glenmark approved the sign based on approval from the BZA and stated they do not condone the action by the tenant to erect the signs without appropriate approvals. Benison referred to Save-A-Lot lease requirements that were mentioned at the prior hearing and asked for those requirements specified in the lease. Richards stated he did not know the exact wording of that lease but stated that all sign requests are based on prior approval from the BZA. There being no further comments, Case declared the public hearing closed and noted that Staff already presented the recommendations listed in the memorandum. Morgantown Board of Zoning Appeals Page 2 of 20 March 14, 2018 Minutes After further discussion, Board members expressed discontentment in granting the variance and noted that the applicant is not willing to compromise with different signage or attend the hearing. Shamberger moved to find in the negative for all the Findings of Facts for Case V18-02; seconded Meehan. Motion carried unanimously. NOTE: The following findings were included in the motion Finding of Fact No. 1 – The variance will adversely affect the public health, safety or welfare, or the rights of adjacent property owners or residents, because: The erected wall signs deleteriously impact the public’s enjoyment of the built environment, as protected by the related sign regulation, and the public’s right and shared obligation to comply with related sign regulations. Finding of Fact No. 2 – The variance does not arise 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: No special conditions or attributes pertaining to the erected wall signs are apparent nor were special conditions or attributes identified by the petitioner that were not created by the petitioner. Finding of Fact No. 3 – The variance will not eliminate an unnecessary hardship and permit a reasonable use of the land, because: No unnecessary hardship is apparent nor has the petitioner demonstrated an unnecessary hardship that would negate a reasonable and effective means of communicating the location and purpose of the establishment to the public. Finding of Fact No. 4 – The variance will not allow the intent of the zoning ordinance to be observed and substantial justice done, because: Variance relief permitting the erected illegal wall signage to remain in this case would only serve to diminish the value and purposes of and the public’s compliance expectations for related sign regulations and the enforcement thereof. Further, there appears to be alternate design means, which the petitioner has been unwilling to explore, that could reasonably and effectively communicate the location and purpose of the establishment to the public. Shamberger moved to deny Case No. V18-02; seconded by Meehan. Motion carried unanimously. Case stated 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. IV. NEW BUSINESS: A. V18-06 / South Park Service Station / 301 Pleasant Street: Request by Ryan Stewart, on behalf of South Park Service Station, for variance relief from Article 1369 concerning signage; Tax Map 29, Parcels 370 and 371; B-4, General Business District. Whitmore presented the Staff Report. Morgantown Board of Zoning Appeals Page 3 of 20 March 14, 2018 Minutes Case recognized Ryan Stuart of 4202 Persinal Woods who stated he understands the vinyl signs need to come down and noted they did not know that replacing the face of the existing signage was not allowed as it was the same size of what was previously there. Stuart questioned how to measure the frontage of the building. Whitmore explained how the building frontage is calculated and noted it is calculated using Coburn Avenue per the Planning and Zoning Code frontage provisions. Case asked if the petitioner wanted to keep the post and panel signage but understood that the vinyl signage had to come down. Stuart confirmed. There being no further questions or comments by the Board, Case asked if anyone was present to speak in favor of or in opposition to the variance petition. Case recognized Paul Steel of 220 Grand Street who stated the business is an entrance into South Park and does not need all of the signage currently on the building. Steel noted the bottom of the post and panel sign is a planter and has needed repaired for years. Case recognized William Kawecki of 324 Cobun Avenue who encouraged the BZA to be more restrictive in permitting sign variances and encouraged the Planning Division to review the sign regulations and expressed that visual clutter is not appealing in the City. Kawecki expressed he would like to see signage taken down. Whitmore read public comments received by Staff from Stanley Cohen, Penny Koska, and Cathleen and Walter Latis who all opposed the proposed variance request. Case referred to the meeting packet and noted that comments were received from Deer Park Signs noting the size and material of the post and panel sign. Case offered the petitioner a chance for rebuttal. Stuart declined the rebuttal opportunity. There being no further comments, Case declared the public hearing closed and asked for Staff recommendations, which were read by Whitmore. Case referred to the Staff recommendations and noted the planting bed of the post and panel sign would be required to be maintained. Whitmore confirmed and stated the planting bed is a podium for the sign and could be removed if desired. Benison questioned the two answers given for Finding of Fact 1. Whitmore explained that Staff provided two sets of findings of fact response addressing the wall signage and the post-and-panel signage separately and noted that the Finding of Fact questions could be reviewed individually. Shamberger noted the sign is older and nonconforming and the new standard would be less square footage and lower in height. Case expressed that lowering the sign could be a concern as it is located on a corner and could obstruct visibility. Shamberger expressed the sign is too high to be visible unless a person is close. After further discussion, Board members decided to approve the variance for the nonconforming sign but deny the variance for the vinyl signs. Morgantown Board of Zoning Appeals Page 4 of 20 March 14, 2018 Minutes Meehan moved to find in the affirmative for all of the Findings of Facts for Case V18-06 as revised by Staff; seconded Benison. Motion carried unanimously. NOTE: The following findings were included in the motion Finding of Fact No. 1 – The variance related to the post-and-panel sign will not adversely affect the public health, safety or welfare, or the rights of adjacent property owners or residents, because: The post-and-panel sign structure has been in place for many years without appreciable adverse impact. The variance related to the wall signs will adversely affect the public health, safety or welfare, or the rights of adjacent property owners or residents, because: The erected wall signs deleteriously impact the public’s enjoyment of the built environment, the rights and obligations of property owners to expect sign regulation compliance, and the intent and spirit of maximum sign area and sign material standards. Finding of Fact No. 2 – The variance related to the post-and-panel sign 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 historic use of the property requires signage not traditionally associated with a downtown core, and the property itself is unique in that it is detached from the urban core of the City by serving the immediate residential neighborhood. The post-and-panel signage utilizes an existing post-and-panel structure. The variance related to the wall signs does not arise 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: No special conditions or attributes pertaining the erected wall signs are apparent that were not created by the petitioner. Finding of Fact No. 3 – The variance for the post-and-panel sign will eliminate an unnecessary hardship and permit a reasonable use of the land, because: Removal of the existing post-and-panel sign structure does not appear necessary to ensure a reasonable use of the ground signage in this case; provided deferred maintenance of the sign structure is addressed within a reasonable time. The variance for the wall signage will not eliminate an unnecessary hardship and permit a reasonable use of the land, because: No hardship is apparent concerning the erected wall signage; particularly given the temporary nature of vinyl sign materials. Finding of Fact No. 4 – The variance for the post-and-panel sign will allow the intent of the zoning ordinance to be observed and substantial justice done, because: The existing post-and-panel sign structure will continue to be used and serve commercial messaging need for the site as the structure has done for many years in this case; provided, deferred maintenance of the sign structure is addressed within a reasonable time. The variance for the wall signage will not allow the intent of the zoning ordinance to be observed and substantial justice done, because: Morgantown Board of Zoning Appeals Page 5 of 20 March 14, 2018 Minutes  Variance relief permitting the erected illegal wall signage to remain in this case will only serve to diminish the value of and the public’s compliance expectations for related signage regulations and the enforcement thereof. Shamberger moved to approve the variance for the post and panel sign for Case No. V18-06 with Staff recommended conditions; seconded by Meehan. Motion carried unanimously. The following condition was approved for Case V18-06: The variances for the post-and-panel sign were granted with the condition that The post-and-panel sign structure shall be maintained and kept painted to avoid rust and decay and any and all related maintenance work must be completed, including the flower-bed podium, following related building permit issuance, within 90 days. Shamberger moved to deny the variance for the wall signage for Case No. V18-06 and stated that all existing illegal signage be removed by Monday, March 19, 2018; seconded by Meehan. Motion carried unanimously. Case stated 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. V18-07 / Mountaineer Amish Structures / 1591 Deckers Creek: Request by Chad Matheny, on behalf of Mountaineer Amish Structures, for variance relief from Section 1365 related to minimum parking standards; Tax Map 31, Parcel 114; B-2, Service Business District. C. CU18-01 / Mountaineer Amish Structures / 1591 Deckers Creek: Request by Chad Matheny, on behalf of Mountaineer Amish Structures, for approval of a conditional “Outdoor Storage Facility” use; Tax Map 31, Parcel 114; B-2, Service Business District. With no objections from the Board, the petitioner, or the public, Whitmore presented the combined Staff report for V18-07 and CU18-01. Case recognized Chad Matheny of 3488 Earl L. Core Road who stated he has had storage sheds in different locations within the City and never had any problems. Matheny noted he does not want to pave the property as he does not own it and it is for sale. Matheny stated that moving and dragging the sheds would be detrimental to pavement. He expressed that not many customers visit the location at one time and that customers usually park at CVS when coming to look the storage sheds. Matheny stated that if the variance is granted, he will bring in top soil and beautify the property with thick grass. Shamberger asked if the pavement was torn up at his other locations while moving the sheds. Matheny explained that different equipment was used to move previous sheds at the different location. He stated he could afford and acquire some “shavings” if gravel will not be permitted. Case asked if he had an office at the location. Matheny stated he has an office off-site in Richard and customers call for information or to make appointments. Morgantown Board of Zoning Appeals Page 6 of 20 March 14, 2018 Minutes Case asked if parking had been discussed with the property owner. Matheny confirmed and stated the owner would be willing to provide the shavings if permitted. There being no further questions or comments by the Board and with no objections from the Board, the petitioner, or the public, Case opened the public hearing for both CU18-01 and V18- 08 petitions asking if anyone was present to speak in favor of or in opposition to the petitions. Case recognized Melinda Fitchum of Spring Street who stated she works with Mr. Matheny and noted that there is not a lot of parking required for this business and stated there are other gravel parking lots in Sabraton. There being no further comments, Case asked for Staff recommendations, which were read by Whitmore. Case suggested reviewing Case No. CU18-01 first as if it is denied then the variance request would be mute. Board members agreed. Case asked if the City is aware of any problems with the location. Whitmore stated the Planning Division has not received any related communications. Shamberger expressed that the B-2 District has certain requirements and did not feel parking in the CVS lot is appropriate. Matheny stated there is a dead-end street behind the business but did not feel he could motivate people to park in that area. Case asked if he had asked for permission from CVS for clients to park in their lot. Matheny stated he has not approached CVS but noted it most likely would not be affordable for him to pay for parking as he only has one or two clients at a time and it is sporadic. Whitmore noted the applicant could apply for conditional off-site parking in the B-2 District. Case asked if the shavings mentioned is an acceptable form of paving. Whitmore referred to the Planning and Zoning Code to provide further explanation and stated it would have to be approved by the City Engineer. After further discussion, Board members expressed concerns with setting a precedent if approving variance relief from paving requirements. Shamberger moved to find in the affirmative for all of the Findings of Facts for Case CU18-01 as presented by Staff; seconded Benison. 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 development site is accessed from Deckers Creek Boulevard connecting to Earl L. Core Road, which is considered an arterial commercial corridor with high annual average daily traffic (AADT). Additionally, with the exception of the Sabraton Station bar/restaurant establishment, the development site is situated along a dead-end street surrounded by vacant lots. Finding of Fact No. 2 – Safety from fire, panic, and other danger is not jeopardized, in that: The proposed “Outdoor Storage” use at the subject site does not appear to jeopardize public safety. Morgantown Board of Zoning Appeals Page 7 of 20 March 14, 2018 Minutes  Finding of Fact No. 3 – Provision of adequate light and air is not disturbed, in that: The proposed “Outdoor Storage” use do not include the construction of a permanent building that would alter existing light distribution or air circulation patterns within the immediate area. Finding of Fact No. 4 – Overcrowding of land does not result, in that: The use is limited to the current parcel and portions of the subject development site must remain open to provide adequate inventory transfer, vehicle maneuvering, and parking. Finding of Fact No. 5 – Undue congestion of population is not created, in that: The proposed “Outdoor Storage” use is nonresidential. 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 proposed “Outdoor Storage” use does not appear to demand greater public services or utilities that are not already available to the site or within the immediate area. Finding of Fact No. 7 – Value of buildings will be conserved, in that: Parcels with access to Deckers Creek Boulevard are mostly vacant. Finding of Fact No. 8 – The most appropriate use of land is encouraged, in that: The proposed “Outdoor Storage” use and related commercial advertising and transporting of storage sheds inventory appear to be in keeping with higher traffic commercial uses within the B-2 District, while itself providing limited trip generation. Shamberger moved to approve Case No. CU18-01 without conditions; seconded by Benison. Motion carried unanimously. Case referred to the Staff Report conditions listed under the variance petition and suggested the petitioner work with Staff on parking materials that will comply with City standards. Whitmore stated the applicant would submit a building permit application that will be reviewed by the necessary departments. Matheny stated that no one will drive to the end of the property even if six spaces are created as everyone will still park at CVS. Matheny reiterated that he does not own the property and could be evicted at anytime and asked for a temporary one-year extension. Board members continued discussion on the variance petition and expressed concerns with parking on CVS property and noted the requirements in a B-2 District. Case noted the petitioner can work with Staff to find a different solution and come back before the Board if needed should the variance be denied. Shamberger moved to accept all of the negative Findings of Facts for Case V18-07 as presented by Staff; seconded Meehan. Motion carried unanimously. Morgantown Board of Zoning Appeals Page 8 of 20 March 14, 2018 Minutes NOTE: The following findings were included in the motion. Finding of Fact No. 1 – The variance will adversely affect the public health, safety or welfare, or the rights of adjacent property owners or residents, because: The use of gravel for automobile parking presents a slip and/or trip hazard for the general public visiting the site and presents off-site road hazards along the paved Deckers Creek Boulevard and increased opportunity for roadway damage and degradation. Finding of Fact No. 2 – The variance does not arise 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: Neither the development site nor the proposed “Outdoor Storage” use present characteristics or features that negate the legislative intent and purpose of requiring public parking to be developed using all-weather, dust-free surfacing. Finding of Fact No. 3 – The variance will not eliminate an unnecessary hardship and permit a reasonable use of the land, because: The cost associated with developing public parking to include all-weather, dust-free surfacing is an insupportable hardship in this case and does not negate the obligation of the petitioner to provide the requisite improvement. Finding of Fact No. 4 – The variance will not allow the intent of the zoning ordinance to be observed and substantial justice done, because: Granting variance relief in this case as requested undermines the purposes of the Planning and Zoning Code to, “Promote the orderly, responsible, and beneficial development and use of the land within the City,” and to, “Promote the public health, safety…comfort, convenience and general welfare of the City.” Shamberger moved to deny Case V18-07; seconded by Meehan. Motion carried unanimously. Case stated 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. V18-08 / Scholar Hotel WV, LLC / 345 Chestnut Street: Request by Alexander Feldman, on behalf of Scholar Hotel WV, LLC, for variance relief from Article 1369 concerning signage; Tax Map 26A, Parcel 80; B-4, General Business District. Whitmore presented the Staff Report. Case recognized Alexander Feldman of 345 Chestnut Street who provided further explanation on the proposed sign and noted that visibility has been a challenge for the hotel. Whitmore noted there is other signage on the building that has been approved but the variance is for the proposed suspended sign. There being no questions or comments by the Board, Case asked if anyone was present to speak in favor of or in opposition to the variance petition. Morgantown Board of Zoning Appeals Page 9 of 20 March 14, 2018 Minutes Case recognized Trevor Lloyd of Killarney Drive who stated the hotel is hard to see and is in favor of the petition as he would like to see a hotel business succeed. There being no further comments, Case declared the public hearing closed and asked for Staff recommendations, which were read by Whitmore. Case asked for further explanations of the design and materials used for the sign. Whitmore stated it appears the blue part of the sign could be illuminated and noted Staff does not want to see that. Case asked what type of materials that the sign company will be using. Feldman stated the materials are listed on the building permit but noted the lettering of the sign will be acrylic and the blue part will be painted aluminum. After further discussion, Board members agreed the hotel is located in an area that is hidden and the sign is modest and fits the character of the surrounding environment. Meehan moved to find in the affirmative for all of the Findings of Facts for Case V18-08; seconded Benison. 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: There are a number of awnings, awning signs, and suspended/projecting type signs within the B-4 District that extend into the right-of-way, in a similar manner and similar size for which variance relief is granted herein, without adversely impacting the enjoyment or safety of the public realm or the rights of adjacent property 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: Access to and visibility of the hotel, even though it situated in the heart of Morgantown’s central business district, is limited by one-way streets (Chestnut Street and Fayette Street), by a dominant building line along the west side of Chestnut Street between Fayette Street and Willey Street, and by an elevation change between Fayette Street and Willey Street. Finding of Fact No. 3 – The variance will eliminate an unnecessary hardship and permit a reasonable use of the land, because: A larger, internally illuminated sign projecting from the building, for which variance relief is granted herein, appears to improve wayfinding and navigation for lodging guests, given the establishment’s limited visibility, without adversely impacting the enjoyment or safety of the public realm. Finding of Fact No. 4 – The variance will allow the intent of the zoning ordinance to be observed and substantial justice done, because: A larger, internally illuminated sign, for which variance relief is granted herein, appears to facilitate an effective use of signage while maintaining and enhancing the look and attractiveness of the immediate area without adversely impacting the enjoyment or safety of the public realm. Morgantown Board of Zoning Appeals Page 10 of 20 March 14, 2018 Minutes Shamberger moved to approve the variance for Case No. V18-08 with Staff recommended conditions; seconded by Meehan. Motion carried unanimously. The following conditions were approved for Case V18-08: 1. The transparent material is limited to the letters “S-C-H-O-L-A-R-H-O-T-E-L” and to the mortarboard cap logo. The remaining sign face material shall be opaque and be of wood, sculpted sign foam, ornamental metals, and/or aluminum material(s). 2. Only the letters “S-C-H-O-L-A-R-H-O-T-E-L” and the mortarboard cap logo may be internally illuminated and must remain one (1) constant, continuous, and stationary color and may not flash, blink, undulate, pulse, strobe, blink or otherwise appear to move. Case stated that the Board’s decision can be appealed to Circuit Court within thirty days of receiving written notification from the Planning Division and that any work related to the Board’s decisions during this period would be at the sole financial risk of the petitioner. E. V18-09 / Vice Versa / 335 High Street: Request by Lisa Mardis of Project Management Services, on behalf of Vice Versa, for variance relief from Article 1369 concerning signage; Tax Map 26A, Parcel 67; B-4, General Business District. Whitmore presented the Staff Report. Case recognized Lisa Mardis of Project Management Services, on behalf of Vice Versa, who provided further explanation of the variance petition and noted the entrance to the establishment is on the back of the building. Mardis stated they would like to keep the tip of the sign as it keeps with the cabaret style and shows there is an entrance in the rear of the building. There being no questions or comments by the Board, Case asked if anyone was present to speak in favor of or in opposition to the variance petition. There being none, Case declared the public hearing closed and asked for Staff recommendations, which were read by Whitmore. Bension asked if the applicant would consider reducing the overall length of the sign by changing the design. Case recognized Jim Yost, owner of Vice Versa, who stated the design of the sign is to keep a historical look to the City. Yost noted the establishment is hard to find and the arrow and logo on the sign would help people find the business. Case asked if the lights surrounding the sign would be moving or stationary. Mardis stated she they would like to have moving LED lights. Whitmore asked if the LED bulb will be contemporary or modern. Yost stated the lighting will be LED but will have an older look. Yost stated they need four-foot out from the building to get the wires into the building. Case asked if Staff had concerns with the projection of the sign being four feet instead of three feet out from the building. Whitmore referred to the Staff report and stated there are new LED overhead lighting along Wall Street that the City has installed and noted that there were concerns by the City Engineer in the past with those lights and proposed awnings for the neighboring tenant. Yost noted the building has been painted black and there is a need for excessive lighting thru the alley way which the sign would help provide. Morgantown Board of Zoning Appeals Page 11 of 20 March 14, 2018 Minutes After further discussion, Board members expressed that signage is needed to locate the establishment. Benison asked how this sign would compare with other suspended signs in the downtown district. Whitmore stated the ordinance is setting a standard to resemble a shingle hanging above the door and noted there have been multiple variances granted for suspended signage in the downtown area. Whitmore stated there is newer technology with internal illumination that will start to make its presence in the downtown area and noted the proposed sign is unique. Case referred to the Staff report and asked if the petitioner would accept stationary lights around the sign. Mardis stated the signage is comparable to what was just approved for Scholar Hotel WV, LLC and stated they would prefer to have moving lights, couldn’t speak for Mr. Yost, but believed he would accept stationary lighting as long as they had a sign. Case asked if they were okay with keeping the sign at least 9 feet from ground. Mardis confirmed and stated there is way more than 9 feet anyway. Case stated Staff wanted to make sure the bulbs were protected from vandalism. Mardis stated the bulbs are LED and protected by a plastic material. After further discussion, Board members decided the design as presented by the petitioner was acceptable. Board members agreed on stationary lighting. Shamberger moved to find in the affirmative for all of the Findings of Facts for Case V18-09 as amended by Staff; seconded Benison. 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: There are a number of awnings, awning signs, and suspended/projecting type signs within the B-4 District that extend into the right-of-way, in a similar manner and similar size for which variance relief is granted herein, without adversely impacting the enjoyment or safety of the public realm or the rights of adjacent property 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 establishment is addressed to High Street but has no visible storefront from High Street. The establishment’s entrance is approximately 170 feet from High Street, is approximately 75 feet from Chestnut Street, and is nestled along a 12-foot primarily pedestrian public right-of-way. Finding of Fact No. 3 – The variance will eliminate an unnecessary hardship and permit a reasonable use of the land, because: A larger, internally illuminated sign, for which variance relief is granted herein, appears to facilitate the petitioner’s desire to reasonably improve commercial presence and related messaging within the downtown, given the establishment’s location hardship, without adversely impacting the enjoyment or safety of the public realm. Finding of Fact No. 4 – The variance will allow the intent of the zoning ordinance to be observed and substantial justice done, because: Morgantown Board of Zoning Appeals Page 12 of 20 March 14, 2018 Minutes  A larger, internally illuminated sign, for which variance relief is granted herein, appears to facilitate an effective use of signage while maintaining and enhancing the look and attractiveness of the Wall Street pedestrian way without adversely impacting the enjoyment or safety of the public realm. Shamberger moved to approve the variance for Case No. V18-09 with revised conditions by the Board; seconded by Meehan. Motion carried unanimously. The following conditions were approved for Case V18-09: 1. The proposed suspended sign must maintain a clearance of no less than nine (9) feet above the ground and shall not extent further than four (4) feet from the building. 2. The transparent material is limited to the letters “V-I-C-E-V-E-R-S-A”. The remaining sign face material shall be opaque and be of wood, sculpted sign foam, ornamental metals, and/or aluminum material(s). 3. Only the letters “V-I-C-E-V-E-R-S-A” may be internally illuminated and the letters must remain one (1) constant, continuous, and stationary color and may not flash, blink, undulate, pulse, strobe, blink or otherwise appear to move. 4. The exposed light bulbs or lamps running along the outermost portions of the proposed sign face must remain one (1) constant, continuous, and stationary color and may not flash, blink, undulate, pulse, strobe, blink or otherwise appear to move. 5. The exposed light bulbs or lamps running along the outermost portions of the proposed sign face must be protected from vandalism; however, the use of wire, aluminum, polymer or fabric fashioned in a chain link, cyclone, netting or similar design would be prohibited. Case stated 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. CU18-02 / Mountaineer Tap House / 453 Oakland Street: Request by Milo C. Ritton of Mirric Entertainment III, on behalf of Mountaineer Tap House for approval of a conditional “Restaurant, Private Club” use; Tax Map 11, Parcel 83; B-1, Neighborhood Business District. Whitmore presented the Staff Report. Case recognized Milo Ritton of Pittsburgh, PA who stated they operate multiple locations in West Virginia and have a history of serving beer and wine. Shamberger asked for further explanation of his restaurant experience. Ritton they operate multiple stores that include fast food and a full-service restaurant that serves bottled beer. Ritton noted that his company has over 1,500 employees and hundreds of years of experience. There being no further questions or comments by the Board, Case asked if anyone was present to speak in favor of or in opposition to the variance petition. There being none, Case declared the public hearing closed and asked for Staff recommendations, which were read by Whitmore. Case noted the Board conducted a site visit at the establishment. Shamberger expressed that the petitioner has restaurant experience and does not have a problem waving the one-year bona-fide restaurant requirement. Meehan agreed. Morgantown Board of Zoning Appeals Page 13 of 20 March 14, 2018 Minutes Whitmore noted there is not a one-year restaurant requirement in the B-1 District. Meehan moved to find in the affirmative for all of the Findings of Facts for Case CU18-01; seconded 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: This facility is located in a densely occupied environment, obtaining virtually all of its customers from either an existing place of employment (i.e Offices / Hospital) or current residential dwellings. Finding of Fact No. 2 – Safety from fire, panic, and other danger is not jeopardized, in that: This dwelling is already constructed with full approval of the local fire Marshall and is providing (not limiting) any access to fire safety in the environment. Finding of Fact No. 3 – Provision of adequate light and air is not disturbed, in that: The building while already existing, does not change any light or air patterns for the surrounding environment as constructed. Finding of Fact No. 4 – Overcrowding of land does not result, in that: The building, while already existing, in no manner overcrowds the existing nature of the environment. Finding of Fact No. 5 – Undue congestion of population is not created, in that: In addition to number 1 above, the majority of the premises occupants will already either be employed or reside in the immediate vicinity. 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 building, while already existing, does not impair any access to transportation, whether public or private and does not require unnecessary utility requests or impair parks or schools. Finding of Fact No. 7 – Value of buildings will be conserved, in that: The building, while already existing and constructed is of a manner of quality to exist as built for many decades and no request to modify the structure is requested. Finding of Fact No. 8 – The most appropriate use of land is encouraged, in that: Retail use is the highest and best use for the premises. Shamberger moved to approve Case No. CU18-02 with Staff recommended conditions; seconded by Benison. Motion carried unanimously. The following conditions were approved for Case V18-09: 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. Morgantown Board of Zoning Appeals Page 14 of 20 March 14, 2018 Minutes  3. That the “Restaurant, Private Club” use shall be limited to the interior design and identified areas within 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 conditional use permit, the subject “Restaurant, Private Club” use must: a. Be open to the general public a minimum of 11:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. at least five (5) days per week 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 prior to building permit issuance for same. 6. That the beneficiary of this conditional use approval is specific to Mirric Entertainment III (dba Mountaineer Tap House) and may not be transferred without prior approval of the Board of Zoning Appeals. Case stated 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. V18-11 / Highland Climbing and Fitness, LLC / Elijdad Street: Request by Chris Bailey, on behalf of Highland Climbing and Fitness, LLC, for variance relief from Article 1347 related to setbacks and encroachments; Tax Map 33, Parcel 51.3; B-2, Service Business District. With no objections from the Board, the petitioner, or the public, Whitmore presented the combined Staff report for the V18-11, V18-10, V18-12 and V18-13 petitions. Case recognized Chris Bailey of 125 Mountain Ridge Road who stated he owns two businesses in Morgantown and his business partner John has similar experiences. Bailey provided further explanation of the project and expressed that the setback on the rear should be granted as there is nothing behind the property and the floodway does not allow them to rotate the building on the property. Bailey referred to the sidewalks and stated they are willing to work with the City on a solution to connect the bridge with the property. Bailey stated the project includes a full service gym with the intent to improve the community with children’s programming to gain confidence and fitness. Bailed noted the building will have leasing space to include an upscale restaurant and an outdoor shop. Bailey referred to the parking requirement and stated a majority of clientele will be riding bikes or walking to that establishment, that will minimize the need for parking and noted that parking was designed around the shape of the lot and the floodway. Shamberger asked for further explanation on the term floodway. Case recognized Trevor Lloyd, Engineering Consultant on behalf of Highland Climbing and Fitness, LLC, stated that anything man-made in nature would trap debris which would cause back up to the stream. Lloyd explained the floodway is a regulated and designated area for which the Morgantown Board of Zoning Appeals Page 15 of 20 March 14, 2018 Minutes stream can expand and contract. Lloyd stated there is approximately 2,000 cubic yards of volume that they will remove from the floodway to provide for more parking and to allow for Decker’s Creek to expand more which is beneficial to the community. Case asked for further explanation on the sidewalks. Lloyd explained the sidewalk would be taken to the entrance of the establishment and they would work with the City if they would like to expand it to the bridge. Lloyd stated that two of the variances are largely a byproduct due to the shape of the lot. Case recognized John Brokhart of 116 Kingwood Street and co-owner of Highland Climbing and Fitness, LLC, who provided further explanation of the business. Case asked if the number of parking spaces proposed are sufficient for clientele and employees. Bailey confirmed and expressed they are over budgeted for parking. Whitmore referred to the parking aspect and stated it is a unique use in terms of the zoning ordinance. There being no further questions or comments by the Board and with no objections from the Board, the petitioner, or the public, Case opened the public hearing for the V18-11, V18-10, V18- 12 and V18-13 petitions asking if anyone was present to speak in favor of or in opposition to the petitions. Case recognized Ryan Stocking of 36 Logan Avenue who spoke in favor of the petition and noted the business will attract a certain class of smart people. There being no further comments, Case declared the public hearing closed and asked for Staff recommendations, which were read by Whitmore. Board members agreed the property is challenging with the shape and the floodplain area. Shamberger moved to find in the affirmative for all of the Findings of Facts for Case V18-11; seconded Benison. 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 north end of the property is not adjacent to any business or residential structure. Further, with the location of the floodway and related development restrictions, it is unlikely there will ever be an adjacent structure to the proposed building. Finding of Fact No. 2 – The variance arises from special conditions or attributes which pertain to the property for which a variance is sought and which were not created by the person seeking the variance, because: A large portion of the property is un-buildable due to the floodway. Construction of buildings in a floodway is prohibited by the City’s Floodplain Management regulations. Morgantown Board of Zoning Appeals Page 16 of 20 March 14, 2018 Minutes  Finding of Fact No. 3 – The variance will eliminate an unnecessary hardship and permit a reasonable use of the land, because: If this property was not restricted by the floodway, minimum B-2 District building envelopes could be observed as evidenced by compliance with the B-2 District maximum lot coverage standard. Finding of Fact No. 4 – The variance will allow the intent of the zoning ordinance to be observed and substantial justice done, because: Minimum building envelope requirements in the City’s Planning and Zoning Code do not provide administrative relief for floodplain related site constraints, and the granting of variance relief in this case will not promote excessive development of the site or the overcrowding of land or population as evidenced by compliance with B-2 District maximum lot coverage and maximum building height standards. Shamberger moved to approve Case No. V18-11 without conditions; seconded by Meehan. Motion carried unanimously. H. V18-10 / Highland Climbing and Fitness, LLC / Elijdad Street: Request by Chris Bailey, on behalf of Highland Climbing and Fitness, LLC, for variance relief from Article 1347 related to sidewalks; Tax Map 33, Parcel 51.3; B-2, Service Business District. Shamberger moved to find in the affirmative for all of the Findings of Facts for Case V18-10; seconded Benison. 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: Developing a sidewalk along the site’s frontage beyond the curve in Eljadid Street would not serve the public interest to ensure places will be better connected to improve the function of the street network and creating more opportunities to walk, bike and access public transportation throughout the region as desired in the 2013 Comprehensive Plan Update under Land Management Principle No. 7 [see Page 36 of Comp Plan]. 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 portion of the site’s frontage for which variance relief is granted herein addresses the geometry of the roadway in relation to the geometry of the Eljadid Street / Carnegie Street curve, condition for which were not created by the petitioner. Finding of Fact No. 3 – The variance will eliminate an unnecessary hardship and permit a reasonable use of the land, because: The variance relief granted herein addresses the sidewalk extension past the Eljadid Street / Carnegie Street curve toward Deckers Creek and would not serve a public purpose. Morgantown Board of Zoning Appeals Page 17 of 20 March 14, 2018 Minutes  Finding of Fact No. 4 – The variance will allow the intent of the zoning ordinance to be observed and substantial justice done, because: Variance relief granted here provides a more practical and prudent means of ensuring city lands will be better connected to improve the function of the street network and creating more opportunities to walk, bike and access public transportation throughout the region as desired in the 2013 Comprehensive Plan Update under Land Management Principle No. 7 [see Page 36 of 2013 Update to the Comprehensive Plan]. Shamberger moved to approve Case No. V18-10 with Staff recommended conditions; seconded by Benison. Motion carried unanimously. The following conditions were approved for Case V18-09: 1. That the sidewalk continues westerly of the proposed driveway entrance along the development site’s frontage to a point identified by the City Engineer, but generally at or near the tangent of the Eljadid Street / Carnegie Street roadway curve. 2. That the width of the sidewalks shall match the width of the sidewalk along the Eljadid Street frontage of the adjoining Kentucky Fried Chicken site; provided, the width of the sidewalk to be constructed along the petitioner’s frontage is no less than five (5) feet, exclusive of the curb width. I. V18-12 / Highland Climbing and Fitness, LLC / Elijdad Street: Request by Chris Bailey, on behalf of Highland Climbing and Fitness, LLC, for variance relief from Article 1365 related to minimum parking standards; Tax Map 33, Parcel 51.3; B-2, Service Business District. Benison referred to classifying the use to a shopping center and asked if that is appropriate for the property. Bailey confirmed and stated it is hard to classify their business and feel this use would meet right in the middle between two different classifications. Shamberger moved to find in the affirmative for all of the Findings of Facts for Case V18-12; seconded by Benison. 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 property has unique and challenging design constraints due to a portion of the property being within the floodway of the Deckers Creek. This constraint has mandated certain design choices, and some of these choices have forced a slight reduction in the availability of parking. Additional accessibility to the property by bicycle or pedestrian traffic could reduce the functional parking necessity at this location. The rail-trail access at this location is well within the reach of the average user of the facility and will encourage alternative transportation infrastructure within the city of Morgantown. The position of the property along an alternative infrastructure corridor provides additional assurance that adjacent property owners should not be infringed upon with the granting of this variance from minimum parking requirements. 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 18 of 20 March 14, 2018 Minutes  As shown in the drawings, it is not feasible to build on a large amount of the development site due to floodway restrictions. This special condition on this parcel forced building in such a way that parking is more spread out and has reduced parking availability by about 30 spaces. Finding of Fact No. 3 – The variance will eliminate an unnecessary hardship and permit a reasonable use of the land, because: The variance will facilitate the development of a business that provides meaningful recreational activity, supports healthy and active lifestyles for members of the community, while maintaining City of Morgantown Floodplain development standards. Finding of Fact No. 4 – The variance will allow the intent of the zoning ordinance to be observed and substantial justice done, because: B-2 zoning is for large space users such as department stores located along major thoroughfares. Clients are anticipated to arrive on foot Additionally, there are unique constraints within the property with the floodway and its required dedication of certain design decisions that altered site layout. With creative programming that will spread out the flow of customers throughout the day reducing the parking burden at high use times and the expected patrons that will arrive on foot, the variance will provide for B-2 District preferred commercial development. Shamberger moved to approve Case No. V18-12 without conditions; seconded by Meehan. Motion carried unanimously. J. V18-13 / Highland Climbing and Fitness, LLC / Elijdad Street: Request by Chris Bailey, on behalf of Highland Climbing and Fitness, LLC, for variance relief from Article 1367 related to landscaping requirements; Tax Map 33, Parcel 51.3; B-2, Service Business District. Shamberger moved to find in the affirmative for all of the Findings of Facts for Case V18-13; seconded 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 proposed landscaping plan appears to increase the extent of landscaping in areas in a manner to advance desired objectives in achieving a healthy, beautiful, and safe community while observing floodway and floodplain development restrictions and best hydrologic and hydraulic practices. 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: A significant portion of the development site is located within the floodway requiring unique site and landscaping design considerations, conditions for which were not created by the petitioner. Finding of Fact No. 3 – The variance will eliminate an unnecessary hardship and permit a reasonable use of the land, because: There are parts of the parcel that cannot be developed for parking due to the topography and as such will remain undeveloped. Minimum landscape requirements do not provide flexibility to address floodway development planning or to ensure best hydrologic and hydraulic practices relative to Morgantown Board of Zoning Appeals Page 19 of 20 March 14, 2018 Minutes  anticipated flood events; particularly, requisite curbing, mulching, planting, and bed placement standards relative to overbank and flash flooding conditions when preserving flood water storage volume and not introducing debris that can be swept aware are paramount. 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 allows intent of the ordinance to be observed because alternate landscaping measures are planned while achieving floodplain management requirements. Shamberger moved to approve Case No. V18-13 with Staff recommended conditions; seconded by Benison. Motion carried unanimously. The following conditions were approved for Case V18-09: 1. That a Landscape Plan, prepared by a Landscape Architect licensed in the State of West Virginia, shall be submitted and approved by the Planning Division prior to the issuance of any building permits for the subject development. 2. That, to the satisfaction of the Planning Division, the Landscape Plan must, to the greatest extent practicable, use all opportunities to advance the purpose of Article 1367 to achieve a healthy, beautiful, and safe community, while observing best floodway and floodplain landscaping practices. 3. That the sidewalk continues westerly of the proposed driveway entrance along the development site’s frontage to a point identified by the City Engineer, but generally at or near the tangent of the Eljadid Street / Carnegie Street roadway curve. Case stated that the Board’s decisions 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: A. Whitmore stated that City Council will be interviewing candidates for the open position on the BZA and therefore could be at full capacity by the Board’s regular business meeting in April. B. Shamberger encouraged Staff to review the sign ordinance. VI. ADJOURNMENT: 10:00 p.m. MINUTES APPROVED: April 18, 2018 BOARD SECRETARY: _____________________________ Christopher M. Fletcher, AICP Morgantown Board of Zoning Appeals Page 20 of 20 March 14, 2018 Minutes