Board of Zoning Appeals

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MINUTES 6:30 p.m. April 18, 2018 Council Chambers MEMBERS PRESENT: Harrison Case, Kevin Meehan, Chris Benison and Heidi Cook MEMBERS ABSENT: Tom Shamberger 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 March 14, 2018 hearing. No corrections noted; minutes approved as presented. III. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: A. CU18-03 / New River Holdings, LLC / 201 Fieldview Avenue: Request by Paul Walker of Paradigm Architecture, Inc., on behalf of New River Holdings LLC, for approval of a conditional “Light Industrial” use; Tax Map 48A, portion of Parcel 15; B-2, Service Business District. WITHDRAWN BY PETITIONER B. V18-14 / Defense In Depth, LLC / 1389 Earl L. Core Road: Request by Andrew J. Rankin, on behalf of Defense In Depth, LLC, for variance relief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. Case recognized Andrew Rankin of Stewartstown Road, on behalf of Defense In Depth, LLC who stated the directory sign is necessary as the business is located in the back of the shopping plaza. Benison asked how long the business has been in operation. Ranking stated they opened in November of 2017 and noted the business is a major anchor for the shopping center. Case asked for further explanation on where the sign would be located. Rankin stated the sign is located in the landscape median and will not affect line of sight or drive aisles. 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. Morgantown Board of Zoning Appeals Page 1 of 8 April 18, 2018 Minutes Case recognized Nicolas DeMedici who is the General Manager of Defense in Depth who stated that customers are having a hard time locating the business and the proposed signage is necessary. There being no further comments, Case declared the public hearing closed and asked for Staff recommendations, which were read by Whitmore. Benison asked why they requested internal illumination. Rankin stated they need illumination during the dawn and evening hours. Benison asked if they anticipated visibility issues when designing the original signs. Rankin confirmed and stated people are still having trouble finding the business once in the shopping center. Meehan asked if the large pylon sign is fixed or rotating. Rankin stated there are rotating graphics on the sign. Meehan asked if a rotating sign is allowed by the Code. Case stated the Board can only review the proposed wayfinding sign as it is the only matter before the Board. Benison asked for the materials that will be used in the signage. Rankin stated the sign will be metal, plastic and better quality than wood. After further discussion, Board members agreed the proposed sign is necessary and is not too large in size. Case made a motion to find in the affirmative for all of the Finding of Facts for V18-14; 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 area of the proposed signage is consistent with the predominant commercial signage patterns along Earl Core Road, will not harm public welfare, adjoining properties, or other improvements. 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 wayfinding among all surrounding businesses. 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 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 visibility for the subject location 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: 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 Morgantown Board of Zoning Appeals Page 2 of 8 April 18, 2018 Minutes  maximum area standards set forth in the Planning and Zoning Code. Similar directional signage exists throughout the commercial corridor. Finding of Fact No. 4 – The variance will allow the intent of the zoning ordinance to be observed and substantial justice done, because: The directional sign allows for the utilization of premises with difficult visibility and access, preserves and improves the shopping center’s wayfinding, and does not adversely impact line-of-site or visibility to public right-of-way or any other business. Case moved to grant approval for Case No. V18-14 as presented without conditions; seconded by Meehan. Motion carried unanimously. Case 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. C. V18-15 / Fruit Life / 370 Patteson Drive: Request by Crystal Miller of City Neon, Inc., on behalf of Fruit Life, for variance relief from Article 1369 concerning signage; Tax Map 11, Parcel 2; B-5, Shopping Center District. Whitmore presented the Staff Report. Case recognized Crystal Miller of City Neon, on behalf of Fruit Life, who stated a variance was previously granted on signage but the business is now wanting to use the corporate signage logo and therefore additional variance relief is necessary. Benison asked if they are required to use the proposed signage by the corporate office. Miller stated she did not know if they are required but the business would like to be more identifiable with the corporate brand by using their signage. Cook expressed the current signage blends in with the colors of the building and a larger sign would be more visible. There being no further comments, Case asked if anyone would like to speak in favor 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. Benison asked if there was any additional signage for the business on-site. Miller stated there are pylon signs for the plaza but Fruit Life is not advertised on any of those existing nonconforming signs. Benison made a motion to find in the affirmative for all of the Finding of Facts for V18-15; seconded by Cook. 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 and adhere to corporate styling, which should not adversely impact the public realm or property rights. Morgantown Board of Zoning Appeals Page 3 of 8 April 18, 2018 Minutes  Finding of Fact No. 2 – The variance arises from special conditions or attributes which pertain to the property for which a variance is sought and which were not created by the person seeking the variance, because: 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. The addition of the C to adhere to corporate guidelines will only add an additional 2.71 sq. ft. to the entire sign. 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 sign which is not very legible from the five-lane roadway given the setback and allow the business to meet corporate guidelines for signage. 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, without adversely impacting the public realm, other establishments within the subject development, or property rights. Benison moved to grant approval for Case No. V18-15 as presented without conditions; seconded by Cook. Motion carried unanimously. Case reminded Mr. 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. D. V18-16 / Pho Banh Mi / 3109 University Avenue: Request by Rajagopal Sundaram, on behalf of Pho Banh Mi, for variance relief from Article 1369 concerning signage; Tax Map 7, Parcel 257; B-1, Neighborhood Business District. Whitmore presented the Staff Report. Case recognized Rajagopal Sundaram of 361 High Street who stated the signage is necessary as he is located on the end of the building and the business is not easily visible from the high traffic road. Case referred to the Staff Report to further explain the parcel and location of the business on the property. Benison noted there are a line of trees that can obstruct visibility. There being no further comments, Case asked if anyone would like to speak in favor 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 this business had previously requested variance relief in February 2017 [Case No. V18-03] and provided further history on that request. Case asked Staff if the petitioner worked with Staff, after their previous petition was denied, to create acceptable signage. Whitmore stated the applicant followed the instructions enumerated in the BZA action letter denying the previous variance petition. Morgantown Board of Zoning Appeals Page 4 of 8 April 18, 2018 Minutes Meehan expressed the proposed signage is sufficient considering the store frontage of the restaurant is located farther back from the road. Benison asked what was requested in the previous variance petition. Case stated the variance petition filed in February 2017 was for two temporary sign banners and provided further explanation. Whitmore referred to the Staff Report to further explain the difference in the variance petitions. Sundaram explained there were previously two temporary banner signs and stated the current request is only 4 square feet over the maximum allowed standard. Benison expressed the proposed signage would not be out of proportion with adjacent businesses. After further discussion, Board members expressed the signage is consistent with surrounding businesses and the variance relief would not be excessive in size. Benison asked if variance request only pertains to size. Whitmore stated the signage would require variance relief for materials as well and referred to the Staff Report to provide further explanation. Case noted the sign would not be illuminated. Benison made a motion to find in the affirmative for all of the Finding of Facts for V18-16; seconded by Cook. 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 restaurant space is located on the end unit of the building far away from main street (University Avenue). The larger sign proposed appears to improve visibility of the establishment to ease wayfinding in a similar manner as other tenants within the development, including sign materials, 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 restaurant establishment is located in the tenant space furthest from University Avenue and nestled against the adjoining the single-family residential neighborhood. A larger wall sign appears prudent in communicating to passersby within the commercial node along University Avenue. The proposed materials appear to reflect other signs within the same development. Finding of Fact No. 3 – The variance will eliminate an unnecessary hardship and permit a reasonable use of the land, because: The requested sign variance will eliminate the need for any additional directory signs, that might otherwise clutter the site and the surrounding built environment. The zoning classification of the surrounding commercial node is B-2, within which the more lenient maximum wall sign area and sign material flexibility is afforded by-right. Morgantown Board of Zoning Appeals Page 5 of 8 April 18, 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: The larger proposed sign and its materials appears to facilitate an effective use of signage while maintaining and enhancing the look and attractiveness of the subject development without adversely impacting the enjoyment or safety of the public realm. Meehan moved to grant approval for Case No. V18-16 as presented without conditions; seconded by Cook. Motion carried unanimously. Case reminded Mr. Sundaram 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. V18-17 / 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. Whitmore presented the Staff Report. Case recognized Ismail Latif of 17 Miramichi Trail who explained his building is located on the end of a shopping plaza and he initially applied for a variance for two signs that was later denied by the Board. Latif stated he is now requesting variance for one aesthetically appeasing sign and asked for the Board to grant approval. Meehan asked if the proposed sign is out of proportion from adjacent businesses. Latif expressed the sign is comparable with surrounding businesses. Case noted there is a “Now Open” banner hanging from the building. Latif said he would be taking that banner down. There being no further comments, Case asked if anyone would like to speak in favor 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. Cook expressed the sign looks proportionately bigger compared to adjacent businesses when looking at the picture provided in the Staff report. Case noted the business is located in the same plaza as the Defense In Depth business that has had multiple variance approvals. Whitmore stated many businesses in the plaza has channel letters which look smaller. Whitmore noted meeting code standards is not necessarily best for the building façade. Benison asked why the petitioner requested the proposed dimensions and inquired if this was a corporate requirement. Latif stated the size and design was determined by the corporate signage standards. Morgantown Board of Zoning Appeals Page 6 of 8 April 18, 2018 Minutes Case noted the sign was erected without prior permission but the petitioner has taken down the second sign and complied with City enforcements. Board members agreed. Whitmore confirmed that Latif worked with Staff to find alternative signage as proposed and noted there were many issues with different departments on the two signs that were initially erected on the building. Cook made a motion to find in the affirmative for all of the Finding of Facts for V18-17; 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 proposed wall signage does not adversely affect the adjacent buildings/owners. The signage is attached flat to the building façade and it is not garnish or intrusive in anyway. 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 proposed signage would be aesthetically pleasing and compatible with the architecture of this building and its surroundings. Finding of Fact No. 3 – The variance will eliminate an unnecessary hardship and permit a reasonable use of the land, because: The proposed signage is compatible with the building and the surrounding premises. It fits into the signage area of the building’s façade and does not intrude on to adjacent building or land. Finding of Fact No. 4 – The variance will allow the intent of the zoning ordinance to be observed and substantial justice done, because: This variance, if granted, would improve the aesthetic appeal of the business and would in no way harm another. It would be fair and just to all concerned. Cook moved to grant approval for Case No. V18-17 as presented with Staff recommended condition; seconded by Meehan. Motion carried unanimously. NOTE: The following condition was included in the motion. 1. That any and all temporary type signs, including but not limited to vinyl banners communicating “Now Open” or similar temporary messaging, must be removed no later than 5 p.m., Tuesday, April 24, 2018. Case reminded Mr. Latif 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 7 of 8 April 18, 2018 Minutes IV. ANNOUNCEMENTS: A. Whitmore stated there will be a conditional use application in the B-4 District on the May agenda and Staff will schedule a site visit and technical review meeting. V. ADJOURNMENT: 7:45 p.m. MINUTES APPROVED: May 16, 2018 BOARD SECRETARY: _____________________________ Christopher M. Fletcher, AICP Morgantown Board of Zoning Appeals Page 8 of 8 April 18, 2018 Minutes