Board of Zoning Appeals

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MINUTES 6:55 p.m. November 14, 2018 Council Chambers MEMBERS PRESENT: Kevin Meehan, Chris Benison, and Heidi Cook MEMBERS ABSENT: Harrison Case STAFF: John Whitmore, AICP I. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL: Meehan 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 October 17, 2018 hearing. No corrections noted, and minutes approved as presented. III. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: None. IV. NEW BUSINESS: • V18-38 / Turak / 1233 Milton Street: Request by Jason Turak for variance relief from Section 1335.04 to exceed into the maximum front setback standard; Tax Map 24, Parcel 4; R-1A, Single-Family Residential. Whitmore presented the Staff Report. Meehan recognized Jason Turak of 1233 Milton Street who provided further explanation of the project and expressed the structure would be more aesthetically pleasing if set back farther from the road. Turak noted the increased setback would provide more of a buffer between the road which would increase the site line and increase safety on the corner. There being no questions or comments by the Board, Meehan asked if anyone would like to speak in favor of or in opposition to the variance petition. Meehan recognized Cornelius Snow, who lives off of Darst Street, who spoke in favor of the project and expressed there is plenty of room on the parcel to position the house as proposed. There being no further comments, Meehan declared the public hearing closed and asked for Staff recommendations, which were read by Whitmore. Cook referred to the Staff Report and noted the petitioner was aware of the setback requirement when obtaining a minor subdivision approval and asked the petitioner for explanation. Morgantown Board of Zoning Appeals Page 1 of 10 November 14, 2018 Minutes Turak stated he was aware that corner lots had different setbacks but thought it was an 8-foot side setback requirement instead of 7.5 feet and therefore would only be asking for a 6-inch variance. Whitmore provided further explanation on setbacks requirements for corner lots in the R-1A District under the Planning and Zoning Code. Turak noted that Milton Street was formerly an alley and therefore the standard setback back requirements are not realistic, as determined from the road. Cook asked if the property has been surveyed and if setbacks were listed on that survey. Turak confirmed but noted he redeveloped a structure on the abutting property which is now nonconforming. Meehan noted the reason for his variance request is to allow for increased visibility off of Darst Street. Turak noted the plans are to construct a single-story home due to grading issues at the site. Cook asked if construction has started on the structure. Turak provided further explanation of the structure that will be erected on Parcel C, as established in the Staff Report, and stated he has not started construction or applied for a building permit as he is waiting for variance approval. Benison asked if the boundaries of Parcel B and C, as established in the Staff Report, could be reconfigured. Whitmore explained the setbacks of the current parcels and stated that reconfiguring the lines would require minor subdivision variance approval by the Planning Commission which may or may not be approved as per code subdivision variances are to be based on topographical issues and this case would be a geometry issue. Whitmore referred to the Staff Report to further explain the survey drawings along with general dimensions of the surveyed structures. Cook asked how the surrounding community would be affected if the variance is granted. Whitmore stated the opportunity to speak during the public hearing was given and noted that one person spoke in favor of the project. Meehan noted the road was once an alley and most houses are close to the roadway. He also noted the increased setback would allow for greater visibility from Darst Street and therefore would increase safety. Whitmore stated the petitioner is asking for an additional six (6) inches from the side yard setback requirement and expressed line of sights would not be affected if the proposed structure is placed in accordance with the required 7.5 foot corner lot side yard setback. Bension expressed keeping consistently and not setting a precedent for other cases but noted there are special conditions with the parcels which the petitioner did not create. Whitmore reiterated the petitioner created the parcel layout via a previously recorded minor subdivision. Morgantown Board of Zoning Appeals Page 2 of 10 November 14, 2018 Minutes Board members reviewed Findings of Facts and felt they were acceptable Benison made a motion to find in the affirmative for all of the Finding of Facts for V18-38 as revised by Staff; 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 increased front and side yard setback variances should serve to enhance desired clear vision triangle conditions, thereby advancing public safety. 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 and the intersection of Darst and Milton Streets is a challenge for any development program to observe the R-1A District building envelope standards, given approaching slopes in both directions of and existing traffic volumes along Darst Street. Finding of Fact No. 3 – The variance will eliminate an unnecessary hardship and permit a reasonable use of the land, because: There will be more visibility because the house will set back from Milton Street, enhancing unobstructed line of sight for the residential street network, given approaching slopes in both directions of, and existing traffic volumes along Darst Street. Encroachment into the sideyard setback will be necessary to achieve single-family residential development that provides adequate front yard space. 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 permit development patterns that are consistent within the immediate single-family residential area. Whitmore stated that Staff recommends modifying the permitted placement of the house to be listed as a condition and provided further explanation. Whitmore stated the variance would apply to allow a 4.5 foot setback to the western side parcel boundary. Meehan asked the petitioner if he agreed to the changes. Mr. Turak agreed with the proposed setback. Cook moved to grant variance relief for Case No. V18-38 with a variance of 6.25 feet from the maximum front parcel boundary and to encroach 0.5 feet into the western side parcel boundary; seconded by Benison. Motion carried unanimously. Meehan reminded Mr. Turak 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 3 of 10 November 14, 2018 Minutes  • V18-39 / Matak / 116 Wilson Avenue: Request by Henryk Matak for variance relief from Section 1335.04 to encroach into the rear setback standard; Tax Map 36, Parcel 25; R-1A, Single-Family Residential. Whitmore presented the Staff Report. Meehan recognized Henryk Matak of 166 Wilson Avenue who provided further explanation on the project and stated he would like to construct a mud room and a wet room to have on the first floor. Meehan noted there had been previous petitions from the area as the lots are irregular with limited space. There being no further questions or comments by the Board, Meehan asked if anyone would like to speak in favor of or in opposition to the variance petition. Meehan recognized Edward Devine of 1425 Tremont Avenue and the contractor for the project, who stated the structure is already legal and nonconforming and would not be extending further than the existing roofline. There being no further comments, Meehan declared the public hearing closed and asked for Staff recommendations, which were read by Whitmore. Cook expressed enclosing the structure would not extend further into the setback. Benison agreed and stated there would not be an increase in nonconformity. Board members agreed a mud and wet room would be an enhancement to the property and consistent with the character of the neighborhood. Cook made a motion to find in the affirmative for all of the Finding of Facts for V18-39 as revised by Staff; 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 increased front and side yard setback variances should serve to enhance desired clear vision triangle conditions, thereby advancing public safety. 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 and the intersection of Darst and Milton Streets is a challenge for any development program to observe the R-1A District building envelope standards, given approaching slopes in both directions of and existing traffic volumes along Darst Street. Finding of Fact No. 3 – The variance will eliminate an unnecessary hardship and permit a reasonable use of the land, because: There will be more visibility because the house will set back from Milton Street, enhancing unobstructed line of sight for the residential street network, given approaching slopes in both directions of, and existing traffic volumes along Darst Street. Encroachment into the sideyard setback will be necessary to achieve single-family residential development that provides adequate front yard space. Morgantown Board of Zoning Appeals Page 4 of 10 November 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: The variance will permit development patterns that are consistent within the immediate single-family residential area. Cook moved to grant variance relief for Case No. V18-39 without conditions; seconded by Benison. Motion carried unanimously. Meehan reminded Mr. Matak 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. • V18-40 / McDonald’s / 1820 Sturgiss Avenue: Request by Joseph C. Sparone, on behalf of McDonald’s USA, LLC, for variance relief from Article 1369 concerning signage; Tax Map 33, Parcel 53.1; B-2, Service Business District. Whitmore presented the Staff Report. Meehan recognized Joseph Sparone, on behalf of McDonald’s, who provided further explanation of the proposed signage and stated that McDonald’s is in the process of renovating all of their older stores to remain consistent with the branding across the country. Meehan asked if the signage will be comparable to the McDonald’s in Suncrest. Sparone stated he is not familiar with that store but distributed pictures to the Board members to show the design features and colors of the proposed signage. Sparone stated the building will be completely renovated to be competitive and conform to other stores but noted the footprint of the building will remain the same. Meehan asked if the pylon sign would be changing. Sparone stated the pylon sign would not change. Whitmore explained there extremely limited provisions to allow for pylon signs within the City and that the McDonald’s pylon sign cannot be changed or it would have to be removed. There being no further questions or comments by the Board, Meehan asked if anyone would like to speak in favor of or in opposition to the variance petition. There being none, Meehan declared the public hearing closed and asked for Staff recommendations, which were read by Whitmore. Board members expressed favor in the signage and agreed the variance is modest and comparable to other variances that have been granted along Earl L. Core Road. Cook made a motion to find in the affirmative for all of the Finding of Facts for V18-40 as presented; 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: Morgantown Board of Zoning Appeals Page 5 of 10 November 14, 2018 Minutes  While the number of menu boards will increase from two (2) to three (3) with the addition of a pre- browse board, the total overall aggregate area of the menu boards will be reduced when compared to that which exists. The new menu boards will provide a state-of-the-art drive-thru facility that's not only in line with McDonald's latest standards but also the current quick service restaurant industry. The modernization of the drive-thru will serve to increase its efficiency resulting in reduced wait times and minimizing the stacking of vehicles in the drive-thru lane. The proposed menu boards will be located in a similar location as the existing boards and are designed to be viewed and utilized by customers already on-site. The proposal for the remodel of the building that has been submitted for review also includes three (3) wall signs with two (2) of those signs proposed on the west front facade and one (1) on the south non drive-thru facade all facing Earl Core Road and/or commercial properties. One (1) sign is the traditional "McDonald's" ID sign on the front of the building with the two (2) other signs consisting of the "M" logo sign which is part of the new "arcade wall" architectural element that is proposed on the front and side of the building. The building appearance and sign placement is part of a McDonald's nationwide initiative to update the interior and exterior aspects of their existing restaurants to reflect the company's new image and match the design of their new buildings. This proposed sign placement and appearance with the logo separated from the ID sign is common not only among McDonald's but other commercial uses. The total aggregate area of the proposed wall signs exceed what is allowed by city ordinance but they are distributed between the front and side of the building better aligning the proposed branding with the architectural design of same. The proposed signage is not egregious and same as that used at other McDonald's locations and similar uses. The 10" extension of the proposed "McDonald's" ID sign is greater than the 4" that is currently allowed by the City's ordinance, but will be securely fastened to the exterior wall of the building and will not pose any danger to the general public. The reason for the greater extension is purely due to sign structural and manufacturing requirements. The sign appearance from outside of the property limits with be substantially similar to that of a compliant sign. 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 property is bound by two (2) public roadways and other commercial development. While the variances are specific to this site, the amount and type of signage proposed is not out of character from that on similar uses or the surrounding area. Market competition and customer expectations require the aesthetics and functionality of existing quick service restaurants to be improved. The proposed menu-board signage will bring the site up to date with current McDonald's and industry standards for a more modern, efficient drive-thru. The proposed wall signage has been designed to complement the building architecture and is the same as what is being used at other locations across the country. Finding of Fact No. 3 – The variance will eliminate an unnecessary hardship and permit a reasonable use of the land, because: Allowing an additional menu-board onsite will increase the efficiency of the existing drive-thru. The proposed wall signage will contribute to a more modern, aesthetically pleasing look to the building while better communicating the purpose of the site to the general public. The Logo and ID signs on multiple facades and use of multiple menu boards is standard on new McDonald's and common place not only on other quick service restaurant establishments but similar commercial uses. 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 6 of 10 November 14, 2018 Minutes  Per review of the purpose and findings of the sign code at Article 1369, the intent of the code is to promote communication in the City in an aesthetically pleasing manner to enhance the look of the city while avoiding adverse effects of signs on nearby public and private property. The proposed signage variances will allow the existing restaurant to better match the company's new image, match the design of their new buildings, and keep pace with industry standards. The proposed wall signage will enhance the aesthetics of the building and will not prove overwhelming. The proposed wall signage will be on a facade that faces a public street, and a fa9ade that has a public entrance and will communicate the purpose of the site while avoiding adverse impacts to nearby properties. Additionally, the proposed signage is not out of the ordinary for similar commercial uses. The proposed "McDonald's" ID sign meets the requirements for wall signage area, but ID signs used in conjunction with Logo signs placed at architectural focal points of the building are commonplace in both the area and in the industry as a whole. Cook moved to grant variance relief for Case No. V18-40 without conditions; seconded by Benison. Motion carried unanimously. Meehan reminded Mr. Sparone 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. • V18-41 / Ladies & Gents Salon and Barbershop / 224 Pleasant Street: Request by Crystal Miller of City Neon, Inc., on behalf of Ladies & Gents Salon and Barbershop, for variance relief from Article 1369 concerning signage; Tax Map 28A, Parcel 51; B-4, General Business District. Whitmore presented the Staff Report. Meehan recognized Crystal Miller of City Neon, Inc., on behalf of Ladies & Gents, who provided further explanation of the project and noted the establishment is open in the evening hours and therefore it is crucial for a lighted sign to allow for wayfinding. There being no questions or comments by the Board, Meehan asked if anyone would like to speak in favor of or in opposition to the variance petition. There being none, Meehan declared the public hearing closed and asked for Staff recommendations, which were read by Whitmore. Meehan asked for the petitioners’ response on the Staff recommendations. Miller explained the materials used to make the sign and how the light would shine thru the components. She stated the lighting is soft and compared it to the sign Scholar Hotel on Chestnut Street. Board members expressed the proposed sign is aesthetically pleasing. Whitmore noted there have been similar signs that have been approved in the downtown district and the proposed sign would have glow as opposed to light glare. Benison expressed favor in the design of the sign and noted it would not be a harsh illumination. Board members agreed. Cook made a motion to find in the affirmative for all of the Finding of Facts for V18-41 as presented; seconded by Benison. Motion carried unanimously. Morgantown Board of Zoning Appeals Page 7 of 10 November 14, 2018 Minutes NOTE: The following findings were included in the motion. Finding of Fact No. 1 – The variance will not adversely affect the public health, safety or welfare, or the rights of adjacent property owners or residents, because: The sign will be attached on the store front wall above Ladies & Gents Salon and Barbershop and will not touch or present a nuisance to any other business or residence. It will utilize LED strips as internal light source for a very diffused lighting effect. It will not require any extended arm lights to shine up or down so as to not affect any other business or residence. Other wall signs in the Downtown area that are made of the push through acrylic, through either nonconforming or variance granted conditions, do not appear to have harmed public health, safety or welfare, property rights, or the surrounding built environment. 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 salon and barbershop is open for evening hours in which a sign would become necessary to be lit for wayfinding purposes. This system utilizes an internal light source that has a subtle glow in comparison to traditional channel letters or box cabinet internal illuminated signs. The effect is similar to a backlit channel letter. Finding of Fact No. 3 – The variance will eliminate an unnecessary hardship and permit a reasonable use of the land, because: The sign is professional, well-lit, and visible and will be used to drive commerce to the business. For wayfinding purposes, the sign will help to distinguish the store from surrounding businesses and allow customers to find the location easily and safely. Finding of Fact No. 4 – The variance will allow the intent of the zoning ordinance to be observed and substantial justice done, because: The business is a salon and barbershop and the sign is intended for commercial messaging, branding, and wayfinding purposes. Cook moved to grant variance relief for Case No. V18-41 with the Staff recommended conditions; seconded by Benison. Motion carried unanimously. Meehan 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. • V18-42 / Morgantown Express Lube / 1350 Saratoga Avenue: Request by Crystal Miller of City Neon, Inc., on, behalf of Morgantown Express Lube, for variance relief from Article 1369 concerning signage; Tax Map 8, Parcel 12; B-2, Service Business District. Whitmore presented the Staff Report. Meehan recognized Crystal Miller of City Neon, Inc., on behalf of Morgantown Express Lube, who stated the business leases the property and therefore they have no control over the Hotel Morgantown sign but noted they will be removing the existing pole sign that advertises for their business. Miller stated they are seeking variance relief for the monument and wall signs and provided further explanation on the design of those signs. Morgantown Board of Zoning Appeals Page 8 of 10 November 14, 2018 Minutes Benison expressed the amount of the square footage requested for the variance relief is significant. Board members agreed. Benison inquired if the space around the word “Pennzoil” could be reduced or if that would put the signage out of proportion with the structure. Meehan expressed that signage is needed in that location as the structure sits on a hill. Miller explained the geometry of the lot and where the monument would be placed on the property. Benison asked which sign would have more visual impact. Miller stated there are times when the monument sign could be blocked from view and expressed that both signs are equally important. There being no further questions or comments by the Board, Meehan asked if anyone would like to speak in favor of or in opposition to the variance petition. There being none, Meehan declared the public hearing closed and asked for Staff recommendations, which were read by Whitmore. Whitmore noted the approval for signage of a similar business on Earl L. Core Road in 2017. Board members inquired if the signage could be reduced in size. Miller stated the owners are eager to get signage erected and she would have to consult them to see if they would agree to a reduce in size. Whitmore stated the tenants could obtain a temporary sign permit for a banner in the event the Board would want to table the petition to the December hearing. After further discussion by the Board members expressed favor in the variances due to the geometry and location of the lot. Cook made a motion to find in the affirmative for all of the Finding of Facts for V18-42 as revised by Staff; 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 proposed area of the wall sign and the proposed height of the monument sign appear prudent, given their distance from University Avenue and its posted speed of 45 miles per hour, and does not appear to adversely impact the public realm or property rights. 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: Due to a very small parking area, overnight parking of customers cars, a hillside, and an odd junction make the majority of the storefront not visible. It puts all the focus on the top portion of the building It appears that the distance from the roadway, an odd angled street junction, along with the speed and volume of vehicles along Monongahela Boulevard warrants a wall sign larger than the maximum area standard to ensure visibility to the motoring public. The slope of the site across the face of the proposed monument ground sign appears to contribute to a portion of the sign exceeding the maximum sign height standard. The petitioner rents the commercial property and therefore has no control over the future of the nonconforming, off-premise Hotel M ground sign. Morgantown Board of Zoning Appeals Page 9 of 10 November 14, 2018 Minutes  Finding of Fact No. 3 – The variance will eliminate an unnecessary hardship and permit a reasonable use of the land, because: It will allow the petitioner to promote the business more effectively than conforming wall and monument signs would allow. The petitioner rents the commercial property and therefore has no control over the future of the nonconforming Hotel M ground sign. Finding of Fact No. 4 – The variance will allow the intent of the zoning ordinance to be observed and substantial justice done, because: The addition of the larger monument and wall sign will also increase the visibility of future customers without undermining the spirit and intent of the City’s sign regulations. Cook moved to grant variance relief for Case No. V18-42, without conditions; seconded by Meehan. Motion carried unanimously. Meehan reminded Ms. Miller that the Board’s decision can be appealed to Circuit Court within thirty days of receiving written notification from the Planning Division and that any work related to the Board’s decisions during this period would be at the sole financial risk of the petitioner. V. ANNOUNCEMENTS: • Whitmore stated the variance petitions for St. John’s University Parish have been withdrawn. • Whitmore stated that City Council has interviewed for the vacant position on the Board and he will notify of any decisions made. VI. ADJOURNMENT: 8:45 PM MINUTES APPROVED: December 19, 2018 BOARD SECRETARY: _____________________________ Christopher M. Fletcher, AICP Morgantown Board of Zoning Appeals Page 10 of 10 November 14, 2018 Minutes