Board of Zoning Appeals

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MINUTES 6:30 p.m. December 19, 2018 Council Chambers MEMBERS PRESENT: Harrison Case, Kevin Meehan, Chris Benison, and Heidi Cook 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 November 14, 2018 hearing. No corrections noted, and minutes approved as presented. III. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: None. IV. NEW BUSINESS: • V18-44 / Mills Group, LLC / 88 High Street: Request by Lance Muscara, on behalf of Mills Group, LLC, for variance relief from Section 1351.01(K) regarding transparency; Tax Map 29, Parcel 2; B-4, General Business District. Whitmore presented the Staff Report. Case recognized Ryan Hess of the Mills Group, 88 High Street, who provided further explanation on the project. Meehan asked if “professional services” would be the primary function of the building. Hess confirmed and stated the building will serve as the Mills Group, LLC headquarters for the firm. There being no further questions or comments by the Board, Case asked if anyone would like 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 asked if the glazing requirements are confined to the sides facing the street. Whitmore confirmed. Meehan expressed the glazing requirement focuses on a retail establishment and stated the business will be more of a professional services establishment. Whitmore provided further explanation on related Planning and Zoning Code provisions for window fenestration in the B-4 District. Morgantown Board of Zoning Appeals Page 1 of 3 December 19, 2018 Minutes Board members reviewed Findings of Facts and felt they were acceptable Meehan made a motion to find in the affirmative for all of the Finding of Facts for V18-44 as presented; 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 property is a corner lot and fronts on High Street, with the side street being Kirk Street. The variance which is sought pertains to the amount of glazing along Kirk Street. The proposed façade along Kirk Street does incorporate glazing but does not meet the minimum requirement as set forth in the code. The variance is aesthetic in nature and does not adversely affect the public health, safety, or welfare, or the rights of the adjacent property owners or residents. 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 alterations along Kirk Street provide glazing along the southern half of the street frontage (closest to High Street). The northern half of the façade does not have any glazing for two specific reasons as follows: A. The interior of the building closest to Kirk Street is a two-story space with an extensive amount of glazing. The proposed “solid” area of the exterior wall along Kirk Street will greatly help in reducing the heating and cooling loads and will help with the overall energy efficiency off the building. B. The interior area immediately behind the proposed “solid” area of the exterior wall along Kirk Street will house the reception functions for the occupant. The applicant is concerned about distractions, visual privacy, and security of the reception staff if glazing was provided – as a consistent flow of pedestrian traffic walks along the sidewalk in that area. Finding of Fact No. 3 – The variance will eliminate an unnecessary hardship and permit a reasonable use of the land, because: A. The variance is for elements that are aesthetic in nature. B. The façade along High Street provides glazing which exceeds the requirement of the ordinance. Being the “front” of the building with the primary visual impact, the occupant feels the intent of the ordinance is being met when the two facades along High Street and Kirk Street are considered holistically. C. The energy savings achieved as stated in Item 2 above. D. The interior function and privacy/security concerns stated in Item 2 above. Finding of Fact No. 4 – The variance will allow the intent of the zoning ordinance to be observed and substantial justice done, because: The proposed alterations along High Street provide glazing amounts which exceed the ordinance requirements. While the Kirk Street façade does not meet the minimum requirement, substantial glazing is provided which the applicant feels meets the overall intent of the ordinance, when the two facades along High Street and Kirk Street are considered holistically. Analysis of glazing percentages from 3-feet to 8-feet along facades: Morgantown Board of Zoning Appeals Page 2 of 3 December 19, 2018 Minutes  High Street Existing – 87% High Street Proposed – 82% Kirk Street Existing – 85% Kirk Street Proposed – 35% Combined High Street + Kirk Street Proposed – 66.4% Meehan moved to grant variance relief for Case No. V18-44; seconded by Benison. Motion carried unanimously. Meehan reminded Mr. Hess 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 that Staff is preparing the Planning Commission’s 2018 Annual Report to City Council, which will be distributed to the BZA. VI. ADJOURNMENT: 6:55 PM MINUTES APPROVED: January 16, 2019 BOARD SECRETARY: _____________________________ Christopher M. Fletcher, AICP Morgantown Board of Zoning Appeals Page 3 of 3 December 19, 2018 Minutes