Board of Zoning Appeals

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MINUTES 6:30 p.m. August 21, 2019 Council Chambers MEMBERS PRESENT: Harrison Case, Kevin Meehan, Chris Benison, and Garrett Tomblin MEMBERS ABSENT: Heidi Cook 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 July 17, 2019 hearing. No corrections noted and minutes approved as presented. III. OLD BUSINESS: A. V19-23 / Istanbul Delicacy / 2995 University Avenue: Request by Maria Pachina, on behalf of Istanbul Delicacy, for variance relief from Article 1369 concerning signage; Seventh Ward Tax District, Tax Map 11, Parcel 7; B-2, Service Business District. Benison motioned to take the item from the table for action by the Board of Zoning Appeals; seconded by Meehan. Motion carried unanimously. Whitmore presented the Staff Report for V19-23. Case recognized Maria Pachina proprietor of Istanbul Delicacy located at 2995 University Avenue. Pachina provided additional explanation of signage and the nature of the business. The two (2) signs would be identical paper based signage in a cabinet without a lighting feature. 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 petitions. There being none, Case declared the public hearing closed and asked for Staff recommendations, which were read by Whitmore. Meehan questioned the nature of the ground sign on-site. Whitmore explained the change of copy-face sign permit application. Benison made a motion to find in the affirmative for all of the Finding of Facts for V19-23 as presented; seconded by Tomblin. Motion carried unanimously. Morgantown Board of Zoning Appeals Page 1 of 8 August 21, 2019 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 area of the signage is in keeping with previously installed wall sign cabinets, which do not appear to have jeopardized persons or property nor created negative impacts on the surrounding area. 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” use is located along a five-lane, 35 mph posted roadway with limited visibility due to the University Avenue intersection alignment. The previous signage was grandfathered and lost its nonconforming status due to abandonment provisions in the Nonconforming Provisions of the Planning and Zoning Code. The applicant seeks what is nearly similar to a change of copy face for the wall sign cabinets that would be permitted if the subject sign cabinets had not been abandoned. Finding of Fact No. 3 – The variance will eliminate an unnecessary hardship and permit a reasonable use of the land, because: Nearly all surrounding businesses have sought and been provided sign area variance relief due to the unique conditions occurring as a result of the Patteson Drive roadway design in relationship to service business uses. Without increased signage area, the viability of the subject tenant space would appear to be jeopardized. Finding of Fact No. 4 – The variance will allow the intent of the zoning ordinance to be observed and substantial justice done, because: The petitioner’s tenant space is located within a mixed-use building located in vehicular dominated business corridor. The comparative size of the tenant space’s storefront results in a maximum wall sign area standard that does not appear to adequately communicate to vehicular passersby. The requested variance relief seeks to reuse previously functional sign cabinets that appear to integrate into the surrounding B-2 District built environment. Tomblin moved to approve Case No. V19-23 without conditions; seconded by Meehan. Motion carried unanimously. Case reminded Pachina 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. IV. NEW BUSINESS: A. CU17-02 / Morgantown Flour & Feed Co. / 156 Clay Street: Request by Kristin Taylor, on behalf of Morgantown Flour & Feed Co., seeking revised conditional use approval for a “Restaurant, Private Club” located at 156 Clay Street. First Ward Tax District; Tax Map 11; Parcel 7; B-2, Service Business District. Whitmore presented the Staff Report for CU17-02, which included material provided in 2017 and 2019. Case recognized Kristin Taylor of 156 Clay Street who provided further explanation of the “Restaurant, Private Club” use. Taylor established that reduced lunch offerings were necessary for the restaurant aspect of the business. Morgantown Board of Zoning Appeals Page 2 of 8 August 21, 2019 Minutes Benison asked Taylor about Sunday hours of operation as described in correspondence from Taylor. Additionally, staff received correspondence from Michael Bradley, in favor of the petition to change hours of operation. 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 petitions. There being none, Case declared the public hearing closed and asked for Staff recommendations, which were read by Whitmore. Case asked Staff about financial information related to the use and the maximum permitted alcoholic beverage sales. Case agreed with Staff’s third recommendation to eliminate hours of operation requirements previously approved by the Board of Zoning Appeals. Case moved amend the conditions established by the Board under Case No. CU17-02 as follows: Eliminate the hours of operation-related condition so that the establishment’s ownership may operate during hours of the day and days of the week it deems necessary and appropriate in responding to and capturing restaurant market opportunities. Motion seconded by Benison. Motion carried unanimously. Case reminded Taylor 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. B. V19-27 / South Park Service Center / 301 Pleasant Street: Request by David Stull, on behalf of South Park Service Center, for variance relief from Article 1369 concerning signage; Second Ward Tax District, Tax Map 29, Parcel 38; B-4, General Business District. Whitmore presented the Staff Report. Case recognized David Stull, proprietor of South Park Service Center at 301 Pleasant Street. Stull identified improvements made to the operations and property during his ownership. Additionally, Stull provided rational for the service business use to have increased signage given historic use of the property and current market demands. 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 petitions. Bill Kawecki of 324 Cobin Avenue noted mixed opinion of the variance request given the business’ signage needs and abutting residential neighborhood. Stull provided rebuttal further establishing other community concerns in contrast to the automotive service aspect of the property. At Stull’s conclusion, Case declared the public hearing closed and asked for Staff recommendations, which were read by Whitmore. Case described the required variances. Benison asked Stull about the messaging of the signage and content provided by the wall signage. Case asked Whitmore to explain the staff concerns with the application. Whitmore provided V18- 06 information related to the signage request. Morgantown Board of Zoning Appeals Page 3 of 8 August 21, 2019 Minutes Tomblin was in favor of the wall signage attached to the building. Members of the Board noted agreement. Case described a method to provide petitioner requested signage, minus the canopy sign. Tomblin asked the size and spatial location of the sign. Stull explained that the changeable copy signage would be in a similar location as the previous Exxon gas station price signage. Case made a motion to find in the affirmative for Finding of Fact No. 1 for V19-27 as presented below; seconded by Benson. Motion carried unanimously. NOTE: The following finding was 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 post-and-panel sign structure has been in place for many years without appreciable adverse impact. The proposed wall signage will primarily be directed away from residential uses and appears to better communicate the commercial use of the site. Case made a motion to find in the affirmative for Finding of Fact No. 2 for V19-27 as presented below; seconded by Tomblin. Motion carried unanimously. NOTE: The following finding was included in the motion. 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 current and historic use of the property appears to require wall 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 and primarily serves the immediate residential neighborhood. Case made a motion to find in the affirmative for Finding of Fact No. 3 for V19-27 as presented below; seconded by Meehan. Motion carried unanimously. NOTE: The following finding was included in the motion. Finding of Fact No. 3 – The variance will eliminate an unnecessary hardship and permit a reasonable use of the land, because: The increase wall sign area should help drive business into the commercial use and appears reflect other similar uses along mixed residential corridors. Case made a motion to find in the affirmative for Finding of Fact No. 4 for V19-27 as presented below; seconded by Benson. Motion carried unanimously. NOTE: The following finding was included in the motion. 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 signage, appears to serve commercial messaging needs for the site as the structure has done for many years. Morgantown Board of Zoning Appeals Page 4 of 8 August 21, 2019 Minutes Case moved to approve Case No. V19-27 granting variance relief from wall sign area standards to permit wall signage over the garage bays but not on the canopy. Case’s motion included the Staff recommended condition that signage must meet the B-4 District materials and design standards. The motion was seconded by Benison and carried unanimously. Case reminded Stull 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. C. V19-28 / Taco Bell / 347 Patteson Drive: Request by Rosa M. Paddock of GLMV Architecture, on behalf of Aarsand Management, LLC and Taco Bell, for variance relief from Article 1369 concerning signage; Seventh Ward Tax District, Tax Map 10, Parcel 79.3; B-5, Shopping Center District. Case recognized Rosa Paddock of Aarsand Management, LLC who provided further explanation on the requested signage. Whitmore presented the Staff Report. There being no 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. Whitmore provided Staff recommendations Tomblin made a motion to find in the affirmative for all of the Finding of Facts for V19-28 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: A variance is being requested on existing drive-thru and building wall signage that has been installed at this site for approximately 10 years. 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 City of Morgantown has adopted an ordinance that no pylon signs are allowed. Taco Bell installed their existing pylon sign previous to this ordinance. The building and drive-thru signage are also existing and nonconforming previously installed before the new ordinance. Finding of Fact No. 3 – The variance will eliminate an unnecessary hardship and permit a reasonable use of the land, because: The commercial “Restaurant, Fast Food” tenant will be able to market to motorist traffic along Patteson Drive in a manner that has previously been available on-site and afforded other commercially-zoned sites within this corridor. Finding of Fact No. 4 – The variance will allow the intent of the zoning ordinance to be observed and substantial justice done, because: Taco Bell wishes to seek variance on the signage ordinance due to the existing building and drive- thru signage is nonconforming. Due to contractual obligations the Franchisee has with the Taco Bell Corporate, the store requires minor remodel to bring the building up to the latest Taco Bell Brand Standards; however, signage is not part of this requirement. In addition, Taco Bell understands the Morgantown Board of Zoning Appeals Page 5 of 8 August 21, 2019 Minutes  existing pylon sign is nonconforming, but not eligible for variance; therefore, Taco Bell is proposing to remove and replace with a new post and panel sign that is in conformance with current ordinance, but is seeking a variance to match the existing pylon sign height which is not. Taco Bell fells that it would be a disadvantage for customer visibility along that corridor, as all other restaurants have nonconforming pylon signs of similar height. Tomblin moved to approve Case No. V19-28 without conditions; seconded by Meehan. Motion carried unanimously. Case reminded Paddock 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. D. V19-29 / Volcano Japanese Restaurant / 372 Patteson Drive: Request by Crystal Miller of City Neon, on behalf of Volcano Japanese Restaurant, for variance relief from Article 1369 concerning signage; Seventh Ward Tax District, Tax Map 11, Parcel 2; B-5, Shopping Center District. Staff advised the Board that the petitioner requested with application to be postponed prior to the meeting. Correspondence from the applicant explaining the postponement was left on the dais for Board members review. E. V19-30 / Chipotle Restaurant / 461 High Street: Request by Marie Hasahw of Adcon Signs, on behalf of Chipotle Restaurant, for variance relief from Article 1369 concerning signage; Third Ward Tax District, Tax Map 26, Parcels 75 and 76; B- 54, General Business District. Whitmore presented the Staff Report. Case recognized Chris Burrows of Adcon Signs who provided further explanation on the requested signage for Chipotle. Case noted suspended signage in the surrounding area. 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 petitions. There being none, Case declared the public hearing closed and asked for Staff recommendations, which were read by Whitmore. Meehan made a motion to find in the affirmative for all of the Finding of Facts for V19-30 as presented; seconded by Tomblin. 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 signs are simple in nature and offer an effective way to communicate with vehicular and pedestrian traffic to ensure a successful venture. Signs would fit well on the architecture of the building and would pose no danger to the public health, safety or welfare or the rights of 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: Morgantown Board of Zoning Appeals Page 6 of 8 August 21, 2019 Minutes  The storefront of Chipotle’s space is recessed back from the adjacent tenant storefront making it difficult to see the wall sign for oncoming traffic. A projecting sign on the adjacent space would assure that both pedestrian and vehicular traffic will be able to locate Chipotle. Finding of Fact No. 3 – The variance will eliminate an unnecessary hardship and permit a reasonable use of the land, because: By allowing the additional square footage for readable signage and to have the projecting sign on the adjacent space, the hardship of having the storefront recessed behind the adjacent space is less severe and will permit visibility to pedestrian and vehicular traffic. 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 would follow the intent of the code in that it will encourage the effective use of signs as a means of communication within the City. This in turn attracts to the City continued economic investment. The variance would allow improved pedestrian and traffic safety as the space will be easier to identify. It would eliminate the hardship of having a recessed storefront in a busy downtown area and serve as substantial justice to the business. Benison moved to approve Case No. V19-30 without conditions; seconded by Meehan. Motion carried unanimously. Case reminded Burrows 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. F. V19-31 / Sheetz / 1901 Earl L. Core Road: Request by Robert Franks, on behalf of Sheetz, for variance relief from Article 1369 concerning signage; Sixth Ward Tax District, Tax Map 44A, Parcel 1; B-2, Service Business District. Whitmore presented the Staff Report. Case recognized Robert Franks of Sheetz who provided further explanation on the requested signage and Sheetz’s agreement with the staff submitted condition. 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 petitions. There being none, Case declared the public hearing closed and asked for Staff recommendations, which were read by Whitmore. Meehan made a motion to find in the affirmative for all of the Finding of Facts for V19-31 as presented; seconded by Tomblin. 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 existing Sheetz store and signs have been on the parcel since the store opened in fall of 2003. The new proposed signs are smaller in size than the existing signs they are replacing. 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 7 of 8 August 21, 2019 Minutes  The area is highly developed with signs of similar size. The change in ordinance since the store opening has created the situation that variances are needed. Finding of Fact No. 3 – The variance will eliminate an unnecessary hardship and permit a reasonable use of the land, because: The new signs are smaller in size than the existing signs being replaced but still keep the signs similar in size to signs in the area. Finding of Fact No. 4 – The variance will allow the intent of the zoning ordinance to be observed and substantial justice done, because: New signs will be existing situation close to compliance with new ordinance. Case moved to approve Case No. V19-31 without conditions; seconded by Meehan. Motion carried unanimously. Case reminded Franks 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: Whitmore informed the Board that that Stacy Hollar had resigned from the Development Services Department and that applicants were being reviewed for the position. Whitmore anticipated that the Board will be informed of the change in personnel soon. VI. ADJOURNMENT: 8:15 p.m. MINUTES APPROVED: September 18, 2019 BOARD SECRETARY: _____________________________ Christopher M. Fletcher, AICP Morgantown Board of Zoning Appeals Page 8 of 8 August 21, 2019 Minutes