Board of Zoning Appeals

Morgantown Board of Zoning Appeals MEETING PACKET Wednesday, December 16, 2020 6:30 p.m. By Electronic Means Board Members: Harrison Case, Chair Kevin Meehan, Vice Chair Chris Benison Heidi Cook Garrett Tomblin Development Services Department John Whitmore, AICP, Interim Director BZA Meeting Page 1 of 44 December 16, 2020  BZA Remote Meeting Announcement Confirming Member Access: As a preliminary matter, this is Morgantown Board of Zoning Appeals Chair Harrison Case. Permit me to confirm that all members and persons anticipated on the agenda are present and can hear me. • Members, when I call your name, please respond in the affirmative. State each members’ name. - Board Vice-Chair Kevin Meehan - Board Member Chris Benison - Board Member Heidi Cook - Board Member Garrett Tomblin • Staff, when I call your name, please respond in the affirmative. State each staff members’ name. - John Whitmore, Senior Planner Introduction to Remote Meeting: Good Evening. This meeting of the Morgantown Board of Zoning Appeals is being conducted remotely consistent with the West Virginia Open Governmental Proceedings Act and the guidance of the West Virginia Ethics Commission due to the current State of Emergency given the outbreak of the novel coronavirus. In order to mitigate the transmission of the virus and reduce risk of COVID-19 illness, we have been advised and directed to suspend public gatherings. In keeping with that direction, and the authority provided by the Open Governmental Proceedings Act and the Ethics Commission guidance allowing the conduct of public meetings by electronic means so long as the public is able to observe the meeting, this meeting is being conducted by remote electronic participation and in-person attendance by the public is not permitted. Board of Zoning Appeals Page 1 of 5 BZA Meeting Page 2 of 44 December 16, 2020  BZA Remote Meeting Announcement Public meetings do not always require the opportunity for the public to participate by offering public comments, but this meeting will include public comment portions for each of the cases listing on this evening’s agenda. Members of the public will be permitted to comment during these portions by submitting comments in writing or by speaking during their designated time, if they have signed up to do so prior to the start of the meeting. Even if members of the public do not provide comment, participants are advised that people may be listening who do not provide comment, and those persons are not required to identify themselves. For this meeting, the Board of Zoning Appeals is convening by Cisco Webex video and telephone conference as posted on the City’s Website identifying how the public may join. Please note that this meeting is being recorded, and that some attendees are participating by video conference. Accordingly, please be aware that other people may be able to see you and your video feed, and that you take care not to “screen share” your computer. Anything that you broadcast may be captured by the recording. All supporting materials that have been provided members of this body are available on the City’s website with the Board of Zoning Appeals meeting packet unless otherwise noted. The public is encouraged to follow along using the posted agenda. Board of Zoning Appeals Page 2 of 5 BZA Meeting Page 3 of 44 December 16, 2020  BZA Remote Meeting Announcement Meeting Business Ground Rules Before we turn to the first item on the agenda, permit me to cover some ground rules for effective and clear conduct of our business and to ensure accurate meeting minutes. • Please remember to mute your phone or computer when you are not speaking. • Please remember to wait to be recognized by the Chair before speaking and to speak clearly and in a way that helps generate accurate minutes. • For any response, please wait until the Chair yields the floor to you and state your name before speaking. • If Board Members wish to engage in colloquy with other members, please do so through the Chair, taking care to identify yourself. It is the duty of this Board to consider requests for relief from the requirements of the City’s zoning regulations; to consider conditional use permit requests; and, to hear administrative appeals. The Board conducts business in the following order: • Review, amend, and approve minutes of a previous meeting. • Unfinished Business • New Business • Announcements from Staff Each request is heard in the order that it appears on the agenda. For each Conditional Use and Variance request, the following is done: • I will introduce the agenda item and the Planning Division will present a Staff Report, which may or may not offer a recommendation. • The applicant/agent will be asked to present their justification for their request, which may include questions by members of the Board. Board of Zoning Appeals Page 3 of 5 BZA Meeting Page 4 of 44 December 16, 2020  BZA Remote Meeting Announcement • I will then open a public hearing to hear testimony in support of, or in opposition to, the request. The meeting Chair will proceed with public testimony as follows: - The Chair will first read, or have read, all written comments submitted, and will then review the list of public commenters who have signed up by the meeting start time. - Once the Chair has a list of all public commentators, I will call on each by name. All speakers will be limited to five (5) minutes. If members of the Board have any questions of the speaker, that time will not be counted toward his/her five (5) minutes. Public speakers must state their name and address for the record. - All comments must be addressed to the Board, should be relevant to the application, and may not be of a personal nature or personal attacks. - If there is a large number of speakers, including many who are part of groups or organizations, I may, to avoid repetitive comments, elect to ask for a representative to speak on behalf of the group or organization. - Speakers are notified that irrelevant comments or comments of a personal nature or personal attacks may result in the speaker forfeiting his/her opportunity to participate in the public hearing. - I may elect to recognize the applicant/agent at the end of the public hearing to provide rebuttal or additional comments, which will be limited to five (5) minutes. If members of the Board have any questions of the applicant/agent, that time will not be counted toward his/her five (5) minutes. • After all testimony is heard, I will declare the public hearing CLOSED and no further public comment will be permitted. • Uncivil, unruly, and/or disruptive behavior at any time during this meeting is prohibited and will result in removal from this public meeting. Board of Zoning Appeals Page 4 of 5 BZA Meeting Page 5 of 44 December 16, 2020  BZA Remote Meeting Announcement • State law requires the Board to consider findings of fact for each conditional use and variance request. The request cannot be granted unless a majority of the quorum present finds in the positive of ALL of the findings of fact. The Board may elect to continue the hearing to another date if it needs additional information. • Finally, because this public meeting is being conducted by remote electronic participation and to ensure accurate meeting minutes each vote taken during this meeting will be conducted by roll call vote. • Applicants and requesting parties will be notified in writing by the Planning Division of the Board’s findings and conclusions. Regardless of whether a request is approved or denied, decisions of the Board can be appealed to the Circuit Court of Monongalia County within thirty (30) days upon receipt of the written notification. Any work done relating to decisions rendered by this Board during this thirty-day period is at the sole financial risk of the applicant. Thank you for your consideration and respect for these proceedings and the opinions of all meeting participants. Board of Zoning Appeals Page 5 of 5 BZA Meeting Page 6 of 44 December 16, 2020  MORGANTOWN BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS December 16, 2020 6:30 p.m. By Electronic Means Board of Zoning Appeals City buildings remain closed to the public to protect public health during the Harrison Case, Chair COVID-19 pandemic. Personal attendance at the meeting will not be permitted. Kevin Meehan, Vice-Chair The public may participate in the public portion using the following Cisco Webex videoconference access options: Chris Benison Heidi Cook Web link: https://cityofmorgantown.my.webex.com/meet/cityofmorgantown Garrett Tomblin Meeting Number: 793 734 477 Phone: 408-418-9388 Access Code: 793 734 477 All members of the public may view the meeting on Channel 15 and by streaming hosted on the City’s website at www.morgantownwv.gov. If you do not wish to speak at the meeting, please view it by these methods to conserve capacity on the videoconference. Any person who wishes to speak at the meeting may complete the form at: http://morgantownwv.gov/FormCenter/Public-Comment-Sign-Up-Sheet- 14/Public-Comment-Morgantown-Board-of-Zonin-118 or provide their name, phone number they will use to participate, and the specific Case Number listed on the BZA’s agenda on which they would like to speak by texting or calling 304- If you need an 685-7813. You may sign up to speak at any time until the meeting begins. accommodation, Additionally, the public may submit written comments for the public hearing please contact us at portions of the meeting by sending written comments via email to the 304-284-7431. Development Services Department at bmcdonald@morgantownwv.gov. In the email, please use the subject line "Public Comment BZA 12/16/2020" and indicate in the body of the email the specific Case Number you wish to address and if you would like your comment to be read aloud during the public hearing portion for that case. AGENDA I. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL II. MATTERS OF BUSINESS: A. Minutes for the November 23, 2020 hearing. Development Services John Whitmore, AICP III. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: None. Interim Director IV. NEW BUSINESS: 389 Spruce Street Morgantown, WV 26505 A. V20-26 / Smith / 1341 Fenwick Street: Request by Tim Lewis on 304.284.7431 behalf of Anne Smith for variance relief from Article 1333 concerning Page 1 of 2 BZA Meeting Page 7 of 44 December 16, 2020  MORGANTOWN BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS December 16, 2020 6:30 p.m. By Electronic Means Board of Zoning Appeals setbacks; Tax District 15, Tax Map 2, Parcel 64, R-1, Single-Family Harrison Case, Chair Residential District. Kevin Meehan, Vice-Chair Chris Benison V. ANNOUNCEMENTS Heidi Cook Garrett Tomblin VI. ADJOURNMENT If you need an accommodation, please contact us at 304-284-7431. Development Services John Whitmore, AICP Interim Director 389 Spruce Street Morgantown, WV 26505 304.284.7431 Page 2 of 2 BZA Meeting Page 8 of 44 December 16, 2020  Intentional Blank Page BZA Meeting Page 9 of 44 December 16, 2020  BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MINUTES 6:30 p.m. November 23, 2020 Virtual/Electronic Meeting MEMBERS PRESENT: Harrison Case, Chris Benison, Garrett Tomblin MEMBERS ABSENT: Kevin Meehan, Heidi Cook STAFF: John Whitmore, City of Morgantown I. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL: Mr. Case explained that as there were no speakers signed up for public comment, the pre-meeting announcement may be waived. The Board concurred. II. MATTERS OF BUSINESS: Minutes from October 21, 2020 were unanimously approved. III. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: None. IV. NEW BUSINESS: A. V20-21 / Trimar, LLC / 1111 Van Voorhis Drive: Request by Crystal Miller of City Neon, on behalf of Trimar, LLC, for variance relief from Article 1369 concerning signage; Tax District 15, Tax Map 6, Parcel 40; B-2, Service Business District. Crystal Miller with City Neon discussed the signage requested and is asking for a variance regarding the size of the sign. Bennison asked a question regarding the signage, asking about the illumination of the signage and Miller stated there is no problem with the illumination. No other questions being heard from the committee or the public, Case then closed the public hearing. Whitmore presented the Staff Report, with no recommendation submitted by Staff concerning whether variance relief should be granted. Case asked for a motion to approve the Findings of Fact, Tomblin motioned and seconded by Bennison. Vote was unanimous. 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 1 of 12 November 23, 2020 Minutes DRAFT BZA Meeting Page 10 of 44 December 16, 2020  There are signs in this particular area that are the same size or much larger. These signs have had no adverse effects upon the public or 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 building sets approximately 200 feet from the very busy five lane roadway of Van Voorhis Drive. A larger sign would have better visibility for potential customers. Finding of Fact No. 3 – The variance will eliminate an unnecessary hardship and permit a reasonable use of the land, because The business would have higher visibility along a very busy roadway. The business will be able to utilize a sign that was at a previous location. This would be cost effective for them and more environmentally friendly than manufacturing a new sign that would less than 10 sq. ft. smaller to meet the standard. 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 would be able to safely and effectively advertise without added cost of manufacturing a new sign. Motion to grant the variance. Tomblin made the motion and Bennison seconded. Vote was unanimous. Miller was informed she would receive notice in writing of the board’s decision and that the decision may be appealed within thirty days. B. CU20-05 / HardyWorld LLC / 1000-1100 Block of University Avenue: Request by Logan Williams of Hardy World, LLC for approval of a conditional “Multi-Use Nonresidential Building” use; Tax District 11, Tax Map 28A, Parcels 27, 29, 30, and 31. B-4, General Business District. Whitmore presented the combined Staff Report. Sherry Bowmar with HardyWorld LLC and with McMillen Engineering. Petitioners had no problem with combining these. Sherry Bowmar, HardyWorld LLC stated that they propose a multiuse nonresidential building located in the 1000 block of University Avenue across from Sheetz. Bowmar stated they are working with a national coffee chain to do a drive through and retail and restaurant uses on the bottom floor and office/retail on the second floor. She stated that we have four variances requested including building setback, lighting, landscaping and the parking area not being screened. Bowmar stated that these requests conform with the neighborhood, City Planning and in accordance with the comprehensive plan. Bowmar stated that this property is a unique circumstance considering the property locations. Morgantown Board of Zoning Appeals Page 2 of 12 November 23, 2020 Minutes DRAFT BZA Meeting Page 11 of 44 December 16, 2020  Loren Wright with Piper O’Brien Architects discussed the plans for the site. Wright discussed the challenges presented and how they have worked around these issues with the design. He discussed the pedestrian traffic and how they have adjusted for this including outside seating and walk up service, as well as accommodating traffic from University Avenue. Ron Herrington with McMillen Engineering discussed the landscaping issues. He stated that there would be a five-foot buffer with shrubbery with also trees and shrubs around the parking isles. He stated that the variance would be for the reduced width and area the buffer zone. He discussed the screening and referred to the trees and shrubbery to be able to maximize . Wright addressed the increased pedestrian traffic and how they have worked this into the plan with the design of the building. Wright also addressed the dumpster areas and how they would not interfere with business, traffic and pedestrian, but would still be accessible. Tammy Stenson was also on the line, David Howell with Piper O’Brien as well, but they feel that everything has been covered. Case asked if this was a Phase I or if there were other projects in the future. Bowmar stated that this is the entire plan. Case mentioned that this is an entire city block with what is relatively a small building with mostly parking. He questioned if the parking was regulation. Bowmar stated that from a realistic standpoint the tenants would require more parking. Considering the drive through, parking would be needed. Case mentioned that he thinks there is too much parking and wonders if there is a way around this. Bowmar stated that Shawn Fortney is on the line, and that he was involved in some of the prior proposals and feel that his would be best for this development. Bowmar stated that the parking in the back would be for the retail tenants proposed and feel this would satisfy the tenants in the best way possible. Shawn Fortney stated that there was a proposal at one point for a 19-story building with no parking which caused a lot of panic downtown. He stated that this is a tough site to develop. They have spent a lot of time removing underground tanks and cleaning up the property. Fortney stated that they have spent a lot of time to develop this property in an acceptable way for the downtown district. Benison stated that he appreciated the discussion regarding parking, and his questions were all answered. Benison did ask if the design took into consideration the adjacent property owners may have about the development. Bowmar stated that this has been addressed with landscaping. Fortney stated that the adjacent property owner will work with them in keeping with the project proposed. Fortney stated that Shumans own the property adjacent and they need it for a parking area. Tomblin stated that he had no questions for the applicant. Morgantown Board of Zoning Appeals Page 3 of 12 November 23, 2020 Minutes DRAFT BZA Meeting Page 12 of 44 December 16, 2020  Case asked for more explanation regarding the screening. He asked if there was a view of the landscaping they are putting in. The applicant referred to section 4A of the site plan which represents the landscaping. Case stated that there were no objections to consolidation. Case opened the consolidated public hearing for CU20-05, V20-22,23,24,25. Being no one from the public on the line, the public hearing was closed. Whitmore provided the Staff Recommendation section of the report indicating that staff provides no recommendation for any of the cases presented in this staff report [CU20- 05, V20-22, V20-23, V20-24, V20-25]. Case stated that since the Variances for this case have been approved, time to move forward with CU-25. Benison wanted to commend the applicants on the traffic impact study. Case stated that this has been a careful process with the case and has been through several other entities for approval. Case moved to adopt the proposed findings of fact presented in the packet. Seconded by Tomblin. Vote was unanimous. Finding of Fact No. 1 – Congestion in the streets is not increased, in that: The applicant has considered the traffic along University and has decided to access from the City streets to lessen the impact on the state highway. A traffic impact study, as requested by the City and various other entities, was submitted. The applicant considered the surrounding developments and adjusted their site accordingly. By providing off street parking for customers, it will deter the customers for illegal parking. Finding of Fact No. 2 – Safety from fire, panic, and other danger is not jeopardized, in that: The applicant considered the comments provided during the Technical Review Committee and the DDRC to create a safe development. One concern mentioned several times was the proposed drive-thru tunnel which was necessary to access to the second story; whereas, the Site has been adjusted for a pedestrian walkway for access to the second story, thus, eliminating the safety concern. The drive-thru remains at the rear of the building with a second- story pedestrian walkway across to access the upper tenants. There are three pedestrian walkways. Finding of Fact No. 3 – Provision of adequate light and air is not disturbed, in that: The proposed tenants are commercial, as allowed in the B-4 District, and no uses that generate pollutants of the air or light. Finding of Fact No. 4 – Overcrowding of land does not result, in that: The applicant is proposing a 14,536 square feet two-story building which is not the entire build- out of the property. The applicant is providing some off street parking to compliment the development, along with improvements to sidewalks around the property. Finding of Fact No. 5 – Undue congestion of population is not created, in that: There is no residential construction proposed with this development. 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: Morgantown Board of Zoning Appeals Page 4 of 12 November 23, 2020 Minutes DRAFT BZA Meeting Page 13 of 44 December 16, 2020  The City encourages and provides all modes of transportation to which the proposed project is addressing pedestrian walk-ability, on-site parking, and there is public parking garages within close proximity All utilities are available for this redevelopment project on a parcel that is currently a parking lot along a main corridor. The developer is not placing a burden on City resources. Finding of Fact No. 7 – Value of buildings will be conserved, in that: At a minimum the value of existing buildings in the surrounding areas will be conserved, the property values may increase given this new development proposed. Finding of Fact No. 8 – The most appropriate use of land is encouraged, in that: The property is an existing B-4 Zoning District which specifically encourages this type of development. The applicant's request is consistent with the adopted Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance. Case moved for approval of the conditional use CU20-05 with conditions set forth in the meeting packet. Benison seconded. Vote was unanimous. CU20-05 conditional use is granted with conditions as provided in the staff report. Applicant will receive correspondence in writing form the Planning Office in the next several days. This may be appealed within the next thirty days. C. V20-22 / HardyWorld LLC / 1000-1100 Block of University Avenue: Request by Logan Williams of Hardy World, LLC for variance from Article 1349 concerning setbacks; Tax District 11, Tax Map 28A, Parcels 27, 29, 30, and 31. B-4, General Business District. Case stated the variance in this case relates primarily to the parking situation and these have all been discussed. Case asked the board if there were any other questions from the board. Case moved to accept the findings of fact. Tomblin seconded. Vote was unanimous. 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 setback is requested to be granted as a variance to ensure the public health, safety, and welfare of adjacent property owners or residents to allow for safe mobility of both vehicles and pedestrians. The Developer is proposing on-site parking to increase the safety and welfare of individuals for both customers and tenants of the proposed development. In addition the Developer is proposing an outside seating area which under the code section 1349.04 ((3) (c). The drive-thru tenant is permissible under the B-4 Zoning District and by allowing this use, the regulation of a maximum setback of this property (20 feet) is unable to be met on the mere fact the property is surrounded by public rights-of-way. During site layout, there has been detailed discussions on a drive-thru, the number of vehicles in the stacking lane, and impact on all public rights-of-way. A traffic Impact Study was submitted to the City Planning and Engineering Departments for approval. A purpose of the City’s Zoning Ordinance is to minimize or avoid congestion in the public streets and to ensure safe, convenient and efficient traffic circulation. Morgantown Board of Zoning Appeals Page 5 of 12 November 23, 2020 Minutes DRAFT BZA Meeting Page 14 of 44 December 16, 2020  In addition, property owners across the street from the subject parcel were granted similar variances for the Sheetz development. The granted of such variance will not negatively impact surrounding property owners and will provide a transition corridor from University Avenue which is less walkable to the Downtown area in accordance with the overall comprehensive plan. There are no signs in this particular area that are the same size or much larger. These signs have had no adverse effects upon the public or 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: 1. The Site is surrounded by public rights-of-way resulting in four front setbacks with a maximum of a 20 feet setback. 2. The proposed setback is more in line with the adjacent property (Sheetz) which is a newer development in the corridor. 3. By having a greater setback, it allows the access off of Kirk Street to be shifted to decrease the likelihood of vehicles waiting to turn into the property. 4. The topography of the site also presents unique challenges for the development of the site and adhearing to code maximum setbacks. The building sets approximately 200 feet from the very busy five lane roadway of Van Voorhis Road. A larger sign would have better visibility for potential customers. Finding of Fact No. 3 – The variance will eliminate an unnecessary hardship and permit a reasonable use of the land, because The business would have higher visibility along a very busy roadway. The business will be able to utilize a sign that was at a previous location. This would be cost effective for them and more environmentally friendly than manufacturing a new sign that would less than 10 sq. ft. smaller to meet the standard. The B-4 allows for the proposed use as a Conditional Use. By the natural topography and existing adjacent land uses, the Developer is seeking relief to allow for the two-story building to be constructed, as indicated on the Ste Plan, to allow for the best use of the property. The proposed layout is not overcrowding the use of the land and will allow for the natural flow of air and light in the immediate area. The purpose of the B-4 Zoning District includes: (1) promote a diverse mix of residential, business, commercial, office, institutional, education, and cultural and entertainment activities for workers, visitors, and residents; (2) encourage pedestrian-oriented development within walking distance of public transit opportunities at densities and intensities that will help support transit usage and business; (3) promote the health and well being of residents by encouraging physical activity, alternative transportation, and greater social interaction; and (4) enhance the community’s character and historical significance through the promotion of high-quality urban design. Morgantown Board of Zoning Appeals Page 6 of 12 November 23, 2020 Minutes DRAFT BZA Meeting Page 15 of 44 December 16, 2020  The variance request in light of the topography and frontage along four public right of ways would eliminate the hardship of the land and allow for the successful development of the property in accordance with the stated goals of the comprehensive plan. 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 would be able to safely and effectively advertise without added cost of manufacturing a new sign. The Zoning Ordinance was developed from the adopted Comprehensive Plan which encourages orderly growth and development, with the public planning process specifically asking for infill development/redevelopment as compared to allowing development in the “green/open space/agricultural” areas of the City. The proposed development is best suited in downtown along University Avenue corridor because: (1) it is complimentary of surrounding uses; (2) permitted in the B-4 Zoning District as a Conditional Use; and (3) development of an underutilized property. The intent of the B-4 Zoning District is still being met even if the setbacks are greater as a result of being surrounded by public rights-of-way and the unique topography of the site. The Developer worked with the Technical Review Committee and the Downtown Design Review Committee to address their comments and concerns, including the submission of a Traffic Impact Study based on the proposed tenants, to assure this proposed development is meeting the intent of the adopted Comprehensive Plan and adopted Zoning Ordinance. As provided, the development still achieves a healthy, beautiful and safe community. The proposed development is in accordance with other developments in the general vicinity and in line with other variances granted. Case moved to approve V20-22 with the conditions set forth in the packet. Seconded by Benison. Vote was unanimous. D. V20-23 / HardyWorld LLC / 1000-1100 Block of University Avenue: Request by Logan Williams of Hardy World, LLC for variance from Article 1367 concerning landscaping and screening requirements; Tax District 11, Tax Map 28A, Parcels 27, 29, 30, and 31. B-4, General Business District. Case stated that the issues have been addressed with this request. Being no other discussion the chair moved to accept the Findings of Fact in case V20-23. Seconded by Benison. Vote was unanimous. 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: Many times a landscape bufferyard is to prevent the damaging effects of one of land use to another. The landscape buffer area provides aesthetics, while still maintaining the health, safety, and welfare of residents, vehicles, and pedestrians walking to/from the site. Morgantown Board of Zoning Appeals Page 7 of 12 November 23, 2020 Minutes DRAFT BZA Meeting Page 16 of 44 December 16, 2020  The site plan does incorporate some landscaping into the plan. The landscape plan is consistent with other property owners and will not negatively impact the neighbors. 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: 1. Due to the geometric shape of the lot, there is a lack of depth necessitating the reduced landscape buffer. 2. This property is unique due to the fact that it is surrounded by roadways on all four sides of the property. 3. The topography of the site presents unique challenges to adhere to certain standards and code requirements at times. However, the topography can also help as well due to the building layout. The building design will block the view of a certain parking lot at the development depending on where you are at. If you are on Chestnut Street, the building will block your view of the front, lower-level parking lot area of the development. If you are on University Avenue, the building will block the back, upper-level parking area of the development. Finding of Fact No. 3 – The variance will eliminate an unnecessary hardship and permit a reasonable use of the land, because The requested variance still meets the definition of landscaped buffer: "an area of landscaping separating two distinct land uses, or a land use and a public right-of-way, and acts to soften or mitigate the effects of one land use on the other. As the property is surrounded by public rights- of-way, if the variance were granted, ii still mitigates efforts and is no impact on surrounding properties. The requirement, even if a variance is granted, ensures pedestrian safety, enhances the quality of development, and by providing a landscape buffer with new sidewalk there is screening of the development's parking area with the public streets. The variance request in light of the topography and frontage along four public right of ways would eliminate the hardship of the land and allow for the successful development of the property in accordance with the stated goals of the comprehensive plan. Finding of Fact No. 4 – The variance will allow the intent of the zoning ordinance to be observed and substantial justice done, because: The Zoning Ordinance was developed from the adopted Comprehensive Plan which encourages orderly growth and development with the public planning process specifically asking for infill/redevelopment as compared to allowing development in the "green/ open space/ agricultural" areas of the City. The proposed development is best suited in the downtown along the University Avenue corridor because: (1) it is complimentary of surrounding uses; (2) permitted under the B-4 District as a Conditional Use; and, (3) developing an underutilized property; (4) providing an aesthetically pleasing development as compared to the existing use. The Developer worked with the Technical Review Committee and Downtown Design Review Committee on the visual impact the proposed site layout has to the area, the proposed materials and colors, and the visual/aesthetic component of surrounding properties. The proposed development still achieves a healthy, beautiful, and safe community. Morgantown Board of Zoning Appeals Page 8 of 12 November 23, 2020 Minutes DRAFT BZA Meeting Page 17 of 44 December 16, 2020  There still would be an enhanced value of public and private property by this development, along with the reconstruction of existing sidewalk to allow this corridor to become more pedestrian friendly. Case moved to approve the variance sought in case V20-23, seconded by Tomblin. Vote was unanimous with the conditions set forth in the packet. E. V20-24 / HardyWorld LLC / 1000-1100 Block of University Avenue: Request by Logan Williams of Hardy World, LLC for variance from Article 1371 concerning exterior lighting; Tax District 11, Tax Map 28A, Parcels 27, 29, 30, and 31. B-4, General Business District. Case asked the board if there were any questions. Case moved to accept the Findings of Fact set forth in the packet concerning case V20-24. Seconded by Benison. Vote was unanimous. 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 code requires the reconstruction of the existing sidewalks around the site. Due to the unique characterics of the site, nearly the entire property is surrounded by sidewalks. In reviewing the project and the proposed comprehensive plan to provide a pedestrian friendly corridor, the developer has considered the safety of the property, tenants, and customers by allowing the light from the site onto the sidewalk areas. The proposed lighting allows safety of pedestrians utilizing the sidewalks during night time/early morning hours. The proposed lighting also represents the minimal requested variance of such overflow while still maintaining a safe atmosphere. 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: As indicated above, the property subject to the variance is bordered by University Avenue (proposed front), Kirk Street (southern side entrance), Chestnut Street (western side) and Moreland Street (northern boundary). The property is unique inasmuch as it has four streets as borders. The lighting design is to provide adequate lighting for pedestrians on the Site and the use of the surrounding sidewalks since this area is to become a pedestrian-friendly corridor. Finding of Fact No. 3 – The variance will eliminate an unnecessary hardship and permit a reasonable use of the land, because The lighting illuminating from the property line is minimal along the sidewalks. The lighting does not negatively impact any surrounding proeprty owners. The lighting that emits onto the right of way represents the minimal necessary variance in order to achieve the overall goals of the City's comprehensive plan and objectives to make the area safe for pedestrian travel. The lighting The City is encouraging pedestrian traffic along the corridor and this lighting is making it safe for individuals in the immediate area using the sidewalks. Morgantown Board of Zoning Appeals Page 9 of 12 November 23, 2020 Minutes DRAFT BZA Meeting Page 18 of 44 December 16, 2020  Finding of Fact No. 4 – The variance will allow the intent of the zoning ordinance to be observed and substantial justice done, because: The Zoning Ordinance was developed from the adopted Comprehensive Plan which encourages orderly growth and development, with the public planning process specifically asking for infill/redevelopment as compared to allowing development in the "green/ open space/ agricultural" areas of the City. The proposed development is best suited in downtown along University Avenue corridor because: (1) it is complimentary of surrounding areas; (2) provides for the safety of pedestrians; (3) developing an underutilized property; and, (4) working with the Technical Review Committee and Downtown Design Review Committee comments and concerns for both safety and aesthetics along the corridor. The proposed development still achieves a healthy, beautiful, and safe community. Case moved to approve the variance, seconded by Benison. Vote was unanimous. Case V20-24 is approved with the conditions set forth. F. V20-25 / HardyWorld LLC / 1000-1100 Block of University Avenue: Request by Logan Williams of Hardy World, LLC for variance from Article 1349 concerning parking lot screening; Tax District 11, Tax Map 28A, Parcels 27, 29, 30, and 31. B-4, General Business District. Case feels that all these issues have been adequately addressed. Case moved to accept the findings of fact in this case, seconded by Tomblin. Vote was unanimous. 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 requested variance, if granted, still ensures pedestrian safety, enhances the quality of the development, and provides a landscape buffer with the new sidewalks and screening of development's parking area with the public streets. In addition, the building will act as a screen to the parking lot depending on the location of the pedestrian. Other neighboring property owners, were granted similiar variances and the character of the neighborhood would not be changed by the grant of the variance. 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: 1. This property is unique due to the fact that it is surrounded by roadways on all four sides of the property. 2. There is no rear property line to allow for parking on site as the Site has four front setback lines to meet landscaping to screen the parking. 3. The placement of a wall/barrier would be around the entire property which distracts from not only this development but surrounding developments in the corridor and may impact property values or open for unsavory activity when no tenants/businesses are operating. Morgantown Board of Zoning Appeals Page 10 of 12 November 23, 2020 Minutes DRAFT BZA Meeting Page 19 of 44 December 16, 2020  4. The topography of the site presents unique challenges to adhere to certain standards and code requirements. However, the topography can also help as well due to the building layout. The building design will block the view of a certain parking lot at the development depending on where you are at. If you are on Chestnut Street, the building will block your view of the front, lower-level parking lot area of the development. If you are on University Avenue, the building will block the back, upper-level parking area of the development. Finding of Fact No. 3 – The variance will eliminate an unnecessary hardship and permit a reasonable use of the land, because The requested variance still meets the definition of landscaped buffer: "an area of landscaping separating two distinct land uses, or a land use and a public right-of-way, and acts to soften or mitigate the effects of one land use on the other. As the property is surrounded by public rights- of-way, if the variance were granted, it still mitigates efforts and is no impact on surrounding properties. The requirement, even if a variance is granted, ensures pedestrian safety, enhances the quality of development, and by providing a landscape buffer with new sidewalk there is screening of the development's parking area with the public streets. The variance request in light of the topography and frontage along four public right of ways would eliminate the hardship of the land and allow for the successful development of the property in accordance with the stated goals of the comprehensive plan. Finding of Fact No. 4 – The variance will allow the intent of the zoning ordinance to be observed and substantial justice done, because: The Zoning Ordinance was developed from the adopted Comprehensive Plan which encourages orderly growth and development, with the public planning process specifically asking for infill/redevelopment as compared to allowing development in the "green/ open space/ agricultural" areas of the City. The proposed development is best suited in downtown along University Avenue corridor because: (1) it is complimentary of surrounding uses; (2) permitted under the B-4 District as a Conditional Use; and, (3) developing an underutilized property. The Technical Review Committee and the Downtown Design Review Committee did review the site layout and visual impact the development has on surrounding uses and the corridor. The material and color for construction was submitted and approved, along with an acceptable layout including the landscape plan. As provided, the development still achieves a healthy, beautiful, and safe community. Case moves for approval in case V20-25 based on conditions set forth in the packet. Tomblin seconded. Vote was unanimous, Case V20-25 has been approved. ANNOUNCEMENTS: Whitmore discussed the City of Morgantown’s 2021 calendar for Planning and Zoning hearings. Currently the BZA meets on Wednesdays. February’s meeting falls on Ash Wednesday and asked if there were any concerns with this date, or any other issues. The Board stated there were no current issues with the Ash Wednesday date, but are flexible to changes if needed. Whitmore noted the next meeting will be December 16,. Tomblin noted that he will not be available for this meeting. Morgantown Board of Zoning Appeals Page 11 of 12 November 23, 2020 Minutes DRAFT BZA Meeting Page 20 of 44 December 16, 2020 Whitmore stated that the new City Manager is slated to start next week. Development and Finance director positions are still being looked at. ADJOURNMENT: 7:39 p.m. MINUTES APPROVED: BOARD SECRETARY: _____________________________ John Whitmore, AICP Morgantown Board of Zoning Appeals Page 12 of 12 November 23, 2020 Minutes DRAFT BZA Meeting Page 21 of 44 December 16, 2020  Intentional Blank Page BZA Meeting Page 22 of 44 December 16, 2020  MORGANTOWN BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS December 17, 2020 6:30 p.m. By Electronic Means Board Members: STAFF REPORT Harrison Case, Chair Kevin Meehan, Vice-Chair CASE NO: V20-26 / Smith / 1341 Fenwick Avenue Chris Benison Heidi Cook REQUEST and LOCATION: Garrett Tomblin Request by Tim Lewis, on behalf of Anne Smith, for variance relief from Article 1333 concerning side yard setbacks for a principal building located at 1341 Fenwick Avenue. TAX MAP NUMBER(s) and ZONING DESCRIPTION: Tax District 15, Tax Map 2, Parcel 64; R-1, Single-Family Residential District. SURROUNDING ZONING: R-1, Single-Family Residential District. BACKGROUND and ANALYSIS: The petitioner seeks variance relief from Section 1333.04(A)(3) to construct a bathroom addition to a legal, pre-existing nonconforming dwelling single-family dwelling that will be less than the minimum side setback standard of 10 feet. Addendum A of this report illustrates the location of the subject parcel. 1341 Fenwick Avenue is a legal, pre-existing nonconforming structure that does not meet the R-1, Single-Family Residential District’s side setback standards. A survey completed by William Folley PS #1095 dated July 1, 1996 and recorded in Deed Book 1132; Page 414 indicates that the structure is 8.93-feet from westerly parcel boundary (Princeton Avenue) and 5.73-feet from the easterly parcel boundary. The petitioner seeks to construct a 61.3 square Development Services foot (5.33’ x 11.5’) bathroom to be located to the John Whitmore, AICP rear of the structure as shown in this staff Interim Director enhanced image to the right. Planning Division Section 1373.06(b) of the Planning and Zoning 389 Spruce Street Code requires that an expansion of a Morgantown, WV 26505 nonconforming structure that increases the 304.284.7431 extent of a nonconformity shall not be permitted unless a variance is obtained, as shown on Page 2 of this report. Page 1 of 2 BZA Meeting Page 23 of 44 December 16, 2020  MORGANTOWN BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS December 17, 2020 6:30 p.m. By Electronic Means Board Members: Harrison Case, Chair Kevin Meehan, Vice-Chair Chris Benison Heidi Cook Garrett Tomblin The petitioner seeks to increase the extent of the side yard setback non-conformity by five feet four inches (5’4”). Section 1333.04(A) provides the following minimum setback standards within the R-1 District. Of particular note is the minimum ten-foot side setback standard. The petitioner seeks variance to encroach into the side yard setback standard 4.27-feet. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The Board of Zoning Appeals must determine whether the proposed request meets the standard criteria for a variance by reaching a positive determination for each of the “Findings of Fact” submitted by the petitioner. If the Board disagrees with the petitioner’s Development Services “Findings of Fact” and determines the proposed request does not meet the standard John Whitmore, AICP criteria for a variance, then the Board must state findings of fact and conclusions of law Interim Director on which it bases its decision to deny the subject variance petition. [See WV State Code 8A-8-11(e) and 8A-7-11(b)]. Planning Division 389 Spruce Street Addendum B of this report provides revisions to the petitioner’s Findings of Fact responses Morgantown, WV 26505 (deleted matter struck through; new matter underlined). Staff provides no recommendation 304.284.7431 for this petition. Attachments: Application and exhibits Page 2 of 2 BZA Meeting Page 24 of 44 December 16, 2020  STAFF REPORT ADDENDUM A V20-26 / Smith / 1341 Fenwick Avenue Staff Report Addendum A Page 1 of 2 V20-26 BZA Meeting Page 25 of 44 December 16, 2020  STAFF REPORT ADDENDUM A V20-26 / Smith / 1341 Fenwick Avenue Staff Report Addendum A Page 2 of 2 V20-26 BZA Meeting Page 26 of 44 December 16, 2020  STAFF REPORT ADDENDUM B V20-26 / Smith / 1341 Fenwick Avenue The following revisions are recommended to the petitioner’s findings of fact responses (deleted matter struck-though; new matter underlined). Staff recommended revisions should not be considered or construed as supporting or opposing the merits of the petitioner’s responses or the subject variance petition. 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 bathroom addition will be in the rear of the property and will not encroach any further than the house is now. closer to the property boundary than the existing house’s exterior walls. 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: This is a elderly sister and brother. The brother has moved here due to the loss of his wife. The sister is 87 and the brother is 92. He needs a bathroom next to his bedroom. The structure does not have bathroom facilities located in proper proximity to bedrooms for its continued residential use. The structure is extremely small and will not be expanded beyond an additional 61.3 square feet. Finding of Fact No. 3 – The variance will eliminate an unnecessary hardship and permit a reasonable use of the land, because: These two elderly brother and sister needs another bath due to there age and also can have a walk in shower with seat. The variance will allow for contemporary bathroom layouts in a structure, permitting its functional use as a single-family residential dwelling. Finding of Fact No. 4 – The variance will allow the intent of the zoning ordinance to be observed and substantial justice done, because: To be able to have a more suitable bathroom for a 92 year old man. The parcel layout does not meet the R-1, Single-Family Residential District minimums resulting in a smaller single-family residential structure that does not readily allow for residential use. The addition will better the property allowing for a practical use of the structure in accordance with the R-1, Single-Family District purpose and permitted land uses. Staff Report Addendum B Page 1 of 1 V20-26 BZA Meeting Page 27 of 44 December 16, 2020 BZA Meeting Page 28 of 44 December 16, 2020 BZA Meeting Page 29 of 44 December 16, 2020 BZA Meeting Page 30 of 44 December 16, 2020 BZA Meeting Page 31 of 44 December 16, 2020 BZA Meeting Page 32 of 44 December 16, 2020 BZA Meeting Page 33 of 44 December 16, 2020 BZA Meeting Page 34 of 44 December 16, 2020 BZA Meeting Page 35 of 44 December 16, 2020 BZA Meeting Page 36 of 44 December 16, 2020 BZA Meeting Page 37 of 44 December 16, 2020 BZA Meeting Page 38 of 44 December 16, 2020 BZA Meeting Page 39 of 44 December 16, 2020 BZA Meeting Page 40 of 44 December 16, 2020 BZA Meeting Page 41 of 44 December 16, 2020 BZA Meeting Page 42 of 44 December 16, 2020 BZA Meeting Page 43 of 44 December 16, 2020 BZA Meeting Page 44 of 44 December 16, 2020