Board of Zoning Appeals

Morgantown Board of Zoning Appeals MEETING PACKET Wednesday, February 17, 2021 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 50 February 17, 2021  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 50 February 17, 2021  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 50 February 17, 2021  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 50 February 17, 2021  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 50 February 17, 2021  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 50 February 17, 2021  MORGANTOWN BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS February 17, 2021 6:30 p.m. By Electronic Means Board of Zoning Appeals City buildings remain partially closed to the public to protect public health during the Harrison Case COVID-19 pandemic. Personal attendance at this meeting will not be permitted. The Kevin Meehan, public may participate in the public portions through the following Cisco WebEx videoconference access methods: Chris Benison Heidi Cook Meeting Link: https://cityofmorgantown.my.webex.com/meet/cityofmorgantown Garrett Tomblin Meeting Number: 793 734 477 Phone: 415-655-0001 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 wishing to speak at the meeting may sign up by completing the form available at: http://bit.ly/BZA021721. Another option to speak during a public comment portion is by providing their name, phone number they will use to participate, and the specific Case Number and/or General Public Comments If you need an listed on the Planning Commission’s agenda on which they would like to speak accommodation, by texting or calling 304-906-7843. You may sign up to speak at any time until please contact us at the meeting begins. Additionally, the public may submit written comments for the 304-284-7431. public hearing portions of the meeting by sending an email to the Development Services Department at bmcdonald@morgantownwv.gov. In the email, please use the subject line "Public Comment BZA 02/17/2021" 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. 2020 LEADERSHIP ELECTION – President and Vice- President Development Services John Whitmore, AICP III. MATTERS OF BUSINESS: Interim Director A. Minutes for the November 23, 2020 hearing. B. Minutes for the December 16, 2020 hearing. 389 Spruce Street Morgantown, WV 26505 C. 2020 Annual Report to City Council. 304.284.7431 IV. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: None. Page 1 of 2 BZA Meeting Page 7 of 50 February 17, 2021  MORGANTOWN BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS February 17, 2020 6:30 p.m. By Electronic Means Board of Zoning Appeals V. NEW BUSINESS: Harrison Case Kevin Meehan, A. CU21-01 / Rice / 727 Union Avenue: Request by Dylan Rice for! Chris Benison approval of a conditional accessory “Class 2 Home Occupation” use;! Heidi Cook Tax District 13, Tax Map 26, Parcel 494; R-1A, Single-Family! Residential District. Garrett Tomblin B. V21-01 / Hotel Morgan Company, LLC / 127 High Street: Request by! Crystal Miller of City Neon, on behalf of Hotel Morgan Company, LLC,! for variance relief from Article 1369 concerning signage; Tax District 11,! Tax Map 28A, Parcel 25; B-4, General Business District. VI. ANNOUNCEMENTS VII. 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 50 February 17, 2021  Intentional Blank Page BZA Meeting Page 9 of 50 February 17, 2021  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 50 February 17, 2021  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 50 February 17, 2021  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 50 February 17, 2021  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 50 February 17, 2021  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 50 February 17, 2021  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 50 February 17, 2021  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 50 February 17, 2021  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 50 February 17, 2021  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 50 February 17, 2021  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 50 February 17, 2021  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 50 February 17, 2021 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 50 February 17, 2021  Intentional Blank Page BZA Meeting Page 22 of 50 February 17, 2021  BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MINUTES 6:30 p.m. December 16, 2020 Virtual/Electronic Meeting MEMBERS PRESENT: Chris Benison, Heidi Cook, Kevin Meehan MEMBERS ABSENT: Harrison Case, Garrett Tomblin STAFF: John Whitmore, City of Morgantown I. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL: Meehan called the meeting to order and asked that the pre-meeting announcement may be waived. The Board concurred. II. MATTERS OF BUSINESS: Minutes from November 23, 2020 were postponed. III. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: None. IV. NEW BUSINESS: A. V20-26 / Smith / 1341 Fenwick Street: Request by Tim Lewis on behalf of Anne Smith for variance relief from Article 1333 concerning setbacks; Tax District 15, Tax Map 2, Parcel 64, R-1, Single-Family Residential District. Whitmore presented the Staff Report. Tim Lewis spoke representing the property owner, Mrs. Smith. Mrs. Smith is 87 years old and also has her brother living with her. With both of them being elderly, they would like to have another bathroom for him next to his bedroom. There is another bathroom in the home, but for convenience, two bathrooms would work better in the house. Lewis noted that there is an addition already built on the house, and this additional bathroom would tuck right into an existing corner. Meehan opened the public hearing. Being no one present, the hearing was closed. Meehan asked for the Staff Recommendation, which was provided by Whitmore. Cook moved to accept the findings of fact as presented in the report. Benison seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Cook moved to grant the variance. Meehan seconded. Vote was unanimous. Morgantown Board of Zoning Appeals Page 1 of 2 December 16, 2020 Minutes DRAFT BZA Meeting Page 23 of 50 February 17, 2021  Meehan mentioned to the petitioner that he would receive a formal letter from the Planning Department. V. ANNOUNCEMENTS: Whitmore stated the next meeting would be February 17. Whitmore noted that this meeting would be on Ash Wednesday, and to contact staff if there were issues with time and date. Elections will be held at the February meeting. VI. ADJOURNMENT: 7:10 p.m. MINUTES APPROVED: BOARD SECRETARY: _____________________________ John Whitmore, AICP Morgantown Board of Zoning Appeals Page 2 of 2 December 16, 2020 Minutes DRAFT BZA Meeting Page 24 of 50 February 17, 2021  Intentional Blank Page BZA Meeting Page 25 of 50 February 17, 2021  2020 ANNUAL REPORT Planning Commission The West Virginia State Code Chapter 8A-2-11 requires Planning Commissions to: “Make an annual report to the appropriate governing body concerning the operation of the planning commission and the status of planning within its jurisdiction.” The Morgantown Planning Commission respectfully submits this 2020 Annual Report to the Morgantown City Council. Morgantown Land Use Planning Milestones 1944 .............. City Council adopted first Zoning Ordinance 1959 .............. West Virginia Planning Enabling Act Adopted 1961 .............. City’s First Comprehensive Plan Adopted 1970 .............. Comprehensive Plan Updated 1979 ............. First City Planner Hired 1999 .............. Comprehensive Plan Update Adopted 2006 .............. Planning & Zoning Code Modernized and Codified 2010 .............. Downtown Strategic Plan Update Adopted 2013 .............. Comprehensive Plan Update Adopted 2016 .............. Small Area Plan – Future Study Area No. 17 2017 .............. Small Area Plan – Future Study Area No. 2 2018 .............. Small Area Plan – Future Study Area No. 18 2018 .............. Small Area Plan – Future Study Area No. 16 2019 .............. Small Area Plan – Future Study Area No. 5 The Current State of Urban Planning in the City of Morgantown The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic cannot be understated. For a period of approximately two months starting in mid-March, City of Morgantown administrative staff primarily worked from home as the crisis began. All in person meetings were cancelled and have not resumed, with limited exception. City of Morgantown revenues were instantly changed as commerce ground to a halt. Previously planned projects, including the revision to the Subdivision and Land Development Ordinance were paused. The Development Services Department in working with local, regional, state and federal agencies, has been able to adapt with minimal disruption. Development Services staff takes pride in facilitating community planning for the City of Morgantown and will continue to meet the professional demands required in this challenging time. 2020 Morgantown Planning Commission Page 1 of 6 Annual Report to City Council BZA Meeting Page 26 of 50 February 17, 2021 Citizen Planners The success of local planning policies, programming, and services depends largely on the commitment and integrity of residents appointed by the Morgantown City Council to serve on various planning-related commissions, boards, and committees. Morgantown is fortunate to enjoy a well-informed public willing to serve in the role of Citizen Planner. The following table identifies these volunteers and their respective terms as of December 31, 2020. Date of Original Tenure Citizen Planner Current Term Appointment (in months) Planning Commission Peter DeMasters, President 03/21/2006 01/01/20 – 12/31/22 177 6th Ward Representative Carol Pyles, Vice-President 09/17/2008 01/01/19 – 12/31/21 147 7th Ward Representative Sam Loretta 06/20/2006 01/01/18 – 12/31/20 174 1st Ward Representative Tim Stranko 03/21/2007 01/01/18 – 12/31/20 165 2nd Ward Representative William Blosser 11/05/2013 01/01/17 – 12/31/22 85 3rd Ward Representative William Petros 01/19/2010 01/01/19 – 12/31/21 131 4th Ward Representative Michael Shuman 08/04/2009 01/01/19 – 12/31/21 137 5th Ward Representative Ron Dulaney Jr. City Council term 07/01/2017 ending 06/30/21 42 City Councilor AJ Hammond 11/20/19 at the will of City Manager 13 Administration Representative PC Tenure Summary: Total: 1,071 mos. or 89.25 yrs. Average: 119 mos. or 9.9 yrs. Board of Zoning Appeals Harrison Case 2/21/2017 01/01/17 – 12/31/22 46 Kevin Meehan 10/17/2017 01/01/19 – 12/31/21 38 Chris Benison 12/5/2017 01/01/18 – 12/31/20 37 Heidi Cook 03/20/2018 01/01/18 – 12/31/20 33 Garrett Tomblin 01/9/2019 01/01/19 – 12/31/21 24 BZA Tenure Summary: Total: 178 mos. or 14.8 yrs. Average: 35.6 mos. or 3 yrs +/-. 2020 Morgantown Planning Commission Page 2 of 6 Annual Report to City Council BZA Meeting Page 27 of 50 February 17, 2021 The following table identifies attendance trends for the 2018, 2019, and 2020 calendar years. 2018 2019 2020 Three-Year Citizen Planner Attendance Absent Present Absent Present Absent Present Rate Planning Commission Peter DeMasters 3 7 1 10 0 11 88% 6th Ward Representative Carol Pyles 3 7 4 7 2 9 72% 7th Ward Representative Sam Loretta 1 9 0 11 5 6 81% 1st Ward Representative Tim Stranko 2 8 0 11 0 11 94% 2nd Ward Representative William Blosser 0 10 0 11 0 11 100% 3rd Ward Representative William Petros 3 7 1 10 4 7 75% 4th Ward Representative Michael Shuman 4 6 0 11 2 9 81% 5th Ward Representative Ronald Dulaney, Jr. 0 10 3 8 2 9 84% City Councilor AJ Hammond N/A N/A 0 1 2 9 83% Administration Representative Board of Zoning Appeals Harrison Case 3 8 2 10 3 5 74% Kevin Meehan 1 10 1 11 1 7 90% Chris Benison 0 11 0 12 0 8 100% Heidi Cook 0 9 1 11 2 6 90% Garrett Tomblin N/A N/A 3 9 0 8 85% 2020 Morgantown Planning Commission Page 3 of 6 Annual Report to City Council BZA Meeting Page 28 of 50 February 17, 2021 2020 Planning & Zoning Cases The following table illustrates the caseload for the Planning Commission and Board of Zoning Appeals during the 2018, 2019, and 2020 calendar years. PC BZA Number of Applications 2020 Actions 2018 2019 2020 Pending Approved Denied W/drawn Site Plans (DSI) 2 1 1 1 Minor Subdivisions 22 17 14 12 1 1 Major Subdivisions 0 0 0 Map Amendments 3 5 5 5 Text Amendments 7 1 4 3 1 Variances 44 41 26 26 Conditional Uses 9 4 5 5 Administrative Appeals 2 0 0 TOTAL 89 69 55 2020 Building Permits and Construction Value The following table identifies building permit and construction value (nominal) trends for the 2018, 2019, and 2020 calendar years as tracked and report by the City’s Code Enforcement Department. 2018 2019 2020 % % % No. / Value No. / Value No. / Value Change Change Change No. of Building Permits Issued 1,680 -12.0% 1,805 7.0% 1,721 -4.7% Total Construction/ $20,644,918 -43.1% $30,246,880 47.0% $26,397,953 -12.7% Improvement Value Total Amount of Building Permit Related Fees Paid to $161,668 -21.5% $212,461 31.0% $184,477 -13.2% the City Planned Unit Developments (PUDs) As of December 31, 2020, there have been seven (7) Planned Unit Development (PUD) Outline Plans recommended by the Planning Commission and approved by City Council. The following status for each PUD is provided in accordance with Article 1357.03(D)(4)(c) of the Planning and Zoning Code. The Square at Falling Run, SC Bodner, Westminster House, and Beech View Place Planned Unit Developments were completed. Grand Central Apartments was originally approved in 2007 but rescinded by ordinance in 2010. Habitat for Humanity was originally approved in 2009 but rescinded by ordinance in 2012, and lands subsequently developed as single-family housing. Glen Ridge Apartments was originally approved in 2015 but rescinded by ordinance in 2017. These PUDs were rescinded because development was not initiated prior to respective Outline Plan Approval deadlines. The City of Morgantown has not received an application for a Planned 2020 Morgantown Planning Commission Page 4 of 6 Annual Report to City Council BZA Meeting Page 29 of 50 February 17, 2021 Unit Development since the Glenn Ridges Apartment PUD Outline Plan in August 2015. City of Morgantown 2020-2022 Strategic Plan In December 2017, City Council finalized a strategic plan to serve as a road map guiding its vision toward implementing significant, measurable and attainable improvements. The Planning Commission and/or Development Services Department staff have direct or indirect roles in contributing to the following strategic goals and objectives. Attractive Amenities Objective 2 Create new public green spaces throughout the city by acquiring new property, revitalizing existing properties, and maximizing partnerships with private property owners. Identify blighted areas that could be repurposed into green space. UPDATE/STATUS – The Planning Division in working with the City of Morgantown Land Reuse and Preservation Agency (LRaPA), has actively evaluated properties in and around the downtown area. Additional focus on properties located in the City of Morgantown’s Qualified Opportunity Zones around the West Virginia University Downtown Campus. Cooperative Relationships Objective 2: Promote collaboration with and engage the Monongalia County Commission so that community issues and solutions have buy in from all locally elected officials. Create opportunities for city and county elected officials to meet to discuss common issues and develop solutions that have buy-in from both groups. UPDATE/STATUS – The Planning Division continues to contribute to the Morgantown- Monongalia Metropolitan Planning Organization (MMMPO) through active membership on its Transportation Technical Advisory Committee (TTAC). The Planning Division has partnered with the MMMPO to facilitate comprehensive planning processes on a regional, county, and urban level, with collaboration with the MPO, Monongalia County, the cities of Morgantown and Westover and the towns of Granville and Star City. The comprehensive planning efforts will begin in 2021. Excellent, Equitable City Services Objective 1: Create effective communication strategies that keep residents informed regularly and provide means to gain citizen feedback on projects and initiatives. Utilize technology to hone in on the appropriate audiences for neighborhood projects and initiatives. UPDATE/STATUS – The Planning Division working with the Communications Department has had success utilizing newer virtual meeting technology for meeting administration. These efforts have expanded opportunities for public participation in planning processes and will be vital for future planning efforts. Vibrant Downtown Objective 1: Facilitate programs that make our downtown more beautiful and clean. Create more green space downtown UPDATE/STATUS –2020 saw the completion of the Spruce Center Master Plan including a pocket park at the Morgantown Marketplace. Construction is projected to be completed in mid-2021. 2020 Morgantown Planning Commission Page 5 of 6 Annual Report to City Council BZA Meeting Page 30 of 50 February 17, 2021 2021 Planning Work Program • Modernization of Subdivision Regulations – The Planning Commission and City Council completed the lengthy task of modernizing and codifying the City’s zoning regulations in 2006. The fundamental purpose of this endeavor was to implement progressive land use policies and strategies as well as comply with the State Legislature’s similar effort in 2004 to modernize the State’s Planning Enabling Law. Changes in State Code have created opportunities to streamline the review and approval of subdivision petitions. Incorporating these opportunities in Morgantown’s Planning and Zoning Code requires a major amendment to the City’s subdivision regulations. City Council allocated $75,000 in FY 2019 to complete this project. A related request for proposals was published in the first quarter of 2020 Calendar Year, with project completion anticipated within 9 to 12 months. The COVID-19 pandemic greatly affected this timeline. Staff now anticipates this project beginning in mid-2021. • 2023 Comprehensive Plan Update – In hopes of building on the collaborative success of the 2013 Comprehensive Plan Update process, City Administration began the process of securing multi-year funding commitments from the Morgantown-Monongalia Metropolitan Planning Organization (MMMPO), the Monongalia County Commission, and neighboring municipalities. This will align with the timing of the MMMPO’s next Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP) and publication of the 2020 decennial census data. • Small Area Studies – Strategies NH 1.2 and ED 5.7 of the 2013 Comprehensive Plan Update provides for the preparation and implementation of small area studies for 16 “Future Study Areas”, which are identified in Appendix A of the Plan. Future Study Area No. 7 has been designated by the Planning Commission as the next area to receive study. This project is anticipated to begin in early 2021. Development Services Department Staff Chris Fletcher, Director of Development Services since 2006 resigned from the City of Morgantown in September 2020 to begin employment with Urban Design Ventures, LLC. Mr. Fletcher was instrumental in developing and maintaining the City of Morgantown Planning and Zoning Code, review of all Planned Unit Developments in the City of Morgantown and contemporary Development of Significant Impact reviews. In addition to his work with the City of Morgantown, Mr. Fletcher aided the planning profession, as a long serving President of the West Virginia Chapter of the American Planning Association and as a member of the West Virginia Home Rule Board. The Development Services staff, Planning Commission, and Board of Zoning Appeals wishes to state their appreciation for Mr. Fletcher’s service throughout West Virginia. 2020 Morgantown Planning Commission Page 6 of 6 Annual Report to City Council BZA Meeting Page 31 of 50 February 17, 2021  Intentional Blank Page BZA Meeting Page 32 of 50 February 17, 2021  MORGANTOWN BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS February 17, 2021 6:30 p.m. By Electronic Means Board Members: STAFF REPORT Harrison Case Kevin Meehan CASE NO: CU21-01 / Rice / 727 Union Avenue Chris Benison Heidi Cook REQUEST and LOCATION: Garrett Tomblin Request by Dylan Rice for conditional use approval of a “Class 2 Home Occupation” at 727 Union Avenue. TAX MAP NUMBER(s) and ZONING DESCRIPTION: Tax District 13, Tax Map 26, Parcel 494; R-1A, Single-Family Residential District SURROUNDING ZONING: East and South: R-1A, Single-Family Residential District North and West: R-2, Single and Two-Family Residential District BACKGROUND and ANALYSIS: The petitioner seeks conditional use approval for a “Class 2 Home Occupation” accessory use at 727 Union Avenue. Addendum A of this report illustrates the location of the subject establishment. The petitioner seeks to provide a music production business from his home. Because clients will be visiting the residence, the home-based business is considered a “Class 2 Home Occupation.” Table 1331.05.01 “Permitted Land Uses” of the Planning and Zoning Code provides that “Class 2 Home Occupation” uses in the R-1A District require conditional use approval by the Board of Zoning Appeals. The following points highlight information provided in the petitioner’s application: • The petitioner rents and resides in the subject single-family dwelling and no modifications to the structure are planned for the proposed home-based business. An email communication to the property owner informing the owner of the accessory use was included with the application materials. • The proposed hours of operation are from 9:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. Development Services • A maximum of three clients would visit the location per week with a maximum occurrence of one client per day limited to one visit per day. John Whitmore, AICP • No delivery trucks associated with the proposed home occupation are anticipated Interim Director to visit the site on a regular basis. • The petitioner notes there is on-street parking available. 389 Spruce Street Morgantown, WV 26505 304.284.7431 Page 1 of 2 BZA Meeting Page 33 of 50 February 17, 2021  MORGANTOWN BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS February 17, 2021 6:30 p.m. By Electronic Means Board Members: STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Harrison Case It is the duty of the Board of Zoning Appeals to determine whether the proposed request Kevin Meehan meets the standard criteria for a “Class 2 Home Occupation” conditional use by reaching Chris Benison a positive determination for each of the “Findings of Fact” submitted by the petitioner. If Heidi Cook the Board disagrees with the petitioner’s “Findings of Fact” and determines the proposed request does not meet the standard criteria for a “Class 2 Home Occupation” conditional Garrett Tomblin use, then the Board must state findings of fact and conclusions of law on which it bases its decision to deny the subject conditional use petition. [See WV State Code 8A-8-11(e) and 8A-7-11(b)]. Addendum B of this report provides suggested revisions to the petitioner’s Findings of Fact responses (deleted matter struck through; 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 petition. Staff recommends that conditional “Class 2 Home Occupation” use approval be granted under Case No. CU21-01 for Dylan Rice as requested with the following conditions: 1. That, to the greatest extent practicable, appointments shall not overlap to mitigate parking and traffic congestion. 2. That, to the home occupation shall not create a nuisance as it relates to the City of Morgantown’s noise ordinance. 3. That adherence with and monitoring of Conditions 1 and 2 above shall rely upon the review, suspension, and revocation provisions provided in Section 1331.06(2)(d)(i) of the Planning and Zoning Code. 4. That the conditional use approval granted herein is specific to the petitioner and may not be transferred without prior approval by the Board of Zoning Appeals. 5. If the petitioner, as the sole beneficiary of this conditional use approval, wishes to make changes in the conduct of the business that departs from the description in the application or from any conditions or restrictions imposed by the Board of Zoning Appeals, the holder must obtain prior approval of the Board. Changes include, but are not limited to, days and/or hours of operation, number of clients seen per day, etc. Development Services Attachments: Application and exhibits John Whitmore, AICP Interim Director 389 Spruce Street Morgantown, WV 26505 304.284.7431 Page 2 of 2 BZA Meeting Page 34 of 50 February 17, 2021  STAFF REPORT ADDENDUM A CU21-01 / Rice / 727 Union Avenue Staff Report Addendum A Page 1 of 2 CU21-01 BZA Meeting Page 35 of 50 February 17, 2021  STAFF REPORT ADDENDUM A CU21-01 / Rice / 727 Union Avenue Staff Report Addendum A Page 2 of 2 CU21-01 BZA Meeting Page 36 of 50 February 17, 2021  STAFF REPORT ADDENDUM B CU21-01 / Rice / 727 Union Avenue Staff submits the following revisions to petitioner’s Findings of Fact (deleted matter struck through; 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 conditional use petition. This Conditional Use is within the fitting character of the surrounding area and is consistent with the spirit, purpose, and intent of the Zoning Ordinance, because, Finding of Fact No. 1 – The home occupation will be compatible with residential uses of the dwelling, in that: The business will not have minimal to no any impact on those living in the dwelling. Hours are clear and business has been agreed upon by those dwelling. The dwelling’s residents are aware of the business plans and are in agreement to the proposed home occupation’s impacts. Finding of Fact No. 2 – The home occupation will not change the residential character of the dwelling, in that: Only clients allowed at business are of good moral character. Individuals are required to act with respect at all times. The structure will remain residential in nature and will not be physically altered for the home occupation. Finding of Fact No. 3 – The home occupation will not detract from the residential character of the neighborhood, in that: The business will only operate in the best interest of the community. Finding of Fact No. 4 – Congestion in the streets will not be increased, in that: The number of people allowed at one time is never more than one car’s worth of individuals. There is a vacant spot at the property and ample parking in area. Staff Report Addendum B Page 1 of 1 CU21-01 BZA Meeting Page 37 of 50 February 17, 2021 John Whitmore From: Barbara McDonald Sent: Saturday, February 6, 2021 3:42 PM To: Leanne Cardoso Cc: dylanrice@moneygrovemusic.com; John Whitmore Subject: Re: CU21-01/Money Grove Music, LLC/727 Union Avenue I will make sure that the information is shared with The BZA. I have copied John Whitmore, Interim Planning Director with the city, on this email. Thank you for your input. Barb On Feb 6, 2021, at 12:15 PM, Leanne Cardoso <leannecardoso@gmail.com> wrote: Dear Ms. McDonald: Please ensure the letter below is included in the record for CU21‐01/Money Grove Music, LLC/727 Union Avenue. Thank you, Leanne Cardoso Dear Board of Zoning Appeals: I live at 709 Union Avenue and am writing in support of the petition. I spoke at length with Dylan Rice on February 6, 2021, and am confident that Mr. Rice's planned use of his property will not negatively impact my neighborhood. Working from home is a great way for young entrepreneurs to take the first steps to getting their businesses off the ground. Mr. Rice seems focused, conscientious, and he understands what it means to be a good neighbor. I wish him the best of luck. Very truly yours, Leanne Cardoso This electronic message transmission contains information which may be confidential or privileged. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual or entity named above. If you are not the intended recipient, be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of the contents of this message is prohibited. If you have received this electronic transmission in error, please notify me by telephone at 540-999-8080 immediately. 1 BZA Meeting Page 38 of 50 February 17, 2021  Intentional Blank Page BZA Meeting Page 39 of 50 February 17, 2021  MORGANTOWN BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS February 17, 2021 6:30 p.m. By Electronic Means Board Members: STAFF REPORT Harrison Case Kevin Meehan CASE NO: V21-01 / Hotel Morgan Company, LLC / 127 High Street Chris Benison Heidi Cook REQUEST and LOCATION: Garrett Tomblin Request by Crystal Miller of City Neon on behalf of Hotel Morgan Company, LLC for variance relief from Article 1369 concerning signage. TAX MAP NUMBER(s) and ZONING DESCRIPTION: Tax District 11, Tax Map 28A, Parcels 24 and 25; B-4, General Business District SURROUNDING ZONING: B-4, General Business District BACKGROUND and ANALYSIS: The petitioner seeks to install a canopy sign at 127 High Street, requiring variance relief from Article 1369 of the Planning and Zoning Code. Addendum A of this report illustrates the location of the subject site. Awning and canopy signs are defined in Section 1329.02 of the Planning and Zoning Code as follows: Section 1369.07(i)(2) provides the following guidance for awning signs which the Planning Director has determined to also extend to canopy signs: Development Services Section 1369.07(i) provides a maximum sign area standard of 0.4 square feet of wall sign area for every one (1) foot of tenant building frontage in the B-4, General Business John Whitmore, AICP District. The tenant’s frontage is approximately fifty (50) linear feet allowing for a total of Interim Director twenty (20) square feet of wall signage. The proposed sign is 22.32 square feet in area Planning Division requiring variance relief of 2.32 square feet as illustrated in the table on page 2 of this 389 Spruce Street staff report. Morgantown, WV 26505 304.284.7431 Additionally, the signage will require variance from Section 1369.08(b) as the sign face will not be opaque, will be internally illuminated, and will be made of a non-permitted material. Page 1 of 2 BZA Meeting Page 40 of 50 February 17, 2021  MORGANTOWN BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS February 17, 2021 6:30 p.m. By Electronic Means Board Members: Harrison Case Kevin Meehan Wall Sign Sign Area Chris Benison Heidi Cook Garrett Tomblin 22.3 sf Total Permitted Sign Standards 20 sf Total Requested Variance 2.3 sf STAFF RECOMMENDATION: It is the duty of the Board of Zoning Appeals to 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 “Findings of Fact” and determines the proposed request does not meet the standard criteria for a variance, then the Board must state findings of fact and conclusions of law 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)]. Addendum B of this report restates the petitioner’s Findings of Fact responses. As is Development Services customary with sign variance petitions, no recommendation is submitted by Staff John Whitmore, AICP concerning whether variance relief should be granted. Interim Director Planning Division 389 Spruce Street Morgantown, WV 26505 304.284.7431 Page 2 of 2 BZA Meeting Page 41 of 50 February 17, 2021  STAFF REPORT ADDENDUM A V21-01 / Hotel Morgan Company, LLC / 127 High Street Staff Report Addendum A Page 1 of 2 V21-01 BZA Meeting Page 42 of 50 February 17, 2021  STAFF REPORT ADDENDUM A V21-01 / Hotel Morgan Company, LLC / 127 High Street Staff Report Addendum A Page 2 of 2 V21-01 BZA Meeting Page 43 of 50 February 17, 2021  STAFF REPORT ADDENDUM B V21-01 / Hotel Morgan Company, LLC / 127 High Street The following restates the petitioners finding of fact responses. 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: In the downtown area, there are several other channel letter sets to be found without ill effect to residents and adjacent property owners. Finding of Fact No. 2 – The variance arises from special conditions or attributes which pertain to the property for which a variance is sought and which were not created by the person seeking the variance, because: The building was built in the early 1920’s and does not include a modern “sign band.” In order to work within the architectural features of the building, while not detracting from its historic richness, the designer has opted for a metal canopy with three dimensional illuminated letters (channel letters) in the front of the original roof top letters. This style of signage is modern utilizing acrylic fronts and LED lighting for efficiency and will last with minimal maintenance far longer than any canvas canopy with painted lettering. Finding of Fact No. 3 – The variance will eliminate an unnecessary hardship and permit a reasonable use of the land, because: The building will be able to successfully advertise to vehicular and pedestrian traffic while combining historic architecture with modern sign making materials. Finding of Fact No. 4 – The variance will allow the intent of the zoning ordinance to be observed and substantial justice done, because: The building’s signage will blend into the High Street’s landscape with a combination of historic fonts and modern materials that will withstand the elements and time. Staff Report Addendum B Page 1 of 1 V21-01 BZA Meeting Page 44 of 50 February 17, 2021 BZA Meeting Page 45 of 50 February 17, 2021 BZA Meeting Page 46 of 50 February 17, 2021 BZA Meeting Page 47 of 50 February 17, 2021 BZA Meeting Page 48 of 50 February 17, 2021 BZA Meeting Page 49 of 50 February 17, 2021 BZA Meeting Page 50 of 50 February 17, 2021