MINUTES
6:30P.M.
City Council Chambers
Members Present:
Bernie Bossio, Jim Rockis, and Mark Furfari
Members Absent: Nick Iannone and Jim Shaffer
Staff Present: Christopher Fletcher, Planning Director.
MATTERS OF BUSINESS:
A. Election of Leadership
i. Motion
to nominate Bernie Bossio as chair by Rockis, second by Furfari. Motion carried unanimously.
ii. Motion to nominate Nick Iannone as vice chair
by Furfari, second by Rockis. Motion
carried unanimously.
B.
Motion
to approve the
C.
OLD BUSINESS:
None
NEW BUSINESS:
A. V07-04 /
B. V07-07 / March-Westin Company /
Fletcher read the staff report stating that the applicant
proposes to enclose the existing patio area (approximately 633.56 ft2) at the
southwest corner of the building. An
enclosure of the patio requires compliance with all setbacks requirements. The minimum rear yard setback for the subject
realty is thirty (30) feet.
The current structure has a rear yard set back of
approximately 18.08 feet. Prior to the
According to Article 1373 of the Planning and Zoning Code, variance
approval by the Board is necessary when an expansion of a non-conforming
structure increases the extent of its non-conformity. To enclose the subject patio, the Board must
grant a 25.25-foot rear yard variance.
Fletcher discussed the renderings of the proposed enclosure,
the responses to the findings and facts, a reduced site plan with highlighted
areas, two renderings submitted by the petitioner, and photographs taken by
staff of the site.
Phil Weser, representative for March-Westin and owner of
restaurant, stated the patio area is currently there and that they only want to
enclose it for additional space.
Rockis requested clarification to findings of fact, question
#1.
Fletcher pointed out on the site plan where the gas line easement
is located and concurred that the easement restricted expansion to the south of
the existing structure.
Rockis also requested additional information for question #2
of the findings of fact.
Rockis commented if any other businesses in the area currently
have that advantage.
Furfari asked the size of the current restaurant space.
Furfari asked the size of the addition.
Bossio asked about parking for the addition.
Furfari asked if this needs to be looked at for conditional
use for private club.
Fletcher advised that the structure and uses were approved prior
to the
Findings of Facts:
1.
Question
- There are exceptional or extraordinary
circumstances or conditions applicable to this property or the intended use
that generally do not apply to other properties or uses in the same vicinity
because;
Answer – The gas line and related
easement running along the south side of the existing building does not permit
an addition to be constructed that would conform to the zoning district’s
building envelope requirements thereby leaving only the proposed patio
enclosure as a means to address expansion needs.
Motion to find in the affirmative by
Rockis, second by Furfari. Motion carried unanimously.
2.
Question
– The variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property rate that is possessed
by other properties in the same vicinity and zoning district which is denied to
this property because:
Finding – (revised) There are other
existing restaurant establishments that enjoy a similar proximity, access, and
orientation to the public rails-to-trails facility.
Motion to find in the affirmative by
Rockis, second by Furfari. Motion
carried unanimously.
3.
Question
– The granting of this variance will not be harmful to the public welfare and
will not harm property or improvements in the vicinity and zoning districts in
which the subject property is located because:
Finding – The proposed project will
enhance the existing building by extending new architectural views for people
along the rails-to-trails facility. It
will also add to the new architecture seen in buildings throughout the general
wharf area.
Motion to find in the affirmative by
Rockis, second by Furfari. Motion
carried unanimously.
4.
Question
– The granting of this variance will not alter the land use characteristics of
the vicinity of the zoning district, or diminish the market value of adjacent
properties, or increase the traffic congestion on public streets because:
Finding – Although the proposed
addition will extend closer to the rear setback that allowed within the zoning
district, it is still considerably far from the trail. It will not alter the land use of surrounding
properties. The addition adds more
architectural features like many of the other new buildings within the general
area.
Motion to find in the affirmative by
Rockis, second by Furfari. Motion
carried unanimously.
Motion by Rockis to grant rear yard setback variance as
requested; second by Furfari. Motion
carried unanimously.
C. CU07-01 / Currey /
Fletcher read the staff report stating that Mr. Kevin Currey
seeks to open a “Restaurant, Private Club” use called KC Chillers in the former location of DeVincent’s Music at
The “Restaurant, Private Wine” and “Tavern” uses are
permitted by right in the B-4 District. Mr. Currey seeks to sell liquor in
addition to beer and wine, which changes the use classification to “Restaurant,
Private Club.”
Article 1331.06 (27) of the Planning and Zoning Code,
Supplemental Regulation Pertains to Permitted Land Use Table provides the
applicable performance standards.
Fletcher read those standards to the Board and stated that the BZA
packet included the application, a business description, a proposed menu, Mr.
Currey’s resume, job descriptions, and photographs of the building.
Kevin Currey gave the Board members a more detailed layout
and menu addition. Mr. Currey also
stated he is petitioning for a liquor license and explained his work with the
Boston Beanery. Mr. Currey added that in
his tenure with other restaurants, they have never been cited by the West Virginia
Alcohol Beverage Control.
Terri Cutright, Executive Director of
Ralph Larue,
Charles McQueen,
George Papandreas,
Furfari asked Mr. Currey why the need for liquor.
Mr. Currey stated this would bring the experience as a whole
to the downtown area and it is meant to enhance the dining experience. He continued that he is looking at providing
the total package when the establishment opens for business.
Furfari asked Mr. Currey why the name “Chillers”; that this
would suggest drinking.
Mr. Currey added that it came from looking for a place where
young professionals could go to network, or have after-hours business
meetings. He stated that the Boston
Beanery had that type of clientele previously while he was a manager, but was
lost due to the students. He hopes to
regain that atmosphere.
Furfari asked about the size of the kitchen.
Mr. Currey stated the kitchen will only be for menu items to
be cooked, there is storage on the bottom floor, along with offices.
Furfari asked where the exhaust would be located.
Mr. Currey explained and showed Mr. Furfari on the drawings.
Furfari asked if this would be a smoking or non-smoking.
Mr. Currey stated that one side is proposed to be enclosed
around the bar area with ventilation.
The restaurant would not be smoking.
Furfari asked about menu pricing.
Mr. Currey stated the original menus were just rough
drafts. He has provided actual menus
that do not have prices on them, but the average check would be $12.00-$18.00
per person.
Rockis asked Mr. Currey to clarify the location of the
storage area.
Mr. Currey advised it would be in the basement area on both
sides. Both will be used for storage,
walk-in coolers, etc.
Rockis asked the Planner if Mr. Currey meets the criteria to
obtain a liquor license.
Fletcher stated that this would be up to the Board. Fletcher gave the three qualifiers for a
liquor license in the B-4 District. 1)
Has the business been open for one year – no; 2) Has he owned a similar facility
for a year – no; and 3) The Board may authorize a waiver for the facility.
Bossio stated that the presentation was done very well. The information provided gave a complete
overview of the intent of the business.
He agrees with Mrs. Cutright that it would be an asset to the community.
Furfari stated he thinks there may be an issue with the
business being located between the Met and an adjacent nightclub. The nightclub could cause foot traffic to
back up in front of the business.
Fletcher stated the Fire Department has required the
nightclub to direct sidewalk staging for waiting patrons because of the existing
fire door for the adjacent nightclub. If
this business goes in, the fire and police departments have confirmed that patrons
waiting to enter the adjacent nightclub must be disbursed and will not be
allowed to stand in front of the proposed establishment.
Furfari stated that is in favor of the waiver, however, he
would find it hard not to approve someone else for the same thing.
Bossio agreed and stated that they too would need to submit
all of the information to support the request.
He followed up by stating that Mr. Currey’s history in management has
also added to the influence.
Fletcher read the staff recommendations that stated The
Board of Zoning Appeals must first determine whether or not it will waive the
one-year “bona fide restaurant” requirement [Article 1331.06 (27)(c )] prior to
the petitioner obtaining a liquor license from the West Virginia Alcohol
Beverage Control Commission. As noted earlier,
the petitioner has submitted a resume indicating that he has been employed with
Boston Beanery since 1994. The Planning
Department obtained verification of Mr. Currey’s employment, which was included
in the attachments at the end of the staff report.
Should the Board waive said requirement, than it must
determine whether the proposed request meets the standard criteria for a
conditional use by reaching a positive determination for each of the “Findings
of Fact” submitted by the applicant.
Staff concurs with the findings of fact submitted by the
applicant concerning the proposed “Restaurant, Private Club” use. Mr. Currey’s request for a waiver of the
one-year period appears to be generally consistent with a recent waiver granted
by the Board for “Mercury” on
Should the Board waive the one-year “bona fide restaurant”
requirement and grant approval of the subject conditional use petition, Staff
recommends that the following conditions be included:
1.
That
the petitioner shall maintain compliance with all supplemental regulations set
forth in Article 1331.06 (27) of the Planning and Zoning Code. That the establishment shall not serve liquor,
including wine, later than
2.
That
the petitioner shall submit, to the satisfaction of the Planning Director, a
scaled-drawing of the interior layout for the proposed establishment that
represents the petitioner’s preliminary drawing submitted with the conditional
use application documents. That said
scaled-drawing shall illustrate adequate interior layout and specific seating
arrangement for no less than fifty (50) persons as set forth in Article 1331.06
(27) (f) of the Planning and Zoning Code.
That said scaled-drawing shall be submitted with all related City
building permit applications and all necessary permit and/or license
applications with the West Virginia Alcohol Beverage Control Commission. That said interior layout and seating
arrangement shall meet or exceed all related fire and building codes. That approval by the Board must be granted
for any material deviation in the interior layout and seating arrangement
illustrated in the petitioner’s preliminary drawing that was submitted with the
conditional use application documents.
3.
That
the applicant must obtain permitting as a “restaurant” from the Monongalia
County Health Department under the Monongalia
County Clean Indoor Air Regulations.
4.
That
the basement or any other interior portion of the subject building that was not
illustrated in the petitioner’s preliminary drawing submitted with the
conditional use application documents shall not be used for anything other than
kitchen and/or storage without first obtaining approval by the Board.
5.
That
the subject establishment shall not for a period of one (1) year following the
issuance of the subject establishment’s Certificate of Occupancy serve or
otherwise permit the consumption of alcohol within any existing or contemplated
outdoor area.
6.
That
the currently contemplated outdoor area to the rear of the building shall not
be created, improved or otherwise used by the subject establishment until the
improvements of such area are reviewed and approved by the Downtown Design
Review Committee and the Planning Director.
That said area shall meet or exceed all related building and fire codes
prior to use thereof. That potential
seating in such area shall not be used in calculating minimum seating requirements
as set forth in Article 1331.06 (27) (f) of the Planning and Zoning Code.
7.
That
any exterior building modifications shall be reviewed and approved by the
Downtown Design Review Committee and the Planning Director prior to building
permit issuance for same.
8.
That
any regulated signage shall be reviewed and approved by the Downtown Design
Review Committee and the Planning Director prior to building permit issuance
for same.
9.
That
the conditional use approval granted herein may not be transferred.
Findings of Facts:
1.
Question
- Congestion is the streets is not
increased, in that:
Finding – There is access to
Municipal car parking with parking garage behind building on
Motion to find in the affirmative by
Rockis, second by Furfari. Motion
carried unanimously.
2.
Question
– Safety from fire, panic, and other danger is not jeopardized, in that:
Finding – The building has numerous
exits and will conform to fire and building regulations.
Motion to find in the affirmative by
Rockis, second by Furfari. Motion
carried unanimously.
3.
Question
– Provision of adequate light and air is not disturbed, in that:
Finding – Structure changes to
building will enhance lighting and air that will meet regulations.
Motion to find in the affirmative by
Rockis, second by Furfari. Motion
carried unanimously.
4.
Question
– Overcrowding of land does not result, in that:
Finding – Existing space will only
be used, no new exterior expansion.
Motion to find in the affirmative by
Rockis, second by Furfari. Motion
carried unanimously.
5.
Question
- Granting this request will not create inadequate provision of transportation,
water, sewage, schools, parks, or other public requirements, in that:
Finding – Building was used as
commercial building by previous tenant
Motion to find in the affirmative by
Rockis, second by Furfari. Motion
carried unanimously.
6.
Question
– Value of buildings will be conserved, in that:
Finding – Building will be upgraded
by remodel into restaurant, preserving and enhancing historic relevance of the
building.
Motion
to find in the affirmative by Rockis, second by Furfari. Motion carried unanimously.
7.
Question
– The most appropriate use of land is encouraged, in that:
Finding – It is commercial building
in the district that will be brought back to life.
Motion
to find in the affirmative by Rockis, second by Furfari. Motion carried unanimously.
Motion to approve the request with conditions as stated and
revised by Rockis, second by Furfari.
Motion carried unanimously.
D. CU07-03 / Wubbie Development Group /
Fletcher read the staff report stating that the applicant
seeks to convert the old Masonic Lodge building at
Table 1331.05.01 “Permitted Land Use Table” of the Planning
and Zoning Code provides that “Multi-family Dwellings” are a Conditional Use in
the B-4 District.
With the exception of a brief occupancy by the
Article 1349.06, “Parking and Loading Standards” of the
Planning and Zoning Code states that parking is not required for the B-4
District.
Michael Shuman represented the project.
Bossio acknowledged that he had been part owner of that
particular building and asked Mr. Shuman if he had any issues with him voting
on this issue.
Mr. Shuman stated he did not and continued to add that the building
was used briefly as a youth center. Due
to the location and lack of parking this property would not be beneficial as a
business. The best use of the property
would be for residential.
Mr. Shuman was asked if he was aware of the proposed project
next door.
Mr. Shuman stated yes.
Furfari asked Mr. Shuman if he had attempted to rent the
property since his purchase of the property.
Mr. Shuman stated it had been posted but not rented.
Rockis asked what other buildings in town Mr. Shuman
operates.
Mr. Shuman stated
David Howell,
Furfari stated that he does not believe apartments are
appropriate for the top of High Street.
The first two floors should follow the commercial requirement. He was not in favor because of the history of
the building.
Bossio gave pros and cons for the project.
Rockis stated he could go either way, and gave examples of
other properties where hardships were created.
Furfari commented that he sees a
Rockis stated that it is a reasonable point but asked what
could be done with the building if it can not be used now.
Furfari stated that structures are being changed
continuously to meet the need for housing; he does not believe that this was a
structure he wants to see as housing.
The issue of parking was discussed in relation to the use of
the building.
Furfari commented that the building was not built for
housing.
Bossio commented that there was a commercial building by the
Bossio asked if Furfari would accept the first floor as
commercial and the other residential.
Furfari stated he would still not be in favor.
Rockis stated that it is a good location and it would be
usable as apartments.
Bossio asked the Board to allow Mr. Shuman to see if he
would be willing to have the item tabled.
Mr. Shuman stated that there is no other use they can
see. The parking in the area is taken by
the students. The first floor of the
building sits 10-12 feet above the street.
There are no other businesses on that side of the street except a law
firm. The building sits too close to a
church to allow alcohol for a restaurant, retail wise there are two small
windows that restructure would be restricted by the historical society. The building is not visible from
It was asked where the signs posted and how long were they
posted.
Mr. Shuman stated on the building and in the yard and they
were posted for 30-45 days.
It was then asked of Mr. Shuman if he advertised in the
paper or with any kind of realty company.
Mr. Shuman advised no.
Fletcher stated he had spoken with
Furfari commented that if someone builds next door in the
vacant lot it would block all of the windows to the apartments.
Fletcher commented that he did not think it could be
approved according to the fire code.
Rockis stated that it is something that needs to be looked
and also, and suggest checking with Terri Cutright.
Bossio asked Mr. Shuman if Terri Cutright is aware of the
proposal and is she in favor of the project.
Mr. Shuman stated that she was supportive when he has talked
to her.
Rockis stated that he does not have a problem with
apartments on the upper floors, but the first floor he could go either way.
Bossio stated that he could also go either way.
Fletcher asked if the Board could make a recommendation to
the petitioner regarding a preferred percentage or square footage reserved for
non-residential use.
Rockis suggested gathering information and having a
discussion to talk about future issues.
Furfari clarified that Mr. Shuman knew upon purchase the
zoning and codes for the property.
Mr. Shuman stated yes, it was purchased with the intent of
apartments and he did know the zoning restrictions.
Furfari asked how many floors.
Mr. Shuman advised there would be four levels.
Rockis stated he would prefer to table and to gather more information
and ask that Terri Cutright be present to address the intentions of maintaining
non-residential use at the sidewalk. He
would also like to find out the requirements regarding the windows in relation
to the fire code.
Motion to table until next month by Rockis, second by Furfari. Motion carried unanimously.
After reviewing the project file, Fletcher noted that 32
neighbor notification letters were sent by the Planning Department for this
petition.
Bossio advised Mr. Shuman that if the information was not
available at the next meeting it would be tabled again.
OTHER BUSINESS:
Public Comments: None
COMMENTS FROM BOARD MEMBERS AND
STAFF: Fletcher advised he had given the
Board members an annual report that included Planning Department case
information for the last three years. Fletcher
also gave a copy of the highlights and handouts from Mr. Joe Fisher’s
presentations [
ADJOURNMENT – 8:35 PM.