MINUTES
6:30P.M. City
Council Chambers
Members Present: Nick Iannone,
Jim Shaffer and Mark Furfari
Members Absent: Bernie Bossio
and Jim Rocks
Staff Present: Christopher
Fletcher, Planning Director.
MATTERS OF BUSINESS:
A.
Election of
Leadership
i.
Motion to
nominate Nick Iannone as chair by Shaffer, second by Furfari. Discussion ensued and a motion was made to
postpone the vote for Chair and Vice-Chair until all of the board members are
present by Furfari, second by Shaffer. Motion
carried unanimously
B.
Approval of the
December minutes was postponed to the next meeting.
OLD BUSINESS: None
NEW BUSINESS:
A.
V07-06 / Panico /
Fletcher read the staff report stating that the
petitioner seeks to raze two existing structures and construct a mixed use
structure. The structure will contain 87
one and two bedroom units and approximately 3,200 ft² of retail space fronting
Fletcher continued that Addendum A illustrates the
location of the subject realty. Addendum
B contains a review with the Sunnyside Overlay District design and performance
standards.
Fletcher added the following approvals must be
obtained for the proposed project prior to building permit application:
·
Site Plan Type
III Development of Significant Impact, approved by the Planning Commission
·
An alley
annulment, approval by City Council.
·
Minor
Subdivision to combine four parcels including a portion of the annulled alley,
approved by the Planning Commission.
·
Three variances to
be approved by the Board of Zoning Appeals:
o
Front setback
variance
o
Fenestration
percentage variance for the ground floor and front facade along
o
Ground floor
nonresidential percentage variance
Fletcher
advised that the Planning Commission approved the Minor Subdivision and the
Site Plan Type III with the conditions recommended by the staff, which included
the alley annulment.
Panico
explained that this is a large project designed by local architects and that they
have attempted to accommodate everything according to the zoning
ordinance. He continue that the front
yard setback is the issue. They have a 15 feet setback, but the overhang would
actually be 12 feet. Panico stated his
understanding was that he could go to the property line, but after discussion
with the City Planner and the Planning Commission over the confusion of the
ordinance, the Planner advised that it was actually a 15 foot setback. The building will set back from the two
existing adjacent buildings.
Panico
explained the issue with the ground floor commercial space. Panico state that if 60% of the floor was
used for commercial it would create approximately two 8,000 ft² commercial
spaces. Based on the structure being
primarily student housing and the lack of demand for commercial space on
Beechurst, that would create unusable space.
The architect created two manageable 1,600 ft² flexible spaces, which
includes a corridor in the middle. A
courtyard would be placed in the front center of the building fronting
Beechurst.
Panico
addressed the variance needed for the fenestration of the building based on a requirement
in the Sunnyside Overlay. This
requirement is for 60% fenestration on the ground floor and 50% total
fenestration for building facades facing primary streets and public open
spaces. Due to the large amount of glass,
Mr. Panico believes it could cause other issues for the building and
tenants. Panico stated they have about
75% of the 60% requirement on the ground floor and stated that the structure is
unique to the area. This is the first
phase of a four phase project that will have similar buildings fronting
Beechurst. He continued that the
Furfari
stated based on the design, the glass on Beechurst may create a problem for the
bedrooms facing the street and asked if Mr. Panico had considered moving the
living space to the front to reduce the noise issue.
Mr.
Panico explained that the plan called for the entrances off of the hallway. Changing the design may reduce the number of
apartments in the building.
Furfari
questioned that on the 2nd through 5th floors Mr. Panico
would be at 29% fenestration.
Fletcher
clarified the fenestration requirement and stated that the first floor is 60%
and total building, including the first floor, is 50% for facades facing
primary streets.
Panico
commented that the requirement is only in the overlay districts.
Furfari
stated Mr. Panico is leading this process and would set the standard.
Panico
commented he understands that, and stated that he hopes to use this standard in
future development.
Furfari asked for clarification on the courtyard.
Panico
stated the courtyard is open air and is basically there to gain access to every
unit.
Furfari
clarified that the courtyard starts on the ground level and goes to the top of
the structure. He asked that If he was
required to meet the 60% how would it relate to the courtyard.
Panico
stated that that large of a space is not in demand in town and would not be
marketable. He could rent a 1,600 sq.
ft. space. The apartments are aligned by
design on the commercial front and stacked all the way from the parking garage
to the top.
Shaffer
thanked Mr. Panico for his presentation and raised concerns on the traffic
flow.
Panico
stated the traffic would ingress onto his property one way from
Shaffer
asked if Fourth
Panico
stated that Fourth
Shaffer
asked about the property along the back of the property near the trail.
Panico
stated that he would love to create a walkway and landscape the bank but is the
right of way of the trail.
Shaffer
asked how far his property was from the trail.
Panico
stated that it is probably 20 feet and the PRT is in that area.
Shaffer
asked about lighting for the parking lot in the back.
Panico
stated he has no problem meeting any light and sidewalk requirements of the
ordinance.
Shaffer
asked how many people under roof would be there.
Panico
stated about 112 people.
Shaffer
asked if the exterior would be brick and stucco.
Panico
stated the first floor is about 12 feet high and drops down to the 8 feet level
in the rear.
Fletcher
advised that the cladding materials list has not been finalized. The site plan was approved with the condition
of the building materials being 100% in compliance and any deviation would have
to come back to the Board of Zoning Appeals.
Panico
stated he did not anticipate requesting a variance for cladding materials.
Iannone
stated the structures could also have large windows.
Panico
stated that the windows would not be functional and does not believe it would
compliment the structure, hence the variance.
Iannone
stated the Board must have a compelling reason to grant a variance from the
code and understands what Mr. Panico is proposing. However, the Board does not write the zoning ordinance;
they enforce it as it is written. Iannone
asked since Mr. Panico was providing 46% commercial on the first floor, if he
could provide 60% instead.
Panico
stated that the commercial space is easier to work with than residential. The company providing the modulars does not
provide windows that large.
Furfari
asked if these would be apartments or condominiums.
Panico
stated that they would be apartments.
Don
Corwin Jr, Wincor Properties, stated his company owns the property adjacent to
Mr. Panico’s and they are in favor of the approvals and that he would like to
address the ground floor non-residential floor volume. He stated that they have a 2,000 ft² commercial
space located immediately adjacent to his proposed site and that the space has
been for rent for one year and had not received any inquiries. Mr. Corwin believes that Mr. Panico’s
comments about commercial space being hard to rent in that area are correct and
that the space is better utilized as residential. He continued that on the issue of the glass,
his proposal is consistent with the buildings there and with that much glass it
would create a large contrast with the current building directly adjacent to
the property. Mr. Corwin reiterated the
lack of demand for commercial property and supported Mr. Panico’s comments.
Shaffer
asked Mr. Corwin asked if he had any idea of the percentage of glass on his
building.
Mr.
Corwin stated it varies, but he believes it is close to 60% on the ground floor
but decreases dramatically going up. Mr.
Corwin also stated as a side note that maintenance and replacement of that
amount of glass along that corridor would be significant. That area is a high cost maintenance area.
Furfari
asked where his property is located.
Mr.
Corwin stated the building where Thinkin’ Ink is currently located and the
other is a larger building that has hosted numerous businesses but currently
sits empty and has for a year.
Roger
Mocross, Chico Enterprises, stated that they also support Mr. Panico’s attempt
in creating something that would benefit the area and the city. He also stated that they do have an issue
with the annulment of the alley, because they use the alley on a daily
basis. They use it to move product, get
supplies and have large semis coming in from all over the eastern part of the
Furfari
asked if he could get around that by going on the river side of the PRT.
Mr.
Mocross stated he did not know.
Shaffer
stated by crossing
Mr.
Mocross stated that there is a pillar there for the PRT that may affect the
trucks trying to make a turn. Where they
access the red light is in front of the steam plant and does not know what the
steam plant would allow for access.
Furfari
stated it may clog up if the alley is annulled.
But that is for Council to decide.
Mr.
Don Oakes, Executive Director of Sunny-side up, stated that he has been working
on with Mr. Panico for almost a year on properties in the Sunnyside area. Mr. Oakes stated he respects their desire to
abide by the zoning ordinance in place, but believes that in this case he has
met the major zoning requirements.
Regarding the commercial space, Mr.
Oakes agrees with the comments of Mr. Panico and Mr. Corwin on leasing commercial
space until Sunnyside is redeveloped further and has a higher density. Regarding fenestration, Mr. Oakes stated that
having residential on a major thoroughfare; too many windows may be lack of
privacy. Based on the building sitting
back 5 to 6 feet further than the current buildings, you would not get the full
effect of the windows. He would
appreciate the assistance of the board in helping with this development. Mr. Oakes stated redevelopment is needed in the
Sunnyside area.
Panico
gave a follow up that based on discussion with the architects and a traffic
study he is confident that he will meet everything required. He asked that the ally annulment not have any
bearing on the application for a variance.
Iannone
announced the issue will go to closed session.
Fletcher
read the staff recommendation. He stated
that the proposed project represents a unique opportunity to redevelop
dilapidated and underutilized property in the Sunnyside Neighborhood into a
modern higher density mixed-use structure.
He continued that the proposed development appears to incorporate land
uses, design standards, and development patterns envisioned by the
“Sunnyside-Up Neighborhood Plan.” The
petitioner met with the Technical Review Committee on November 28th
and has incorporated all suggested modifications.
Fletcher
continued that the Board of Zoning Appeals must determine weather the proposed
request meets the standard criteria for a variance by reaching a positive
determination for each of the findings of facts submitted by the
applicant. Staff concurs with the
findings and facts submitted by the petitioner and recommends approval of the
three requested variances with the following conditions:
1.
The applicant is
granted a full or partial annulment of the alley connecting
2.
That minor
subdivision approval be granted by the Planning Commission (has been approved
with conditions.)
3.
That a
Development of Significant Impact Site Plan Type III be approved by the
Planning Commission (has been approved with conditions.)
Fletcher
advised that there are three separate variances:
Variance A. - Front setback.
Motion
to accept each of the findings of fact as presented by the applicant and to approve
the variance request of the front setbacks as requested with staff recommended conditions
by Shaffer, second by Furfari. Motion
carried unanimously.
Variance B. – Fenestration percentage variance.
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 proposed development is the first along
Fletcher
stated that this is the first time the Board has dealt with architecture. He believes that in the future, particularly
in the Sunnyside Overlay District, where the questions will be answered with
more of the architectural flare.
Normally the setbacks and height are more black and white.
Iannone
stated he would be more inclined to approve with the 60% commercial requirement
met.
Shaffer
agreed. He is willing to accept this as
proposed.
Iannone
stated the way the ordinance is written does not matter if they agree with
it. Asking for 60% on commercial is
acceptable. He is willing to accept as
written because it complies with the intent of the ordinance.
Shaffer
agreed with the Director of Sunnyside Up asking to consider that the applicant
is meeting the attempt with this ratio, it is a reasonable request.
Fletcher
stated that fenestration ratio regulations generally have two objectives – one
is the ensure quality of light; the second is to break up face of the building. This seems to be accomplished by the texture
and shadowing effects proposed in the faced of the building.
Iannone
stated that the break up of the plane appears to achieve the same as the
fenestration.
Furfari
stated that that the Board is trying to avoid the big boxes; there are examples
of those boxes there now. We are setting
the standard and every developer from here out will know that standard.
Iannone
stated that is why we hold on the 60% for commercial standard. The applicant seems to be willing to go along
with that.
Iannone
asked if the Board accepted the first findings and facts as written. He asked by show of hands all in favor. Vote was unanimous.
Findings
and Facts:
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:
ANSWER: The
proposed design of the front façade and the entire building incorporates a much
higher degree of fenestration, natural light and quality design than
neighboring structures.
Moved
to accept by Shaffer, second by Furfari.
Motion approved 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:
ANSWER: The degree of fenestration proposed including
the internal courtyard would provide quality living space unmatched within the
immediate area. The architectural design
of the building will significantly enhance adjacent property, improvements and
neighborhoods overall environment. All
of which will not be diminished by granting a fenestration variance.
Move
to accept by Furfari, second by Shaffer.
Motion approved 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:
ANSWER: A
fenestration variance would not detract from the significant improvement
anticipated with the quality and character of the site surrounding area. The
project is expected to enhance the market value within the immediate area by
promoting quality redevelopment. A
fenestration variance can not result in or contribute to an increase in traffic
congestion. The proposed development
improves intended land use development by providing a higher degree of fenestration
than neighboring structures.
Moved
by Furfari to accept the finding of fact as written, second by Shaffer. Motion carried unanimously.
Furfari
moved to grant the fenestration variance with the condition that the ground floor fenestration ratio meet or
exceed the minimum standard of 60% and that the remaining façade includes no
less fenestration than that represented in the application documents, second
by Shaffer. Motion carried
unanimously.
VARIANCE C: Ground floor
nonresidential percentage.
Motion
by Shaffer to accept the findings and facts as written by the applicant, second
by Furfari. Motion carried unanimously.
Motion
by Shaffer to grant the variance with the condition that the area reserved for
non-residential uses may not be reduced from that shown on the application
documents, second by Furfari. Motion
carried unanimously.
B: V07-01 / KMA Design /
Fletcher
read the staff report stating the KMA Design seeks a variance approval for the
replacement of existing signage and the erection of additional signage at the
Waterfront Hotel. Fletcher read the
applicable zoning codes for this request.
Fletcher
stated the proposed signage requires a variance of 397 ft². The Downtown Review Committee has reviewed
and approved the proposed signage.
Barbara
Martin, CEO of KMA Design, stated the building visibility is currently
limited. They would like to increase the
visibility of the hotel and the other two businesses contained in the building from
the highway. An increase of footage
could allow for all business to be represented.
Additional signage could be used for visibility from the Rail Trail. The hotel also wants to increase the mark for
identification from the building that sits adjacent. The building height is also a consideration
for limited visual identification.
Iannone
asked for public comment, there being none, the public portion was closed.
Fletcher
read the staff recommendation and stated that it is the opinion of the Planning
Department that the scale of the hotel in relation to the rest of the B-4 building
environment warrants variance consideration.
The staff concurs with the findings of facts as submitted by the
petitioner with the additions to findings of facts #2 as noted in the Staff
Report.
Motion
to accept the findings of facts with staff recommendations by Shaffer, second
by Furfari. Motion carried unanimously.
Motion
by Furfari to approve the variance petition as requested, second by Shaffer. Motion carried unanimously.
C. V07-02 / Moser Investments, LLC /
Fletcher
read the staff report. He stated that
the applicant seeks to construct a 60 X 14 addition for inventory storage onto the
rear of the existing structure. The rear
setback for the proposed addition is 15 feet; the minimum rear setback
requirement in the B-2 district is 40 feet.
As such, the petitioner must obtain a 25 foot variance. The proposed project meets all remaining
applicable design and performance standards.
Addendum A illustrates the location of the subject site and a
photograph, submitted by the petitioner, of another structure in the area that
does not comply with rear yard setback requirements.
Joe
Moser explained the need for the storage space and the lack of area to the
front and side to expand leaving the only option in the rear.
Furfari
asked if this expansion would be used for the crates currently stored in the
rear.
The
applicant responded that the new space would be used to store the crates and
other commodities.
Iannone
asked for public comment. There being none, the public portion was closed.
Fletcher
read the staff recommendation and stated that staff recommends approval of the
variance as requested, with the following amendments to the findings of fact to
#1, #2 and #4.
Finding
of fact:
1. QUESTION: There exceptional or extraordinary
circumstances or conditions applicable to this property or to the intended use
that generally do not apply to other properties or uses in the same vicinity
because:
ANSWER:
Properties in the vicinity currently have setbacks less than or equal to
15 feet. * Modification: The existing structure does not meet the new
minimum rear setback requirements of 40 feet, which were previously 15 feet. This leaves no opportunity to provide much
needed inventory storage space to the rear of the building under the new
standard. A storage addition to the
front of the structure would eliminate existing parking stalls.
Motion
to approve the finding of fact as amended by Shaffer, second by Furfari. Motion carried unanimously.
2.
QUESTION: The variances necessary for the preservation
and enjoyment of substantial property right that is possessed by other
properties in the same vicinity and zoning district, but which is denied to
this property because:
ANSWER: The
Ashbrooke Liquor Outlet needs expansion of building to be used as warehouse
space for consumer product in the store therefore providing faster consumer
services satisfaction. * Modification: There are other structures within the
area that do not conform to the setback requirements.
Motion
to accept as amended by Furfari, second by seconded. Motion carried unanimously.
3.
QUESTION: The
granting of this variance will not be harmful to the public welfare and will
not harm property or improvement in the vicinity and zoning district in which
the subject property is located because:
ANSWER: The
rear setback will not change the fact that there is still parking behind the
building, and ingress and egress.
Motion
to accept by Shaffer, 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:
ANSWER: The
current ingress and egress is on property that is owned by Mosier Investment
LLC. * Modification: The proposed addition will only serve the
needs of the existing business.
Motion
to accept as amended by Shaffer, second by Furfari. Motion carried unanimously.
Motion
by Shaffer to grant variance petition as requested, second by Furfari. Motion carried unanimously.
D
V07-03 / Edward Jones Investments /
Fletcher
read the staff report and the code requirements for signage and stated the
applicant’s proposal is for a variance approval to erect signage in excess of
12 ft². The applicant has proposed a
33.65 ft² of signage, including one wall sign of 30.84 ft² and a door sign of
2.81 ft². Therefore, the applicant must
obtain variance approval of 21.65 ².
Fletcher
continued that there are attached tables and photos of other businesses in that
shopping complex that exceed the sign requirement.
Jim
Sheridan, City Neon, explained the need for larger signage. He stated that it would assist with the
visibility of the business from the road and would be in line with current
signage at the location.
Iannone
asked for public comment. There being
none, the public portion was closed.
Fletcher
read the staff recommendation and stated that the Department does not submit a
recommendation in favor of or in opposition to the subject variance petition.
Iannone
asked why the Planning Department declined to submit a recommendation.
Fletcher
advised the Department feels the sign could be a modified to better meet the
intent of the ordinance while not adversely impacting the business.
Motion
by Shaffer to accept the findings of fact presented by the applicant, second by
Furfari. Motion carried unanimously.
Motion
by Shaffer to grant the variance petition as requested, second by Furfari. Motion carried unanimously.
E.
V07-05/ Lipphardt /
Fletcher
read the staff report and stated that Erich Lipphardt recently purchased the
Riverstone Ale House at
The
petitioner has removed illegal signs and seeks variance approval for his
existing 12 ft² sign on the building’s
Addendum
A of this report illustrates the location of the site and includes a photo of the
existing sign.
Erich
Lipphardtt stated he received notice about the sign being out of
compliance. He apologized for the sign
be erected already and requested to keep the sign.
Furfari
asked Mr. Lipphardt’s landlord and did he give you any guidance for the sign.
Mr.
Lipphardt stated that Joe Panico gave no guidance for the sign. He gave a history on the business changing
hands. He also stated that the open sign
has been moved inside of a window and have the temporary sign outside.
Iannone
asked for public comment. There being
none, the public portion was closed.
Fletcher
read the staff recommendation and stated that staff concurs with the findings
of fact as submitted by the petitioner and recommends approval with the
following conditions. 1) That the
illegal K.C. sign at the northeast corner of the building be removed within 30
days. 2) That the removal and/or
covering plan be accepted by the Planning Department and report to the Board of
Zoning Appeals within 6 months for the illegal Pepsi Co/K.C. sign on the west
façade facing the Monongahela River. 3)
That no additional permanent signage for the subject establishment be erected
at this location.
Erich
Lipphardt questioned the variance requirement.
Fletcher
clarified that the Planning and Zoning Code states that no new signs may be
erected where current illegal signs are located. A new sign could be authorized after illegal
signage is mitigated. Staff
recommendation is to recognize Mr. Lipphardt’s efforts to comply with the sign
regulations by removing at least two illegal signs and address the remaining
illegal signs by working closely with the property owner.
Motion
to accept the findings of fact by Shaffer, second by Furfari. Motion carried unanimously.
Motion
by Shaffer to approve the variance petition with the following conditions:
a.
That the illegal K of C sign at the north-east corner of the building be
removed by the property owner within thirty days.
b.
That a removal and/or covering plan be submitted by the property owner,
accepted by the Planning Department, and reported to the Board of Zoning
Appeals within six months for the illegal Pespi Co. / K of C sign on the west
façade facing
c.
That no additional permanent signage for the subject establishment may be
erected at this location.
Second
by Furfari. Motion carried unanimously.
COMMENTS
FROM BOARD MEMBERS AND STAFF:
None
PUBLIC
COMMENTS ON NON AGENDA MATTERS:
None
MEETING
ADJOURNED 8:10.