MORGANTOWN BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS

MORGANTOWN BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS

Minutes

6:30 PM March 13, 2008 City Council Chambers

MEMBERS PRESENT: Bernie Bossio, Jim Shaffer, Leanne Cardoso, Tom Shamberger, George Papandreas

MEMBERS ABSENT: None

STAFF: Christopher Fletcher, AICP

I. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL: Bossio called the meeting to order at 6:30 PM

II. MATTERS OF BUSINESS:

A. Approval of January 22, 2008 meeting. Shaffer moved to approve the minutes as prepared; second by Cardoso. The motion passed 3-0 with Shamberger and Papandreas abstaining.

B. Approval of February 7, 2007 special meeting. Shaffer moved to approve the minutes as prepared; second by Cardoso. The motion passed 3-0 with Shamberger and Papandreas abstaining.

C. Approval of February 20, 2008 meeting. Papandreas moved to approve the minutes as prepared; second by Shamberger. The motion passed unanimously.

III. OLD BUSINESS:

A. V08-15 / Panico – Victory Holdings / 580 Beechurst Avenue. Request by Joseph Panico for relief from the Planning and Zoning Code, Article 1361.03 (E) and 1361.03 (O) (1) relating to ground floor and front façade fenestration in the Sunnyside Overlay Districts. Tax Map #19 Parcels #57, 58, 59; B-2, a Service-Business District and Beechurst Overlay District.

Fletcher read the Staff Report stating that Mr. Joe Panico, on behalf of Victory Holdings, seeks to construct a mixed-use building located at 508 Beechurst Avenue. The proposed development is situated in the B-2 District and the Beechurst Corridor Overlay District. Addendum A of this report illustrates the location of the subject site.

Mr. Panico seeks relief from the following Planning & Zoning Code requirements at property located on Beechurst Avenue:

- V08-15............... Variance relief from Article 1361.03 (E) and 1361.03 (O) (1) relating to ground floor and front façade fenestration.

- V08-17:.............. Relief from the Planning and Zoning Code, Article 1347.04 relating to setbacks and encroachments in the B-2 District.

- V08-18:.............. Relief from the Planning and Zoning Code, Article 1361.03 (P) (1) and (2) relating to cladding materials.

- V08-19:.............. Relief from the Planning and Zoning Code, Article 1361.03 (Q) (1) relating to retail space on the ground floor.

The following points highlight the proposed development program:

· The development will include the razing of three existing structures totaling seventeen units to construct one mixed-use structure that will contain

· The proposed structure will be four stories and contain eight (8) one-bedroom units and twelve (12) two-bedroom units for a total of 32 bedrooms.

· The proposed structure will contain approximately 966 ft² for unspecified retail space on the ground floor

· The minimum parking requirement for the dwelling units and commercial space is 19 spaces, 17 of which are located on-site and two are proposed off-site on property owned by the applicant (Parcel #46, Tax Map #19; see Addendum A).

· Addendum B of this report contains a Planning & Zoning Code review with the related Sunnyside Overlay District and B-2 District requirements and performance standards.

· The petitioner has agreed to move the proposed building back two (2) feet so that the front setback complies with the 15-foot build-to-line. As such, the petitioner has withdrawn his variance petition for same (V08-16).

The following approvals must be obtained for the proposed project prior to building permit application:

· Minor Subdivision to combine existing parcels – Approved by the Planning Commission August 2006

· Site Plan Review for a Development of Significant Impact – Approved by the Planning Commission March 13, 2008

· Variances and Conditional Use:

- V08-15......... Relief from the Planning and Zoning Code, Article 1361.03 (E) and 1361.03 (O) (1) relating to ground floor and front façade fenestration in the Sunnyside Overlay Districts.

- V08-17:........ Relief from the Planning and Zoning Code, Article 1347.04 relating to setbacks and encroachments in the B-2 District.

- V08-18:........ Relief from the Planning and Zoning Code, Article 1361.03 (P) (1) and (2) relating to cladding materials in the Sunnyside Overlay Districts.

- V08-19:........ Relief from the Planning and Zoning Code, Article 1361.03 (Q) (1) relating to retail space on the ground floor in the Sunnyside Overlay Districts.

- CU08-08:..... Conditional use approval from the Planning and Zoning Code, Article 1365.07, Off-site parking.

Fletcher stated that all variance petitions must be acted on separately. In addition, it was the petitioner’s request that V08-16 be withdrawn.

Scott Krabill – RSK Engineering – 99 Brites Way was present on behalf of the applicant and stated that he had performed the work for storm water management and foundation work. This particular variance, V08-15 is a result of the overlay district. This is not an uncommon request.

Shaffer questioned the amount of fenestration requested and the amount that is being presented. Krabill advised the proposed ground floor fenestration is 20% and the requirement is 60%.

Fletcher stated that the Board has granted three similar variances including developments by Metro Properties, Moser, and Panico).

Fletcher explained the center of the building would be commercial, the outer two windows are the dwelling units, and between are the bathrooms. The fenestration requirement is intended to provide a high degree of windows at street level.

Shaffer then stated the Moser variance provided for more flexibility of fenestration to be there if the ground floor was converted into retail. Fletcher responded that the difference between the two development projects is the interior floor plan.

Krabill stated this variance can’t really be compared to other requests because of the elevation change between the street and the first floor of the proposed development.

Bossio suggested Panico may want to consider making the heights of the windows the same height as the commercial door; don’t want any more width, but could use more height. Krabill stated he would take that recommendation back to the petitioner for consideration.

Shaffer stated the larger concern is that there is not enough flexibility for this project. He also stated he would entertain the idea of Bossio’s suggestions, but believes the BZA would be committing to less than desired area for commercial space.

Bossio questioned Krabill about what type of commercial facility is being considered. Krabill stated the petitioner is still unsure of what type of commercial establishment is being considered. He also stated that this building, by design, is not as flexible in its potential use as the Moser building.

Shaffer expressed concern that if the relief is granted and the residential use is locked in, fenestration is not the only issue, but the issue of mixed-use would be changed.

Bossio opened up the public comment portion asking if anyone wanted to speak in favor or against the request.

Jim Miller, 1367 Dogwood Avenue, questioned handicapped parking and how it would be accessed from the parking lot. Fletcher responded that there would be two accessible parking slots at the rear and at either side is a ramp to the front. A switchback ramp will be installed for access from the sidewalk along Beechurst Avenue, which will be the only one along Beechurst. Miller asked if it was the City’s intent to pave the alley, which is gravel, and doesn’t meet ADA requirements. Fletcher stated he could not commit as to whether or not the City would pave the alley, but the entire rear parking area will be developed with concrete or asphalt. Fletcher stated that the development will be required to meet Fair Housing and ADA provisions that are part of the State Building Code.

There being no further comments, Bossio declared that the public comment portion of the meeting was closed.

Bossio suggested that it may be a better idea to consider agenda item V08-19, which relates to commercial space, before the item V08-15, which relates to fenestration.

Shaffer moved to table agenda item V08-15 and recommended the issue brought up later in the meeting; Papandreas seconded it. The motion passed unanimously.

E. V08-19 / Panico – Victory Holdings / 580 Beechurst Avenue. Request by Joseph Panico for relief from the Planning and Zoning Code, Article 1361.03 (Q) (1) relating to retail space on the ground floor in the Sunnyside Overlay Districts. Tax Map #19 Parcels #57, 58, 59; B-2, a Service-Business District and Beechurst Overlay District.

Scott Krabill, representing the petitioner, stated that the requirement is 60% for retail space on ground floor. After eliminating the 20% for the parking area, 40% remains. He stated that similar variances have been granted based on existing market constraints. There is not much pedestrian traffic on Beechurst, and would not want to have a “white elephant”.

Shaffer stated that he shares those same concerns but stated that if pedestrian traffic does picks up, then there should be some design flexibility to increase the area for retail space.

Papandreas asked if there is a reason the units couldn’t be flipped. Then if pedestrian traffic does pick up, the dwelling units could just be gutted. Krabill’s concern is would Panico be able to exist long enough with a higher percentage of commercial space until the neighborhood is more pedestrian friendly.

Bossio stated if the units would be gutted and more commercial space is made available, Panico could either increase the size of the windows or increase the commercial unit windows to a new height. A lentil or header could be included so that the size of the window opening could be increased at a latter point, similar to what was required for the Moser development. The lentil would be placed at the same height as the proposed commercial window and door.

Bossio opened the public comment portion of the meeting asking if anyone wanted to speak in favor or against the petition. There being none, the public comment portion of the meeting was closed.

Papandreas suggested leaving the floor plan and make provisions to gut the dwelling units if needed. With all the effort being made in this neighborhood, there needs to be a place where you can have commercial.

Shaffer stated he did not want to see empty retail space, but wanted to provide an avenue for what is needed.

Bossio asked for the Staff’s recommendation.

Fletcher read the Staff Report stating that the Board of Zoning Appeals must determine whether the proposed requests meet the standard criteria for a variance by reaching a positive determination for each of the “Findings of Fact” submitted by the applicant.

Fletcher stated that Staff concurs with each of the Findings of Fact submitted by the applicant and recommends approval with conditions. Fletcher stated that, based on the discussion, Staff recommends the following conditions are:

a. That the related Site Plan for a Development of Significant Impact be approved by the Planning Commission and any and all conditions required therein be met.

b. That the height of all ground floor windows be increased and aligned to symmetrically match the height of the transom above the front entrance door but leaving the sill locations as illustrated on rendering Sheet A-3 (Beechurst Elevation; dated 02/14/2008).

c. That structural components be incorporated during construction so that the width of the ground floor residential windows in the front façade (facing Beechurst Avenue) can be widened to a minimum of twelve (12) feet in the event the ground floor dwelling unit(s) is/are converted to a commercial use later.

Finding of Fact #1: There are 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:

“The existing residential densities along Beechurst Avenue do not appear to be high enough yet to sustain retail space equal to 60% of the proposed ground floor area. Only until higher density residential redevelopment occurs, like the proposed project, will the market be able to support larger nonresidential ground floor space. The primary objective of the project is to provide quality residential and nonresidential space that meet existing and projected market needs. Over development of nonresidential space could lead to the creation of vacant street level storefronts, which will certainly undermine the community’s objective of sustainable development. Further, dedicating 60% of the proposed ground floor could result in occupants that primarily serve vehicular traffic rather than intended pedestrian traffic, which would adversely impact an already congested corridor.”

Shaffer moved to find in the affirmative as submitted by the applicant; second by Papandreas. The motion passed unanimously.

Findings of Fact #2: The variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right that is possessed by other properties in the same vicinity and zoning district, but which denied to this property, because:

“Very few, if any of the existing mixed-use structures along Beechurst Avenue provide 60% or more of the ground floor to non-residential uses. Several “store fronts” with that degree of open ground floor space are either underutilized or have been converted in whole or in part to residential uses. The proposed project respects the intended mixed-use development along with Beechurst Corridor by offering sufficient space dedicated to nonresidential uses that can be absorbed into the current market.”

Shaffer moved to find in the affirmative as submitted by the applicant; second by Papandreas. The motion passed unanimously.

Findings of Fact #3: 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 district in which the subject property is located, because:

“The proposed project offers the type of mixed-use development envisioned in the Sunnyside Up Neighborhood Plan and should significantly enhance adjacent property, improvements, and the neighborhood’s overall built environment, all of which will not be diminished by the granting of this variance. Conversely, fully complying with 60% of the proposed ground floor area dedicated to nonresidential space could adversely impact the neighborhood by producing storefronts that are difficult to absorb into the market or could generate higher levels of vehicular traffic than intended.”

Papandreas moved to find in the affirmative as submitted; second by Shaffer. The motion passed unanimously.

Findings of Fact #4: The granting of this variance will not alter the land-use characteristics of the vicinity and zoning district, or diminish the market value of adjacent properties, or increase traffic congestion on public streets, because:

“The proposed project incorporates the design and mixed-use development envisioned by the Sunnyside Up Neighborhood Plan. Overdeveloping nonresidential space by meeting 60% of the proposed ground floor could increase traffic congestion by occupants that primarily serve vehicular clientele rather than pedestrian.”

Papandreas moved to find in the affirmative as presented; second by Shamberger. The motion passed unanimously.

Shaffer then moved to grant approval for variance V08-19 with staff recommended conditions; second by Papandreas. The motion passed unanimously.

Bossio advised Mr. Krabill that the Board’s decision could be appealed to Circuit Court within 30 days of its decision; any work done during this time was at the sole financial risk of the petitioner.

Shaffer moved to remove the agenda item V08-15 from the table; second by Papandreas. The motion passed unanimously passed.

A. V08-15 / Panico – Victory Holdings / 580 Beechurst Avenue. Request by Joseph Panico for relief from the Planning and Zoning Code, Article 1361.03 (E) and 1361.03 (O) (1) relating to ground floor and front façade fenestration in the Sunnyside Overlay Districts. Tax Map #19 Parcels #57, 58, 59; B-2, a Service-Business District and Beechurst Overlay District.

Bossio reminded the Board that the public comment portion for this agenda item had already been held and recognized Mr. Scott Krabill for a five-minute rebuttal

Krabill stated that in response Mr. Jim Miller’s comments, the petitioner will go through the proper process and secure building permits to ensure that all handicapped and ADA requirements will be met. He feels good about how the BZA works and looks out for the petitioner while still trying to maintain the integrity of the building.

Bossio asked for Staff’s recommendation.

Fletcher read the Staff Report stating that Staff concurs with each of the Findings of Fact submitted by the petitioner and recommends approval of the variance with the following conditions:

a. That the related Site Plan for a Development of Significant Impact be approved by the Planning Commission and any and all conditions required therein be met.

b. That any significant change, as determined by the Planning Director, to the proposed fenestration be reviewed by the Planning Commission and the Board of Zoning Appeals (if a variance is necessary) prior to construction/installation of same.

c. That the height of all ground floor windows be increased and aligned to symmetrically match the height of the transom above the front entrance door but leaving the sill locations as illustrated on rendering Sheet A-3 (Beechurst Elevation; dated 02/14/2008).

d. That structural components be incorporated during construction so that the width of the ground floor residential windows in the front façade (facing Beechurst Avenue) can be widened to a minimum of twelve (12) feet in the event the ground floor dwelling unit(s) is/are converted to a commercial use later and thereby increase fenestration.

Findings of Fact #1: There are 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:

“The elevation change form the sidewalk to the first floor of the proposed building appears to negate the desired impact of higher degrees of fenestration along Beechurst Avenue. Vehicles and pedestrians will view a retaining wall at-grade rather than a building at-grade with commercial-scaled fenestration.”

Shaffer moved to find in the affirmative as submitted; second by Papandreas. The motion passed unanimously.

“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 older structures and is similar to related variances recently approved by the Board along Beechurst Avenue.”

Shaffer moved to find in the affirmative as presented; second by Papandreas. The motion passed unanimously.

“The degree of fenestration proposed will provide quality living space unmatched within the adjacent areas and reflects related variances approved by the Board. The architectural design of the building will significantly enhance property, improvements and the neighborhood’s overall built environment, all of which will not be diminished by granting a fenestration variance.”

Shaffer moved to find in the affirmative as submitted; second by Papandreas. The motion passed unanimously.

“A fenestration variance will not detract from the significant improvement anticipated to the quality and character of the site and surrounding area. The project is expected to enhance the market value of properties within the immediate area by promoting quality redevelopment. A fenestration variance can not result in nor contribute to an increase in traffic congestion. The proposed development improves intended land-use characteristics by providing a higher degree of fenestration than neighboring structures.”

Papandreas moved to find in the affirmative as submitted; second by Shamberger. The motion passed unanimously.

Shaffer moved to grant variance approval for V08-15 with staff recommended conditions; second by Shamberger. The motion passed unanimously.

B. V08-16 / Panico – Victory Holdings / 580 Beechurst Avenue: Request by Joseph Panico for relief from the Planning and Zoning Code, Article 1361.03 (J) and 1361.04 (C) relating to build-to-line in the Sunnyside Overlay Districts. Tax Map #19 Parcels #57, 58, 59; B-2, a Service-Business District and Beechurst Overlay District.

Fletcher noted that this petition has been withdrawn by the applicant.

C. V08-17 / Panico – Victory Holdings / 580 Beechurst Avenue: Request by Joseph Panico for relief from the Planning and Zoning Code, Article 1347.04 relating to setbacks and encroachments in the B-2 District. Tax Map #19 Parcels #57, 58, 59; B-2, a Service-Business District and Beechurst Overlay District.

Fletcher referred to A-9 of the overall site plan and explained that the petitioner’s agreement to shift the building back two (2) feet to meet the front setback requirements results in a variance request of five (5) feet rather than the three (3) shown on the site plan. Fletcher also stated that the City Engineer has agreed to allowing the parking to back out into the alley.

Scott Krabill, representing the petitioner, stated that the front setback is most important in the event Beechurst Avenue is widened.

Bossio opened the public comment portion of the meeting asking if anyone wished to speak in favor or against the petition. There being none, Bossio declared that the public comment portion of the meeting was closed and asked for Staff’s recommendation.

Fletcher stated that Staff concurs with each of the Findings of Fact submitted by the applicant and recommends approval with the following conditions:

a. That the related Site Plan for a Development of Significant Impact be approved by the Planning Commission and any and all conditions required therein be met.

b. That the proposed structure be moved back two (2) feet to comply with the 15-foot front building-to line.

Shaffer moved to dispense of the reading of each of the Findings of Fact and find in the affirmative for all as submitted; second by Shamberger. The motion passed unanimously.

Shaffer moved to grant variance approval for V08-17 with Staff’s recommended conditions; second by Papandreas. The motion passed unanimously.

D. V08-18 / Panico – Victory Holdings / 580 Beechurst Avenue: Request by Joseph Panico for relief from the Planning and Zoning Code, Article 1361.03 (P) (1) and (2) relating to cladding materials in the Sunnyside Overlay Districts. Tax Map #19 Parcels #57, 58, 59; B-2, a Service-Business District and Beechurst Overlay District.

Fletcher referred to sheet A-3 of the site plan and stated that the Planning & Zoning Code requires that the first two stories be constructed with natural materials, either brick, stone or wood. The use of fiber cement board has been granted in the past.

Bossio stated that he would like to see a requirement that the fiber cement board resemble wood grain.

Krabill, representing the petitioner, stated that it is the petitioner’s intention to use wood-like fiber planks. Brick will be in the center of the building, making it more visually attractive.

Bossio opened up the public comment portion of the meeting. There being no comments either in favor or against the request, he declared that the public comment portion of the meeting was closed and asked for Staff’s recommendation.

Fletcher stated that Staff concurs with the Findings of Fact submitted by the petitioner and recommends approval with the following conditions:

a. That the related Site Plan for a Development of Significant Impact be approved by the Planning Commission and any and all conditions required therein be met.

b. That any significant change, as determined by the Planning Director, to the architectural design, features, or exterior cladding materials illustrated on the submitted renderings be reviewed by the Planning Commission and the Board of Zoning Appeals (if a variance is necessary) prior to construction/installation of same.

c. That the cement-fiber board style selected must resemble a raised wood grain finish.

Shaffer moved to dispense with the readings of the Findings of Fact and find in the affirmative for all as submitted; second by Papandreas. The motion passed unanimously.

Shaffer moved to grant variance approval to V08-18 with Staff’s recommended conditions; second by Papandreas. The motion passed unanimously.

F. CU8-08 / Victory Holdings / Panico/Beechurst Avenue. Request by Joseph Panico for conditional use approval from the Planning and Zoning Code, Article 1365.07, Off-site parking facilities for property located at 508 Beechurst Avenue. Tax Map #19 Parcels #57, 58, 59; B-2, a Service-Business District and Beechurst Overlay District.

Fletcher read the Staff Report stating that the petitioner seeks conditional use approval for two (2) off-site parking spaces on self-owned property less than 300-foot distance requirement. For an illustration of the site location, please refer to Addendum A of this report.

Article 1365.07 “Off-site Parking Facilities” of the Planning & Zoning Code provides that:

(A) In business, industrial, and multi-family districts, the Board of Zoning Appeals may grant Conditional Use Approval to provide required spaces on a site that is:

(1) Within 300 feet of the principal use; and,

(2) Within a district that permits commercial parking lots as principal or conditional use.

Article 1365.07 (C) provides that:

“Off-site parking facilities shall be encumbered by an easement or similar agreement duly executed and acknowledged, which specifies that the land upon which the off-site parking facility is located is encumbered by the parking use. Said instrument shall specify and bind the time period to the anticipated life of the building or use to which the parking facilities are accessory. Said instrument must be placed on public record in the Office of the Clerk of the County Commission of Monongalia County.”

Bossio asked if the Board will be requiring a separate instrument when recording at the County Clerk’s office. Fletcher responded it is an easement or covenant that runs with the deed.

Papandreas asked what would happen if someone was parked behind another tenant. Fletcher advised that tandem parking will designated to the same unit. Because of the uneven distribution of bedrooms, the petitioner must come up with a method of managing the parking. Staff will be recommending a condition that a plan of action addressing the matter by submitted before a building permit was issued.

Fletcher read the Staff Report stating that the Board 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 applicant’s findings of fact as submitted and recommends approval with the following condition(s):

a. That the petitioner obtains DSI Site Plan approval by the Planning Commission.

b. That the off-site parking facility be encumbered by an easement or similar agreement, to the satisfaction of the Planning Director, which is duly executed and acknowledged and specifies that the land upon which the off-site parking facility is located (Tax Map #26 Parcel #452) is encumbered by the parking use of the subject rental unit for no less than two (2) spaces. That this instrument must bind the use for no less than three-years. That said instrument must be filed with the Planning Department and placed on public record in the Office of the Clerk of the County Commission of Monongalia County, West Virginia. That the Certificate of Occupancy for the subject dwelling space shall be contingent upon the continuance of said agreement and encumbrance and should said agreement and encumbrance be annulled for any reason at any time, said Certificate of Occupancy shall be revoked upon written notification by the Planning Director. That a valid and current copy of said instrument must be made available at the request of Planning Director.

c. That the proposed spaces shall have signs noting the rental unit for which the spaces are reserved. That such signage shall be 12 inches wide by 18 inches tall and shall be mounted between three feet and five feet above the finish surface of the parking stalls. That the text on the sign state “This space is reserved for residents of located at [address assigned by City Engineer] only, per City Code 1365.07 (D).”

d. That the conditional use approval granted herein is specific to the petitioner and may not be transferred.

Shaffer moved to dispense with the readings of Findings of Fact and find in the affirmative for all as submitted; second by Papandreas. The motion passed unanimously.

Shaffer moved to grant approval for CU08-08 with Staff’s recommended conditions; second by Papandreas. The motion passed unanimously.

IV. NEW BUSINESS

A. V08-20 / Mashuda / 1889 Sturgiss Avenue. Request by Ralph Mashuda for relief from the Planning and Zoning Code, Article 1341.04 relating to setbacks and encroachments in the PRO District. Tax Map #33 Parcel #36; PRO, Professional, Residential, and Office.

Fletcher read the Staff Report stating that the petitioner has been working to recreate a 1950’s ESSO Service Station located on Sturgiss Avenue. In doing so, Mr. Mashuda seeks to construct two (2) 20’X15” canopies with a small 15’X15’ office under one canopy onto an existing garage structure and the other canopy will cover non-functioning, period fuel pumps (the sale of fuel will not be offered at this site).

Addendum A of this report illustrates the location of the site and a photograph the subject area.

The subject lot frontage along Sturgiss Avenue is relatively long. However, the majority of the parcel is less than 40 feet deep. With a minimum front setback standard of 10 feet and the minimum rear setback standard of 40 feet in the PRO District, development on the subject property can not conform with building envelop requirements.

The site plan prepared by the petitioner illustrates that the existing principle structure is located 5 feet from the front parcel boundary and 10 feet from the rear parcel boundary. As such, the existing structure is considered non-conforming.

Article 1373.02 (A) “Nonconforming Structures” provides that:

“No legal, pre-existing structure may be enlarged, moved or otherwise changed in such a manner that increases the extent of its non-conformity, unless a variance from the terms of the ordinance is obtained from the Board of Zoning Appeals.”

Ralph Mashuda stated that his request will allow him to renovate the property to resemble a 1920’s Esso Station. He wants to save the integrity of that property. Rather than tear down the property, he wants to put up two canopies and two period gas pumps, which were originally used as movie props. The pumps will be under one canopy and office space under the other.

Shaffer stated he was excited about this project and commended the petitioner for his proposal.

Bossio opened the public comment portion of the meeting. There being no one requesting to speak either in favor or against the project, Bossio declared that the public comment portion of the meeting was closed and asked for Staff’s recommendation.

Fletcher stated that Staff recommends the following revisions to the petitioner’s related findings of fact and that the subject variance be approved (deleted matter struck through; new matter underlined):

Finding of Fact #1 - This is a very unique property in the Sabraton area. It has been a gas/service station and little store since the 1920’s. The previous owners’ family had owned it since 1953 and still maintains his repair business there. It is my plan to restore this site to 1950’s early 60’s Esso Service Station as a somewhat historic landmark. Because the majority of the property, and particularly the location of the proposed addition to the existing building, is less than 40 feet deep, conformance with the required front and rear setbacks requirements for the PRO District are virtually impossible.

Finding of Fact #2 – There are deficiencies in the current front and rear setbacks ~~rules~~ which ~~I’m sure were never thought about when~~ obviously were not an issue when the property was originally subdivided and developed. The property is Ssandwiched between Sturgiss Avenue ~~Rd.~~ and Listravia Ave and minimum setback requirements would prohibit any ~~this~~ construction, improvement, or redevelopment of the property.

Finding of Fact #3 – ~~It will not change or alter any more than the general appearance of the property.~~ The proposed addition will significantly improve the existing condition of the property and thereby bring value and contributing significance to the immediate area by recreating an ESSO Station with period architectural features and amenities.

Finding of Fact #4 – ~~As stated above in #3, if a variance on the setback is granted, nothing other than the general appearance of the property will chang~~e. It is my expectations that the new construction it will improve the market value of existing properties, will ~~and~~ not increase traffic already generated by the existing establishment, and will ~~just~~ make the existing property more pleasing to the general public, adjacent residents, and neighboring businesses.

Shamberger moved to find in the affirmative for all of the Findings of Fact with revisions recommended by Staff; second by Papandreas. The motion passed unanimously.

Shaffer moved to grant approval for V08-20 as requested; second by Papandreas seconded it. The motion passed unanimously.

V. OTHER BUSINESS:

A. PUBLIC COMMENT: None

B. STAFF COMMENTS:

Fletcher reported that the Planning Commission had recommended a minimum parking standard for “Lodging/Rooming House” uses to City Council. The recommendation was 0.5 spaces per bed, but not less than 2. The first reading will be Council’s first meeting in April; 2^nd reading will be their first meeting in May.

Bossio stated he was pleased at how quickly the Planning Department moved on this request. He commended the Fletcher for his efforts and believes he is doing an exceptional job.

VI. ADJOURMENT: The meeting adjourned at 8:10 PM.