BOARD
OF ZONING APPEALS
6:30 PM November
19, 2008 City Council
Chambers
MEMBERS PRESENT: Bernie Bossio, George Papandreas,
MEMBERS ABSENT:
Leanne Cardoso
STAFF:
I. CALL TO ORDER and ROLL
CALL: Bossio called
the meeting to order at 6:30 PM
II. MATTER OF BUSINESS:
A. Approval
of October 15, 2008 minutes. Approval of minutes for the
October 15, 2008 meeting postponed until the December 17, 2008 meeting.
III. OLD BUSINESS:
A. V08-36
/ AES Credit Union /
Mardis read the Staff Report stating that Bob DeRiggi of
J.D. Signs, contractor for AES Credit Union, seeks to erect a post and
panel-style sign with an illuminated signage area of 20 square. Addendum A of this report illustrates the
location of the subject site.
Article 1369.07 (E) (1) of the Planning & Zoning Code
provides that the maximum height permitted for post and panel signs in the B-2
District is six feet and the maximum area is 32 square feet. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a
variance relieve of 18 feet, 11¼ inches for sign height and 27.02 square feet
for sign area.
There are a number of post and panel signs within the
immediate area that exceed the maximum height and area standards.
Bossio opened the public comment portion of the meeting. There being none, he closed the public comment
portion of the hearing and asked for Staff’s recommendation.
Mardis stated that one of the stated purposes within the
Planning & Zoning Code for sign regulations is to:
“…encourage the effective use of
signs as a means of communication in the City, to maintain and enhance the
pleasing look of the City, which attracts to the City continued economic
investment; to preserve
Size restrictions are one of several
means to accomplish this policy objective.
The Board of Zoning Appeals must
determine whether the proposed request meets the standard criteria for a
variance by reaching a positive determination for each of the “Findings of Fact” submitted by the applicant.
Staff recommends that variance
relief be granted as requested with the following revisions to the petitioner’s
findings of fact (deleted matter struck through; new matter underlined):
NOTE: The Findings of Fact #1, #2, #3 and #4 included in the
Staff Report are:
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:
This property’s unique orientation
and primary building setback of approximately 180 ft hinders the use of
effective building signs for primary thoroughfare visibility. Since the property has two separate street
frontages, the petitioner will forfeit second street-front sign (other than
directional exit) and any large building sign for the hopeful consideration to
allow permissibility of one primary post and panel of lesser sq/footage than
the collective allowable wall sign and post and panel sign.
Finding 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:
Lesser, lower post and panel signage
would not allow adequate visibility for the credit union in comparison to other
nearby businesses with similar or greater comparable signage.
Finding 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:
Adequate setback and height allows
unobstructed visibility for traffic. (Van Voorhis driveway is entry only). Adequate visible signage identification will
enable traffic viewer reaction time to safely navigate at moderate speeds
through several traffic lanes.
Finding 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:
Proposed sign, being no greater in
size or function than other nearby signs, will not conflict with the concerns
of adjacent businesses or public safety, due to adequate setback from entry and
power/utility lines while providing a source of business identity (logo)
without obstruction. Variance approval
does not appear to alter the land-use characteristic of the subject property
and cannot contribute to or mitigate traffic congestion.
Shaffer moved to find in the positive for each of the four Findings
of Fact as recommended by Staff; seconded by Shamberger. The motion passed unanimously.
Shaffer then moved to grant approval for V08-36 with
recommendations of staff, seconded by Shamberger; motion passed unanimously.
Bossio advised DeRiggi that the Board’s decision can be
appealed to the Circuit Clerk within the next thirty (30) days and that any
work done in that time is done at the sole financial risk of the applicant.
B. CU08-09
/ Monongalia Friends Meeting / 648 E. Brockway Avenue:
Request by Monongalia Friends Meeting for conditional use approval from
the Planning and Zoning Code, Table 1331.05.01, Permitted Land Uses as it
relates to Churches, Places of Worship in the R-1A District for property
located at 648 E. Brockway Avenue. Tax
Map #35 Parcel #110; an R-1A Single-Family Residential District
Mardis read the Staff Report stated that the petitioner
received conditional use approval on June 18, 2008 to establish a “Church,
Place of Worship” use at 648 East Brockway Avenue, which is located in the R-1A
District.
Mon Friends Meeting now seeks an
amendment to its original conditional use approval to allow a resident
caretaker and/or an occasional overnight/short-term quest relating and
accessory to the “Church, Place of Worship” use. The petitioner’s stated objective is not to
operate a residential rental dwelling unit or boarding house for multiple
occupants.
Article 1329.02 “Definition of
Terms” of the Planning & Zoning Code provides that a “Church or Place of
Worship” is (emphasis added):
“A building wherein persons
regularly assemble for religious worship and which is maintained and controlled
by a religious body organized to sustain public worship, together with all
accessory buildings and uses customarily associated with such primary purpose.
Includes synagogue, temple, mosque, or other such place for worship and religious
activities. Customary accessory uses
include a caretakers residence, a meeting or activity hall, a gymnasium,
a playground, the sale of items
associated with the practice of religion, etc., but not a medical clinic,
homeless shelter, rehabilitation center, etc.”
Article 1329.02 defines “Caretakers
Residence” as:
“A residence located on a premises
with a main nonresidential use and occupied only by a caretaker or guard
employed on the premises.”
Even
though the Planning & Zoning Code contemplates a “Caretaker Residence” as a
permitted accessory use for “Church or Place of Worship” uses, Staff required
the petitioner to return to the Board to obtain approval because:
1. When asked
by the Board during the June 18, 2008 if someone would be residing within the
structure on a permanent or temporary basis, the petitioner’s representative
stated no.
2. Neighbors
who attended the June 18, 2008 hearing expressed concern that the use might
include student residents.
In
speaking with Mr. Lozier, it is the opinion of the Planning Department that the testimony provided
by the Monongalia Friends Meeting representative who attended the June 18, 2008
Board hearing was unaware of the organization’s entire reuse proposal and that
the petitioner did not intend to misinform the Board.
John Lozier,
Papandreas questioned why the Board of Trustees, when originally
presented, stated that no persons would stay or live on premise.
Lozier stated that was not their intention at the time. However, they are now requesting the ability
for such and that their main intent is for a sojourner. He added that a caretaker is not needed right
away, but there may be a need for an occasional guest/visiting person and that
this person would be associated to the Quaker meetings and would be on a short
term stay basis. He continued that they
would not be charged a fee to stay that it is more a case of hospitality. He stated that there is a possibility it could
be a term of up to one year, but typically not more than one person or an
occasional couple.
Shaffer asked Mardis if registering a guest would be
required. Mardis stated that registration
would be left to Code Enforcement, but believes that if it were a short term
stay, they would not need to register.
She stated that she would check with the Rental Secretary for
clarity.
Papandreas reiterated why the person originally appearing before
the Board in June was not aware of this possibility. Lozier advised this was an evolving process
and they would not be asking for more occupancy.
Bossio questioned if a couple with children is a
possibility. Lozier said it could happen
and they would certainly want to have that type of flexibility. He stated that
the facility has four (4) bedrooms, but their intent is to use two (2) for
school rooms, the third as a library, and the fourth could be used as lodging
space. He affirmed that they have spoken
with neighbors in the area and feels they have their support.
Bossio stated that after reading the staff report it seemed
they were looking for a caretaker for the premises, now it seems that it is not
the case.
Bossio opened the public comment portion of the meeting.
Ann Payne, 341 Sanford and Clerk of the Quaker Meetings, stated
she is in favor of the idea of a sojourner. She stated that she is a teacher of Botanical
Drawing at the Phipps Conservatory in
There being no further comments, Bossio closed the public
comment portion of the hearing and asked for Staff’s recommendation.
Shaffer asked the Deputy Planner the City’s rules and
regulation on other fraternal organizations that are doing what is being
proposed. Mardis stated that to her
knowledge, this is the first of the sort.
Shaffer stated that he is concerned with the definition of “short term”.
Papandreas stated the reason he believed that Mr. Lozier was
appearing before the Board and the reason he is here appear to be two different
issues. He acknowledged that he is
concerned that at the June meeting, a number of people from the neighborhood
appeared to state their concerns and that no one from the neighborhood was
present to speak to this issue. He also
added that he is concerned that the City has no resources to monitor this use. Papandreas continued that he does not have
concerns with a caretaker, but is concerned this request may change again.
Mardis added that neighbor notification was mailed to
everyone within two-hundred (200) feet of the property; the proposal was
advertised in the
Shamberger stated that he had the same impression as
Papandreas; that the Board was only considering a caretaker.
Bossio stated that he has concerns regarding traffic and
parking with sojourners and/or caretakers being at the property.
Mardis added that Mr. Lozier had met with the Technical
Review Committee concerning a parking area and a building permit applied for
same.
Shamberger moved to table the issue so the parties may have
additional time to develop a plan of action and return to the Board with a more
concrete proposal, seconded by Papandreas; motion unanimously passed.
IV. NEW BUSINESS:
A. V08-42
/ Spiker /
Mardis read
the Staff Report stating that the petitioner seeks height variance approval for
a fence that was constructed without a Building Permit. The fence was constructed with an approximate
height of eight (8) feet along the rear edge of the property at
Article 1331.08 (B) (1) provides
that fences on residentially zoned parcels may not exceed six and one half
(6.5) feet in height at any point. As
such, the petitioner must obtain variance relief of one and one half-feet from
the maximum height standard or be required to remove the portion of fence that
exceeds six and one half feet.
Briana
Spiker,
Papandreas asked
for further clarification from Ms. Spiker as to adjacent properties.
Spiker
responded that the fence is only visible from the neighbor at the rear of her
property and there is an upward elevation change.
Bossio opened
the public comment portion of the meeting.
Cora Darrah,
There being no other response, Bossio closed the public
comment portion and asked for Staff’s recommendations.
Discussion followed
on the fence height restrictions that were in effect prior to the January 6,
2006 zoning ordinance amendment and why the height limit may have changed.
Bossio made a
recommendation that the Planning Department revisit the zoning ordinance’s
fence height restrictions and consider increasing the limit to eight (8)
feet.
Shaffer made
a recommendation to dispense with the reading of the Findings of Fact and
approve as recommended by Staff.
NOTE: The Findings of Fact #1, #2, #3 and #4 included in the
Staff Report were:
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:
According to the petitioner, the
silver maple tree branches (as shown on the sketched site plan) and the hedges
provided privacy at one time. When the
tree was trimmed, the hedges were removed.
The petitioner has a hot tub and installed a fence where the hedges were
previously. The fence appears to blends
into the hedges lining the back of the subject yard. The new fence appears to be a continuation of
the level of privacy purported to have been enjoyed by the petitioner.
Finding 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:
The hedgerow that was removed last
summer is purported by the petitioner to have provided peace, tranquility, and
backyard. The adjoining neighbor’s house
to the rear appears to be approximately 4 feet higher than the petitioner’s
backyard and the lattice on top of the fence appears to shields viewing
into my the petitioner’s yard and house, providing privacy.
Finding 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 fence is located at the back of
the property and does not appear to be clearly visible from any public
right-of-way or public improvements.
Finding 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 location and design of the
fence, particularly the lattice portion that appears to exceed the maximum
fence height standard, should have, if any, negligible effect on land use or
market value within the immediate area.
Further, the location of the fence appears to have no positive or
negative influence on vehicular or pedestrian movements/circulation.
Shaffer moved to approve variance
request V08-42 / Spiker; seconded by Papandreas. The motion passed unanimously.
Bossio advised Spiker that the Board’s decision can be
appealed to the Circuit Clerk within the next thirty (30) days and that any
work done in that time is done at the sole financial risk of the applicant.
NOTE: The record for the following agenda items
were transcribed verbatim and are attached hereto and made a part hereof.
B. CU08-17 /
Giuliani / 608 Allen Avenue: Request by Laura Giuliani for
conditional use approval The Planning and Zoning Code, Table 1331.05.01,
Permitted Land Uses, as it relates to Lodging or Rooming House in the R-2
District for property located at 608 Allen Avenue. Tax Map #26 Parcel #488; an R-2, Single and
Two-Family Residential District.
C. CU08-18 /
Giuliani Properties, LLC /
D. V08-41 / Sally’s
Beauty Supply /
Mardis reported that
the petition had be withdrawn by the applicant and that no further action was
required.
V. OTHER BUSINESS
A. Public Comments:
Before recognizing Mr. James
Guiliani, Bossio reminded that this public comment portion of the meeting was
for non-agenda matters.
Guiliani commented that he wondered
if the Board made their decisions based on fact or opinion. He thought any building in the Sunnyside
overlay district is where density was wanted and/or needed
B. Staff Comments:
Mardis provided an update on the
Downtown Strategic Plan Update project.
Bossio asked the Planning Department
to take the appropriate steps for a text amendment dealing with raising the
fence height.
VI. ADJOURNMENT – The meeting was adjourned at 9:04
PM