Board of Zoning Appeals

1 REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS 2 City Council Chambers 3 300 Park Avenue 4 Falls Church, Virginia 22046 5 April 17, 2014 6 7:30 p.m. 7 8 1. CALL TO ORDER 9 10 VICE CHAIR KRASNER: I'd like to call the April 17, 2014, City of 11 Falls Church Board of Zoning Appeals meeting to order. 12 Roll call. 13 14 2. ROLL CALL 15 16 MR. BOYLE: Mr. Williamson. 17 Not present. 18 Mr. Stoodley. 19 MR. STOODLEY: Yes. 20 MR. BOYLE: Mr. Calabrese. 21 Not present. 22 Mr. Krasner. 23 VICE CHAIR KRASNER: Here. 24 MR. BOYLE: Mr. Howell. 25 MR. HOWELL: Here. 26 27 3. PETITIONS 28 29 VICE CHAIR KRASNER: Okay. Since our chair, Mr. Williamson, is not 30 present, I'll be acting as vice chair. I'll be filling in as chairman 31 tonight. 32 Are there any petitions other than what's listed on the agenda, any 33 other petitions? 34 MR. BOYLE: No, sir. 35 VICE CHAIR KRASNER: No petitions. 36 Then we'll move on to New Business. 37 38 NEW BUSINESS: 39 40 Variance application V15558-14 by William and Regan Davis to allow a 41 front yard setback of 22.3 feet instead of 30 feet on 42 the east side of the property facing Poplar Drive, to permit the 43 construction of a second floor addition over the existing first floor on 44 premises known as 701 Timber Lane, RPC #52-502-037 of the Falls Church Real 45 Property Records, zoned R-1-A, low-density residential, said property owned 46 by William J. Davis III. 47 48 VICE CHAIR KRASNER: We have one item of New Business tonight. 49 It's a Variance Application V1558-14 by William and Regan Davis to 50 allow a front yard setback of 22.3 feet instead of 30 feet on the east side 51 of the property facing Poplar Drive, to permit the construction of a second 52 floor addition over the existing first floor on premises known as 701 53 Timber Lane, RPC #52-502-037, of the Falls Church Real Property Records, 54 zoned R-1A, low density residential, said property owned by William J. MINUTES OF THE APRIL 17, 2014 MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS AS APPROVED ON JULY 17, 2014  55 Davis the Third. 56 Before I swear you in and we begin, I'll let you know that you can 57 see there's only three of us which is the minimum for a quorum. We're a 58 Board of five. And according to the State Code you need three affirmative 59 votes to be successful in your variance. So we have to give you the 60 option, if you so choose, you can defer to next month when we may have -- 61 MR. STOODLEY: At no expense. 62 VICE CHAIR KRASNER: At no expense, right. When we might have a 63 full Board containing five and it's your choice whether or not to proceed 64 tonight. 65 MR. DAVIS: We'd like to proceed. 66 VICE CHAIR KRASNER: Okay. Then we'll go ahead. 67 I guess we'll start with a staff presentation. 68 MR. BOYLE: Or a swearing in. 69 VICE CHAIR KRASNER: Oh, that's right. We'll swear in anyone who 70 plans to speak tonight on this application. 71 Raise your hand. 72 (Witnesses sworn.) 73 MR. BOYLE: Mr. Chair, this is an application for a variance for a 74 house that was constructed in a situation that this Board has seen many 75 times before, which is previous to 1988, corner lots were allowed to have 76 one front yard setback and the other street frontage was considered a side 77 determined by taking half of a neighboring property's front yard and 78 halving it. 79 So typically those setbacks are half of 30. So we see a lot of 80 houses set at 15 feet off of one of the street sides. 1988 that became 30 81 feet, so as the Board's seen, many of these 15 foot setbacks are now 30 and 82 half the house is in the setback. 83 Staff has drafted a Code revision for that that we hope to get 84 approved to revert the Code back to 1988, which would be evidence that 85 we've recognized there is a severe problem with our corner lots and we hope 86 to correct that and negate the necessity for a variance application but we 87 don't know when that's going to be placed on an agenda. 88 But I say that simply as staff and City Council recognizes there's a 89 problem. 90 In this case what they're proposing to do is work with the existing 91 line of the house and build straight up and extend for a second story 92 addition. Staff does not have authority to approve this administratively. 93 Our practice is when new floor space is generated in the setback, in a 94 front setback we defer to the variance process. 95 And you should have a pretty detailed packet of information on this 96 matter to review and one thing of great interest to staff was the amount of 97 support that they got from their neighbors. They solicited a letter and 98 signatures and they must have got everybody beyond -- I think that's more 99 people than we sent the notice to so. 100 MR. STOODLEY: Everybody on Timber Lane and Poplar Drive. 101 MR. BOYLE: Right. 102 So with that, I think I'll defer to the applicants for their 103 presentation and any questions you might have. 104 VICE CHAIR KRASNER: Mr. Boyle, I just have one question. 105 I see that this is advertised as a front yard setback as 22.3 feet 106 on Poplar but I look at their survey, the porch that they're now enclosing, 107 looks like it's set back 13.8. 108 So the issue is, the variance I believe should be, I mean even MINUTES OF THE APRIL 17, 2014 MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS AS APPROVED ON JULY 17, 2014 109 without it being enclosed but especially once it's enclosed as part of 110 their plans would be 13.8. 111 MR. BOYLE: The way staff has viewed that is should the variance be 112 approved, then this would be an allowable projection into that new front 113 yard setback. It's an existing footprint that's not extending. 114 And porches are allowed, including enclosed porches, are allowed to 115 project 8 feet into the setback. So for that reason we view this as 116 dependent on this initial variance being approved first. We would not 117 allow them to enclose that at this time without the setback being moved. 118 VICE CHAIR KRASNER: Okay. So you've measured it off the main 119 house, not the porch. 120 MR. BOYLE: Right. 121 VICE CHAIR KRASNER: I don't have another question for staff so 122 we'll let the applicant speak. 123 Just identify yourself for the record. 124 MR. DAVIS: Sure. Thank you for having us this evening. We 125 appreciate it. 126 Again, my name is William Davis. This is my wife, Regan. We moved 127 in in January of 2003. Since then taken on the family expansion project 128 that now includes three children, 8, 6 and 4. 129 And as I'm sure you see quite commonly, you know, we're maximizing 130 the square footage to the best of our current ability. But we've reached a 131 point where we would like to obviously remain in the City of Falls Church 132 in our existing lot but just add some additional square footage to 133 accommodate some additional bedroom space for our growing children. 134 We moved in the home in good faith, not knowing quite honestly, that 135 we would encounter this setback requirement. I wasn't aware of the fact 136 that our home was considered to have two front yards and two side yards. I 137 was enlightened obviously upon visiting the zoning office and talking to 138 Mr. Boyle and Brandon and others. 139 So in discussing that, my wife and I decided to go ahead and pursue 140 a setback variance, again which really consists of our desire to add a 141 second level to the existing footprint. So and then as you mentioned, 142 enclose the existing screen porch and make that a four season room, like a 143 mud room for our kids so we could store rain coats and books and all the 144 other good stuff. 145 The other thing that we would like to consider and you'll see that 146 in a couple of design concepts I believe we included in the packet, is we'd 147 like to bring out a front porch. 148 There is two ways we could approach that. We could have a front 149 porch that would satisfy the setback that would only consist of about two 150 thirds of the front of our home but we think from an aesthetic standpoint 151 have running a full porch the full distance of the front facade would 152 present the most appealing design or architecture from the Timber Lane 153 side. 154 So as you can see in the designs, we don't want to expand the 155 footprint other than we would like to take a front porch out a little bit 156 on the front. But again, we could satisfy the variance or I'm sorry, the 157 setback requirement rather than go into two thirds. 158 And then we also have considered possibly bumping out the back a 159 little bit, but again that would be within the current setback requirement 160 of 30 feet. 161 So really the variance is for, as you mentioned, enclosure of the 162 porch and then taking our existing footprint straight up one level. MINUTES OF THE APRIL 17, 2014 MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS AS APPROVED ON JULY 17, 2014 163 VICE CHAIR KRASNER: Right. 164 Questions from members? 165 MR. STOODLEY: I don't have any questions. 166 This is Captain Stoodley. Hi. 167 MR. DAVIS: Hello, sir. 168 MR. STOODLEY: How are you? 169 MR. DAVIS: Very well, sir. How are you this evening? 170 MR. STOODLEY: Just fine. Thanks. 171 I want to ask you, I got on the Board 21 years ago because I 172 couldn't extend my porch. It's changed since then. That's why I'm here. 173 So I've been here years since. 174 I have no questions other than to tell you I think it is clear your 175 variance is good and I intend to vote for it. 176 MR. DAVIS: Thank you very much. I appreciate your support. 177 MR. HOWELL: No questions but I just wanted to say that the 178 presentation was very comprehensive and I think that obviously you've put 179 quite a lot of work into getting the neighbors to say what they obviously 180 feel, that this is acceptable to them and it's a very comprehensive 181 presentation. Thank you. 182 MR. STOODLEY: I agree. 183 MR. DAVIS: Thank you. We appreciate that. 184 VICE CHAIR KRASNER: I have a few questions, and some of this is 185 just to get some things on the record just for the facts of the case. 186 MR. DAVIS: Sure. 187 VICE CHAIR KRASNER: I know some of this is in the material you 188 submitted, but what year did you buy the house? 189 MR. DAVIS: January of 2003, closed. 190 VICE CHAIR KRASNER: And this home was constructed approximately? 191 MR. DAVIS: 1942. 192 VICE CHAIR KRASNER: 1942. 193 Mr. Boyle, I know you went around and got the dates of 194 the City of Falls Church Zoning Ordinance. 195 MR. BOYLE: Yes, we had a zoning ordinance at that time but only one 196 residential district and very different setbacks. 197 VICE CHAIR KRASNER: So at the time it was built it was likely 198 conforming to whatever was in place at the time. 199 MR. BOYLE: Yes. 200 VICE CHAIR KRASNER: Also, how much square footage are you adding to 201 the house? What is it today and what are you adding, you have those 202 figures? 203 MR. DAVIS: Approximate figures, today we have about 1500 or 1400 204 square feet and we would be adding approximately another, goodness, 205 probably a thousand square feet. These are approximate figures. 206 VICE CHAIR KRASNER: Right. So you'd be around 2500. 207 MR. DAVIS: 2500 total, correct. 208 VICE CHAIR KRASNER: In your opinion would you say that's generally 209 consistent with the houses around you? Looks like there's been some 210 construction in that part of town. 211 MR. DAVIS: I would say it would be generally still even with this 212 addition we would be on the low end. We're currently bookended by two 213 significant projects: One being Mr. Robert Young's project and then the 214 folks directly behind us, Matt Banacek, is building a home as well. 215 Literally right behind us and right across the street. 216 VICE CHAIR KRASNER: Right, there's been some tear downs. MINUTES OF THE APRIL 17, 2014 MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS AS APPROVED ON JULY 17, 2014 217 MR. DAVIS: Yes, there's about five teardowns within 200 paces from 218 our front door right now. And those homes, based on the construction 219 that's in progress, I would anticipate those would be much larger than our 220 finished product would be. 221 VICE CHAIR KRASNER: So the amount of area that you're adding that's 222 actually technically triggering the variance, because a large part of their 223 -- where they face on Timber is -- they need the setback on that frontage. 224 MR. BOYLE: Correct. 225 VICE CHAIR KRASNER: It's the Poplar side that you don't need. So 226 it's really the, to get technical, I mean it's the kind of sliver of land, 227 maybe about 8 feet worth on that Poplar side of the house that they're 228 adding that's triggering this, correct? 229 MR. BOYLE: Yes. Again, what would have been the practice back in 230 1942 would have been to take the narrow street frontage and consider that 231 the front. That would be the Timber side. And then the other street side 232 would have been considered a side yard and its front yard would have been 233 determined by taking half of the neighboring property to the south. 234 Assuming that was set at 30 feet, then 15 is a very, very typical 235 front yard setback for our corner lots. 236 And then again, a subsequent Code change. It was nice to get the 237 town about 90 percent built out and then change the setbacks out from under 238 them. Tremendous amount of building '42 to '44 with the construction of 239 the Pentagon, many, many neighborhoods in Falls Church were constructed at 240 that time. 241 Again, it's a common feature we see and we hope to correct it with a 242 Code change but probably not timely. 243 VICE CHAIR KRASNER: Right. And the other, as just pointed out for 244 the record, this house is oriented towards, you know the house meets the 245 width and the area requirements, as far as I can tell. It's oriented on 246 the short axis. I mean it's oriented towards Poplar which is its narrow 247 frontage. I mean if it faced the other way but it wasn't built that way. 248 It was built facing Poplar which kind of constrains, it's built on the 249 narrow side which kind of seems like it would constrain in that area to 250 build on the east or the west. 251 MR. BOYLE: That's correct. And it's interesting that they've got a 252 fair amount of square footage on this lot. The minimum is 11,250. But 253 being the corner lot and it really only has the 58.79 frontage before the 254 arc of the corner to work with. And it's 76 at the rear which is 255 conforming. It's not right angles at the corners so it narrows a little 256 bit towards the street frontage. 257 For a corner lot to really survive under our current Code it needs 258 to be almost a square, which is not how corner lots are subdivided in our 259 town. 260 VICE CHAIR KRASNER: Right. 261 I would like to hear, the addition is going to include bedrooms. 262 MR. DAVIS: Yes, sir. 263 VICE CHAIR KRASNER: And so even though technically you could build 264 an addition in your back yard, but I'll ask you, do you think that would be 265 impractical to extend into your rear yard for what you're trying to 266 accomplish? 267 MR. DAVIS: Well, that is the second part of the project that we 268 would consider is going back but we would satisfy the setback requirement. 269 But if the question is would we consider going back the full width 270 of the existing footprint, we would consider that but I don't think we MINUTES OF THE APRIL 17, 2014 MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS AS APPROVED ON JULY 17, 2014 271 could achieve our goals in terms of still having, you know, ample bedroom 272 space and still have enough kitchen and living space. We basically would 273 have to consume almost all of our back yard. 274 VICE CHAIR KRASNER: So going up is probably the most practical. 275 MS. DAVIS: Well, our children spend 90 percent of their time in our 276 back yard so we need that space or we would love to keep that space if at 277 all possible to allow them a place to play. 278 MR. DAVIS: Currently our children, all three of our children are on 279 the main level and we're upstairs as it currently stands. And what we want 280 to do is get everyone upstairs and then utilize the first floor of the main 281 level as living space and a kitchen that's larger than half this table 282 which is where our kitchen size is today. 283 So that's the goal, to utilize the main level as living space, have 284 a dining room and a full kitchen, and then upstairs have all the bedrooms 285 so we could all be on one level together. 286 VICE CHAIR KRASNER: Okay. That's all the questions I have. 287 Anyone else have anything? 288 So I'll move -- well, before I do that, I know no one's here but 289 I'll open it to the public. 290 Does anyone in the public that would like to speak for or against 291 this item? 292 Hearing nobody, we'll close the public comment. 293 MR. STOODLEY: I move to approve the variance as stated. 294 MR. HOWELL: I second. 295 VICE CHAIR KRASNER: Before we vote, I'll just, to get some findings 296 of fact just to make sure that we've covered the undue hardship. 297 I agree. I think that in general what you're doing is good. I 298 think that you're doing the most practical way you can to maximize the use 299 of the property. The ordinance kind of unreasonably restricts what you 300 can do to build a two story home, which is common, and a two story home of 301 that size which is definitely compatible with what's around it. And as I 302 stated earlier, because you're oriented, narrow part of your lot, it's the 303 most practical way to add space and I don't think it causes a detriment or 304 a negative effect on the general character of the neighborhood or that 305 zone. 306 So with that out there on the record, roll call. 307 MR. BOYLE: Mr. Stoodley. 308 MR. STOODLEY: Yes. 309 MR. BOYLE: Mr. Krasner. 310 VICE CHAIR KRASNER: Yes. 311 MR. BOYLE: Mr. Howell. 312 MR. HOWELL: Yes. 313 VICE CHAIR KRASNER: Motion carries to approve the application. 314 Congratulations. 315 MR. DAVIS: Thank you very much. We appreciate your time and 316 support. Thank you, Mr. Boyle. 317 MR. BOYLE: Thank you. 318 319 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 320 321 VICE CHAIR KRASNER: Mr. Boyle, the next item is approval of 322 minutes. I don't think I have any minutes in my package. Are there any 323 minutes? 324 MR. BOYLE: No, I think we did not receive them. But if they've MINUTES OF THE APRIL 17, 2014 MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS AS APPROVED ON JULY 17, 2014 325 come in since distribution, I'm not sure we're going to have a meeting next 326 month. Would the Board agree to receive them by e-mail and then comment 327 officially at the next meeting? 328 VICE CHAIR KRASNER: That's fine. 329 330 6. OTHER BUSINESS: 331 332 VICE CHAIR KRASNER: Move on to any Other Business. 333 Any members? 334 335 7. OLD BUSINESS: 336 337 8. ADJOURNMENT 338 339 MR. STOODLEY: Move to adjourn. 340 VICE CHAIR KRASNER: All right. Second? 341 MR. HOWELL: Second. 342 VICE CHAIR KRASNER: All in favor? 343 (A chorus of "ayes".) 344 VICE CHAIR KRASNER: We're adjourned. 345 346 MINUTES OF THE APRIL 17, 2014 MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS AS APPROVED ON JULY 17, 2014