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 December 17, 2015 6 7:30 p.m. 7 8 1. CALL TO ORDER 9 10 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: I would like to call to order the regular 11 meeting of the Board of Zoning Appeals for December 17, 2015. 12 Roll call. 13 14 2. ROLL CALL 15 RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Williamson. 16 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Here. 17 RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Krasner. 18 MR. KRASNER: Here. 19 RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Calabrese, I believe is en route. 20 Mr. Howell. 21 MR. HOWELL: Here. 22 RECORDING SECRETARY: And, Mr. Jones. 23 MR. JONES: Here. 24 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Thank you. 25 26 3. PETITIONS 27 28 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Separate from the business we'll hear in 29 just a minute, are there any Petitions from anyone in the audience? 30 Seeing none, we're going to move on to New Business. 31 32 4. NEW BUSINESS 33 a. Variance application V1577-15 by Priya Krishnan, owner and 34 applicant, for a variance to Section 48-238(3)(a) to allow (1) a 35 front yard setback of eighteen (18) feet instead of thirty (30) feet 36 along the Jackson Street frontage; and (2) a front yard setback of 37 eighteen (18) feet instead of thirty (30) feet along the Timber Lane 38 frontage; and (3) a side yard setback of ten (10) feet instead of 39 fifteen (15) feet along the northern property line; and (4) a side 40 yard setback of ten (10) feet instead of fifteen (15) feet along the 41 eastern property line for the purpose of constructing a new 42 single-family house on premises known as 600 Jackson Street, RPC 43 #52-205-001 of the Falls Church Real Property Records, zoned R-1A Low 44 Density Residential. 45 46 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: And the first item on the published agenda is 47 Variance Application V1577-15 by Priya Krishnan. And I understand 48 from staff there was a request to push that to next month. 49 MR. BOYLE: That's correct. 50 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: So I'd just like to ask one of the Board 51 members if they would make a motion to move that to next month. 52 MR. KRASNER: I'll make a motion that we defer Variance 53 Application V-1577-15 by Krishnan, property of 600 Jackson Street to 54 our January meeting which is -- 55 MR. BOYLE: January 14th. 56 MR. KRASNER: To January 14, 2016. 57 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Is there a second? 58 MR. JONES: Seconded. 59 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Okay. Roll call please. 60 RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Williamson. 61 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Yes. 62 RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Krasner. 63 MR. KRASNER: Yes. 64 RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Howell. 65 MR. HOWELL: Yes. 66 RECORDING SECRETARY: And, Mr. Jones. 67 MR. JONES: Yes. 68 69 b. Variance application V1573-15 by Tim Luwis, a variance to 70 Sec. 48-1004 to allow a 30 percent reduction in the required parking 71 spaces, on premises known as 419 W. Broad Street and 421 W. Broad 72 Street, RPC #s 52-302-059 and 52-302-056 of the Falls Church Property 73 Records, zoned B-1 (Limited Business), said property owned by Tim 74 Luwis. 75 c. Variance application V1574-15 by Tim Luwis, a variance to 76 Sec. 48-1101 and Sec. 48-939 to allow a rear yard setback of 10 feet 77 instead of the 20 feet on the southern property line and side yard 78 setback of 10 feet instead of 20 feet on the western property line, 79 both of which abutting R-M (Multi-Family) zone to permit the 80 construction of a new hotel on premises known as 419 W. Broad Street 81 and 421 W. Broad Street, RPC#s 52-302-059 and 52-302-056 of the Falls 82 Church Property Records, zoned B-1 (Limited Business), said property 83 owned by Tim Luwis. 84 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Moving on to the next item on the  85 agenda, Variance Application V1573-15 by Tim Luwis, a variance to 86 Section 48-1004 to allow a 30 percent reduction in the required 87 parking spaces, on premises known as 419 W. Broad Street and 421 W. 88 Broad Street, RPC#s 52-302-059 and 52-302-056 of the Falls Church 89 Property Records, zoned B-1 (Limited Business), said property owned 90 by Tim Luwis. 91 There is also a second Variance application from Mr. Luwis. 92 I'm going to read that out. And it's my understanding the 93 presentation will cover both of those Variances, is that accurate? 94 MS. ISHERWOOD: Yes. 95 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Okay. Thank you. 96 The Variance application V1574-15 by Tim Luwis, a variance 97 to Sec. 48-1101 and Sec. 48-939 to allow a rear yard setback of 10 98 feet instead of 20 feet on the southern property line and side yard 99 setback of 10 feet instead of 20 feet on the western property line, 100 both of which abutting R-M (Multi-Family) zone, to permit the 101 construction of a new hotel on premises known as 419 W. Broad Street 102 and 421 W. Broad Street, RPC#s 52-302-059 and 52-302-056 of the Falls 103 Church Property Records, zoned B-1 (Limited Business), said property 104 owned by Tim Luwis. 105 So before I ask the applicant to come forward, it looks 106 like we have a few folks here this evening. If anyone is going to be 107 speaking on either one of these matters, I'd like you to rise and 108 raise your right hand to be sworn in. If you're going to speak at 109 all this evening on either one of these Variance applications, please 110 stand and raise your right hand. 111 (Witnesses sworn.) 112 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: So with that, before we hear from the 113 applicants, I'd like to get a quick word from staff on this. 114 MR. BOYLE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 115 This is a Variance for a commercial property to permit 116 construction of a new hotel where there is an existing hotel, expand 117 to the existing footprint. 118 And in cases where commercial properties require variances, 119 are coming before us for Variances, the process is to first take the 120 application which may include a conceptual site plan, renderings of 121 the building, and the justification for the Variances, first to the 122 Planning Commission for their recommendation and then the Planning 123 Commission submits that recommendation to the Board and we just 124 recently had a case like that. 125 This particular case went to the Planning Commission. It 126 was discussed in detail and a staff presentation was made and you 127 should have in your packet a memo from Planning Staff to the Planning 128 Commission. And I think with the printed version you have for the 129 staff report, there is some yellow highlighting. You have an updated 130 version of that staff report with just the cover memo that summarizes 131 the recommendation from the Planning Commission. It's essentially 132 the same as what was in your packet you received minus the 133 highlighting and it's directed to the attention of the Board. 134 But that one or two page summary from Planning Staff that 135 was presented to you tonight is a good working copy of the 136 recommendation of the Planning Commission. 137 Now, the Variances that are being requested fall into a 138 couple of categories. One is a pretty standard setback variety that 139 this Board sees many times for residential. These setbacks are 140 provided for in the Code and wherever there is a R zoning district 141 for residential, in this case multi-family, it comes with a heavy 142 setback against the commercial properties. 143 The other is the parking aspect. Unlike a situation where 144 a special exception or a mixed use project of the type that this 145 Board has seen goes for approval and the Planning Commission can 146 adjust the parking ratios where there is a mix of uses on site, this 147 one does not fall into that category so the Planning Commission was 148 not empowered to speak to the parking as far as authority to reduce 149 the parking load. 150 And so, the nature of this Variance is being sent to this 151 Board for discussion as far as reduction of the parking that's 152 required in the Zoning Code. 153 So we have a request for setback Variances and then a 154 reduction in the parking load. In the Planning Staff report, there's 155 considerable discussion of how both of these were justified, 156 particularly with the parking load. 157 And I'll defer to the applicants to make that clear to the 158 Board during their presentation. 159 With that, I think we'll defer to the applicants. 160 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Boyle. 161 Are there any clarifying questions before we turn over to 162 the applicants? 163 (No response.) 164 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Okay. If you could please step forward 165 and please sign in if you're going to speak on this matter. 166 And for those of you who are here to make public comments, 167 we'll hear from the applicant and then we'll invite public comments 168 following the presentation from the applicants and the Board may ask 169 questions for the applicant and then we'll make sure you have a 170 chance to speak on this matter as well. 171 MR. BOYLE: If I could, for members of the public who have 172 seen Planning Commission or Council meetings where speakers come to 173 the podium and submit speaker cards, this Board, its process is to 174 have you come up and have a seat at the table as the Chairman said 175 and in that sense we're a little less formal. 176 So when you do come up, as the Chairman said, come in and 177 give us a clear spelling of your name for the Board secretary that's 178 doing the minutes, if you could. 179 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Okay. If you could state your name and 180 get started with your presentation. 181 MS. ISHERWOOD: Good evening. My name is Antonette 182 Isherwood and I'm with Walter Phillips. We're the civil engineer for 183 this project. And joined by Tim Luwis, the owner and developer of 184 the site, and David Lasso, who's the attorney. 185 So as John mentioned, we are proposing redevelopment at 419 186 and 421 West Broad Street, which is the existing Falls Church Florist 187 and Inns of Virginia. 188 For orientation, over on the west side of the right side of 189 the picture here is the Lee Square Apartments and on the left side is 190 the S.A.I.D. Copy Shop. 191 And this is just the picture of the existing rear of the 192 site today and the areas where we are requesting the Variances. This 193 is the joint property line with the Lee Square Apartments and the 194 Winter Hill Condominiums is in the rear here. 195 So here's a montage of the existing site today. It's a 196 little bit rotated but again to orient yourselves, West Broad Street 197 is here on the right side of the page, Lee Square Apartments on the 198 western property line, Winter Hill condos at the rear, and the 199 S.A.I.D. Copy Shop on the eastern property line. 200 You may be familiar with this site. The existing building, the 201 Inns of Virginia, is on this property and then the Falls Church 202 Florist, which are now both owned by Tim Luwis, is on this property 203 here. 204 And as you can see, the Inns of Virginia today where the 205 upper levels face approximately 10 feet from the western property 206 line and both of the parking lots for these two lots extend all the 207 way to the rear of the site as well as to the western property line. 208 What we are proposing is a by-right four story 78 room 209 hotel, Holiday Inn Express, and it is going to replace both the 210 existing 32 room hotel as well as the florist. 211 And so we are here today to request Variances, as John 212 mentioned, for the 10 foot setback along the -- where the building's 213 going to be placed. This dark area here is where the building will 214 be grounded on the first floor, and then the shaded area that you see 215 here is going to be the upper levels. Again, it's going to be a 216 total of a four story building. 217 And then there's going to be parking underneath these upper 218 levels and along the property line. 219 We are providing a 10 foot buffer in the rear but there 220 will be parking. We are unable to meet the 20 foot setback along the 221 rear and the western property line since we are also proposing a 222 drive aisle for these parking spaces. 223 And I just wanted to also point out that the existing 224 building today starts about this deep on the site where it's 10 feet 225 away from the Lee Square Apartments and we're proposing to only have 226 it 10 feet away up to this point where the Lee Square Apartments, 227 before they begin. 228 And the second Variance that we're requesting is for a 229 parking reduction to provide 60 parking spaces versus the 86 required 230 by Code. That is a 30 percent reduction; however we have data that 231 the parking that we're providing is going to be sufficient to meet 232 our needs. And this is data from the Inns of Virginia here as well 233 as nearby Inns of Virginias in Alexandria and Arlington that also we 234 think the site reflects their similar conditions. 235 And the City has also done a recent count at the New Hilton 236 Garden Inn here in the City and they found that at peak times that 237 the garage holds -- it's only 38 percent occupied. So we felt that 238 it was sufficient. At the ratio of 38 percent occupied is about 40 239 percent to the rooms and what we're providing here is 75 percent 240 parking spaces to rooms. 241 So as mitigation for the Variances that we are requesting, 242 we are proposing to provide a masonry wall for screening both along 243 the western and the rear property lines which is a better condition 244 than what we have today and the 10 foot landscape buffer that we have 245 in the rear is a better condition than exists today. 246 And we're also proposing to plant trees along the Lee 247 Square property to help provide that vegetation buffer that we can't 248 provide on our site. 249 And this is going to be provided with an easement for us to 250 maintain the trees that are going to be planted. 251 And we've also proposed a parking management plan to help 252 manage any parking for employees and guests and we're proposing a 253 shuttle for the Metro. 254 And we've been working with the neighbors during the 255 process with the Planning Commission and have come to an agreement 256 with -- they've agreed to the Variances with a certain list of 257 conditions and they've been provided in the staff report, some of 258 which have also been incorporated into the drawing such as the 259 vegetation on the adjacent property, the masonry wall, the parking 260 management plan, as well as providing adequate signage to make sure 261 you don't park on other properties, and informing the guests when 262 they arrive where they can park. 263 That's all I have. 264 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Before I open it up to the Board for 265 questions, I just have one clarifying question from what you just 266 said which is that you mentioned the -- well, we're in receipt of a 267 memo from the Planning Commission dated December 17th that talks 268 about some of the conditions of the Planning Commission recommending 269 this. 270 Would those be the same as what you were just referring to 271 in terms of masonry wall and other aspects of the site plan? I want 272 to make sure that we're looking at the same thing as you are. 273 MS. ISHERWOOD: Yes, yes. These were the conditions that 274 were part by the Planning Commission recommendation and they are what 275 the developer had agreed to. 276 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Okay. Thank you. 277 All right. I'd like to see if there's any questions for 278 the applicant from members of the Board. 279 MR. KRASNER: Sure. I'll go first. 280 I guess my biggest questions have to do with the parking 281 reduction since that's, you know, a request that I think needs a lot 282 of scrutiny and I know there was a lot of scrutiny paid to that 283 request at the Planning Commission hearings before they decided to 284 act on it and provide a recommendation. 285 I know that you mentioned the parking demand study that you 286 undertook. I think we have a copy of that. I was wondering if you 287 can describe in a little more detail how you determine that these 288 number of spaces will be adequate. 289 As per the City ordinance, fairly standard that one space 290 per room plus a space for employees, and so I wanted to know how you 291 determined that based on your occupancy load or rather you tell me 292 how you arrived at that 38 percent reduction being adequate, and what 293 would happen on a night where the hotel is doing a great business and 294 is 90 percent occupied. 295 MS. ISHERWOOD: Right. And so had taken counts, Inns of 296 Virginia management took counts over six months and did a tally and a 297 ratio of the parking spaces that were occupied versus the number of 298 rooms that were occupied. 299 And so even during high occupancy rates, both here and in 300 Arlington and Alexandria, the ratios of the parking at any given time 301 reached about 70 percent for the amount of parking that was needed. 302 And so it was determined that the amount of parking that we're 303 providing would be sufficient. 304 And I think also just compare it to the Hilton Garden Inn 305 that's nearby since it is a little more comparable in terms of actual 306 location and the type of business that will be coming to the Holiday 307 Inn Express might not necessarily be the same business as the Inns of 308 Virginia. We looked at those numbers and I think also since we're 309 providing the shuttle that the Hilton Garden Inn has, that with those 310 things combined it will be sufficient to meet the parking. 311 The parking that we need is more often than not less than 312 what we're providing. And so the 76 percent is actually more of like 313 a peak. 314 MR. KRASNER: How many rooms or I should say how many 315 spaces are on the site today and how many rooms are there today? 316 MS. ISHERWOOD: There are 22 spaces and 32 rooms today. 317 MR. KRASNER: So obviously it's an increase in both. 318 MS. ISHERWOOD: Yeah. We're increasing the percentage. So 319 we're going from 65 percent to 76 percent. 320 MR. KRASNER: I know there's a lot of talk in these 321 conditions, and perhaps we'll get into this later but obviously 322 there's a lot, again, I watched some of the PC hearings and I know 323 there was a lot of discussion about shared parking, partial access, 324 contingency plans, I know that's somewhat outside the scope of what 325 we're doing but on the other hand if we approve the Variance, you 326 know, we're kind of saying that we're allowing that condition to 327 happen so these contingencies are important. 328 So if you would, would you describe some of that as far as 329 the contingency plans, the shared parking, parking demand, parking 330 management, some of these other things that are in the conditions. I 331 want to make sure that everyone on the Board has a sense of what is 332 contemplated here. 333 MS. ISHERWOOD: So, I guess there are, the parking 334 management plan we've listed our goals. We're working with Paul 335 Snyder of the City on developing the full details so the actual -- 336 all the details are not yet written out. 337 But the things that we're committed to providing are the 338 shuttle, the signage, and I believe there's also a condition, I'm not 339 sure how it's worded, about revisiting and figuring out in two years, 340 two years of how the parking is being managed and if there have been 341 any issues. And that the owner will be required to get an off site 342 parking agreement if it's realized there's a need for more parking. 343 MR. KRASNER: Well, the conditions as they're worded, at 344 leave the copy we have, are very clear that parking shall be on site 345 only and instructions provided for employees and visitors, shall be 346 on-site only. 347 So again, we're setting it up that sectionally somehow there's 348 spill-over parking, it's not parts of the agreement that you're 349 really in violation of these conditions. I want to make sure that 350 everyone is on the same page as far as that goes and that you've 351 thought about it. 352 I'm sure you have but I want to make sure my colleagues on 353 the Board and others are aware of that, even though we may produce 354 the number of spaces, we're not essentially allowing overflow 355 parking, at least as part of this in a formal way to spill over onto 356 any adjacent commercial properties. 357 I'll move on to a different topic and then I'll let my 358 colleagues ask some questions. 359 Related to the other Variances that you're requesting, so 360 right now a condition, that rear property line common to Winter Hill, 361 is there any vegetation there today? 362 MS. ISHERWOOD: No, their parking is sent all the way up to 363 the rear. 364 MR. KRASNER: It looks like a wall there today. 365 MS. ISHERWOOD: Yes. There's an existing four foot tall 366 masonry wall. We're proposing to increase it to 6 to 7 feet in 367 height. But the parking does go all the way to the back of the 368 space. It's paved all the way to the rear. 369 MR. KRASNER: And what type of vegetation are you proposing 370 in that area? 371 MS. ISHERWOOD: It's going to be a full landscape -- we 372 don't have specific trees or anything but it is going to have both 373 trees and planting and shrubs. 374 MR. KRASNER: Now technically, this may be a logistical 375 thing but your Variance plat or plan includes a host of waiver 376 requests. 377 MS. ISHERWOOD: Yes. 378 MR. KRASNER: And I believe those, for the most part, are 379 essentially site plan waivers. I just want to be clear that anything 380 we do tonight, we're not acting on those waivers. I mean they are 381 listed on the plat but I want to see a condition nice and clear that 382 we're not acting on those waivers. And some of those waivers I think 383 will be required as a result of reductions that we may grant but I 384 want to make it clear that we're not formally granting those waivers. 385 I think only the Planning Commission can grant those waivers. 386 So, just from a jurisdictional point of view, they are 387 listed on the plat as a request but I want to make it clear that 388 that's not what we're doing but essentially we won't be meeting the 389 typical transition screening that's normally required, I realize 390 that, by allowing the parking to be shifted but from a technical 391 point of view we're not technically granting that. Only the Planning 392 Commission can. 393 How close is the hotel to the property line today? 394 MS. ISHERWOOD: It's ten feet. 395 MR. KRASNER: It's ten feet along which side? 396 MS. ISHERWOOD: Ten feet along the western property line, 397 so right along here. 398 MR. KRASNER: Along the Lee Square side? 399 MS. ISHERWOOD: Yes, along the Lee Square side. 400 MR. KRASNER: So the new building won't not be any closer? 401 MS. ISHERWOOD: It won't be any closer, no. And it's 402 actually going to be for a shorter length of the building since our 403 building is going to stop along here. 404 MR. KRASNER: Okay. That's it for me for the moment. 405 MR. BOYLE: Mr. Chairman, if I might interrupt, I think 406 it's a fair question whether Mr. Calabrese will be here. 407 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: That's what I was just turning to, 408 because we had expected our fifth Board member to join us for this 409 discussion and since we do not have a full Board I want to inform you 410 that you do have the option of continuing until next month until we 411 have a full Board or you can choose to proceed. 412 We have four members here tonight and obviously we're 413 prepared to act on it and you would need to get three of the four in 414 order to get the Variance approved. So that's your decision. 415 MS. ISHERWOOD: Okay. 416 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Okay, thanks. 417 With that said, are there other questions for the 418 applicant? 419 MR. HOWELL: Yes, I want to clarify my understanding of the 420 drawings as they relate to the parking. 421 The present situation is that the parking takes place along 422 the side of the back up against the Winter Hill wall, is that right? 423 MS. ISHERWOOD: That's correct. 424 MR. HOWELL: And then under the new scheme the parking is 425 on the first floor of the new building. 426 MS. ISHERWOOD: It's on the surface elevation and then 427 there's building above, yes. 428 MR. HOWELL: Yes, and then the antennas above where the car 429 parking. 430 And this plan that we have here shows all of the parking 431 you're proposing to have, right -- 432 MS. ISHERWOOD: Right. Correct. 433 MR. HOWELL: -- on that floor. 434 It seems somewhat constrained sort of parking space despite 435 the numbers you were mentioning. I don't know, squeezing a lot into 436 a narrow area. Sixty parking spaces and those are all in 437 this plan? 438 MS. ISHERWOOD: Yes. 439 MR. HOWELL: Okay. Thank you. 440 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Other questions? 441 Okay. Just on that point regarding the parking spaces, 442 they would be whatever requirements there are, whatever requirements 443 there are for the size. 444 MS. ISHERWOOD: Yes, yes. That was part of our necessity 445 for the Variance is that we have to meet the parking space dimensions 446 as well as the drive aisle dimensions. 447 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Okay. I don't have any questions at 448 this time other than the ones asked. 449 I do want to take public comments which then in turn may 450 prompt some questions back to the applicants, so please stand by. 451 So with that said, I'd like to open it up to the public and 452 see if anyone has any comments on the sundry Variance applications, 453 either on the parking or the setbacks. If you do, please step 454 forward. 455 As Mr. Boyle pointed out, step forward to the microphone up 456 here and sign in and state your name and please state your comments. 457 MR. BEACH: Thank you. I'm Bob Beach, owner of the 458 adjacent property, 417 West Broad Street. And they're basically -- 459 of course my big concern is parking. There are three pieces of 460 commercial property in this row and they're surrounded by residential 461 communities. And that's the south side of Broad Street. 462 Right now, those three pieces, each piece has its own 463 parking lot, seems to be adequate, no problems. Once they do the 464 development, combine those two pieces of property, then my concern is 465 that mine is now the only other parking on the south side of Broad 466 Street in that area. 467 So it's always been my issue that if there are problems, I 468 know what they're going to be. 469 But, you know, we have to take the word of I guess the 470 experts and they say that there's not going to be a problem. My 471 attorney, Andrew Painter of Walsh Colucci, and I have met with the 472 developer, had a long discussion about a number of issues, parking 473 being one of them. 474 Andrew wrote a letter which I believe you have which deals 475 with some issues that we had at that discussion and talked about and 476 agreed to. 477 Basically, I won't read the whole letter and bore you to 478 death, I think you can probably read it. But basically we would 479 appreciate an inclusion in the Variance, three things: One, parking 480 spaces should be provided as shown on the Variance plat. In absence 481 of a parking agreement with any adjacent owner, all parking for the 482 hotel use shall be provided on site. All new parking shall be 483 constructed, screened by landscaping and/or barriers and maintained 484 in accordance with the provisions of the Zoning ordinance; 485 2. The hotel operator shall provide verbal and written 486 instructions to hotel guests and visitors that all parking for the 487 hotel use is to occur on site, is not to be located on adjacent 488 properties, and that violations of such instructions may result in 489 towing from said adjacent properties. 490 And, 3, the hotel owners shall install directional signage on 491 the property directing hotel guests to on-site parking; such signs 492 shall specifically note that the off-site parking on adjacent 493 properties is prohibited. 494 So that's in essence the thing that we're concerned about. 495 We'd like to be sure that we aren't going to be inundated with 496 parking by -- people coming in are going to be visitors from out of 497 town. They're not going to be familiar with Falls Church. Every day 498 it's going to be a new set to train. 499 So I think the property, the hotel owners have got to be 500 pretty vigilant about seeing that that happens and that's what that's 501 about. 502 That's our request. We're not opposed. We're commercial. 503 We're not opposed to development or those kinds of things but we are 504 concerned that our property rights don't get violated. And that's 505 the reason why I'm here, to say yes, we will support the Variance, 506 provided we can get these kinds of issues included in the Ordinance 507 and I think that's probably fair. 508 MR. KRASNER: Mr. Beach, have you seen the set of 509 conditions that were recommended by the Planning Commission as part 510 of their recommendation to us? Have you seen those conditions? 511 MR. BEACH: Yes, I believe I have, and they include -- 512 MR. KRASNER: Yes, I was going to ask you that because I 513 want to make sure you're essentially aware of that. 514 MR. BEACH: Yes, I just wanted to be here to support the 515 developer. 516 MR. KRASNER: So in your opinion, with those conditions you 517 feel that to the best of the ability that your concerns at this stage 518 have been addressed, would you say that? 519 MR. BEACH: I would say that. 520 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Any further questions for Mr. Beach? 521 (No response.) 522 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Okay. Thank you for your comments. We 523 appreciate it. 524 I don't think anyone else was sworn on this but does anyone 525 else want to step forward and make any other comments? 526 Okay. Seeing none, we'll close this to any public 527 comments. And then based on what we just heard, are there any other 528 questions that anyone on the Board has for the applicant? 529 (No response.) 530 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Okay. Any final comments you'd like to 531 make before we review this and determine how we're going to proceed? 532 MR. LASSO: I somewhat feel an obligation since because I'm 533 representing, simply to say thank you for your time and we're very 534 appreciative of the neighbors who met with us and worked with us and 535 there were some good changes made to the plan. 536 There is I think going to be a demonstrable improvement 537 over the situation right now. That building is very tight right at 538 the point where it comes to the current Lee Square apartment 539 buildings and one of our challenges was finding some space to put 540 some trees that were requested by Lee Square. So during the site 541 plan process we are going to acquire an easement actually on their 542 property and will be putting the trees over there. So we were able 543 to work that out. 544 One point that I'd note for Winter Hill, there was a 545 request there, I think you saw it in the staff report, where they 546 asked for essentially the same thing: That we go ahead and also 547 plant vegetation on their side of the masonry wall which we will do. 548 And then finally Bob had some questions about trees. It's 549 really not part of the Variance here, that we not plant trees because 550 his building is right up against the wall too because he's concerned, 551 and rightly so, of the root damage that might ensue, so we'll modify 552 that. That's one of waivers we're going to have to work with. 553 So we'll address a lot of these issues and I think 554 otherwise, Antonette has done a good job I think in explaining how 555 this was done. Thank you very much for your time. 556 MR. BOYLE: Mr. Lasso, for the benefit of our recording 557 secretary, could you state your name. 558 MR. LASSO: Certainly. David Lasso, I'm with Baskin 559 Jackson and Lasso right across the street, 301 Park Avenue. 560 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Thank you. 561 MR. KRASNER: Mr. Lasso, real quick, I have a couple of 562 questions. 563 So obviously you, of course, I'm sure, are familiar with 564 the set of conditions that were recommended by the Planning 565 Commission. So essentially your client is in agreement with all of 566 this. 567 I want to just say especially, there is a condition that is 568 being recommended that refers to the -- I guess it's Condition No. 569 11, refers to the parking analysis report and references the 570 potential need for additional -- I don't know if it's a Variance or 571 site plan waiver but it talks about reducing the drive aisle, parking 572 with a yard setback. 573 MR. LASSO: Right. 574 MR. KRASNER: You're familiar with that condition and 575 your -- 576 MR. LASSO: I think that's not going to be part of this. I 577 mean we had talked about what would happen if you essentially valet 578 park in the drive aisle, so you wouldn't have to take people into a 579 different piece of property. 580 And the difficulty with that is, is you can't park in the 581 drive aisle so it presents another Variance. 582 So, that's not going to be done here. 583 And the staff, their view was it really wasn't necessary. 584 They're very comfortable that the modification, the lowering of the 585 parking here is going to be more than adequate. 586 I think really what turned, I mean there was a lot of study 587 done of the Inns of Virginia currently and their other facilities 588 that aren't far away in urban areas and those parking ratios there 589 were like 55 percent, 54 percent. So that was very persuasive. 590 But what really was persuasive was the actual experience at 591 the Hilton Garden Inn. This was the same issue there, which is 592 how's that going to work? 593 And actually what's happening is, is that that parking 594 facility, even at peak periods is barely approaching 50 percent. 595 And in my experience, and you may have this too in Fairfax, 596 a lot of these hotels, people are coming, multiple people per car, 597 and then with the shuttle, it's really minimizing the number of cars 598 that people are bringing. 599 So that really turned the corner. 600 But that last condition is not going to be part of this. 601 MR. KRASNER: And so the other conditions, again, they're 602 -- I'm not going to say they're unusual, but some of the other very 603 specific conditions, like the off-site planting and the perpetual 604 maintenance of those off-site plantings at Lee Square, again, I did 605 observe some of the Planning Commission hearings and I'll commend the 606 Planning Commission and the public for it seemed like a productive 607 process and you and your client working through some of these issues 608 and I think these conditions reflect a pretty comprehensive set of 609 conditions. 610 So again, you're in agreement with all of that, because 611 again, those are not typically things included with a Variance 612 application but if you're in agreement with those, then I'd feel more 613 comfortable tacking these on. 614 But I know these are very specific points of concern that 615 were raised at the Planning Commission. 616 So again, just to confirm on the record here: You're in 617 complete agreement with all of this. 618 MR. LASSO: And I confirm that. 619 MR. KRASNER: Okay. 620 MR. LASSO: Thank you very much. 621 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Okay. Is there any discussion among the 622 Board on this? 623 MR. KRASNER: I will say when I first heard this 624 application, I initially thought it would be difficult. I was a 625 little skeptical of the request. Any time you hear about parking in 626 a city like Falls Church where parking is at a premium, obviously it 627 raises eyebrows. It did to me. 628 Again, some of the work that was done to analyze the City's 629 Ordinance and whether or not that parking was absolutely needed and 630 was there a way to make it work with a reduced number in order to 631 perhaps again get some benefits. I think a parking reduction is 632 something that can be a good thing if in return you're getting a 633 better design or additional landscaping or some other things. Or 634 improvements to a site that perhaps you don't have now. 635 So again, I was initially skeptical but as I began to read 636 into the issues, I was more willing to consider reducing the parking 637 on a use like this. 638 As to the other Variances, again, it's an older site and 639 the existing building is also fairly close to the property line. 640 They're not going closer than that. 641 Same goes with the parking lot, physically speaking. And 642 then right now there's no screening at all at the rear. So again, 643 there's some benefit, there's some mitigation that's been proposed 644 that I believe helps to balance out the negative impact. 645 Finally, I'll just say that again, I'll commend the 646 Planning Commission Board for doing a lot of the heavy lifting on 647 this. These conditions are very comprehensive and I think in my 648 opinion they do mitigate the impacts. 649 The testimony by Mr. Beach, who's the property owner who 650 probably has the most at stake as far as any negative impacts from 651 the parking, his support tonight goes a long way with me. 652 So again, I'll give the Planning Commission credit for 653 somebody's brokering the support of the neighbors on some of these 654 issues. 655 So again, based on the conditions that are here, I'm 656 inclined to support the request. 657 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Yeah, I would just say having heard from 658 Mr. Beach as the most affected, adjacent property owner, and then the 659 process by which Winter Hill and Lee Square went through actually 660 working with them on what this would look like, I think that process 661 sounds like it was very effective and certainly is. 662 Moving from there, any other comments? 663 MR. HOWELL: I take the same view. When I first saw this, 664 it seemed to me that some very congested things were happening on the 665 site. But I had the impression that if I were in these houses which 666 are basically dominated by fairly large buildings, I would have some 667 concerns and reservations. 668 But I would agree entirely that it seems that the process 669 of consultation has been adequate to the point that there's not been 670 people taking serious issue with this development, either from the 671 residential or from the commercial neighbors. 672 And in fact, Mr. Beach's comments from a very close 673 commercial site reinforce that impression that I now have, that this 674 has not only been well designed for the space, but all those who 675 might have been affected seem to have had an opportunity to be fully 676 consulted. 677 So I'm inclined to grant this. 678 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Okay. Thank you. 679 No other comments from the Board? 680 (No response.) 681 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: I will say that we took the present, we 682 sort of discussed these together and as we look at the memo from the 683 Planning Commission, they also moved to approve them together. And 684 so I would say that that's what we would do here in terms of a motion 685 in regard to these two Variance applications, one for parking and one 686 for setbacks, so I think we would be able to handle them with one 687 motion as the Planning Commission conditions are related to both. 688 So with that said, I'll ask the Board if anyone would like 689 to make a motion. 690 MR. KRASNER: I'll give it a go. 691 I'd also just note for the record that the Planning 692 Commission had a large number of speakers came out in opposition and 693 I think it is telling that tonight we have not seen any speakers who 694 came out in opposition. So I'll also note that for the record as a 695 sign of coming together, the applicant and the community, during the 696 Planning Commission process before it got to us. 697 With that, I'll make a motion that -- I'll make a motion to 698 approve -- I'll do them together and then I'll try to make some 699 findings for each one. 700 I'll make a motion that we approve Variance Application 701 V1573-15 by Tim Luwis to Section 48-1004 to allow a 30 percent 702 reduction in the required parking spaces on the premises known as 419 703 West Broad Street and 421 West Broad Street, RPC #52-302-059, 704 52-302-056. 705 And also approve Variance Application V1574-15 by Tim Luwis 706 to Variance Section 48-1101 and Section 48-939 to allow the rear yard 707 parking setback of 10 feet instead of 20 on the southern property 708 line and side yard setback of 10 feet instead of 20 on the western 709 property line. 710 To be clear, it's the parking. Is it the parking? The 711 building is a 10 foot setback instead of 20 off the line and the 712 parking is both a 10 foot setback off the rear and off the side? 713 MR. BOYLE: I think it would be simpler just to refer to it 714 as a setback. It's neither parking or the building would be allowed. 715 So by describing it as a -- 716 MR. KRASNER: I'll just read it as advertised. I don't 717 want to rock the boat here. 718 MR. BOYLE: Exactly. 719 MR. KRASNER: Rear yard setback of 10 feet instead of 20 on 720 the southern property line and side yard setback of 10 feet instead 721 of 20 feet on the western property line abutting RN multifamily 722 zoned, construction of a new hotel on the same premises that I 723 referred to. 724 And again, as far as findings go, I would say in this case 725 the strict application of the Ordinance would prohibit adequate 726 utilization of property to the extent that providing the full amount 727 of parking would cut down on the amount of area available for 728 landscaping along the rear and that in and of itself is a detriment. 729 I would also say that these properties are older properties 730 developed before -- originally developed before the adoption of the 731 Ordinance and so to some degree I wouldn't say it's a hardship. I 732 would say the Ordinance is restricting the utilization of the 733 property. 734 As far as the findings required by State Code, as far as we 735 know, the interest for which the Variance was being requested was 736 acquired in good faith, with the adoption of the conditions dated 737 December 17, 2015, memo, with the adoption of those conditions I feel 738 that these Variances will not have a substantial detriment to 739 adjacent and nearby properties; conditions are not of a general or 740 recurring nature. Granting the Variance does not result in a use 741 otherwise permitted here, and the relief that's sought is not 742 available through any other means other than by a Variance. 743 So again, with the adoption of the conditions that we've 744 just gone through in detail, I feel that any impacts are mitigated 745 and the applicants met the threshold to grant the Variance. 746 And that's my motion. 747 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Thank you. 748 Is there a second? 749 MR. HOWELL: Second. 750 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Okay. Roll call vote. 751 RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Jones. 752 MR. JONES: Yes. 753 RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Howell. 754 MR. HOWELL: Yes. 755 RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Krasner. 756 MR. KRASNER: Yes. 757 RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Williamson. 758 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Yes. 759 760 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Congratulations. You've been granted 761 the Variances that you requested this evening. Good luck with your 762 project. 763 And I also want to say thank you to the members of the 764 public that came this evening and spoke on this and were part of the 765 process that we've heard about here this evening. 766 767 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 768 Approval of the November 12, 2015, meeting minutes 769 770 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Okay. Moving onto the rest of the agenda, 771 Item 5, we have the approval of the November 12, 2015, meeting 772 minutes. 773 I understand we do not have those. They were only made 774 available to the Board this evening so we will handle that, the 775 e-mail from Mr. Boyle. 776 777 6. OTHER BUSINESS: 778 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: So with that, is there any Other 779 Business? 780 MR. BOYLE: If the Board hasn't already, we need to start 781 considering dates for 2016. If you'd like, I can double check the 782 calender versus any holidays there may be. Occasionally this Board 783 runs into holidays, particular in the fall. So I'll prepare a 784 potential calender for next year and submit that to the Board. 785 But if you could, consider your own personal schedules. If 786 you already know of any conflicts in the coming year, let us know. 787 And then that will be an agenda item for January. 788 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: If you can circulate those dates in 789 advance, that would be good. 790 Then also, we will do the Rules of Procedure, adopt those 791 in January, so make sure those are part of the Agenda. 792 MR. BOYLE: That's a good question. I'm not confident the 793 residential Variance is going to go. So if there's no agenda, would 794 the Board like to meet to elect officers and do the calender 795 confirmation and the Rules of Procedure without any Agenda items? 796 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: I think we should, especially because of 797 the election of officers and we have two sets worth of minutes, the 798 officers, and the Rules of Procedure. I certainly wouldn't go to any 799 meeting to review a Variance having already addressed that. 800 MR. BOYLE: Okay. Don't anticipate an Agenda other than 801 that business and that meeting will be January 14th. 802 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Okay. Any Other Business? 803 (No response.) 804 805 7. OLD BUSINESS 806 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Okay. There is no Old Business. 807 808 8. ADJOURNMENT 809 So, is there a motion to adjourn? 810 MR. KRASNER: So moved. 811 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Is there a second? 812 MR. HOWELL: Second. 813 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Roll call vote. 814 RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Williamson. 815 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Yes. 816 RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Krasner. 817 MR. KRASNER: Yes. 818 RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Howell. 819 MR. HOWELL: Yes. 820 RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Jones. 821 MR. JONES: Yes. 822 823 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: This meeting of the Board of Zoning 824 Appeals of December 17th, 2015, is adjourned. Thank you.