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 September 14, 2017 6 7:30 p.m. 7 8 1. CALL TO ORDER 9 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: I would like to call to order 10 the meeting of the Board of Zoning Appeals for September 11 14, 2017. 12 Roll call. 13 14 2. ROLL CALL 15 RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Williamson. 16 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Here. 17 RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Litkenhous. 18 Not present. 19 Mr. Calabrese is not here. 20 Mr. Jones. 21 Not present. 22 Mr. Sprouse. 23 MR. SPROUSE: Here. 24 RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Misleh. 25 MR. MISLEH: Here. 26 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Approval of Minutes, what 27 I'm going to do is move the Approval of Minutes further 28 back in the Agenda after Other Business so we can 29 proceed with the New Business items that we have. 30 MR. BOYLE: Mr. Chair, if I could, we have an 31 application by residents and then the first item on the 32 Agenda under New Business is the City's application. I 33 request that you consider reversing those. 34 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: I would. I think that 35 makes a lot of sense to do. 36 37 4. OLD BUSINESS 38 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: And we don't have any other 39 Old Business which would be the next item. 40 MR. BOYLE: No, sir. 41 42 5. PETITIONS 43 CHAIRMAN WILLIAMSON: And we have no petitions 44 here. I see no petitions. 45 46 6. NEW BUSINESS 47 a. Variance application V1593-17 by Rax Oum, 48 owner and applicant for a variance to Section 49 48-1102(h)(1) to allow a front yard fence height of 6 50 feet instead of 4 feet, on premises known as 200 South 51 Cherry Street, RPC #53-114-136 of the Falls Church Real 52 Property Records, zoned R-1A, Low Density Residential. 53 54 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: All right. So that will 55 bring us to New Business, and as Mr. Boyle just pointed 56 out, we're going to switch the order of the New Business 57 and move to Variance Application V1593-17 by Rax Oum, 58 owner and applicant, for a variance to Section 59 48-1102(h)(1) to allow a front yard fence height of 6 60 feet instead of 4 feet for the premises known as 200 61 Cherry Street, RPC #53-114-136 of the Falls Church Real 62 Property Records, zoned R-1A, Low Density Residential. 63 If I could ask -- you're signing in. Thank 64 you very much. 65 And if you're planning to speak, if you could 66 also sign in as well. 67 I need you sworn in so if you would please 68 raise your right hand to be sworn. 69 (Witnesses sworn.) 70 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: And one thing I do want to 71 point out before we begin is that presently there are 72 only three members here and in order for your Variance 73 Application to be approved, to receive the Variance, you 74 would need all three of us to vote in the affirmative. 75 So you're also able to defer. Based on that, 76 you can defer until our next regularly-scheduled meeting 77 next month. We actually have a special meeting next 78 week. A busy calendar. 79 So anyway, would you like to proceed tonight 80 or would you like to defer to one of those days? 81 MR. OUM: We'll do it. 82 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Go ahead and proceed? 83 Okay. 84 Before we hear from the applicant, I'd just 85 like to get a quick report from staff. 86 MR. BOYLE: Thank you, Mr. Chair. 87 This is a pretty straightforward issue with 88 the Code and what it allows in terms of maximum fence 89 heights. Unusual item, I think, for the Board but this 90 particular property is a little unusual in its 91 configuration and placement in one of our busier areas 92 of town. It's surrounded by a lot of commercial 93 property on Hillwood and South Cherry. 94 The Code simply limits fences to no taller 95 than 7 feet in a side and a rear yard and 4 feet in a 96 front yard. With a corner lot, as we have here, the 97 Board will recall with other applications, corner lots 98 have two front yards and so the options for a fence 99 height here are simply 6 feet around the perimeter 100 that's not in a front and then 4 feet around the street 101 sides and also 30 feet into the property for the front 102 yard setback. 103 So the yard that we're using to define the 104 maximum fence height is actually defined by the setbacks 105 that we routinely discuss. 106 On this particular property, I think you have 107 a plat in your paperwork, it's not a complete rectangle. 108 It's missing an angle on the Hillwood side. So when you 109 apply those 30 foot setbacks onto this property, a great 110 portion of this property is restricted to just the 4 111 foot fence height. 112 This is an area of Code that staff has no 113 discretion in approving this and so for that reason, we 114 advised them to seek the variance for fence height. 115 MR. MISLEH: So for Code purposes, this is 116 considered the front yard? 117 MR. BOYLE: Yes. Maybe it would help to -- 118 MR. OUM: But technically it's the back yard. 119 MS. OUM: Right, but because it's a corner lot 120 it's part of the front. 121 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Oh, I see. So the 122 frontage. 123 MR. BOYLE: I'll pass this out just so they 124 can see what the yards are. 125 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Yes. I think I see. 126 MR. MISLEH: So does the house front on South 127 Cherry Street? 128 MR. OUM: That's right, South Cherry Street. 129 MS. OUM: Correct. 130 MR. OUM: And the fence would just be along 131 Hillwood. 132 MS. OUM: The Hillwood side. 133 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: So, just confirming, 134 clarifying, we have to view this as being a variance for 135 the 4 foot. 136 MR. BOYLE: Right. Any portion of the fence 137 within 30 feet of the front property lines can't be any 138 taller than 4 feet. 139 On the handout I just gave you, we're looking 140 at some other questions, the green line running around 141 the perimeter, that's essentially the perimeter that 142 would be limited to 4 feet. And then the rest of the 143 property running around the back and coming back out 144 towards Hillwood, that could be 6 feet. So the green 145 line on that handout is what would be restricted by Code 146 to 4 feet. 147 In speaking with the applicants tonight 148 though, I believe they actually are envisioning 149 replacing a fence that's already on the property. It's 150 been there for many years. And they would not be using 151 that perimeter. 152 I'll defer to them to describe exactly what 153 they're going to be replacing. 154 So it's not as -- it's not occupying the 155 limits of the property as depicted on the handout there. 156 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Okay. Why don't we hear 157 from the applicants. If you would go ahead with your 158 presentation. 159 MR. OUM: I'm Rax, by the way. This is my 160 wife, Hyun. 161 MS. OUM: Hi. 162 MR. OUM: And currently there is actually a 163 chain link fence already installed there. The house has 164 been in our family for many years. I grew up in there. 165 The fence is probably 30 years old. 166 And then I think on my statement that I put 167 down that it was a 5 foot chain link fence currently. 168 But then it's a bit taller than me and I'm about five 169 eight, roughly. So I'm figuring it's close to 6 feet 170 already as is. 171 And we're planning to have a board-on-board 172 western red cedar fence installed. 173 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Anything else? Anything 174 else you'd like to add? 175 MS. OUM: The primary reason why we want to 176 have, applied for this variance is, my husband having 177 grown up in this house and we're renovating and moving 178 in and living with our parents now and we have two 179 children, there is actually no privacy. So anything we 180 do in the back yard, it's a busy street, Hillwood 181 Avenue, there being a stop light right there, people 182 just, red light, they would just stare. Cars honk. 183 And within the curb and the fence distance, 184 it's a little uncomfortable, where people walking by 185 would talk to our children in a very uncomfortable 186 distance. So we've had a few encounters like that so we 187 definitely wanted to apply for this variance. 188 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Okay. 189 MR. MISLEH: So this is going to go to 4 feet? 190 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Is your question, 191 everything in yellow on this map -- 192 MS. OUM: That's Hillwood, right? 193 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Yes, this is Hillwood. 194 MR. OUM: It's not going to be -- it would be 195 towards where the -- I think there's a dark line towards 196 the side of the house, toward the front. 197 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Okay. 198 MR. MISLEH: You reference A and B on the plat 199 and it says below. You're requesting the increase from 200 Point A to B. Is that correct? 201 MR. OUM: That's correct. 202 MR. MISLEH: Okay. So everything from B 203 around to Cherry Street. 204 MR. OUM: Would actually be nothing. 205 MR. MISLEH: Four feet -- oh, there will be no 206 fence. 207 MS. OUM: Correct. 208 MR. OUM: There's actually no fence currently. 209 MR. MISLEH: So you're only planning to put 210 the fence from A to B. 211 MR. SPROUSE: It's almost from the setback. 212 MR. OUM: We'll remove the chain link fence 213 but then from A to B is where we'd like to have the 214 higher -- 215 MS. OUM: The variance. 216 MR. OUM: -- the height. Currently the chain 217 link fence runs from B all the way down to the other 218 side of the house. 219 MR. MISLEH: I understand. 220 MR. SPROUSE: Are you all going to maintain 221 the chain link fence? 222 MR. OUM: I'm sorry? 223 MR. SPROUSE: Are you all maintaining the 224 chain link fence or are you going to replace it? 225 MR. OUM: We're going to replace it. It's 226 going to be a board-on-board Western red cedar fence. 227 MS. OUM: Yes. 228 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: So it's going to match the 229 6 foot fence you're planning to build. 230 MR. OUM: We're replacing the chain link fence 231 with that, yeah. 232 MS. OUM: Right. 233 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: So it's just at a lower 234 height. 235 MR. OUM: It's about the same I would say. 236 MR. BOYLE: Replacing the current chain link 237 with a similar sized board-on-board. 238 MR. OUM: Yeah. 239 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: And a similar type of 240 fence. The 4 foot high fence that's board-on-board will 241 be -- it sounds like it will be the same style of fence 242 as the 6 foot? They're both board-on-board? 243 MR. OUM: Yeah. We're not installing a 4 foot 244 fence at all but then the 6 foot fence would be 245 board-on-board. 246 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: So there will only be one 247 fence; it's going to be the 6 foot fence. 248 MR. OUM: Exactly. 249 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Okay. No 4 foot tall. 250 MR. OUM: No 4 foot fence. 251 MR. MISLEH: And only from A to B. 252 MR. OUM: It would be from B to the opposite 253 side of the house. 254 MR. MISLEH: Got it. Along the red line. 255 Only to the end of the red line. 256 MR. OUM: Exactly. Currently there's no fence 257 along the front side on Cherry Street and we're not 258 planning on installing anything there. 259 MR. MISLEH: Okay. So what you consider the 260 front of the house which fronts the Cherry Street, 261 you're not requesting that. Just what you're 262 considering -- 263 MR. OUM: Our back yard. 264 MR. MISLEH: Which fronts Hillwood. 265 MR. OUM: Right. Exactly. 266 MS. OUM: Which is where the existing fence line 267 currently exists. 268 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: I'm sorry. Can I clarify 269 something? 270 MS. OUM: I know, it's a little -- 271 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: I thought I had it and 272 maybe I do. Where are you requesting? 273 MR. OUM: From B to back side of the house. 274 That's where the current fence actually is right now. 275 But then there's no fence along the front. 276 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: I see. So from A to B is 277 where you need the variance -- 278 MR. OUM: Exactly. 279 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: But the fence will go from 280 all the way around. 281 MR. OUM: Exactly. 282 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: I got you. Thanks. 283 MR. SPROUSE: So, John, I'm just reading in 284 the Code, 48-1103, Section 2 there, it says 7 feet. So 285 I just want to make sure that we're not moving from a 7 286 foot to a 4 foot. I just want to be clear because the 287 variance request is for 6 foot to a 4 foot. 288 MR. BOYLE: Yes, you're going to -- the fence 289 you're going to install is 6 feet, correct? 290 MR. OUM: That's what we're planning, yes. 291 MR. BOYLE: And there's the existing fence is 292 approximately 6 feet high. 293 A lot of the materials that the Board has is 294 defining where the limits of a fence could go. They're 295 actually replacing a fence that's pulled much further on 296 to the property. It's not going to be on the front off 297 of Cherry; it's wrapping tightly around the house. 298 So tightly around the house is a current 6 299 foot chain link. They're going to replace that with 6 300 foot board-on-board. 301 For staff's role, anytime a fence comes down, 302 the new one has to meet Code. Portions of that current 303 fence sit in the front yard because of the double 304 frontages. And so the portions that are in the front 305 yard could only be approved for 4 without a variance. 306 So the existing 6 foot chain link tightly 307 around the house is going to be replaced with a 6 foot 308 board-on-board. 309 MR. MISLEH: John, there's no question on 310 where the fence can be located in the yard as it 311 pertains to the public access or public thoroughfare. 312 MR. BOYLE: The only concern we had initially 313 is we thought the first plan was to take it out to the 314 corner itself and it would have presented a vision 315 obstruction at the intersection there. 316 But when we saw where the existing chain link 317 is, which is tightly around the house, it will not 318 create a vision obstruction or encroach on the 319 right-of-way. 320 MR. MISLEH: So what we're being asked to 321 approve is a fence that's going in the exact location of 322 the existing fence. 323 MR. BOYLE: Yes. And portions of that are 324 within 30 feet of the street frontage. So that's where 325 the height would have to drop down. 326 The fence that's there now, within 30 feet of 327 the street frontage, is already at 6 feet. They just 328 need to replace that with a privacy fence. 329 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Okay. Anything you'd like 330 to add? 331 MR. OUM: I'd like to add there are security 332 reasons for it too. We've had multiple things stolen on 333 our property. People just come in. 334 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: I'm sorry to hear that. 335 MR. OUM: One thing that's been, my car that's 336 parked in the driveway, that's on the front side of the 337 house though. But then on the back side, we've had a 338 shed there with a moped in it. That was stolen. And it 339 was literally chained down to the ground. They just 340 sawed through it. 341 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Wow. That's terrible. 342 MS. OUM: The thing is the fact that it's so 343 visible, it being a busy intersection, very visible if 344 you're walking or driving. I mean, that's the price we 345 pay for a corner lot but we love it. 346 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Right. 347 Is there anyone here this evening that would 348 like to speak on this matter? 349 (No response.) 350 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: There is not. 351 Are there any from the Board, any further 352 questions for the applicant or for staff? 353 MR. MISLEH: I don't have any questions. 354 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Okay. We'll close this 355 matter to any further comments and then see what the 356 Board would like to do. 357 I, for one, would like to say it seems like an 358 unusual situation and it's also a situation where we're 359 replacing a -- it's a different style of fence but it's 360 a very similar height and we've heard testimony 361 regarding the safety issues. And even heard testimony 362 that things have been stolen and there's been child 363 safety issues. So those things certainly have had an 364 impression on me. 365 MR. MISLEH: I agree. I think the improvement 366 in the quality of fence and the aesthetic to the City 367 will be an improvement, especially since they're the 368 same height. 369 I'm also familiar with some of the crime 370 challenges that we've experienced in the City, in that 371 part of the City, and so I think that I can completely 372 understand the request. 373 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Would anyone care to make a 374 motion in this matter then? 375 MR. SPROUSE: Sure. I'll make a motion. Make 376 a motion to approve Variance Application V1593-17 377 allowing a front yard fence of 6 feet on the demarcated 378 Point A to B section facing Hillwood Avenue that was 379 provided by the owners of the property. 380 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Is there a second? 381 MR. MISLEH: I second that motion. 382 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Roll call vote. 383 RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Williamson. 384 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Yes. 385 RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Sprouse. 386 MR. SPROUSE: Yes. 387 RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Misleh. 388 MR. MISLEH: Yes. 389 RECORDING SECRETARY: Thank you. 390 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Congratulations. Your 391 variance application is approved. Good luck with your 392 project. 393 MS. OUM: Thank you so much. 394 395 b. Variance application V1592-17 by F. Wyatt 396 Shields, City Manager, on behalf of the City of Falls 397 Church, applicant, for a variance to Section 48-933 to 398 allow (1) the stacking of parking spaces within a 399 parking structure; (2) parking spaces of less than nine 400 (9) feet in stall width and less than eighteen (18) feet 401 in stall length; (3) two-way drive aisles of less than 402 twenty-three (23) feet in width; and to Section 48-934 403 to omit a loading zone parking space as part of an 404 expansion and renovation to premises known as Falls 405 Church City Hall, 300 Park Avenue, RPC #51-112-001 of 406 the Falls Church Real Property Records, zoned OD, 407 Official Design. 408 409 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: We'll move on to the next 410 order of New Business which is Variance Application 411 V1592-17 by F. Wyatt Shields, City Manager on behalf of 412 the City of Falls Church, applicant, for a variance to 413 Section 48-933 to allow (1), the stacking of parking 414 spaces within a parking structure, (2), parking spaces 415 of less than 9 feet in stall width and less than 18 feet 416 in stall length; two-way drive aisles of less than 23 417 feet in width; and to Section 48-934, to omit a loading 418 zone parking space as part of an expansion and 419 renovation to the premises known as Falls Church City 420 Hall, 300 Park Avenue, RPC 51-112-001 of the Falls 421 Church Real Property records, zoned OD, Official Design. 422 And so, if you would please rise and raise 423 your right hand to be sworn. 424 (Witness sworn.) 425 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: And you're going to sign 426 in. If you can please state your name. 427 MR. WHITFIELD: Mike Whitfield. I'm the 428 director of public works here in the City. 429 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: We're going to get a quick 430 report from staff. But you're authorized by the City to 431 speak on this matter, Mr. Shields is not present this 432 evening. 433 MR. WHITFIELD: Right. 434 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: If we can get a report from 435 staff before we hear from Mike. 436 MR. BOYLE: Thank you, Mr. Chair. 437 This involves an effort by the City to bring 438 portions of the current City Hall campus up to Code and 439 to address some issues that the City is being directed 440 to correct with regard to safety issues around the 441 exchange of prisoners that come in and out of the 442 building for Court and in custody with the police 443 department. 444 There's certain standards that the State 445 directs local and county municipalities, governments, 446 law enforcement agencies in how they handle prisoner 447 transport and custody and what have you. 448 A study of the City Hall complex addressed a 449 number of urgent issues on those topics and this plan is 450 intended to address those safety concerns and bring the 451 facilities up to date to current standards; but while 452 that was being done, to also try to address some of the 453 quirkiness of City Hall. 454 Anyone that works in City Hall is already very 455 well accustomed to escorting people around the building 456 to find their destination and this plan will address 457 some of those concerns about functionality of the 458 passing between the two sides of the building and some 459 updates to the building. 460 And as that conversation evolved, Mike's team 461 in DPW was given the challenge to take the lead with the 462 Deputy Assistant City Manager to present a number of 463 options publicly and come up with a plan that would fix 464 the most urgent issues that the site has and identify 465 what could be included in future projects. 466 So as part of this discussion, a significant 467 amount of staff time, both in Mike's office and in 468 Planning and the City Manager's Office, has been devoted 469 to this and it's culminating in this plan that has 470 identified some need for relief from the Code to 471 facilitate this plan being actually constructed. And I 472 think they're still holding to a pretty quick timeline 473 to move forward with this. 474 Just like with any other applicant that comes 475 in with plans, plans were submitted for internal staff 476 review, items were identified that needed to be 477 addressed, either through waivers or variances, and then 478 like any other site plan issue, it goes to the Planning 479 Commission and if there's variances involved, the 480 Planning Commission will make a finding, make a 481 recommendation and may include conditions. 482 The Planning Commission has done that and has 483 presented its findings to the Board for your 484 consideration. 485 And I think if the Board would agree, rather 486 than have the City Engineer make a formal presentation 487 like you see, the issues at hand here I think lend 488 themselves much more to just a conversation about what 489 the Board may have questions on based on the materials 490 that you received for this meeting. 491 So rather than do a formal presentation and 492 walk through all the different points, I've asked Mike 493 to present a few points and then open it up to 494 discussion a littler earlier than we usually do and see 495 if that doesn't help coalesce what everyone agrees is 496 kind of a complex site, complex issues, with a tight 497 timeline and handle it in that manner as opposed to just 498 sitting through a presentation of the facts. 499 And so with that, I think the next appropriate 500 step would be if Akida would summarize what the Planning 501 Commission did and the motion that they made, the 502 recommendation they made to this Board. I think that 503 would be a good next step and then we'll defer to Mr. 504 Whitfield for his presentation. 505 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Okay. 506 MS. ROUZI: So the Variance Application was 507 presented to the Planning Commission on September 5th 508 and I will read their motion into record now. 509 Ms. Teates moved and Mr. Krasner seconded that 510 the Planning Commission recommends approval to the Board 511 of Zoning Appeals for Variance Application V1592-17 and 512 that the Planning Commission grants approval of the Site 513 Plan Amendment Application 2017-0658, contingent on 514 approval of the Variance Application by the Board of 515 Zoning Appeals, subject to the following conditions: 516 Sidewalk near the east corner of the building shall be 517 relocated to curve away from tree 139, closer towards 518 the existing curb in order to save the existing oak 519 tree; all required hose bibs shall be shown on the site 520 plan and installed in accordance with comments from the 521 City Arborist; applicant shall work with the City 522 Arborist on the appropriate selection of landscaping for 523 the proposed green roof above the garage; applicant 524 shall implement all aspects of the Site Plan dated 525 August 14, 2017, that responses and comments be dated 526 July 28, 2017, and applicant shall make reasonable 527 efforts to implement all items noted on the Site Plan 528 dated August 14, 2017, as future CIP and other future 529 project efforts. 530 The motion passed 6 to 1, Mr. John was absent. 531 And that concludes the motion that was taken 532 on September 5th. 533 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Okay. Those were 534 conditions that the Planning Commission wanted to -- 535 MS. ROUZI: Those were conditions of the Site 536 Plan Amendment, not the Variance. 537 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Right. 538 MS. ROUZI: So there were two items in front 539 of the Planning Commission that night. It was the 540 Variance Application and the Site Plan Amendment which 541 traveled parallel on this project. 542 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Would these -- I'm trying 543 to determine if these are conditions -- if we chose to 544 approve the Variance, we could just approve the 545 Variance. 546 MS. ROUZI: Yes. 547 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Or we could see which of 548 these conditions apply to the Variance that's being 549 requested tonight. 550 MR. BOYLE: That's it exactly, Mr. Chair. In 551 the past we have had some conditions that the Planning 552 Commission has imposed that had a parallel impact on 553 whether or not the Variance could be approved. I don't 554 think too many of these are going to impact your 555 discussion. So just consider them, as Akida said, the 556 Site Plan process and the Variance process are moving in 557 parallel paths. 558 So perhaps make your decision independently of 559 what the Planning Commission suggested. 560 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Or we could decide to have 561 our own conditions. 562 MR. BOYLE: Yes. 563 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Okay. Thank you very much. 564 Well, I think as Mr. Boyle said, let's get 565 right to it with the Q and A. 566 MR. BOYLE: I think we should offer the 567 continuance. 568 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Yes, I did want to first 569 offer, as you heard earlier with the previous applicant, 570 there's only three of us here this evening. There is a 571 quorum, however you need all three of us with the 572 Variance Application to pass. 573 So you could have a continuance. We have a 574 Special Meeting next week where I understand this could 575 be heard, or to our regular scheduled meeting next 576 month, or would you like to proceed? 577 MR. WHITFIELD: I'd like to proceed. 578 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Okay. Thank you. 579 Anything you'd like to say before we jump into 580 the Q and A, Mr. Whitfield? 581 MR. WHITFIELD: Well, I think John did a real 582 good summary of the project itself. I think everybody 583 is aware of this project. It is a safety improvement 584 project. It is sorely needed, as everyone knows. 585 So, some of the things that we're trying to 586 address here is we wanted to get this project done as 587 quickly as possible and once we do that then we can 588 address some of the other issues at hand. 589 So right now what we're trying to do is we're 590 trying to get this project implemented. Some of the 591 things that I know that are on the table right now is 592 obviously the parking. We all deal with this every day. 593 Some of the problems with the parking now is, 594 yes, they are substandard. Those are things that we've 595 been dealing with 60 plus years I believe, since the 596 City Hall has been here. It doesn't really seem to be 597 too big of an issue right now. Everybody seems to 598 maneuver in and out of the parking lot. So I don't see 599 that as an issue, even after we complete this project. 600 So we're not actually adding more staff. We're not 601 having a bigger impact on the actual building itself. 602 And I guess the other thing is loading zones. 603 I think that was one of the other Variances that we had. 604 We really don't have any tractor-trailer deliveries, 605 things like that. We don't have big trucks. They're 606 very small, single unit trucks, so I don't think there's 607 going to be an issue there. 608 And I guess the third thing is the tandem 609 spaces. All these spaces will occur inside the parking 610 garage. And, of course, part of the safety improvement 611 is so we can get the police and the sheriff's office and 612 all of the court services that deal with transfer of 613 prisoners inside a secured area. In order to do that, 614 we have to do tandem parking. 615 So the tandem parking is a little bit 616 different than you would see in other areas. Even in 617 the City where all of these vehicles are owned by the 618 City, they're actually controlled by the City, they're 619 going to have these all keyed, so there's not going to 620 be a problem with how do you get in and out with one 621 vehicle if it's blocking the other. 622 So those are also not going to be accessible. 623 There is no parking for the public in this parking 624 garage, so this is strictly for law enforcement. 625 So with that, hopefully I think we've 626 addressed almost all of the concerns for everyone. And 627 this project has been on the books I think for about ten 628 years, is what Cindy tells me, so. 629 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Okay. So we have a, sort 630 of a parking structure that would be built as part of 631 this overall plan. And the parking structure would only 632 be accessible by City vehicles. 633 MR. WHITFIELD: Yes, law enforcement. 634 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: City law enforcement 635 vehicles. 636 Okay. But the stacking, what do you mean when 637 you say "stacking"? 638 MR. WHITFIELD: Tandem, one car pulls in and 639 then one pulls in behind him. 640 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Okay. So one blocks the 641 other one in. 642 MR. WHITFIELD: Correct. 643 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Okay. Kind of like you'd 644 see in a parking lot where they park like that. 645 And then the spaces would be smaller than 646 what's required by Code. And that would be -- let me 647 ask two questions. 648 The spaces that we have now, they're not -- 649 they don't fit Code, is that right? 650 MR. WHITFIELD: Correct. 651 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Are these spaces that law 652 enforcement vehicles park in or are these spaces that 653 the public parks in? 654 MR. WHITFIELD: So the ones that are currently 655 not per Code is a variation around the campus. They're 656 all different sizes. 657 The ones that are proposed will be, especially 658 in the garage, those will be per standard. 659 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: They will be per standard? 660 MR. WHITFIELD: Yes. 661 MS. ROUZI: That's right. 662 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: But this Variance 663 Application would not -- there's nothing in the Site 664 Plan that would contemplate, for existing parking 665 spaces, decreasing the size of them. 666 MR. WHITFIELD: No. 667 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Okay. I may have other 668 questions but it sounds like other members of the Board 669 have some questions. 670 MR. MISLEH: So, are we -- there was more 671 detail in the parking section of the actual Variance 672 Application than what's listed in the New Business 673 section of our Agenda. 674 Are we only being asked to approve the line 675 items that are included in the Agenda? 676 MS. ROUZI: Those should be consistent with 677 what's in the staff report. There's a list of the 678 Variances that are being requested, is that where you 679 are seeing the inconsistency of the items that are not 680 matching up? 681 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: These items, 1, 2, and 3 in 682 the Agenda, on 6 a, 1, 2, 3, is all we're being asked to 683 approve the variance for. There may be other 684 parking-related matters in the Site Plan, but they do 685 not need a variance. 686 MS. ROUZI: That's right. 687 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Or there's no variance 688 being requested. 689 MR. SPROUSE: I'm not sure if it's clear on 690 this Variance request though. 691 MS. ROUZI: So we're talking about the Agenda 692 description then? 693 So the other parking element is a waiver which 694 is for a reduction of 56 percent and that was approved 695 by the Planning Commission with the Site Plan Amendment 696 because that's a Planning Commission item. 697 What's in front of you for the Variance, I'll 698 read that into the record now: Stacking of parking 699 spaces within the structure, parking spaces of less than 700 9 feet in stall width and less than 18 feet in stall 701 length; two-way drive aisles of less than 23 feet in 702 width, and the fourth is to omit a required loading zone 703 parking spaces. 704 And those are the ones that are in the 705 description in the Agenda, if that answers your 706 question. 707 MR. SPROUSE: And all of those are for the 708 parking structure, right? 709 MS. ROUZI: No. The parking structure is -- 710 the tandem spaces only occurs in the parking structure. 711 The dimensions of their parking spaces do comply with 712 the Code. 713 So the existing parking around the City Hall 714 campus that's outside of that structure and these are 715 existing parkings we're talking about, do not comply 716 with the City standards. Those are the ones we're 717 seeking a Variance tonight. 718 MR. MISLEH: So they're existing at 9 foot by 719 18 foot and we're asking for a Variance. 720 MS. ROUZI: No. They're existing 8 feet -- 721 it's 8 feet 5 inches for width and -- I'm sorry. It's 722 8 feet 5 inches for length and width -- John, do you 723 recall the width? I do have that in here. 724 MR. BOYLE: 18 by 9 is the current. 725 MS. ROUZI: Code. 726 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: I think the thing that's a 727 little confusing is that in this August 11, 2017, memo, 728 Ms. Rouzi, from you, this is the one you wrote -- 729 MS. ROUZI: Yes. 730 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Attachment 3 in what we 731 have, is, on the very last page, the very last section, 732 it says: Staff identified variance and waivers which 733 needed BZA/Planning Commission actions. In particular, 734 number 4, waiver for parking reduction. We're not being 735 asked to approve that this evening. 736 MS. ROUZI: No. Not the parking reduction. 737 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: And why is that? 738 MS. ROUZI: So there was some debate as to 739 whether -- before we sort of contemplated the parking 740 reduction, either it was a variance or a waiver by the 741 Planning Commission, after reviewing the Code a little 742 closely and that was a newer language in the Code, the 743 parking ordinance, that it was a Planning Commission 744 item because this was an office use. So it's pretty 745 clear later on that it was a waiver and not a variance. 746 That was contemplated, whether this would be a variance 747 or a waiver. 748 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Okay. And the same thing 749 for the loading space? 750 MS. ROUZI: Yes, that was also contemplated. 751 So that's why you see the difference in language. 752 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Which is why we're only 753 being asked to, from this memo, Items 1, 2, and 3, 754 variance for parking space dimensions, variance for 755 drive aisle width, variance for stacked parking. 756 MS. ROUZI: And variance for loading space. 757 So that is not a waiver, it's a variance. 758 MR. BOYLE: And two way. 759 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Two-way drive aisles. I 760 see, because here on the Agenda, I guess there's 761 actually a fourth item that maybe is not numbered 762 "four." Two-way drive aisles of less than 23 feet in 763 width, and then there's this last one which would be 764 number four on the Agenda. 765 MR. SPROUSE: Yeah, it's under the different 766 section. 767 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Under the different 768 section. 769 MR. SPROUSE: But my main question really gets 770 down to Part 1, is the parking structure. Part 2 and 771 Part 3 apply to the entire campus? 772 MS. ROUZI: That's right. 773 MR. SPROUSE: And Part 4, the loading zone, 774 that applies to the entire structure? 775 MS. ROUZI: No, the entire campus. 776 MR. SPROUSE: Entire campus. Entire City 777 Hall, right? 778 MS. ROUZI: Yes. 779 MR. SPROUSE: So where are we loading now, if 780 you don't mind my asking? 781 MR. WHITFIELD: It varies. 782 MR. SPROUSE: It varies? 783 MR. WHITFIELD: It does vary, yes. 784 MR. SPROUSE: Where will they be loading once 785 the structure is in the back? 786 MR. WHITFIELD: I don't believe that's going 787 to change. 788 MR. SPROUSE: So it will still vary. You 789 know, you get a side, you see the marked off side 790 section on the right side of City Hall, okay. So none 791 of that will change and there's nothing in the back 792 that's being constructed by the parking structure now 793 that will be affected by the loading, unloading areas. 794 MR. WHITFIELD: No. The actual drive aisle 795 that goes through there now will be maintained, so we'll 796 still have that. 797 MR. SPROUSE: So 2 and 3, what will those 798 parking spaces and stalls look like, and what will the 799 aisles look like? 800 MS. ROUZI: There's a -- I hope it's in the 801 staff report. I'll find it. The existing dimensions 802 are what you're asking for, right? 803 MR. SPROUSE: The existing dimensions and the 804 future dimensions. You've got a waiver on them, so I'm 805 curious. We've got a waiver, I'm not even sure you need 806 to address them. 807 MR. BOYLE: It may help if I can clarify a 808 couple of the steps in our approach. 809 Throughout the campus are parking spaces of 810 various sizes. They've been striped and restriped over 811 the years. Some of those comply with current Code, 812 probably by accident. Others are severely undersized. 813 Then we have the new portions that are going 814 to be added. All of the new spaces that are going to be 815 constructed, either as part of this parking structure or 816 handicapped spaces that are going to be added up front, 817 those will comply with the dimensions. But as ground is 818 disturbed out in front of the building to install those 819 new spaces, the other spaces that were already there are 820 going to be left, either non-conforming or whatever they 821 were. 822 So there's very specific places on the site 823 that are going to be altered and brought up to Code. 824 Everything else maybe immediately adjacent to it, if 825 it's currently non-conforming and not within the scope 826 of this plan, they're not going to be touched. 827 So you have all of the new construction will 828 comply; anything that is not being touched will stay 829 as-is. And we have surveys that show exactly the 830 dimensions of all the spaces on the campus and it's a 831 mixed bag of what complies and what doesn't. 832 But all new construction will be brought up to 833 current Code. The existing ones that do not comply will 834 be dealt with in a future site plan. 835 The question of the waiver, the Code 836 specifically allows the Planning Commission to reduce 837 parking for any site plan and they can do that by 838 accepting a traffic management plan that comes before 839 them; a case can be made that current parking is 840 adequate and so they'll make the current parking correct 841 or they'll approve the presence of the current parking 842 through a waiver, whereas this Board would do it through 843 a variance. 844 So the number of parking spaces has been 845 addressed as part of the site plan through a waiver, but 846 before this Board tonight is simply the dimensions of 847 the spaces that might be touched as part of the site 848 that aren't going to be brought up to current Code and 849 those drive aisles. As they install new handicapped 850 spaces out front, the drive aisles that access them may 851 or may not meet current Code. 852 So what's physically being touched is going to 853 be brought up to Code. What's immediately adjacent 854 needs the variances that are in front of you. 855 MR. SPROUSE: So, just to be clear, so it's 856 not that we're being asked for a variance on the new 857 development but we're being asked for a variance on the 858 things that are out of compliance, already existing, and 859 will continue to exist post-construction. 860 MR. BOYLE: That's true, plus the absence of 861 drive aisles within the new parking structure. 862 MR. SPROUSE: The creation of drive aisles 863 within the parking structure. 864 MR. BOYLE: Yes. The Code right now doesn't 865 anticipate a parking structure without drive aisles. I 866 think in considering what path to take, we felt our Code 867 was written for commercial uses and residential uses, 868 where individuals are going to arrive at a shopping 869 center and expect to have a drive aisle of a certain 870 width and pull into a parking space. 871 Here, with just the police officers who will 872 all have a key that can access any of their vehicles, 873 the Code, I don't think, anticipated that use within a 874 garage, so the staff is making the case that to require 875 the drive aisles within that parking structure is 876 unnecessary or the Code didn't envision that type of 877 use, when you have a captive population using the garage 878 that knows how it functions. 879 So we wouldn't impose stacked parking on the 880 public, but because staff is going to be trained on how 881 that garage is going to be used and not open to the 882 public, we're making the case that that's a reasonable 883 request for relief. 884 MR. SPROUSE: It's common for municipal police 885 departments and so forth. 886 MR. BOYLE: Yes. And we do have very limited 887 stacking. But it's in spaces that are over and above 888 the minimum. Like at the Pearson and a few of our other 889 high rises, where they met the minimums for parking, 890 they asked permission to strike additional spaces that 891 they'd make available to residents. Because we weren't 892 requiring those spaces, we didn't require them to meet 893 the Code for dimensions, what have you. 894 MR. SPROUSE: So if we were to approve this 895 variance and two or three months down the road the plan 896 has to change for one reason or another, would we need 897 to come back before our Board for another variance on 898 parking? Or would this approval carry forward to 899 planner visions? 900 MR. BOYLE: These variances would, I think, 901 still stand alone. For example, if you approve the 902 parking structure without drive aisles, they might be 903 able to reconfigure it but also come back without drive 904 aisles. 905 So the concept of not needing each individual 906 parking space to be accessible through a drive aisle, 907 they might reorganize it slightly but we wouldn't 908 require them to come back. The concept of no drive 909 aisles in the structure would have been established. 910 As the site development unfolds, we're 911 essentially granting the City time to bring the rest of 912 the non-conforming pieces up to Code as the 913 redevelopment of the site takes place over a number of 914 years. 915 So, I think by not -- by granting the 916 variances for the existing non-conforming spaces, when 917 those get redeveloped, staff would just see that they 918 come up to current Code. 919 I don't know if that answers your question or 920 not. 921 MR. SPROUSE: Yes. It's in the affirmative, 922 right? So if we grant the variance, then this carries 923 forward. 924 MR. BOYLE: Yes. 925 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Which, when I look at the 926 wording of one of these, parking spaces of less than 9 927 feet in stall width and less than 18 feet in stall 928 length, nothing would prevent the City from making a 929 publicly accessible parking space, right? What would 930 prevent that, because we're giving the entire site, the 931 entire campus a waiver on parking? 932 MS. ROUZI: There are notes on the Site Plan 933 that was made part of the staff report and also part of 934 the conditions of the Site Plan approval that in future 935 CIP projects or restriping projects across the City Hall 936 campus, they would bring those parking spaces up to Code 937 standards. That's an agreement. 938 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Well, is this the last 939 bullet on the Planning Commission approval where it 940 says: Applicant shall make reasonable efforts in all 941 items noted on the Site Plan, dated August 14 -- 942 MS. ROUZI: So it's the last two. 943 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: -- 2017, as future CIP and 944 other future project efforts. It's the last two. 945 MS. ROUZI: The last two conditions are meant 946 to capture those future commitments to bringing the 947 entire site up to Code compliance. 948 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: So we could, for example, 949 condition this Variance with those final two bullets as 950 they pertain to the items that we're approving in this 951 application. 952 MR. BOYLE: Yes. 953 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: We wouldn't have, you know, 954 jurisdiction over anything you're not seeking the 955 variance but for items that are related here? 956 MR. BOYLE: Yes, sir. And I think it helps to 957 go ahead and state that in the discussion and say, if 958 it's the intention of the Board, say something to the 959 effect that this would be not permission to make 960 additional non-conforming spaces or to worsen the 961 current situation. So take something that's 8 feet wide 962 and make it 7, this is not permission to extend the 963 non-conforming feature but to grant permission for the 964 current non-conforming ones to continue as they are. 965 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: That's probably something I 966 would also be comfortable with because that's very 967 specific to parking. 968 MR. BOYLE: And I think that was the intent of 969 management. We're not looking to just restripe the -- 970 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: No, no, I certainly 971 understand that. I didn't expect that was the case but 972 it would be a pretty open-ended variance, which is 973 unusual for this Board to make. 974 MR. WHITFIELD: Right. Any new designs that 975 we do, they do meet current standards. We don't design 976 anything sub-standard. 977 MR. SPROUSE: So with future revisions to the 978 campus, down the road, 10, 20, 30 years from now, will 979 there be any foreseeable use of the parking structure or 980 space to the parking structure that would include public 981 parking? 982 MR. WHITFIELD: The current structure that 983 we're building now, no. It is not expandable. 984 MR. SPROUSE: Thanks. 985 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Any other questions from 986 the Board?  987 MR. MISLEH: Is it safe to assume that the 988 police and sheriff's department have discussed or have 989 written protocol on how they'll respond to emergencies 990 in the community if their cars are stacked up in the 991 garage? 992 MR. WHITFIELD: I believe their operations 993 other than the patrols when they do leave, one of the 994 discussions that we have had with the police department 995 was we wanted to maintain that exit aisle. We've also 996 had discussions on how we monitor the police leaving. 997 So right now, as you well know, the way that 998 the police are parked out back, they leave in the same 999 manner. They don't have them stacked but if they have 1000 keys for the same vehicle, they just take that first 1001 vehicle, if it's someone from City Hall leaving, if it's 1002 not someone already on the road. 1003 MR. BOYLE: And I think a portion of this 1004 includes, Mike, correct me if I'm wrong, I think the 1005 police will park their personal vehicles in the garage 1006 and take the patrol car out. 1007 So pretty much if there's a scout car on the 1008 campus, the officer is either not on duty or is in the 1009 building doing paper work. All the vehicles that are 1010 on patrol are out on the street. 1011 I believe I understood that when an officer 1012 comes in, he'll pull the scout car out and pull his 1013 personal car in. 1014 MR. WHITFIELD: That is true. That is mainly 1015 for weapons transfer, if they take weapons home. 1016 MR. BOYLE: So we don't envision where there's 1017 an emergency and everyone is running in, it's the 1018 Keystone Cops to get the cars out on the road. They're 1019 already out on the road. 1020 MR. WHITFIELD: It is a secured garage. 1021 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Okay. Any other questions? 1022 (No response.) 1023 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Is there anyone here 1024 tonight who would like to speak on this matter? 1025 (No response.) 1026 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Okay. Seeing none. 1027 MR. SPROUSE: I do have one quick question. 1028 So we've got letters in support over the last 1029 week. Were there any letters expressing any concern to 1030 the plan? 1031 MR. BOYLE: No. There were considerable 1032 public discussions. I think that debate happened in 1033 public forums. But nothing was received by staff. 1034 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Okay. Any other comments 1035 you'd like to make? 1036 (No response.) 1037 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Okay. We'll close this off 1038 to testimony and the Board will make a decision on this. 1039 MR. MISLEH: How will we structure a motion on 1040 this? 1041 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Well, I think one approach 1042 would be, I think Mr. Boyle said it very well, is where 1043 we are approving this Variance with the understanding of 1044 or on the condition that these approvals not worsen, you 1045 know, none of this is intended to worsen the existing 1046 situation with regard to non-compliance. And we 1047 understand that the Site Plan includes the more recent 1048 steps to actually bring non-conforming spaces up to Code 1049 in future efforts. Using some of those words. 1050 What do you think? 1051 MR. MISLEH: Is it possible to approve this 1052 Variance based on the Site Plan or the series of Site 1053 Plans submitted on this particular project? 1054 MR. BOYLE: I think the Board has done 1055 something similar to that in the past. 1056 MR. MISLEH: Or is that too narrow? I mean, 1057 there's got to be a sweet spot, right? 1058 MR. BOYLE: Yes. The Site Plan I think is 1059 evolving a little bit which is a matter for the Planning 1060 Commission. But the concepts won't change. Can the 1061 existing non-conforming pieces stay, yes or no. Can we 1062 do without a loading zone space, yes or no. And can we 1063 set up the garage without access aisles, yes or no. And 1064 then let the Site Plan evolve with the details that it 1065 needs to have worked out yet, but those basic concepts 1066 that are before the Board tonight. 1067 You have referenced site plans in the past as 1068 shown to the Board on site plan dated so and so. 1069 This one, we know, is probably going to be massaged a 1070 little bit yet but the core items raised by these 1071 Variances should not change. 1072 So, Board's discretion, but I think if you 1073 directed your motion strictly at these Variances, that 1074 would be a solid way forward. 1075 MR. MISLEH: Is it possible to table the 1076 Variance Application until a final Site Plan is on the 1077 table or will that hold back the plan? 1078 MR. BOYLE: I think that would hold it back. 1079 MS. ROUZI: Yes. This is as final as it gets. 1080 So, they are due for another Site Plan but that's with 1081 very minor tweaks just to correct some typos, but this 1082 is what the Planning Commission approved as a Site Plan 1083 Amendment. 1084 I think you could marry the Variance approval 1085 with the date of the Site Plan Amendment, the Site Plan 1086 that's in front of you, John, if that's okay. 1087 MR. BOYLE: Yes, that might not be a bad way 1088 forward in case something dramatic happens with the Site 1089 Plan. Have them take effect the same date. 1090 But I still come back to, I think you can view 1091 the requests independently of the Site Plan process, the 1092 request for variances. 1093 MR. MISLEH: And just to be clear here, Number 1094 3 here, the two-way drive aisles of less than 23 feet in 1095 width, is explicitly for the structure or is it for the 1096 entire campus? 1097 MR. BOYLE: That's the entire campus. 1098 For example, when a commercial applicant comes 1099 in with a site plan, that's the opportunity for staff to 1100 bring the entire site up to compliance. This campus has 1101 evolved over the years in kind of a mysterious process 1102 and the records are, frankly, not that good, back into 1103 the 40s and 50s, and so the scope of this work actually 1104 on the outside is very limited. 1105 It's going to have a major positive impact but 1106 we didn't think it was appropriate to say, okay, because 1107 you're doing work here on the back of City Hall and in 1108 the front and inside, that way out on the back 40, all 1109 of those spaces that don't happen to meet our dimensions 1110 should be brought up to current Code. 1111 So there will be some non-conforming spaces 1112 altered and returned to their current dimensions just 1113 out of the logistics of doing the work that they need to 1114 do. But you'll see a mixed bag of improvements where 1115 new things are going in, those will come up to Code, but 1116 all of the site will not be brought up to Code by this 1117 action. 1118 MR. MISLEH: So, in my understanding that we 1119 could read off each of the numbers individually and to 1120 approve or not or do we need to do it all in one motion? 1121 MR. BOYLE: Yes, I think they're separate 1122 items. 1123 MR. MISLEH: The reason I'm asking is because 1124 I think we need to qualify the parking space the way 1125 it's worded, of less than 9 feet, it needs to be 1126 qualified as: "For existing to remain parking spaces 1127 only. All new spaces will meet the current Code." 1128 The same with the drive lanes. "For existing 1129 to remain drive lanes. All new drive lanes created will 1130 meet the current Code." 1131 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: I think the way to do that 1132 is, we'll have a motion to approve, read the Variance as 1133 it's written with, conditioned upon, the following 1134 conditions. So perhaps those two that you just 1135 outlined, basically what they're getting at is not 1136 making a non-compliant situation worse. 1137 MR. MISLEH: True. 1138 MR. SPROUSE: What is the date of that Site 1139 Plan? 1140 MS. ROUZI: Date of the Site Plan is August 1141 14, 2017. 1142 MR. SPROUSE: Is there a recordation number 1143 for that? 1144 MS. ROUZI: The Site Plan number is 2017-0658. 1145 MR. SPROUSE: 2017-0658? 1146 MS. ROUZI: 0658. 1147 MR. SPROUSE: So the conditions would be that 1148 any future development or construction would fall back 1149 into compliance or need to see other variances, right? 1150 MR. MISLEH: What I envision is that as it 1151 pertains to this renovation of City Hall that what we're 1152 being asked to approve pertains to the existing to 1153 remain spaces that are nonconforming but all new spaces 1154 that are created will conform to the current Code. And 1155 this will not affect future development. 1156 But I don't know that we can reference this 1157 Site Plan because if the Site Plan is updated and 1158 there's a new date, then this would have to come back 1159 here, before this Board. 1160 MR. BOYLE: That's a good point. 1161 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Yes, I don't want to 1162 reference it. 1163 MS. ROUZI: I think how you outlined it makes 1164 perfect sense to me. I think if we can just refine that 1165 language and then make that conditions of the approval, 1166 I think that -- if anybody has any comments on it, I 1167 don't know, but that sounds to me like it captures 1168 everyone's concerns here. 1169 MR. MISLEH: And the same thing with the 1170 parking garage. It says: "Within a parking garage." I 1171 think we need to just limit that to the proposed parking 1172 garage for law enforcement and -- how are we defining 1173 that? 1174 MR. WHITFIELD: Law enforcement. It's police, 1175 sheriff, and also court services. 1176 MR. SPROUSE: We can reference the Site Plan 1177 on those sorts of things, right? We can reference the 1178 Site Plan for the parking structure referenced, or the 1179 parking structure referenced on Site Plan 2017-0658, and 1180 that wouldn't tie to any revisions or resubmissions. 1181 We'd all understand moving forward for posterity that 1182 it's this Site Plan, this Plan, right? 1183 MS. ROUZI: I think so, yes. 1184 MR. BOYLE: And it would also not necessarily 1185 allow a second structure to do this. 1186 MR. SPROUSE: Right. 1187 MR. BOYLE: We're proceeding with what's in 1188 front of us now. 1189 MR. SPROUSE: Right. Because 20 years down 1190 the road, we will probably add another structure, right? 1191 MR. BOYLE: Flying cars, so we won't even 1192 need. 1193 MR. SPROUSE: Won't even need it. Uber flying 1194 cars. Nice. 1195 We need to update the Code for that. 1196 MR. MISLEH: I make a motion to approve 1197 Variance Application V1592-17 by F. Wyatt Shields, City 1198 Manager, on behalf of the City of Falls Church, 1199 applicant, for a variance to Section 48-933 to allow the 1200 stacking of parking spaces within a parking structure as 1201 referenced in the Site Plan Amendment 2017-0658 for 1202 purposes of law enforcement vehicles; (2) parking spaces 1203 of less than nine feet in stall width and less than 1204 eighteen feet in stall length, for existing to remain 1205 spaces as referenced on the same Site Plan Amendment, 1206 2017-0658; (3) two-way drive aisles of less than 1207 twenty-three feet in width, for existing to remain drive 1208 lanes on Site Plan Amendment 2017-0658; and to Section 1209 48-934 to omit a loading zone parking space as part of 1210 an expansion and renovation to the premises as 1211 referenced on Site Plan Amendment 2017-0658. 1212 MR. SPROUSE: I'll second that. 1213 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: And I'll just add for Falls 1214 Church City Hall, 300 Park Avenue, RPC #51-112-001. 1215 So we have a motion and a second. 1216 Roll call. 1217 RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Williamson. 1218 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Yes. 1219 RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Sprouse. 1220 MR. SPROUSE: Yes. 1221 RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Misleh. 1222 MR. MISLEH: Yes. 1223 RECORDING SECRETARY: Thank you. 1224 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Congratulations. A lot of 1225 work has gone in this by many parties. Good luck with 1226 the project. 1227 MR. WHITFIELD. Thank you. 1228 1229 7. OTHER BUSINESS 1230 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Is there any Other Business 1231 before us this evening? 1232 MR. BOYLE: No, sir. You're aware of the 1233 Special Meeting one week from tonight. 1234 As unusual as that is, I think this is 1235 probably a perfect case for it. We have an applicant 1236 that got his project well developed when a policy change 1237 was imposed on them. I think it's a perfect situation 1238 to have a public forum and let both parties come 1239 together and not create an undue hardship by hoping we 1240 have an Agenda one month from now. 1241 So, thanks to the Board for making themselves 1242 available. We'll have that one week from tonight. 1243 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Yes, I think we like to be 1244 responsive in situations like this. I concur. 1245 1246 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1247 A. Approval of the July 13, 2017 Meeting 1248 1249 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: With that, we have the 1250 Approval of the Minutes from July 13, 2017. I won't go 1251 page by page but I'll ask the Board to review them and 1252 I'll call for a motion to approve in a moment. 1253 (Minutes reviewed.) 1254 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Would anyone care to make a 1255 motion regarding the minutes from July 13, 2017? 1256 MR. SPROUSE: I'll move to approve the minutes 1257 for the July 13, 2017, meeting of the Board of Zoning 1258 Appeals. 1259 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Is there a second? 1260 MR. MISLEH: I second. 1261 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Roll call vote. 1262 RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Williamson. 1263 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Yes. 1264 RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Sprouse. 1265 MR. SPROUSE: Yes. 1266 RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Misleh. 1267 MR. MISLEH: Yes. 1268 RECORDING SECRETARY: Thank you. 1269 1270 8. ADJOURNMENT 1271 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Seeing there are no other 1272 items on our Agenda, I will move to adjourn. Is there a 1273 second? 1274 MR. MISLEH: Second. 1275 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Roll call. 1276 RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Williamson. 1277 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Yes. 1278 RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Sprouse. 1279 MR. SPROUSE: Yes. 1280 RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Misleh. 1281 MR. MISLEH: Yes. 1282 CHAIR WILLIAMSON: This meeting is adjourned. 1283 1284 1285