Board of Zoning Appeals

REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS Community Center Art Room 223 Little Falls Street Falls Church, Virginia 22046 July 12, 2018 7:30 p.m. 1. CALL TO ORDER VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: I would like to call to order the July 12th, 2018, regular meeting of the Board of Zoning Appeals. Roll call. 2. ROLL CALL RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Williamson. MR. WILLIAMSON: Here. RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Calabrese. Is absent. Mr. Jones. MR. JONES: Here. RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Sprouse. MR. SPROUSE: Here. RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Misleh. MR. MISLEH: Here. RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Bartlett.  MR. BARTLETT: Here. RECORDING SECRETARY: Thank you. 3. PETITIONS VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Item 3 on the Agenda is Petitions. It does not appear we have any Petitions. We hear a reconsideration in a moment but I don't think there's any Petitions here. There's no one in the gallery. MR. BOYLE: No, sir. 4. OLD BUSINESS VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: And before we move on to Old Business, well, there is no Old Business. So before we move on to New Business, I would say that we should move forward the Approval of the June 14, 2018, Meeting Minute Approval as it may be pertinent to this first item of New Business, which is a reconsideration. Any objection from the Board? BOARD MEMBERS: No. 6. APPROVAL OF MINUTES a. Approval of the June 14, 2018, meeting minutes  VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Okay. If you guys will please take a look at the minutes from June 14, 2018, in the packets that we received and I'll ask for a motion to approve these in a little amount of time, give us time to review them. (Minutes reviewed.) VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: I'll ask for a member of the Board to make a motion when they're prepared to do so. I'm looking at these minutes, Mr. Boyle, there appears to be a copying issue, photocopying issue. But we don't appear to have all the lines in there so I'm not sure we will be able to proceed on this. MR. BOYLE: You want to set that aside? MR. SPROUSE: I'll make a motion to table it. VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Is there a second? MR. JONES: Second. MR. BOYLE: Mr. Sprouse made a motion to table it and Mr. Jones seconded it. VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Roll call. RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Williamson. MR. WILLIAMSON: Yes. RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Jones. Mr. JONES: Yes. RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Sprouse.  MR. SPROUSE: Yes. RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Misleh. MR. MISLEH: Yes. RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Bartlett. MR. BARTLETT: Yes. RECORDING SECRETARY: Thank you. VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Thank you for that. 5. NEW BUSINESS a. A request for a reconsideration of a decision by the BZA to deny application V1600-18 by Roy Wingrove, applicant and owner, at the June 14, 2018, BZA meeting, and a revised request for a variance to Section 48-238(3)(a) to allow (1) a front yard setback of 27.80 feet instead of 30 feet, and (2) a rear yard setback of 20 feet instead of 22.15 feet for the purpose of constructing a second floor addition with a front porch on premises known as 107 Jackson Street, RPC #52-501-040 of the Falls Church Real Property Records, zoned R-1A, Low Density Residential. VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Moving onto New Business, Item 5a, we have a request for a reconsideration of a decision by the BZA to deny application V1600-18 by Roy Wingrove, applicant and owner, at the June 14, 2018, BZA meeting, and a revised request for a variance to Section 48-238(3)(a) to allow (1) a front yard setback of 27.8 feet instead of 30 feet, and (2) a rear yard setback of 20 feet instead of 22.15 feet for the purpose of constructing a second floor addition with a front porch on premises known as 107 Jackson Street, RPC #52-501-040 of the Falls Church Real Property Records, zoned R-1A, Low Density Residential. Mr. Boyle, could I get a brief staff report on this before we turn it over to the applicant. MR. BOYLE: If I might, should we do the swearing in now, swear everyone who is going to testify. VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Yes, we can do that now. MR. BOYLE: At your discretion. (Witness sworn.) VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Let the record show the witness has been sworn in. Mr. Boyle, please proceed. MR. BOYLE: Thank you, Mr. Chair. This matter is before the Board for a reconsideration and I think I owe the Board a little bit of an explanation.  In cases where a motion fails to get the necessary three votes to carry the motion to approve or to deny, the action of the Board then is considered a denial. And at the last meeting, if I recall, there was a motion to approve which failed and a motion to deny which also lacked three votes, so both failed to carry the necessary three votes and that results in a denial. Under our Rules of Procedure and Code, the applicant has the option to ask the Board to reconsider. In this case, because there were three members present and I think only two who voted, it's necessary that one of the members who voted to entertain the new materials that are being presented and see if that warrants the reconsideration or not. Having said that, staff has not seen the materials that the applicant intends to present tonight. We've just got it tonight. So I can't comment on the nature of their -- what has changed from their last presentation. So just to put it in context of how this needs to proceed initially, is this variance is in a state of being denied, the request for the variance is denied. Their options are to appeal that decision to Arlington Circuit Court but it would be unusual in that you'd simply be appealing the lack of three votes and not an affirmative motion from the Board to approve or deny. So having said that, the only way to come back before this Board, in my view, was to ask a reconsideration based on new materials that they present tonight. So perhaps it would be worthwhile to get a brief statement from the applicant about what is different this evening. Maybe a very brief description of what the overall theme is going to be and then the two members who voted from the last meeting need to, one of them needs to make the decision whether to bring this forward again for more discussion because the other members were not present. So, that's what I have as staff and I'd defer to the Board as to how they want to get this up for either a vote to hear it tonight as a reconsideration or a denial again to not hear it. It's a little unusual but however the Board decides to carry this matter forward tonight. MR. SPROUSE: Just a point of clarity: There were two motions, there was not a second for either motion. MR. BOYLE: That's correct.  MR. SPROUSE: So it wasn't a vote on either motion. MR. BOYLE: That's correct. VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: So, Mr. Bartlett, Mr. Sprouse, were the two members. MR. BOYLE: Is that correct, Mr. Bartlett? MR. BARTLETT: That's correct. Yes. MR. SPROUSE: Mr. Bartlett made the motion to deny; I made the motion to approve with amendments. MR. BOYLE: So what we have is, is there sufficient grounds in the form of new materials to reconsider what -- would you have approved or is there a reasonable chance that you would have approved had you seen the materials they have tonight, if they'd been presented at the last meeting. I'd suggest maybe getting a brief summary from the applicant to see if you can have enough to make a decision based on that. VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Yeah, and at which point we would need to have a motion approved to reconsider it, then at which point we would reconsider it. MR. BOYLE: Right. And then we'd have the hearing, right.  VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: All right. Thank you, Mr. Boyle. Mr. Wingrove, would you care to proceed? MR. WINGROVE: Yes. Absolutely. And my apologies on getting the materials late here. I had several issues with the architect that I was using which I will no longer be using. But that's a separate matter. Moving on, the changes that we're doing, I brought this down to just simplify, we're going to stay within the existing footprint of what's already there. All I'm asking is the Board to consider allowing me to stay within that variance of what's already there, at the 27.8 feet and the 20 feet on the rear. We're going to go up the one level, there's a half level there now, so I just want to make that a full level, basically straightening out the walls and then add a garage on the side. The garage will be 26 by 26 which again will still stay within the setbacks of what's already existing there. So I'm not going into the side setbacks at all, we're not going to bring that forward with the garage at this point any longer. We're going to keep this within the existing front setbacks that are already there. So it would not encroach any closer than what's already there. And the front porch within the parameters of what the City allows. So that's basically what we're looking to do. If you look at the first page on there, that's kind of a picture of what we're looking to put together, what I want to do. The hardship that we're dealing with is that because it's such a substandard lot, there's no way for me to make any changes on there. There's a -- I call it one of the crawl space type of room above the main level, but the walls are so closed in on it, it's hardly even usable space. So I want to make that into a comfortable living space on the second level there and then put a bedroom above the garage as well. And with the current zoning restrictions where the variance -- where the setbacks have to be now, there's no way for me to make any adjustments on anything to build either up or outward next to it because I would have to go in further than what the house is. And that's pretty much it. VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Okay. MR. WINGROVE: Any questions?  MR. BOYLE: If I could, could you call out how this is different than what we discussed at the last meeting. MR. WINGROVE: Yes. At the last meeting the garage was going to be all the way forward which would encroach all the way up to 22 feet on the front of the house. It would be even with the front porch. But there was a couple of concerns. I think Mr. Bartlett had mentioned in an approving of that variance, what would stop me from just saying, forget the porch and just making that whole front, just a much, much deeper house at that point. So that's where the amendments came in. Mr. Sprouse had, we had talked about possibly just amending that one at the time and just making it just for the garage itself. So I've changed everything on that so that that's no longer an option. We would be limited to that 27.8 feet on the front and the 20 feet on the rear. VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Okay. I would in particular ask Mr. Sprouse or Mr. Bartlett, if they have any questions. MR. SPROUSE: I make a motion to reconsider the rehearing.  VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Okay. Mr. Bartlett, any questions at all? MR. BARTLETT: I actually don't have any questions. I appreciate you coming back with this proposal to us. MR. WINGROVE: Yes, sir. MR. BARTLETT: And going through this with us. And I actually agree that we should proceed with the reconsideration at this time. MR. WINGROVE: Thank you. VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: So we have a motion. MR. BARTLETT: I'll second that motion for reconsideration of your variance. MR. BOYLE: Mr. Chair, the motion to reconsider simply needs the majority of the members that were present that evening. So that would be two of the three need to approve the motion to reconsider. VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Okay. And since the two members that are here just made the motion and approved it, point well taken. Roll call. RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Williamson. MR. WILLIAMSON: Yes. RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Jones. Mr. JONES: Yes.  RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Sprouse. MR. SPROUSE: Yes. RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Misleh. MR. MISLEH: Yes. RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Bartlett. MR. BARTLETT: Yes. RECORDING SECRETARY: Thank you. VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: We're now going to reconsider the variance which we just discussed to some degree. Now that we're reconsidering, are there any further points that you would like to make on this? What we will do from this point is we'll see if members of the Board have any questions for you at which point although no one was sworn in, they can still be sworn in from the gallery. If anyone is going to speak on that, they will have the opportunity to speak on that tonight and then we'll return back to you, Mr. Wingrove. MR. WINGROVE: Yes, sir, VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Any further comments you'd like to make? MR. WINGROVE: Just that if you notice at the bottom of this page here, we are definitely under the 25 percent lot coverage area. We're at 24.2 percent of the existing lot which is the max you can go to as well as on the next one, we are still under the 25 foot height restriction on there. So we are staying within both of those realms. There's no additional variances we're asking for anything like that, just a comment that was mentioned on one of the other ones, so we are staying within that realm as well. VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Okay. Are there any questions for the applicant from members of the Board? MR. JONES: I think it's important to note that Mr. Wingrove stated that the porch will be Code conforming, non-enclosed porch. MR. WINGROVE: Yes, sir. VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Would you mind restating the hardship? MR. WINGROVE: The hardship that we're working with is that it's a substandard lot. We're working with a 7384 square feet. With that lot, the setbacks have to be 30 feet on the front and 22 feet on the rear and we're not at that at this point. So in order for me to make any changes to the house: Add an addition, build a garage, make that livable space above the main level there, I would already be in to that setback already. So there's no way for me to make any changes to this without the variance approval because the house already is in excess of what the zoning restrictions are from the setbacks. VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: And we're strictly going up, up and over. MR. WINGROVE: Yes, sir. VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Not going out. MR. WINGROVE: Yes, sir. VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Okay. Any other questions from members of the Board? MR. MISLEH: I think this went a long way to answering a lot of my previous questions on this. I had some concerns with your previous hardships and the application for the variance previously, but I think my colleagues did a pretty good job of addressing a lot of my concerns. So I want to thank you for coming back. I think this is good. MR. WINGROVE: Yes, sir. Just one other thing. You'll also notice, I did go around and speak to all the neighbors there. I've got nine signatures of people that are right next to me on both sides. I spoke to both of them. I spoke to the person directly across and a couple of other people. There's a port right there and I spoke to all three parties, including the one party that had sent the email in. And all of them were in agreement with this. VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: So all the most affected parties -- MR. WINGROVE: Yes, sir. VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: -- are represented on here. MR. WINGROVE: Yes, sir. And those were verified in the last meeting, their validity. VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Okay. Is there anyone from the gallery here tonight that wishes to speak on this matter? (No response.) VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Okay. We'll close it to the gallery. I guess I will look to this Board to see if anyone would care to make a motion on this variance. Keith? MR. BARTLETT: I will make a motion to approve the variance to Section 48-238(3)(a)to allow (1) a front yard setback of 27.8 feet instead of 30 feet, and (2) a rear yard setback of 20 feet instead of 22.15 feet for the purpose of constructing a second floor addition with a front porch on premises known as 107 Jackson Street, RPC #52-501-040 of the Falls Church Real Property Records, zoned R-1A, Low Density Residential. MR. SPROUSE: I'll second. MR. BOYLE: Mr. Bartlett made the motion, Mr. Sprouse seconded. VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: We have the motion, we have the second. Roll call. RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Williamson. MR. WILLIAMSON: Yes. RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Jones. MR. JONES: Yes, with the caveat, I just want to put on the record that it's going to be within the existing footprint. So with that, yes. RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Sprouse. MR. SPROUSE: Yes. RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Misleh. MR. MISLEH: Yes. RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Bartlett. MR. BARTLETT: Yes. RECORDING SECRETARY: Thank you. VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Congratulations. You have your variance. Thank you for your perseverance and I want to thank staff and the Board members for their perseverance as well on this matter.  Good luck with your project. MR. WINGROVE: Thank you. b. Variance application V1601-18 by Don Beyer Motors, Inc., applicant, for a variance to Sec. 48-522(12)(c) to allow a motor vehicle sales facility to be located within 208 feet instead of 300 feet of an R district, for the purpose of constructing a new two-story motor vehicle showroom, on premises known as 1119 & 1121 West Broad Street, RPC #52-102-045 and #52-102-044 of the Falls Church Real Property Records, zoned M-1, Light Industry. c. Variance application V1602-18 by Don Beyer Motors, Inc., applicant for a variance to Sec. 48-1101 to allow a front yard setback of 20 feet instead of 25 feet, for the purpose of constructing a new two-story motor vehicle showroom, on premises known as 1119 & 1121 West Broad Street, RPC #52-102-045 and #52-102-044 of the Falls Church Real Property Records, zoned M-1, Light Industry. d. Special Use Permit application U1603-18 by Don Beyer Motors, Inc., applicant, to allow a motor vehicle sales use on premises known as 1119 & 1121 West Broad Street, RPC #52-102-045 and #52-102-044 of the Falls Church Real Property Records, zoned M-1, Light Industry.  VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Moving on to the next item of New Business, these are all from the same applicant. I'm going to read all these in at the same time. Variance application V1601-18 by Don Beyer Motors, Inc., applicant, for a variance to Sec. 48-522(12)(c) to allow a motor vehicle sales facility to be located within 208 feet instead of 300 feet of an R district, for the purpose of constructing a new two-story motor vehicle showroom, on premises known as 1119 & 1121 West Broad Street, RPC #52-102-045 and #52-102-044 of the Falls Church Real Property Records, zoned M-1, Light Industry. Variance application V1602-18 by Don Beyer Motors, Inc., applicant for a variance to Sec. 48-1101 to allow a front yard setback of 20 feet instead of 25 feet, for the purpose of constructing a new two-story motor vehicle showroom, on premises known as 1119 & 1121 West Broad Street, RPC #52-102-045 and #52-102-044 of the Falls Church Real Property Records, zoned M-1, Light Industry, and a Special Use Permit application U1603-18 by Don Beyer Motors, Inc., applicant, to allow a motor vehicle sales use on premises known as 1119 & 1121 West Broad Street, RPC #52-102-045 and #52-102-044 of the Falls Church Real Property Records, zoned M-1, Light Industry. I've read all those into the record. We will have to vote on those individually by motion. And with that, I see we have several people here that are going to speak tonight. You're already standing. If you would please raise your right hand. (Witnesses sworn.) VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: You need to sign in if you haven't already done so. And before we hear from the applicant if we can get a brief report from staff before we proceed. MR. BOYLE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thanks to the Board and our applicants. I think this is our fourth room we've been in as a BZA since the move to temporary quarters and this one is probably our coziest. In considering what I would say for this application, I think brevity helps. But I did want to point out why each of these items is before the Board. It was a surprise to staff that none of us had processed an application for a new location for a dealership before. Maybe the applicants know when the last new one went in. But you talk about Code changing over the years, it's been decades since a dealership went in. So each of these struck us as kind of a new experience. But just going one by one with why they're here and why these aren't by right, and the process that got this matter before the BZA, the first variance, 1601-18, deals with a requirement that automobile dealerships in this zoning district be offset from residential a certain distance. And what's unusual in this case is that the residential we're setting it off from is the park trail which used to be a railroad, so it's not abutting or proximal to a single family residential district. So we're obligated to bring them before the Board because of the proximity of the residentially-zoned trail. The second variance, 1602-18, deals with the front setback. This is also unusual in that the non-automobile businesses in this zoning district are allowed a 20 foot setback which is an actual increase over what we used to have; automotive dealerships are required to be set back 25 feet. And in the view of staff and planning, we thought that was unusual that we'd push this one actually beyond what we're currently requiring other businesses to do. It's kind of a refreshing change. A lot of businesses in town are too close to the street. We've been pushing Broad and Washington back to 20 and now this particular use requires a setback even greater than that. Then lastly, the third one, the Special Use Permit 1603-18, that's simply a requirement unique to this use. It has to go through a public hearing process and to that point this matter went before the Planning Commission for a recommendation to the Board; and you should have a fairly extensive staff report in your materials with a recommendation from the Planning Commission. So with that, that's why we're here and I'll defer to the applicants for their presentation. VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Boyle. If you would state your name and proceed. MR. PAINTER: Thank you very much, Mr. Williamson, Board members. My name is Andrew Painter. I'm a zoning attorney with the law firm of Walsh Colucci speaking tonight on behalf of the applicant, Don Beyer Motors Inc., and joining me is Lori Hall, who's the architect on the project, Penney Design Group, Mike Beyer who many of you all know over at Don Beyer Volvo, and Antoinette Isherwood with Walter L. Phillips. All local.  This is not a complicated proposal but Mr. Boyle is correct. It has been a long time since the City has reviewed a dealership. Don Beyer Auto, as many of you well know, has operated in the City for really the last four decades or so. And we have the existing showroom, and I'll just sort of point it out. I think we all know where it is, right at the intersection of Gordon Road and Broad Street at 1231 West Broad, right across from the Giant on West Broad. The new vehicle inventory is actually on three lots actually in Fairfax County, not in the City of Falls Church. The existing service bays and the existing service department, is actually at 1117 West Broad Street. And so, just sort of setting where we are. Recently Volvo Cars which is the corporate owner of Volvo issued new image program requirements and brand franchise requirements for all dealerships across the world. So Don Beyer Volvo like every other dealership either has to upgrade the existing showroom or it has to find a new location that meets all those requirements. And we looked at upgrading the old space. That building was constructed back in 1959. It has been incrementally added on and facades have been upgraded over time. But it was determined that upgrading that existing showroom would be disruptive to the existing business and quite cost prohibitive. So then we looked at locating elsewhere in the City at one of the new mixed use developments but it was determined that that was too far away from the service department and the new vehicle inventory so that was just inefficient. So ultimately we settled on two parcels that we felt that this would be the right location. So it's right next to the Kia dealership. Here's the light at Birch Street, the Staples is right here. These two buildings, one is the Preston Signs building, the old Preston Signs building. The other one is the old Like New building. And it's got some of the same advantages that the existing dealership has. One, it's owned by the dealership; two, they both have frontage on West Broad Street; three, they're surrounded by existing M-1 automobile and industrial type uses; and, four, it offers the opportunity for Don Beyer Volvo to consolidate its myriad offices into one building. So we settled there. So as Mr. Boyle mentioned, there are three requests before you this evening. The first one is a Special Use Permit for a new motor vehicle showroom. Again, this is not a new dealership. It's just the showroom. And the idea is to really just pick up the showroom and move it about 380 feet to the east, just on the other side of the Kia dealership. There is the setback variance for 20 feet from West Broad Street, to be in line with other commercial projects that the City has been approving over the past 12 years or so. 20 feet has been the norm. And I think if you take a look, and I'll turn it over to Lori to talk about the architecture of the building, but if you look at it, it's certainly much more of an administrative-commercial office type use rather than an industrial, large dealership type use with service bays and that sort of thing. Then the third one is the location variance. Mr. Boyle is correct. New automotive dealerships are not to be located within 300 feet of an existing R-zoned property. And obviously the W & OD trail is just to the south here. But there is an intervening parcel of course. This is about 200 feet away. But there is an intervening parcel of M-1 zoned property between us and the R-zoned trail. And, of course, there are no noxious odors emanating from the proposed use. No loud speaker system will be employed here or anything like that, and no truck deliveries of vehicles will be occurring on the site, because again, the new vehicle inventory will be taking place off site in Fairfax County. So before I go any further, I thought I would recognize Mike just to talk about I guess your dealership's history in the City and the importance of this project. MR. BEYER: You mentioned four decades, since 1973 we started. It's a perfect marriage. My father wanted to be a Chevy dealer but he couldn't get a Chevy dealership so he ended up with Volvo here in Little Falls Church. One of his vision statements back then was to be a hundred year family business. We're 44 years into that right now. And the value, one of the core values was community. And that's one of the reasons we stayed in Falls Church all these years, was because it's a great community. I raised my kids here, I've got three grandkids now in the City schools. We're Falls Church people through and through. And we want it to stay that way. And Volvo has kind of put a gun to our head. You've got to do a new facility or basically they'll put us out of business. If we don't do this, they take away all your markets, support money, and your inventory. And if you've been paying attention to all Volvo's cars that are coming, they'll be all electric in 2020, which is pretty cool. If you ever pay attention to Chairman Lee is his name, he's like an Elon Musk but in China. He's been doing incredible things. The guy's brilliant. So we're very bullish and I think Volvo's core value also fits with the City core values with all the electric cars coming and those type of things. We want to remain a part of the City and keep doing the things we do: Whether it's a fun run or hopefully police cars again in the future. I keep looking at the biz but they never seem to come up with new police cars. And also the arts and those kind of things. We really love supporting the City and we don't want to go anywhere else. Volvo years ago said, Hey, we'd love for you to go to Tysons but we fought them and said this is where we need to be. This is where the value is, for me. So, we're excited about this. And also, it opens up our current facility for something of a better use. We've been assembling properties now aggressively for a few years and we've pushed that timetable there now and we've got one more holdout that we're negotiating with. But we've got a nice critical mass of land that we'd love to do something with you guys that really makes the City special. I think a lot of you play with the high school stuff but this would be pretty exciting. MR. PAINTER: If we could go to the site plan illustrative, and I think this was hopefully in your packet. Again, so two parcels, they will be consolidated. These are very narrow lots as you all know. We're going to be tearing down the existing building and constructing this new building in its place. We are proposing two interparcel connections; One through the Kia dealership that allows people to get out to the light at Birch Street, because there is that offset at the intersection between Birch and Gordon Road. We are also proposing an interparcel connection to the existing service dealership as well. All of the drive aisles, we've done auto turns on it. Emergency vehicles can circulate. There are 34 parking spaces provided on site. That's four more than what's required by the ordinance but just barely. We are able to handle all on-site storm water detention, I think both in terms of quality and quantity.  And as far as the setback goes along West Broad Street, it's a 65 foot wide building. And the majority of the building, about three quarters of it or two thirds of it is set back for the full 25 feet. It really is the entry portal, the wooden entry portal that is right up next to West Broad Street, the 20 foot setback. So I think if you take a look at the renderings and I have to apologize, we had larger renderings but they got mixed up in the shuffle tonight but we can bring this around to get closer, if that's possible, but you can sort of see, we are proposing plantings. Again, the full City streetscape, standard brick will be provided and then again plantings as well. Just to talk about the architecture real quick if I can before I turn it over to Lori, the footprint is relative small. It's only about 7600 square feet for the actual footprint. It's a two story building and it's 25 feet in height. The first floor will have sort of a mezzanine level with four automobiles displayed so it's not that many cars inside. And the whole concept of this and what Volvo seems to be going to, and correct me if I'm wrong, is an urban-type dealership. They're getting away from large scale dealerships out on the highway and they're kind of reconfiguring their dealership model for more urban footprints. Also on the first floor will be sales, customer intake, restrooms, that sort of thing. And then the second floor, which will overlook the larger two story foyer-lobby will be administrative offices for the dealership. There will also be an enclosed dropoff area for service vehicles which can then just move directly to the service bays to be worked on. So, do you want to talk about the materials? MS. HALL: Absolutely. Well, you see it's a very clean, modern look. All the white that you see here is actually an etched glass. And what Volvo is trying to do is create a very different retail experience, that it's not like going to a big box that you have. And what they did, is they created windows into the showroom. So you come in, there's more intimate areas. It's much more, like coming up to a small retail store and looking into their storefront. That's the feeling that they now create with this instead of the Toyotas, or what you see with all the other large dealerships.  So the majority of the front will be the white glass with windows and then there are metal panels in the back portion of the building. And the aluminum silver finish with the clear storefront for those entry windows. MR. PAINTER: So I think a pretty sleek, urban-type look. And Penney Design Group has done more vehicle franchises and dealerships across this country, especially on the east coast, than practically any other design group. You've all had discussions I think with Volvo about this particular dealership and my understanding is that this, and correct me if I'm wrong, but this is -- it's going to set a model for other Volvo franchises going forward. MS. HALL: Absolutely. That's because of the urban-type location that we have here. A lot of the dealerships are out in auto parts where we don't have somebody coming up and walking by. So you miss that. That's what's really nice about what we're doing here. MR. PAINTER: So just to include, Mr. Williamson, the hours of operation will remain the same. There's no vehicle inventory, no repair, no loudspeakers. All lighting will be internally lit. We have a variety of environmental features in the building as well, due to Volvo's requirements. So we've worked diligently with staff. We appreciate their patience and help with this. I'll be happy to answer any questions. VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Thank you. Very thorough presentation. Let me see if any of the Board members have any questions for you. MR. JONES: I have a few questions. VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Proceed. MR. JONES: Birch and West Broad, could you speak a little bit on how you anticipate traffic during the construction or the renovations, coming into the dealership, exiting the dealership; do you anticipate that adding to any traffic on West Broad? MR. PAINTER: No, because these buildings are currently vacant right now and so it's just going to be torn down. There will be no visitors or customers or anything entering there or having to go in any other direction. So all construction, just like any other construction project, will occur on site. And then once this building is fully open and we have our occupancy permit, then the existing dealership will go over here.  MR. JONES: So basically it would be no different than its current location as far as -- MR. PAINTER: That's right, Mr. Jones. It's basically picking up the existing showroom and locating it 380 feet down the road. MR. SPROUSE: Pre-fab steel structure? MS. HALL: No, pre-fab but steel structure. MR. SPROUSE: So it's not hugely intensive, construction-wise. MS. HALL: No. Correct. MR. PAINTER: And if I may follow up on that, Mr. Sprouse, when we were designing this, I think everyone looks at the Gordon Road triangle as sort of the next great area outside of the George Mason High School redevelopment area in the City for potential redevelopment. The City owns a lot of land down there. Everyone kind of wants to see something else happen here long term. And we realize that a new dealership in this location might not be the idea that people have for sort of mixed use redevelopment on a large scale for the Gordon Road triangle. So what we try to do at least and Mr. Beyer's right, by freeing up this, it allows this to be sort of a catalyst project long term for redevelopment.  We are building this project, correct me if I'm wrong, sort as the investment and the materials to be able to re-repurposed long term or be able to be torn down for a larger development long term. MR. SPROUSE: With the aesthetic on the next door auto parts store, is it going to be matching aesthetic? MR. BEYER: I think just the pink. Volvo didn't require us to change the facade. Thank God. MR. SPROUSE: Okay. MR. BEYER: It's a lot of glass. MR. SPROUSE: Yeah, and it's also right next to the -- you have access on the southeast side. There's a lot of similarity between the two spaces so I was just wondering if there would be more to it than that. MR. JONES: In the construction of the facility, has there been any consideration given to like renewable energy, solar panels, charging stations? I think, Mr. Beyer, you mentioned those. MR. BEYER: We will have charging stations. They're already in. Plenty of those. MR. PAINTER: Yeah, at least three charging stations, including one in the service bay. And then there are a variety of things that Volvo requires, including energy efficient light. And I don't know if you want to speak to some of those other things. MS. HALL: It's a lot of the things that are just good for sustainability. It is a Scandinavian company. That it will be all -- there's as much natural daylight we can incorporate and any kind of energy conservation we incorporate. We normally typically have very well insulated buildings to create. Just to keep costs down. I think that makes common sense. MR. SPROUSE: But you all aren't seeking LEED certification or Energy Star certification. MR. PAINTER: We are looking at Energy Star in particular. And Volvo's franchise requirements, again correct me if I'm wrong, I've got a list of additional things that they require, but Volvo's energy and environmental sustainability requirements would not preclude the ability to seek leave. It is basically -- I mean it's Energy Star and I think Sensible Buildings is another program that Volvo uses as well. MR. SPROUSE: It's hard to get a LEED on a showroom. MR. PAINTER: Yeah, but Volvo's design requirements are pretty strict.  VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: There are no zoning requirements that there be LEED or any -- we received an inquiry following the Planning Commission asking about why was there no LEED certification, no National Green Building specifications, or solar panels. That was something that came out of the Planning Commission, I don't know if you're aware of that. Are there any requirements for that? I don't believe there are but I thought I would ask. MR. BOYLE: No, sir. There's none specifically in the Zoning Code. You do see those come out for Special Exceptions, much larger projects that include residential. Then it's a structure of a size where you can actually do something and make a difference. VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Okay. And you mentioned the service bay and the entry into the service bay. Would you mind, do you have a visual on that or can you describe that in a little bit more detail. MS. HALL: So this is at the rear of the property. So the cars will come and enter from around behind the building and into the service reception. They will come inside the building and then their cars will be checked in there. And then staff will bring it out.  VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: So they're using the side street there or is it on the property? MS. ISHERWOOD: They'll enter here, on the property. MS. HALL: On the property. VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: So it's on the property, okay. MS. HALL: The driveway. VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: So it won't back up traffic at all. MR. PAINTER: And, Mr. Williamson, that was one issue that did come out with the Planning Commission, was how many cars can queue here. And I believe the number is six that can queue here. But that's just assumes one bay and there are actually two bays here. VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Okay. MS. HALL: We're 95 feet before you get to that, just of building space. VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Right. MR. SPROUSE: So we're looking at a 20 foot versus 25 foot variance and it's -- most of it's the entrance box there, pergola, can't quite tell what it is. MR. PAINTER: Yeah, it's a --  MR. SPROUSE: It's like the Apple Store. MS. HALL: Canopy. MR. SPROUSE: So how much of this design is final? Because if we grant a variance for 20 feet instead of 25 feet, that's a building that can come forward 5 feet, not just an entrance or a canopy. MS. HALL: So how much of -- MR. SPROUSE: How much of this design is final? MR. PAINTER: It's final. It's been approved by Volvo. MS. HALL: Right. MR. PAINTER: And correct me if I'm wrong, but that portico is also one of the brand requirements. MS. HALL: That's part of their image program requirements. MR. PAINTER: We did look at what would happen if we had to meet -- I mean that's why the majority of the rest of the building is set back the full 25 feet. MS. ISHERWOOD: I think the question is whether or not there's a chance the rest of the building might move forward. MR. SPROUSE: Because that's what the variance will allow you to do. MS. ISHERWOOD: Right.  MS. HALL: Which is not what Volvo wants by any means. MR. BOYLE: Mr. Sprouse, you might consider it as we do with residential, allowing a porch to project. MR. SPROUSE: I was going to ask that. Is it part of the structure or is it aesthetic. MR. BOYLE: Say to allow a portico to project 5 feet into the setback, something to that effect. MR. SPROUSE: Would we need -- for a portico, would it need a variance for a portico? MR. BOYLE: Yes. Commercial buildings don't have projections into their yards. Residential does. MR. SPROUSE: Thank you. MR. PAINTER: And we did look at every manner, I think, both staff and the applicant looked at every manner of trying to find a way to have the Planning Commission or City Council approve a modification of this front yard setback and it just doesn't exist. But we did look at shifting the entire building back and what ends up happening, and Antoinette can mention this too. But -- go ahead. MS. ISHERWOOD: It does affect the parking because as you push this building back, you get tighter with your drive aisles and we had to make sure that the fire marshall can get around the lot too, so.  MR. MISLEH: I think what Mr. Sprouse was saying is he's concerned that if the variance is granted at 20 feet, is there a possibility that the building facade is going to move up to the 20 foot line following the -- MS. HALL: Not for our design. If it can be granted as an open -- as a portico similar to a porch. MR. PAINTER: Right. And correct me if I'm wrong, I'm not sure if conditions can be imposed with a special permit plan, but showing substantial conformation with the layout or at least the footprint of the building that's depicted on the plat. MR. BOYLE: I think both the variance and the use permit can be conditioned. The use can be conditioned that the use itself cannot exist in that 20 foot area with the exception of the portico, the entrance, and the variance could be conditioned that the only projection allowed would be the portico, the projection. VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: And in fact, from the Planning Commission, and I suspect you all have seen this, there were recommended conditions from the Planning Commission added which was no parking or vehicle display is permitted within the required front yard setback or within the area immediately outside of the building between the required setback and the building facade on West Broad Street and all vehicle delivery must occur on site. Is that acceptable to you all? MR. PAINTER: We have agreed to this. VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Okay. We would need to condition our motions with those conditions as well. In fact, that's what was recommended by the Planning Commission. And from this discussion, there may be an additional condition. MR. SPROUSE: I'm just curious. I don't want to limit your ability to plan either. I was just curious about it. So will you foresee ever needing a few feet or anything like that in the design process or is this plan good to go? MR. PAINTER: It's good. MR. SPROUSE: Okay. VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Any further questions from the Board? (No response.) VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Any final comments you all would like to make before we proceed on this matter? MR. PAINTER: Thank you for your time. VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Thanks.  Okay. We have a lot of information here. I would point out to the Board that there are recommended conditions to this motion. We will need to do three motions on each one of these variance applications. MR. SPROUSE: Reading the Special Conditions, it looks like they'd be most appropriately attached to the Special Use Permit. VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Recommend approval -- motor vehicle sales. We are adjusting the setback. MR. SPROUSE: These are requiring no parking or vehicle display permitted within the required concept area. Regardless of whether or not we address it in these two variances. VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: I see. So you could condition the actual use itself. MR. SPROUSE: Yes. Exactly. VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Okay. I see that. That makes sense to me. MR. SPROUSE: And that also makes their lives a little easier regarding these variances. VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Right. All right. So these conditions would only be applied to the Special Use Permit application. MR. JONES: Would we also condition the portico?  MR. SPROUSE: I'm actually okay with that. It was more of a curiosity to see how far we were along with this. But I'm personally okay with it based on the testimony we've heard. MR. MISLEH: I agree with Mr. Sprouse. Based on Mr. Boyle's explanation of the retail use setback, I think we should go ahead and approve it as it's requested. MR. BOYLE: Mr. Chair, it would be very helpful from staff's perspective if the Board would consider not having an expiration on a Special Use Permit in this case. We've had some Special Use Permits in front of the Board recently and they kind of spoke to wanting them to come back in a year to see how well they were working. Staff can at any time pull the Special Use Permit and bring them back before the Board if there are issues but we don't anticipate that in this case. So rather than have the applicants come back and make another presentation in a year, the Board has the authority to grant an open-ended approval and we don't lose any authority in case it just doesn't work. VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Is there a need to grant open-ended approval?  MR. BOYLE: Yeah, it's assumed it needs to be renewed in one year. VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: That's right. We've called that out in those cases. MR. BOYLE: Right. So one of the conditions be that there be no expiration or something to that effect. And then at any time, the Special Use Permit is active at all times. If there's an issue in the future, we can bring them back before the Board for a reconsideration. MR. SPROUSE: Is there any way to tie that to the ownership group or the specific dealership? MR. BOYLE: Yeah. That's been a condition in the past. That's a good point. You can tie the approval to this applicant, to these plans as approved by the Planning Commission, what was seen by the Planning Commission. Yes, you can condition it in that way as well. VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Do you have any objection to that? MR. PAINTER: No. VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Okay. Then is there a motion to approve variance application V1608-18 by Don Beyer Motors? Would someone care to make a motion on that?  MR. SPROUSE: I'll move. I make a motion to approve the variance application V1601-18 by Don Beyer Motors, Inc., applicant, for a variance to Sec. 48-522(12)(c) to allow a motor vehicle sales facility to be located within 208 feet instead of 300 feet of an R district, for the purpose of constructing a new two-story motor vehicle showroom, on premises known as 1119 & 1121 West Broad Street, RPC #52-102-045 and #52-102-044 of the Falls Church Real Property Records, zoned M-1, Light Industry. VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Is there a second? MR. BARTLETT: I'll second. VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Roll call. RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Williamson. MR. WILLIAMSON: Yes. RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Jones. Mr. JONES: Yes. RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Sprouse. MR. SPROUSE: Yes. RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Misleh. MR. MISLEH: Yes. RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Bartlett. MR. BARTLETT: Yes.  VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: The variance is approved. Is there a motion to approve variance application V1602-18? MR. JONES: I'll make a motion. I move to approve variance application V1602-18 by Don Beyer Motors, Inc., applicant for a variance to Sec. 48-1101 to allow a front yard setback of 20 feet instead of 25 feet, for the purpose of constructing a new two-story motor vehicle showroom, on premises known as 1119 & 1121 West Broad Street, RPC #52-102-045 and #52-102-044 of the Falls Church Real Property Records, zoned M-1, Light Industry. VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Is there a second? MR. SPROUSE: I'll second. VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Roll call. RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Williamson. MR. WILLIAMSON: Yes. RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Jones. Mr. JONES: Yes. RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Sprouse. MR. SPROUSE: Yes. RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Misleh. MR. MISLEH: Yes. RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Bartlett.  MR. BARTLETT: Yes. RECORDING SECRETARY: Thank you. VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Variance is approved. And then we have the Special Use Permit application to which the applicant has agreed to attach the Planning Commission conditions that we spoke of earlier as well as the open-ended -- as well making the Special Use Permit application open ended although tied to the plans and its ownership. Would someone care to make a motion on that? MR. SPROUSE: I'll make a motion. I make a motion to approve the Special Use Permit application U1603-18 by Don Beyer Motors, Inc., applicant, to allow a motor vehicle sales use on premises known as 1119 & 1121 West Broad Street, RPC #52-102-045 and #52-102-044 of the Falls Church Real Property Records, zoned M-1, Light Industry, with the two amendments that: One, no parking or vehicle display is permitted within the required front setback or within the area immediately outside the building between the required setback and the building on West Broad Street, all vehicle delivery must occur on site, and, two, that it's tied to the plans as seen by the Planning Commission on July 2nd, and this particular ownership group, Don Beyer Motors, Inc.  VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Is there a second? MR. BOYLE: And expiration. MR. SPROUSE: Yeah, open-ended expiration as seen by the Planning Commission on July 2nd and this particular group, Don Beyer Motors, Inc. MR. BARTLETT: I'll second that motion. VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Roll call. RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Williamson. MR. WILLIAMSON: Yes. RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Jones. Mr. JONES: Yes. RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Sprouse. MR. SPROUSE: Yes. RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Misleh. MR. MISLEH: Yes. RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Bartlett. MR. BARTLETT: Yes. VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Congratulations. All your variances are approved. Good luck with your project and thank you for your contribution to the City. MR. PAINTER: Thank you for your time. 7. OTHER BUSINESS VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Mr. Boyle, is there any other business?  MR. BOYLE: No, sir. We do have at least one application for September. The Board does not meet in August, nor have we had a request for a special meeting. It's not finalized yet but we should know in the next couple of weeks if we're going to have a September agenda or not. So we'll let the Board know. VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Okay. MR. BOYLE: As well as the location. VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: And would staff be able to send the minutes, revised minutes to us electronically? Are we able to approve these via email? MR. BOYLE: I think so because we started the conversation tonight. If any member of the public objects, there's a process to object. But I think whatever is most expeditious and gets the minutes recorded accurately. Speaking of which, did your email get attached? MR. JONES: No, it didn't. But I think all of my concerns were addressed. I think he had come a long way. I appreciate it, from where he started to where he ended up and I think for me, a lot of my concerns were just on the actual hardship which I think Mr. Bartlett addressed in the last meeting. So it came a long way for me and I appreciated him sticking in the current footprint so we don't need to read my email. I think he addressed a lot of my concerns. And who was present last time did a really good job of sort of fleshing that out for me. So when I read the minutes I felt a lot more comfortable. MS. ROUZI: It was that, the last meeting packet so we did have it on the record. VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Any other business? MR. BOYLE: No. MR. SPROUSE: This is my final meeting with the Board of Zoning Appeals. VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: What? MR. SPROUSE: They didn't tell you? I'm leaving my term early, so congratulations, Keith. MR. BARTLETT: I'm not an alternate anymore? MS. ROUZI: You've had to vote at every meeting so far, so -- MR. BOYLE: We've been feeding members to Council, to the School Board, to the Planning Commission, so what's your excuse? MR. SPROUSE: I sold my house and I'm actually moving outside of the City. MR. BOYLE: We'll accept that then, I guess. VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Good luck. 8. ADJOURNMENT VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: With that, I would move to adjourn. Is there a second? MR. BARTLETT: I second. VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Roll call. RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Williamson. MR. WILLIAMSON: Yes. RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Jones. Mr. JONES: Yes. RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Sprouse. MR. SPROUSE: Yes. RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Misleh. MR. MISLEH: Yes. RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Bartlett. MR. BARTLETT: Yes. RECORDING SECRETARY: Thank you.