Board of Zoning Appeals

REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS Community Center Teen Center 223 Little Falls Street Falls Church, Virginia 22046 October 11, 2018 7:30 p.m. 1. CALL TO ORDER VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: I would like to call to order the regular meeting of the Board of Zoning Appeals for October 11, 2018. Roll call. 2. ROLL CALL RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Misleh. MR. MISLEH: Yes. RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Williamson. VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Here. RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Jones. MR. JONES: Here. RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Bartlett. MR. BARTLETT: Here. RECORDING SECRETARY: And Mr. Calabrese is not present. 3. PETITIONS VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Petitions, I know you're here for a variance. There are no Petitions. MR. BOYLE: No, sir. 5. NEW BUSINESS a. Variance application V1605-18 by Inova, applicant and owner, for a variance to section 48-1266(1) to allow a second story tenant wall sign, not otherwise permitted by Code, on premises known as 500 North Washington Street, RPC #53-101-070 of the Falls Church Real Property Records, zoned T-2, Transitional. VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: We're going to move on to New Business. The first item is variance application V1605-18 by Inova, applicant and owner, for a variance to Section 48-1266(1) to allow a second story tenant wall sign, not otherwise permitted by Code, on premises known as 500 North Washington Street, RPC #53-101-070 of the Falls Church Real Property Records, zoned T-2, Transitional. I'd like to -- are both of you going to be speaking on this tonight? Do you think you might speak at all? MS. VANLANDINGHAM: I might. VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: You have to be sworn in.  (Witnesses sworn.) VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Before we proceed, I need to inform you that we have four members here tonight as you can see and in order for your variance to pass, you need to have three of us. Three would need to vote in the affirmative. You have the option as a result to extend to next month or you can choose to proceed tonight. It's entirely up to you. MS. VANLANDINGHAM: There's enough to make the decision tonight, right? VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Yes, there is. MS. VANLANDINGHAM: Yes. Thank you. VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: With that, why don't we get a quick staff report and then we'll turn it over to the applicant. MR. BOYLE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This involves a variance application for a second story sign and it has to do with the zoning district that this location is. It's zoned T-2 Transitional which does not have an option for any second story signs whatsoever. What's interesting is in the B districts that surround this property, that recently became an option by right to do second story signs. We've got since that amendment to the Code a year and a half ago, we've had many applications for by-right second story signs.  Typically where you see T-2, you have more residential immediately abutting. It's the transition district from commercial to residential. This one does not have residential fronting where this sign would go but in a nutshell that's why the applicant is here. Their office location is on the second floor and the only option for them to have a sign is by variance. This matter, as we do with sign variances, was sent to the Architectural Advisory Board and they heard it at their October 3rd meeting and they made some comments that the Board should have in your packets and made some suggestions to the Board and recommended that it not be approved. Staff doesn't take a position one way or another with sign variances other than to say that our Code does allow a much lower threshold for approval. There's not typically a hardship with signs. The Code recognizes that you don't need a sign to have a business. But there's different language in the Sign Code for what the threshold is for approving sign variances. And typically that centers around: Is anyone harmed; does anyone object; is the lighting going to cause an impact on an abutting property, things of that nature. Like this Board has seen recently at several commercial sites, The 24 Hour Fitness is probably the best example. 301 West Broad where the Harris Teeter is, had a number of variances. Generally the large commercial developments also come in with sign variances. So with that, I'd just call attention to the fact that this location is not as residential as we see other transitional districts. And staff thinks it's worth considering whether there are any negative impacts by granting this. So with that, I'll defer to their presentation. VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Okay. Thanks, John. Before you speak, if you do speak, would you sign in right there. There's a sign-in sheet and would you state your name, your relationship with Inova, and then proceed. MR. BOYLE: We can read that motion so I'm not misstating it, if I could. VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: This is the motion from the Architectural Advisory Board? MR. BOYLE: Yeah. Maybe I misspoke here. From the Architectural Advisory Board's October 3rd meeting regarding this application, Mr. Wong made a motion the variance not be approved as submitted as that the second floor location would not resolve the visibility concern and would be out of context with the currently installed building signage. Instead the applicant should place the sign on the first floor towards the south corner of the building as this is more consistent with existing signage and will better serve for way-finding purposes.  Mr. Osborn seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Do you have a copy of that? MR. LAROCHELLE: No, we don't. VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Do you have that, John? MR. BOYLE: Yes. VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Why don't you state your name and state your relationship to Inova. MR. LAROCHELLE: My name is Chuck Larochelle. I'm the signage manager for Inova. I've been with Inova for 23 years and I oversee all the interior and exterior signage for Inova. And this is one project that we have definitely been working on for quite some time with Akida and John Boyle. MR. BOYLE: Yes, you've been primarily working with Akida who's not able to attend tonight. MR. LAROCHELLE: So, one of the big things is that our patients in our Inova OB-GYN and Juniper Program are constantly relaying to us their patients are having a hard time finding them on their suites on the second floor. The building is located exactly the same and they're going to the wrong building and so on, that kind of thing. And also with respect to the visibility, if you're going -- if the building is on your right-hand side and the huge trees that are there, it totally blocks the building. If you're going from the other direction, yes, we do have visibility from that perspective and seeing the building, it's pretty clear. But if you're coming from the right, you can't even see -- and people are passing the building and they're making a U-turn, and then they have to turn back around to get into the complex. I just did some bullet points here just for talking points. If you will, one of the hardships is that the building is set back about 150 feet from the road, so it's again, looking at it from the perspective of coming, with the building on your right-hand side. Facing the building are huge trees blocking visibility of the building on the right side of the building. One is going north towards 66. Heavily commercial corridor. This is surrounded by illuminated signage, free-standing and building. Could be signage overload for our patients in turn. They're looking for signage that cannot be missed. Due to the complexity of the exterior signage process for a free-standing sign, one of the reasons Inova did not come to fruition for this is for this reason, is the visibility factor. We were going to have our Inova Urgent Care go into this building. Inova services are on the second floor. With having the signs above the second floor, a spandrel, it would be a great visual cue for our patients to connect that we are on the second floor, not on the first. Due to the huge trees that we have to contend with, this request for exterior signage is in the interest of signs being more aligned with the entrance to the property above the second floor to gain the best visibility for our patients immediately when they drive onto the property. We just recently put by right the Somatus sign on the first floor spandrel. And then what we are requesting is for Inova, with us being on the second floor, putting it on the second floor spandrel. And over to the left to try to gain as much visibility as we can, if we push it more to the right, it won't be seen at all from North Washington Street. Inova would like the community to know that Inova has services in the building such as OB-GYN and the Inova Juniper program and having the signs hidden from the street is not in the best interest of the community and their needs to be cared for by the best health care provider in Northern Virginia. We have been working with Akida for approximately 15 months to develop exterior signage that will be functional for our patients and staying in the parameters that we are faced with. Akida has no reservations about the request of the signs being installed above the second floor spandrel. She understands that there will not be a multitude of signage on the building as no other tenants will have signage rights above the first floor in their leases. And I think John had weighed in. I'll read this. The existing building currently has minimal signage and the addition of the proposed sign would not result in any negative impact on the visual environment. While the property is zoned transitional, it has approximately 350 feet of frontage on North Washington, which is considered a major commercial corridor. The applicant's proposed location for the sign on North Washington elevation of the building is appropriate, and this is coming from John and Akida. The parcels directly across from the property on North Washington Street are zoned Business and are currently used for auto dealership and service uses and the proposed sign would not have any visual impact on these uses. There are no residential uses across from the property where the proposed sign would be visible and cause any problems. VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Okay. Is that the conclusion of your presentation? MR. LAROCHELLE: Thank you very much. I appreciate your patience and I certainly welcome feedback from the Board and thank you for listening and hearing our feedback for our request for this much needed signage.  VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Okay. We're probably going to have a few questions for you. MR. LAROCHELLE: Okay. VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: I'll look to my fellow Board members to see if anyone has any questions for the applicant. MR. JONES: I have just a few questions. So apparently Inova occupies the entire second floor of the building. MR. LAROCHELLE: Yes. MR. JONES: How long does that lease go for? MR. LAROCHELLE: We own the property. I'm sure that -- I can't say I'm sure but I would say at least 5 to 10 years I would think. MR. JONES: Okay. Could you describe any other signage on the building? MR. LAROCHELLE: Somatus and on that building that's the only other signage that's on the building. One thing that I'm looking to do to help the situation out, is just put vinyl on the glass doors to help people as they're looking, trying to find, Oh, yes, I'm at the right entrance, so they can go into the right entrance into the building. Just a listing of the services: Somatus, OB-GYN, and so on. MR. MISLEH: Do you own the entire office park?  MR. LAROCHELLE: Yes. MR. MISLEH: You mentioned in your speech that the monument signage is not doable. It seems like that would be the solution to way-finding. MR. LAROCHELLE: But the monument signage when it came -- due to all the parameters that we have to work within, it would have been parallel to the road and it would have been set so far back there was a concern that it was literally right at the parking lot with cars and vehicles then hitting the monument sign where we had to put it. MR. BOYLE: I can explain that a little bit. On the last page of this handout is kind of the site plan for the property. And you see one major entrance into the complex from North Washington along the right-hand side of this image. The Sign Code requires that there not be any objects within 25 feet of a intersection and that intersections measure from the sidewalk and from the street. So there's an intersection with the driveway at the curb, so 25 feet in both directions, 25 feet up Washington, 25 feet on to the property, and then you connect those two and make a triangle. So basically within 25 feet in all directions of each intersection, there can't be any vision obstructions. Then there's a second provision about setbacks from the right-of-way and that would put a monument sign in the row of parking. We've seen it done elsewhere where they eliminate some parking spaces but then it's set 20 feet off the road and is not visible behind landscaping. So for this particular site, it's rather complicated. MR. BARTLETT: Can I ask you a question, John? You're saying this driveway entrance into this property is considered an intersection? MR. BOYLE: Yeah. Wherever vehicle travel crosses. So it's not a highway intersection but it's an intersection of a parking lot drive aisle with the street. Also the pedestrian ways are considered intersections. Wherever pedestrian path meets a drive aisle or a street, and then they use that as a basis, the Code uses that as a basis to define this vision triangle so that there's no obstructions. Pedestrians can see vehicles, vehicles can see pedestrians. MR. BARTLETT: I'm thinking of the sign out front of the Spectrum Building by Mad Fox and Panera, where it is, if that's considered an intersection, there's a sign there, right there at that entrance, that lists the various tenants in that area where you enter on Broad Street. So I'm trying to figure out what allows that pillar. VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: That matter came before the Board. MR. BOYLE: I know they got a variance for the number of place names on the sign, business names on the sign. But I'll have to check and see if the variance was also included for its placement. That was a very heavily reviewed sign. MR. BARTLETT: Interesting. VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: I remember the sign because of its unusual shape. But it does call attention to itself. I don't remember if it had a variance for the distance to the intersection. It could have been part of a broader site plan that was approved by Council perhaps. MR. BOYLE: Yes, that was purpose-built or purpose-designed. The 25 feet there would be where that drive aisle meets Broad, 25 feet back and 25 feet to the right and then you connect those two points. So I think if we measured that on its site plan it's not in that triangle. It very well may be closer than 25 feet to the street but it's not in that vision triangle. VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Site vision. MR. BOYLE: Yeah, it's in the second half, take a square and then cut it into triangles, it's in the lower half of that, if that makes sense. But I'll take a look at that site plan and see. This property obviously was built and designed without an idea towards these monument signs. So it's got mature landscaping and trees and what have you. And so to insert one after -- and its row of parking may also be in its front setback, now with the 20 foot setback that we have off of North Washington. It's a complicated place to put signs there. VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Yes, I will say it's kind of an unusual -- I mean you own the building. MR. LAROCHELLE: Yes. VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: You own the property. And yet when you own the whole complex and you're looking to put a smaller sign on the second floor, the second story, it seems an unusual -- I don't know, it just seems unusual when you own the whole property. MR. LAROCHELLE: But again, when we went through the process of wanting a monument -- from the get-go we wanted a monument sign at the get-go, but with that being said, we wanted the visibility for that monument sign, and when we could not get it so that it's perpendicular with the road to capture both ways of traffic, and then when it sort of, if you will, came to fruition, as far as, okay, this is what you have, and that's basically it, then with it being parallel which is not advantageous, that's when we decided. VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: You have a parallel sign now though. I realize it's further back, I agree with that but it's parallel right now. MS. VANLANDINGHAM: Can I say something? I'm Ruth Vanlandingham with the sign company.  VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Yes, please. MS. VANLANDINGHAM: We really were going for a monument sign for over a year with Akida. We had so many designs it was unbelievable. But in this particular place, the property line was like 5 feet back from the sidewalk and we had to be 8 feet back from that, which led us right into the parking lot. And as many times as we surveyed it, the Army guys, they were backing in their trucks. The sign was going to get demolished. VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Right. MS. VANLANDINGHAM: We even got permission from Akida that maybe we could take down a part of the brick wall, see, there's a brick wall, that since it's his property, but even then the sign was going to be dangerous. Dangerously hit. And as far as the size of the sign on the wall, that's all that's allowed. That size, that's all that's allowed. VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Right. It's your building but the signage doesn't really reflect that. I think you'd want it to be known as the Inova building. MR. LAROCHELLE: Which we're not in any of the other buildings. We're just in the one. VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: I see. You have tenants. MR. LAROCHELLE: Like, for instance, for Inova Urgent Care who was going to be in there, we don't know. Is it going to be another Inova entity going to move in there or is there going to be somebody else that's going to lease that out. VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: I see. You're a landlord -- MR. LAROCHELLE: Exactly. VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: But you're also operating like a tenant in some respects. MR. LAROCHELLE: Exactly. VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Are there other questions for the applicant? MR. MISLEH: What's the response to the Architectural Advisory Board's recommendation to put it on the first floor? I didn't understand what the hardship is there. Is it not visible? MR. LAROCHELLE: I wouldn't say that it's a hardship. Somatus is on the first spandrel. MR. MISLEH: We don't have that. MS. VANLANDINGHAM: There you go. MR. LAROCHELLE: And it is pushed over to the left of you, that's closer toward the entrance. And also in the interest of Inova connectivity with being on the second floor, visibility, if you're coming from the other direction, I will say that being up on the second floor, you do have other signs that are, I don't want to say "visual clutter", but I mean, with it being more open, if you will, seeing the signs, it does help it more with being on the second floor rather than the first spandrel. VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Yeah, I mean they recommended on the first floor -- I mean, these are architects -- MR. BOYLE: It's a mixture of builders. VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: They're recommending it on the first floor for the south corner of the building, more consistent with existing signage, will better serve for way-finding purposes. So I understand the part of your concern or your request is the way-finding. MR. LAROCHELLE: Correct. VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Yes. This Board of builders and architects is saying there's another location that's better for way-finding. Maybe you can address that. MR. LAROCHELLE: I'm sorry. What is that? VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: The Board was saying that this alternative location, first floor toward the south corner, will better serve for way-finding purposes. Is there a reason why that's not -- MS. VANLANDINGHAM: Well, there's more trees down there. MR. LAROCHELLE: We definitely don't want to go right. Because if we go right, we're totally not going to be seen at all.  The trees aren't going away, I get that. We're just trying to capture what we can as far as trying to get people from either direction to at least -- and mind you, when you're going down Washington Street and the sign is on your right hand side, you literally have probably two seconds to be able to say, oops, I got to turn around and make a U turn now. MR. BARTLETT: Or they can turn right onto Gresham. MR. LAROCHELLE: And then what, then turn back around? Oh, there is another exit. MR. BARTLETT: Through the parking lot. MR. LAROCHELLE: Yes. MR. BARTLETT: I would just like to point out that my concern is that by allowing you to place this on the second floor because it's easier, that sets a tone and precedent for the rest of the City that businesses who want to place a sign where they're not supposed to be, or not allowed by Code, then they have a way to say, well, you already allowed this to happen because Inova wanted to put it there, on their building. And it makes me uncomfortable. MR. LAROCHELLE: Okay. I mean, I understand that. MR. MISLEH: I share Mr. Bartlett's concern. I think some of the buildings that Mr. Boyle referenced at the outset were buildings that were new developments and the signage package was part of the planning submission. It was pre-negotiated all the way through.  As an after-thought to put signage at the second level, I think sets a bad precedent for the City. And if we allowed buildings to do that in one area, who's to say that other buildings won't come to us and we'll end up with a smattering of signs in odd places throughout the City. VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: I mean, I think it's an attractive sign. MR. LAROCHELLE: Thank you. VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: And I understand the rationale but there is this matter of setting a precedent that is concerning. MR. MISLEH: Yeah, I'm real concerned about the sign, the construction. What's been presented, I think it's great. I think the location is my concern. MR. LAROCHELLE: Okay. MS. VANLANDINGHAM: I just wonder how many other situations that this would be setting a precedent. Because the resident is behind the building. I mean, how much of a precedent could this actually -- I think this is a unique situation. I think it's important for the visibility for Inova. So I don't know what kind of a precedent, how many situations could this be duplicated. VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Right. MR. BARTLETT: I would respond simply by saying that there are many locations in the City where there are not signs. And it would be wonderful for customers if there were more signs; however the City's made the decision to not allow signs everywhere. So the precedent would be, because Council has said this is not an appropriate place for a sign and you come to the Board of Zoning Appeals and say we think it should be there and we say yes, then we've set the precedent that you can just come to us and bypass City Council and Code. It's not necessarily just this type of sign and this type of place, it's the idea and the principle that we don't need to follow the Code, we can just come and say to the Board of Zoning Appeals that this is easier for us or it might be a better place even though Code and City Council have said that that's not what we want as a City. And that's the precedent that I'm concerned about. MS. VANLANDINGHAM: And I understand the Code has changed, that businesses on the second floor by right now can have their signs. So this is only specific to the T-1 and T-2, right, because all the businesses can now have second floor stories if they're on the second floor. MR. BARTLETT: All the businesses? MS. VANLANDINGHAM: Uh-huh. The Code was changed. MR. BOYLE: In the B Zoning districts. MR. BARTLETT: In the B Zoning districts, right.  VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: John, if you can, what are some examples of transitional districts? Like, for example, the new development where the 7-11 is, is that transitional? I understand your point about how much of a precedent would it set. There's also a lot of construction and development underway in the City, that's what I'm thinking of. But it does make me think, gee, how many transitional areas are there. MR. BOYLE: Most of the transitional is along Park on the City Hall side. The back half of the Rite-Aid where it abuts Ellison Street is transitional. The building City Hall is in temporarily, 400 North, is transitional. So they're much more residential. VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Yes. MR. BARTLETT: The buildings up further up on the other side of Washington, going towards Fairfax, are those transitional? Like at Greenway? MR. BOYLE: Greenway, these colors are so simili ar. Yeah, the office building at Greenway and South Washington is transitional. There's some automotive uses at where Maple meets Washington, the back halves of those properties are transitional. VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Thanks. You just named a decent number of buildings in the City.  MR. BOYLE: Yes, I'd say once upon a time we had much more. The City was zoned transitional but it seems like -- well, the Broadway building, the Spectrum where Mad Fox is, the Park Avenue sides of those properties were transitional and they were B up front and their application included a rezoning of the entire parcel. So a lot of the transitional has been folded into this mixed use development. Little different circumstance but once upon a time we had much more transitional than we do now. VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Okay. Thank you. Well, are there any other questions for the applicant? MR. MISLEH: I would just say that the Byron is a good example of a building that has second floor retail and therefore has second floor signage in place. But in buildings that are flat facade and only a first floor entrance, it is not customary to see second floor signage and therefore, I do think the way the Code is broken from a transitional and a business district, I think there's a purpose to that. VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: All right. Are there any closing remarks that you'd like to make? (No response.) VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Okay. We have a variance application before us. Would anyone care to make a motion with regard to it? MR. JONES: I'll make a motion.  VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Okay. Please. MR. JONES: I'll make a motion on variance application V1605-18 by Inova, applicant and owner, for a variance to Section 48-1266(1) to allow a second story tenant wall sign, not otherwise permitted by Code, on premises known as 500 North Washington Street, RPC #53-101-070 of the Falls Church Real Property Records, zoned T-2, Transitional. And the motion is to deny the application. VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Is there a second? MR. MISLEH: I second. Okay. Roll call. RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Calabrese. I'm sorry. Mr. Bartlett. MR. BARTLETT: Yes. RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Jones. VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: I'm sorry, "Yes" means that you would "Yes" to pass the motion that this is denied. MR. BOYLE: "Yes" would be to deny. RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Jones. MR. JONES: Yes. RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Williamson. MR. WILLIAMSON: Yes. RECORDING SECRETARY: And, Mr. Misleh. MR. MISLEH: Yes.  VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: I'm sorry, you don't have your variance. MS. VANLANDINGHAM: So we can't have it on the first floor according to the Advisory Board then, you can't amend the motion that instead of being on the second floor it would be on the first floor as per the Advisory Board? VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Well, I think, isn't that by right? MS. VANLANDINGHAM: No. MR. BOYLE: That's not what's before the Board. That's not the application that was made. But we can discuss that between staff and you. MS. VANLANDINGHAM: So the Advisory Board recommended it went on the first floor. So we can't vote on that? VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Are we able to do that, John? We haven't advertised. MR. JONES: The application is for a second story tenant wall sign. Not a first floor one. It seems like we can only vote on the application that's before us. VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Typically we would vote on that and then perhaps attach requirements or restrictions on it but we would be voting on that. I mean, this is the really the whole variance. I mean, you've heard our general discomfort with the location.  MS. VANLANDINGHAM: Yes. VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: I think we have a recommendation from the Advisory Board as you said. I would advise you to work with staff. I know you want to get this completed, you've worked through a very lengthy process but I would encourage you to work with staff. MS. VANLANDINGHAM: So there's no way to amend that, that you would follow up with the recommendation from the Advisory Board that it could go on the first spandrel. VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: No, I don't think so. Like I said, normally we would vote -- I mean, that's the crux of it. We would attach conditions to it. MS. VANLANDINGHAM: So then we would have to pay again to come for a variance to put it on the first floor, the $1980? MR. BOYLE: Well, it's an entirely different question. MS. VANLANDINGHAM: Okay. MR. BOYLE: If you'd like, the Code section is not that long, I can read you, I think you'd see what the issue is. And this is the section listed in the agenda. For the transitional districts, T-1 and T-2, wall signs: One wall sign shall be permitted for each ground floor business, subject to the same conditions set forth. It sets the size not to exceed 10 square feet. And then it goes on: In the event a ground floor business chooses not to utilize a freestanding sign,  projecting sign, window sign, or arcade sign, the maximum area of its wall sign shall not exceed 15 square feet. It doesn't mention a second story business. So they would have had to come seeking an entirely different variance which would be to allow a second story business to have a ground floor sign. The signage in the T districts are, as you can see, are severely restricted. That Code section doesn't have an option for a second story business to have a sign. They would have to come back before the Board asking to allow a second story business to make use of a first story location for a sign. I think we can discuss whether that's included under this fee, but staff would take the position that this is an entirely -- if they came to us during tomorrow's business day and asked for a ground floor sign, I would set that up as a variance. I'm not deciding that question for the Board tonight, but if that question were posed to me, I would say I don't have authority to grant a second story business, a sign on the ground floor. VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Yes, and I'd just ask that you work with the applicant with regard to the cost. There's been a lot of time and effort that has gone into this and they have gone before the Architectural Board and they have actually given a recommendation. Those matters are up to this Board to decide and I'll just defer to staff on that. MR. BOYLE: I think there's precedent for not attaching a second fee but we can work through that with you. MS. VANLANDINGHAM: Okay. MR. BOYLE: But do you see the issue? This Board wasn't asked to allow a ground floor sign for a second floor business and staff can't approve that. MS. VANLANDINGHAM: Got it. MR. BARTLETT: And in addition, it was not publicly noticed that that was in front of us, as represented to the community. MR. LAROCHELLE: So, I'm sorry, you're saying that that's something that should have been noted, that if by chance you were not agreeable on the second spandrel, we're still interested in the first floor spandrel then, as having that noted. VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Not noted, but rather "noticed" to the community. MR. LAROCHELLE: Okay. VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: There's an advertising process, like letters are mailed I believe. MR. BOYLE: Right.  VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Notifying people within a certain radius of a location. So if they have a concern or want to support it, they can come to the Board at that time. MS. VANLANDINGHAM: Oh, they could have come and supported it. VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Yeah, they could have. There's a notice provision. Listen, I know you've worked through a very lengthy process. There's all these kinds of steps. MR. LAROCHELLE: Yes. MS. VANLANDINGHAM: Yes. VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: I would say continue to work with staff and if you choose to come back here next month, we're here every month. MS. VANLANDINGHAM: Thank you. MR. LAROCHELLE: Thank you all for your consideration. MR. BOYLE: Could I say that Mr. Jones made that motion and was seconded by Mr. Misleh. b. Council referral of (TF18-36), Resolution to adopt the 2018 update to the Affordable Living Policy to boards and commissions. VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: The next matter of New Business is Council referral of (TF18-36), it's a Resolution to adopt the 2018 update to the Affordable Living Policy to boards and commissions. We have -- John, am I correct, it's a one page front and back document? MR. BOYLE: Yes. MR. BARTLETT: It's actually a three page double sided document. MR. BOYLE: It's kind of copied in a strange way I think. This is something that City Council is considering and one of their routine functions before they take a final position, they send it out to boards and commissions. And I don't think this is technically within the purview of this Board or these questions would come before the Board. In a nutshell, the Commonwealth of Virginia changed some terminology and policies at their level governing the application of Affordable Housing, administration of Affordable Housing ordinances. And Council regularly sees these with all of the mixed use developments, they all have an affordable housing component. And so they, before they took action, they sent it out to boards and commissions. In your capacity as a Board or as citizens, your comments are being solicited. VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: So, purely comments?  MR. BOYLE: Yes. Again, I don't think this is something that would come before the Board as a question to decide. It's a routine process of Council where they send it out to all boards and commissions. We considered whether to bring it here tonight, but Council said send it. VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Okay. Well, one, an approach, I'll see if my fellow Board members are all right with this, we can review this, we might want to think about it. Does anyone have any comments on it now? Would you prefer to read it and digest it a little more and then you can send me comments and then I could consolidate them to give them to John who could transmit them. MR. BOYLE: That's how we've handled it in the past. VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: We would have to get those back by November 8th, prior to November 8th. MR. BOYLE: Right, public comment period is from September 10th through November 8th with a public hearing and final action on November 26th. So I would say November 8th. MR. BARTLETT: I think that's a fantastic approach. I'd like to read this. VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Right. Just so we're -- would everybody be amenable to saying that we get any comments back by October 31st so there's not any confusion as to whether or not we're going to submit comments.  Is that acceptable to everybody? BOARD MEMBERS: Yes. MR. JONES: Can I ask you a quick question, John? If we submit our questions to Darcy, are we submitting those in our capacity as a Board member or are we submitting those as a citizen of the City of Falls Church? MR. BOYLE: I've seen it done both ways: The Board take a position and you identifying maybe your comments come as a private citizen, member of the Board, these comments are my own. Kind of like a dissenting opinion or a concurring opinion from the Supreme Court. You'll hear what the Supreme Court says and then -- VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: It's so similar. MR. BOYLE: I'm going to comment anyway even though -- so, yes, you're definitely free to comment. The entire community is and you also have the added invitation from Council to comment. VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: And of course we don't have to comment either. I don't think that us taking a position or not would affect our -- in the event that we hear any matters that could be related to Affordable Housing or like a certain property or anything like that, I don't think would affect our decision-making process in any way. I wanted to state that.  MR. BOYLE: That's interesting. In my college days I asked a number of judges what their position would be on allowing certain hate speech to take place in the community and what's your position on this and they all refused to comment because that question might come before them. But this is Council asking for guidance. Not, Do you think we should allow Affordable Housing or things like that. VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Right. MR. BOYLE: I agree, I don't think this is going to be at the crux of a matter that comes before this Board. VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Right. MR. BARTLETT: I will note that the Architectural Advisory Board minutes documented some concerns that they as a Board had with the policy. MR. BOYLE: Oh, maybe that would be instructional. MR. BARTLETT: 6 C of their notes here, with a couple of recommendations. So I could envision us having something similar if we do choose to make comments through you Darcy, that's fine. VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: That's a good suggestion. MR. BOYLE: That's a motivated Board. MR. MISLEH: I'd be reluctant to take that position or take any position as a Board. We never know if we're ever going to see something. So, I think we're probably best submitting my comments personally to the Council members.  VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Well, everybody has a chance to review and then either comment or not comment, take a position, not take a position based on how those comments come in. 6. APPROVAL OF MINUTES a. Approval of the September 13, 2018, meeting minutes. VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Let's review minutes then. We've got the minutes from September 13, 2018. This is the meeting where the white board was used. (Minutes reviewed.) VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Okay. Is there a motion to approve these minutes? MR. BARTLETT: I'll make a motion to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of the Board of Zoning Appeals from September 13, 2018. VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Is there a second? MR. MISLEH: I second. VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Roll call. RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Misleh. MR. MISLEH: Yes. RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Williamson. VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Yes. RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Jones.  MR. JONES: Yes. RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Bartlett. MR. BARTLETT: Yes. 7. OTHER BUSINESS VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Okay. There is no Other Business on the agenda. Does anyone have any other business they need to bring before the Board? (No response.) 8. ADJOURNMENT VICE CHAIR WILLIAMSON: Okay. Seeing no other business, this meeting is adjourned.