Board of Zoning Appeals

1 BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING AGENDA 2 VIRTUAL PUBLIC HEARING 3 Thursday, December 17, 2020 4 7:30 p.m. 5 6 1. CALL TO ORDER 7 MR. JONES: With that, now that we have everyone here, 8 we'll call to order the Thursday, December 17, 2020, Board of 9 Zoning Appeals meeting. 10 Can I have a roll call please, Akida. 11 MS. ROUZI: Sure. Before I do that, I'll just read 12 this virtual meeting notice. 13 This meeting will be held pursuant to and in 14 compliance with the Virginia Freedom of Information Act, Section 15 2.2-3708.2 and state and local legislation adopted to allow for 16 continued government operation during the COVID-19 declared 17 emergency. All participating members will be present at this 18 meeting through electronic means. All members of the public may 19 view this electronic meeting via the meeting link listed above 20 and in the City's website calendar. 21 Thank you. 22 2. ROLL CALL 23 RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Eppler. 24 MR. EPPLER: Present. 25 RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Bartlett. 26 MR. BARTLETT: I am here, present. 27 RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Calabrese. 28 MR. CALABRESE: Here. 29 RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Misleh is absent. 30 Mr. Jones. 31 MR. JONES: Here. 32 RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Kien. 33 MR. KIEN: Present. 34 RECORDING SECRETARY: Thank you. 35 MR. JONES: Thank you, Akida. 36 37 3. PETITIONS 38 4. OLD BUSINESS 39 MR. JONES: I don't think we have any Petitions and I 40 don't believe we have any Old Business; is that correct? 41 MR. BOYLE: That's correct. At some point, at your 42 convenience, I'd like to discuss reordering the Agenda. 43 MR. JONES: Sure. Now is good. 44 MR. BOYLE: We'd like to keep our homeowner in the 45 front position there for Item a. 46 I'm wondering if the two commercial applicants might 47 comment as to how much time they think they'll need. In my 48 experience sign variances can go relatively quickly, whether 49 they're approved or not; whereas this development may want to 50 have more time to speak. 51 So potentially reorder the Agenda to bring Item c 52 forward one space but perhaps the applicants can weigh in as to 53 how much time they need. 54 MR. KESTERSON: I would. I'm the sign variance for 55 Michael Beyer. I don't need more than a minute or two, I'm 56 sure. 57 MR. JONES: Okay. Thank you, sir. 58 If there's no objections then to the applicant for 59 1618-20, we'll go ahead and reorder Item c to Item b and then 60 we'll move 1618-20 to Item c. 61 MR. BARTLETT: Mr. Jones, this is Mr. Bartlett. I 62 just want to make sure that the applicant for FCGP is okay with 63 that before we proceed. 64 MR. JONES: Yes, agreed. 65 MR. BARTLETT: And then just because, no offense to 66 the Beyer representative, but it doesn't mean that we won't have 67 questions either to make it longer. 68 MR. JONES: Certainly. 69 MS. FRIEDLANDER: This is Amy Friedlander from FCGP. 70 As soon as you talked about the Agenda, my Teams 71 crashed. So if I understand correctly, you're just moving the 72 Beyer application ahead of the FCGP Development application? 73 MR. JONES: Correct. 74 MS. FRIEDLANDER: Okay. That's fine. 75 MR. JONES: Okay. Very good. 76 MR. KESTERSON: Thank you. 77 MR. JONES: With that, it seems like we have a lot of 78 items on the Agenda, so I think we'll first need to swear you 79 all in. 80 And then, Mr. Boyle, I don't know if you have any sort 81 of guidance on this, but for the applicant to state their name 82 for the record and maybe the application they're associated 83 with. 84 MR. BOYLE: Probably best to do a roll call off the 85 participants' list. 86 MR. JONES: Okay.  87 MR. BOYLE: And have that serve for the swearing in as 88 well as what Agenda item they're going to speak to. 89 MR. JONES: Okay. That sounds good to me. 90 Are you going to lead that roll call, Mr. Boyle, or 91 Akida? 92 MS. ROUZI: I can take a shot. 93 I think Mariam is associated with the residential 94 variance, 333 Grove Avenue. 95 Could you confirm that, Mariam? I'm sorry, I may not 96 pronounce your last name correctly, if you could help me out 97 with that one. 98 MS. GARRIGA: Sure thing. No worries. 99 My name is Mariam Garriga, and, yes, I'm associated 100 with the first item, 333 Grove Avenue. 101 MS. ROUZI: And you are the only person representing 102 that application, correct? 103 MS. GARRIGA: Correct. 104 MS. ROUZI: Okay. And then for Volvo, we have Mr. 105 Pete Kesterson. 106 MR. KESTERSON: Yes, Peter Kesterson representing 107 Beyer Volvo, currently in the "c" but moving to the "b" 108 position, but, yes. Peter Kesterson for Beyer Volvo. 109 MS. ROUZI: And then we have a bunch of people on the 110 West Falls Church variance. I can start with Amy Friedlander 111 and then we have Dave Lasso, and then I think they have a team 112 of other people as well. 113 Amy, do you want to just introduce your team quickly? 114 MS. FRIEDLANDER: Sure. Amy Friedlander with FCGP 115 Development. As Akida said, we're represented here tonight, our 116 land-use counsel, Dave Lasso, and I'm also joined here by 117 Charles Battle, my colleague from Hoffman and Associates, and 118 Chris Huffer, the architect for the building. 119 MR. JONES: Very good. Thank you. 120 Do we have any members of the public? 121 I'm sorry, John. Go ahead. 122 MR. BOYLE: No, it's good to proceed with members of 123 the public. 124 MR. JONES: Okay. Members of the public, if you'd 125 like to speak, would you mind just stating your name. 126 (No response.) 127 MR. BOYLE: Mr. Chair, I was going to suggest that 128 perhaps you could swear everyone in and I think we can assume 129 they're paying attention and they're on notice. 130 MR. JONES. Okay. Very good. 131 Well, with that, for those applicants who are speaking 132 before the Board tonight, if you wouldn't mind raising your 133 virtual hand and swearing to tell the truth and the whole truth 134 before the Board tonight. 135 (Witnesses sworn.) 136 MR. JONES: Thank you. 137 138 5. NEW BUSINESS 139 a. Variance application V1620-20 by Mariam Garriga, applicant 140 and owner, for a variance to Section 48-263(3)a, to allow a side 141 yard setback of 9.2 feet instead of 10 feet for the purpose of 142 constructing a second story addition on premises known as 333 143 Grove Avenue, RPC #51-216-046 of the Falls Church Real Property 144 Records, zoned R-1B, Medium Density Residential. 145 MR. JONES: With that, I guess we can commence with 146 the first variance application, 1620, 1620-20, for a variance to 147 allow a side yard setback of 9.2 feet instead of 10 feet for the 148 purpose of constructing a second story addition on premises 149 known as 333 Grove Avenue. 150 Mr. Boyle, if you wouldn't mind starting with a report 151 from the staff. 152 MR. BOYLE: Yes, sir. Thank you. 153 As you stated, this is a variance application based on 154 the encroachment of the house into the side setback. 155 The applicant has prepared a pretty complete package 156 that everyone should have. Scrolling through it quickly, 157 there's a statement of hardship cover letter, a very nice 158 picture of the house. Whoever took that is to be credited. We 159 have the plat showing the position of the house in the setback. 160 The setbacks for this zoning district are 10 feet and 161 the house as it exists encroaches slightly into that 10 foot 162 setback and the applicant is hoping to come forward with a porch 163 and go up with a dormer and some of that will encroach into this 164 setback. 165 And it's not a setback staff has discretion to approve 166 so they're here tonight for the variance. 167 Also, within the package from the applicant are 168 renderings of existing and proposed elevations, interiors, and I 169 believe I saw letters from neighbors. 170 Yes, letters of support from the neighbors. 171 And as the Agenda says, the existing side setback or 172 the location of the house is 9.2 feet. 10 feet is required. 173 And again, the owner is hoping to take it basically straight up 174 and forward. 175 So with that, I'll defer to Ms. Garriga's presentation 176 and I'll be available for questions. 177 MR. JONES: Thank you. 178 MS. ROUZI: I'm happy to move to slides as you wish. 179 So just start from the first page of your presentation and you 180 can feel free to tell me to just flip those slides. 181 MS. GARRIGA: Thank you very much. 182 But before I get started, having not done this before, 183 I just wanted to ask if I should be on video or is it just 184 audio? 185 MS. ROUZI: It really doesn't matter. Some of us are 186 on audio, or just on like a no video, so it's up to you. 187 Whatever you feel comfortable. 188 MR. BARTLETT: I'll go on video just to make you feel 189 comfortable if you choose to go on video. 190 MS. GARRIGA: And I did, in fact, turn on my video so 191 thank you very much. 192 MR. BOYLE: If you think you're going to have any cats 193 run through and knock things over, please go on video. 194 MS. GARRIGA: Now I kind of wish I did have a pet. 195 First and foremost, I just want to thank you so much 196 for adding this to the Agenda this evening and past support for 197 this application as well as for your consideration of the 198 application. 199 That was a great introduction of all the materials 200 that I submitted. And basically the idea is I'd really like to 201 be able to add a second floor dormer and the ideas behind it, 202 it's a little further down in the rendering and I won't 203 necessarily make you move forward, but it's going to be on the 204 street side of the house and it will pretty much run the width 205 of the front of the house. So it's about 28 and a half feet 206 across. 207 And as indicated in the introduction, my plan is to 208 really go straight up rather than out. So I am not here looking 209 for permission to expand the size of the house itself, the 210 footprint on the lot. 211 I bought this house a little over five years ago and 212 have done quite a bit of work on the inside of the house but I 213 have not touched the footprint of the house or the outside of 214 the house. 215 So the Code issue that I'm now facing with my very 216 lovely and very old 1939 house and the one for which I'd like to 217 request a variance is really a pre-existing difficulty that I 218 didn't create. I purchased the property with that 9 and a half 219 foot setback, it's on the north side of the property and it's 220 toward the front and as indicated it's the 9 and a half foot of 221 the property line rather than the necessary 10 foot. 222 And actually, Akida, if you could scroll down to the 223 plat, it's drawn on there, you can see the original on the right 224 front corner of the house where it's indicated 9.2 feet to the 225 edge, that was, like I mentioned, pre-existing to the house. 226 And so that is the issue there. But my request is to 227 go straight up. 228 The project really isn't going to encroach on the 229 neighbors' use of their property anymore than the existing 230 sense. I'm not looking to expand on that side of the footprint 231 and I do, in fact, have their support. 232 Sorry to make you move again, but prior to this you'll 233 see two letters of support; one from either side of my neighbors 234 on either side. And both very supportive of the property and in 235 fact, they're actually looking forward to the improvements that 236 I intend to make on the property because like me, they think 237 that it's actually going to create a better curb appeal and give 238 it a bit of a nicer, more neighborly sort of place to congregate 239 in the neighborhood. 240 So they're actually very supportive and looking 241 forward to what I intend to do with the property. 242 If you scroll down a little bit farther, I just want 243 to make sure that everybody had an opportunity to take a look at 244 the future renderings of the property. 245 This is the side elevation view and a little farther 246 down, the front view, and then a little farther down is, that's 247 the existing floor plan and then the next one is the to-be floor 248 plan. 249 So on the right side is what it would look like from 250 the floor plan perspective toward the front of the house. 251 So I'm happy to answer any questions or share any 252 additional information. 253 MR. JONES: Thank you for that presentation. I don't 254 have any immediate questions but it looks like some members of 255 the Board may have some. 256 MR. CALABRESE: I'll just start off. This looks 257 pretty straightforward to me, but just to confirm, the neighbors 258 that wrote you the letters, they're the ones to the immediate 259 left and right? 260 MR. GARRIGA: Correct. 261 MR. CALABRESE: That's correct, okay. And behind, is 262 there any impact, any word from the people behind you? 263 MS. GARRIGA: No, no. I didn't engage with the people 264 behind me on this since the project is on the front side of the 265 house and the 9.2 foot current encroachment is on the right 266 side, so I have engaged with the neighbors on either side. 267 MR. CALABRESE: Okay. I don't have anything else. 268 Thank you. 269 MR. BARTLETT: David, I completely agree with you. I 270 think this is very straightforward and you're not creating a new 271 variance, your existing structure is out of zoning and so you 272 need to obviously get a variance to go up even though you 273 already have the same structure in place and I think the house 274 is beautiful. 275 I just have one question to make sure with staff that 276 the front porch has no issues going forward. I see that there's 277 a new shaded area but it seems like that's 36.6 and we wouldn't 278 have any issues with front yard setbacks with the new porch, is 279 that correct? 280 MR. BOYLE: Yes, sir, that's correct. The setback for 281 this property, the front setback would be 25 feet and then they 282 can go 8 feet into that 25, so there's a lot of room there. 283 MR. BARTLETT: Perfect. Okay. 284 I have no further questions. Thank you very much, 285 Mariam, for your presentation and your thorough materials 286 presented. 287 MS. GARRIGA: Thank you so much. 288 MR. JONES: Thank you, Mr. Bartlett. 289 Any other questions from the Board before we close it 290 and then have an internal discussion? 291 (No response.) 292 MR. JONES: Okay. Seeing none, thank you very much 293 for your presentation. 294 With that, we'll close that portion of it and discuss 295 the applicant's application. 296 I guess I'll lead off. I think Mr. Calabrese and Mr. 297 Bartlett sort of framed the issues very well. It seems to me 298 very straightforward, building upon the current structure within 299 the current variance. 300 I don't have any questions and if I may, I don't have 301 any concerns so I'm inclined to approve the application but I'll 302 defer to other members of the Board for their thoughts. 303 MR. CALABRESE: I have no further comments. 304 MR. EPPLER: No, I as well, I think it's very 305 straightforward as Keith and David already said. 306 MR. KIEN: Yeah, I have no questions or comments. 307 MR. BARTLETT: My only comment is that I'll make a 308 motion to approve variance application V1620-20 by Mariam 309 Garriga, applicant and owner, for a variance to Section 310 48-263(3)a, to allow a side yard setback of 9.2 feet instead of 311 10 feet for the purpose of constructing a second story addition 312 on 333 Grove Avenue in Falls Church. 313 MR. EPPLER: I'll second. 314 MR. JONES: Roll call please, Akida. 315 RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Eppler. 316 MR. EPPLER: Yes. 317 RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Bartlett. 318 MR. BARTLETT: Yes. 319 RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Calabrese. 320 MR. CALABRESE: Yes. 321 RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Jones. 322 MR. JONES: Yes. 323 RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Kien. 324 MR. KIEN: Yes. 325 RECORDING SECRETARY: Thank you. 326 MR. JONES: Thank you, everyone. 327 Ms. Garriga, very good application, very thorough 328 materials, and good luck with your project. 329 MS. GARRIGA: Thank you so much for your time and your 330 approval. 331 MR. JONES: Very good. Thank you. 332 333 c. Variance Application V1619-20 by Michael Beyer, applicant 334 and owner, for variances to Section 48-1265(1) to allow 1) five 335 (5) wall signs instead of two (2), and 2) total wall sign area 336 of approximately 78 square feet instead of 50 square feet, on 337 premises known as 1119 W. Broad Street, RPC #51-102-069 of the 338 Falls Church Real Property Records, zoned M-1, Light Industrial. 339 MR. JONES: With that, based on the new Agenda items, 340 I believe we are moving to the sign variance request, 341 Application V1619-20 by Michael Beyer, applicant and owner, for 342 variances to allow five wall signs instead of two, and total 343 wall sign area of approximately 78 square feet instead of 50 344 square feet, on premises known as 1119 W. Broad Street. 345 So with that, Mr. Boyle, if you wouldn't mind 346 providing a report. 347 MR. BOYLE: Yes, sir. This is part of a pretty 348 significant refresh of the property and new structures and I 349 believe a portion of this building was before the Board for a 350 variance for its vestibule in the front setback fairly recently. 351 As we've seen with sign variances before, it's very 352 literal. You can have a certain number of signs of a certain 353 size and they can be placed on a certain area of the building. 354 And it's a little different take than we see with, for example, 355 a residential variance we just heard. 356 Sign variances have a stipulation where the hardship 357 standard or the unusual features particular to this property 358 don't apply. The Code allows the applicants to make their case 359 and there's a provision that as long as the neighbors don't 360 object and it's not creating a light hazard and things like 361 that, so it's more of an impact on neighbors and does it work 362 with the building. Very different standard than we see with 363 variances elsewhere. 364 In this case, as the Agenda says, they're hoping to 365 have five wall signs instead of two and increase the area from 366 50 square feet up to 78. And some of the signage that you see 367 in the display has already been installed. They were by-right 368 signs. 369 And with that, I think we have a representative from 370 the applicants and I'll defer to their presentation. 371 MR. KESTERSON: Good evening. Thank you. 372 So in the picture there, it only shows four dots, if 373 you wish. And the fifth sign is the third approved sign on the 374 dark, shaded side of that rendering for our service department. 375 Just so you have a good feel for the overall picture where the 376 five lines actually are. 377 Our original concern, we went to the Architectural 378 Board and they unanimously approved us to the next process, 379 visiting you folks. The sign marked N-11 on the east side of 380 the building, we believe provides a safer opportunity for 381 customers or citizens, if you wish, driving from the east to the 382 west to see what the building is, in terms of the use of the 383 building, much before they get to it, so they're not causing any 384 traffic issues looking for us, coming up to the light here 385 that's actually on the west side of the building. That would be 386 N-11. 387 N-02 is the only place we'd actually have the 388 opportunity to let the public know the owner of the business 389 which is the Beyer family. 390 From an impact standpoint, we are the neighbors on 391 both sides. The east side is our Volvo technical shop and the 392 west side is our Kia store. So we don't believe there's any 393 negative impact on our neighbors as we are the neighbors. 394 And that's basically our request. It is a rather 395 large building and a significant improvement of what we had 396 there before so we're looking for your approval, if you wish, to 397 allow us to put up these two extra signs. 398 MR. JONES: Those two extra signs, that's the Beyer 399 and the service sign, is that correct? 400 MR. KESTERSON: The service sign is actually 401 previously approved. It's not shown in this display. The 402 Beyer, where it says "N-02" and on the left side, "N-11," would 403 be identical to "N-03" on the right side. Frankly the same as 404 "N-01" as well. 405 So the east side would look just like the west side 406 where it says "Volvo." 407 MR. JONES: Thank you. 408 MR. CALABRESE: If I can ask, can you confirm, so the 409 west side is the Kia dealership, correct? 410 MR. KESTERSON: Yes, sir. 411 MR. CALABRESE: And the east, remind me, what's on the 412 east side? 413 MR. KESTERSON: That's our Volvo technical shop. It 414 used to be the Chesapeake and Potomac Telephone Company. It's 415 now our technical shop. It has been for years. 416 MR. CALABRESE: Okay. And when we define neighbors, 417 behind you would be, I guess a parking lot, if I'm correct -- 418 MR. KESTERSON: Yes, sir. 419 MR. CALABRESE: And a bike path. 420 MR. KESTERSON: Yes, sir. 421 MR. CALABRESE: And the homes that are back there, are 422 they in any line of sight to these new bright signs? 423 MR. KESTERSON: I don't believe they'd be in sight for 424 either of the signs. 425 MR. CALABRESE: Okay. And so the standard I think as 426 Mr. Boyle mentioned, would be the impact on neighbors. It would 427 appear that that is not relevant. 428 And then in addition, we'd look at safety issues. 429 You mentioned that the signage is actually a safety enhancement, 430 I think what you described in terms of people trying to find the 431 location. 432 MR. KESTERSON: Yes, sir. 433 MR. CALABRESE: There's always a concern that a sign 434 would be distracting or flashing and causing people who are 435 driving to be distracted. 436 In this case, is the brightness, I don't know if 437 there's a standard for this, but the brightness of the lights, 438 are they standard brightness or are they extra-bright? Can you 439 comment. 440 MR. KESTERSON: Well, certainly not extra bright. For 441 example, the City has a light pole in between us, in between the 442 Volvo store and the Kia store that I would certainly describe as 443 being brighter than the light that these signs would emit. 444 MR. CALABRESE: Okay. Thank you. 445 MR. KESTERSON: Yes, sir. 446 MR. EPPLER: Mr, Kesterson, if you could just confirm 447 because, I'm sorry, I may be turned around on the -- is the 448 signage that would be at N-11, is that the sign that would 449 potentially face back to housing behind you? 450 MR. KESTERSON: No, sir. That would be on the east 451 side of the building. To the east side is our technical shop. 452 MR. EPPLER: So basically neither N-02 nor N-11 would 453 be facing in any way towards any residential properties? 454 MR. KESTERSON: That is correct, sir. 455 MR. EPPLER: Thank you. 456 MR. JONES: Okay. Any other questions for the 457 applicant? 458 MR. BARTLETT: I have a question, just to confirm. 459 How many signs do you have on your former corner locations? 460 MR. KESTERSON: I'd have to go by memory. I'm going 461 to go with three I believe. Two on the north side and one on 462 the east side. 463 MR. BARTLETT: Is there a sign that says "Beyer" on 464 your current or the former Volvo location? 465 MR. KESTERSON: It actually says "Don Beyer" so we're 466 actually using less space because we're saying "Beyer" this 467 time. 468 MR. BARTLETT: And just from staff perspective, is 469 this blue square not considered a sign or is it just the Volvo 470 letters? 471 MR. BOYLE: It's just the lettering itself. The 472 example we usually give is the Shell gas sign, commercial Shell 473 gasoline. The letters Shell would be limited, but the yellow 474 shell around it is considered artwork and background. 475 MR. BARTLETT: Panels of the building are actually 476 blue already and we're being asked to attach signs, the letters? 477 MR. BOYLE: Correct. We're just looking at the 478 letters. 479 MR. KESTERSON: It's actually all glass. The white 480 and blue is all glass. 481 MR. BARTLETT: Okay. 482 MR. JONES: Thank you, Mr. Bartlett. 483 Any other questions for the applicant before we close 484 that part of the presentation and then discuss? 485 (No response.) 486 MR. JONES: Hearing none, thank you for your 487 presentation. 488 MR. KESTERSON: Thank you. 489 MR. JONES: I'll defer to other members of the Board 490 if they want to lead off. I think this is relatively 491 straightforward but I'm happy to listen to conversation from 492 members of the Board. 493 MR. CALABRESE: Yeah, I think we haven't done a lot of 494 these sign variances but this one does seem simple. The impact 495 on neighbors is there is no impact. And my main concern would 496 be the brightness for residential neighbors, which is not the 497 case here, and then certainly any brightness or distraction 498 value for motorists, and that does not appear to be an issue. 499 So, yeah, I don't have any serious concern at this 500 point. 501 MR. JONES: Thank you, Mr. Calabrese. 502 MR. EPPLER: I would just add that by total chance, 503 driving to pick my daughter up before this, I drove by the Volvo 504 dealership and can confirm that the silver letters on the blue 505 are not particularly bright. They don't jump out and distract 506 you as you're driving by. 507 And I would agree, as I understand it, our standard is 508 impact on neighbors and they are the neighbors and there doesn't 509 seem to be an impact on the residential people behind them, so I 510 guess this is fairly straightforward. 511 MR. JONES: Very good. Thank you, Mr. Eppler. 512 Is there a motion? 513 MR. CALABRESE: I'd move to approve variance 514 application V1619-20 by Michael Beyer, applicant and owner, for 515 variances to Section 48-1265(1), and incorporate the remainder 516 of that sentence into the motion. 517 MR. JONES: Is there a second? 518 MR. KIEN: I second that motion. 519 MR. JONES: Roll call please, Akida. 520 RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Kien. 521 MR. KIEN: Yes. 522 RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Jones. 523 MR. JONES: Yes. 524 RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Calabrese. 525 MR. CALABRESE: Yes. 526 RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Bartlett. 527 MR. BARTLETT: Yes. 528 RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Eppler. 529 MR. EPPLER: Yes. 530 RECORDING SECRETARY: Thank you. 531 MR. JONES: Congratulations, sir, on your project. 532 MR. KESTERSON: Thank you very much. Appreciate it. 533 Thank you kindly and thank you all for your service. 534 MR. JONES: Thank you, sir. Have a good night. 535 536 b. Variance Application V1618-20 by FCGP Development LLC, 537 applicant, for variances to Section 48-933 to allow 1) the 538 stacking of parking spaces and 2) placement of columns less than 539 three (3) feet from the drive aisle within a parking garage, for 540 the purpose of constructing a parking garage and residential 541 condominium on premises known as 7124 Leesburg Pike, RPC 542 #52-221-006 of the Falls Church Real Property Records, zoned 543 B-2, Central Business. 544 MR. JONES: That brings us to the final matter. This 545 is variance application V1618-20 by FCGP Development LLC, 546 applicant, for variances to Section 48-933 to allow the stacking 547 of parking spaces and placement of columns less than three feet 548 from the drive aisle within a parking garage, for the purpose of 549 constructing a parking garage and residential condominium on 550 premises known as 7124 Leesburg Pike. 551 Mr. Boyle, would you mind providing a report. 552 MR. BOYLE: Yes, sir. Thank you. 553 And this does involve the large proposed mixed-use 554 development in the area of the new high school, Haycock and 555 Broad Street, west end of the City. 556 In getting into the nitty-gritty of actually planning 557 the structures of a complex project like this, they discovered a 558 couple of things. One is our Code is, I think they'll make the 559 case, very restrictive on a few of the points that they're 560 required to abide by in the parking dimensions and what have 561 you. 562 And the other is actually a structural issue not 563 foreseen by our Code in dealing with spans of the beams and the 564 widths between support columns in parking structures. 565 So a couple of novel issues arising out of the Code. 566 And this application is the first of this variety of 567 special exception and it's interesting that right out of the 568 gate, our good old Code does well addressing a lot of the 569 application but a few of these finer points really were not 570 foreseen I think when this Code was drafted. 571 I say that as an introduction to the discussion in 572 that staff's position is going to be simply to allow the experts 573 in the application to explain the very particular and technical 574 defects that they have found in our Code. And staff will remain 575 available for questions and what have you, but we freely admit 576 that the topics they're going to be raising are going to tend to 577 be more of an engineering complexity, what have you, and so 578 we'll allow them to make their case. 579 And actually, I would like a member of the applicant's 580 team to introduce their team. They do have quite a collection 581 of expertise, including one of our favorite former City managers 582 and City attorneys. 583 So with that, if someone from the applicant's team 584 could step up and introduce who you have and I'll defer to your 585 application. 586 MR. CALABRESE: Before we do that, Mr. Boyle, can you 587 -- so I've gone through the Code in this area and you're right, 588 it seems like a lot of the issues aren't addressed. 589 Can you summarize for us what are the issues that this 590 Board, the criteria that we would judge a variance generally for 591 parking issues. With a sign variance, there's aesthetics, 592 there's safety. What are the main criterion that the City and 593 we would be looking at in order to adjudicate the petition? 594 MR. BOYLE: I think in this case there is more of a 595 hardship application like this Board normally sees. And it's 596 not the impact on neighbors. I think this standard that the 597 Board usually sees is returning to the hardship nature, why 598 can't it be built according to Code. 599 We've met with the applicant team a couple of times 600 and I think they make a pretty good case that our Code imposes 601 that hardship and the burden is theirs to convince this Board to 602 agree with them. 603 So the discussion is taking place from, I think, a 604 standard of hardship. 605 MR. CALABRESE: Thank you. 606 MR. BOYLE: If a member of the applicant team could 607 introduce your team and their disciplines, I think the Board 608 would benefit from hearing that. 609 MS. FRIEDLANDER: Sure. Thank you all for having us 610 tonight. 611 Again, my name is Amy Friedlander. I am with EYA, one 612 of the founding members of FCGP Development LLC, and we are here 613 representing the project tonight before you. 614 I'm joined by my colleague, Charles Battle, from 615 Hoffman and Associates, which is the other partner company in 616 FCGP Development. 617 Also joined by Dave Lasso, as John mentioned, our land 618 use counsel, as well as Chris Huffer, our architect for the 619 condo building that we're speaking about tonight from SK+I 620 Architecture. 621 Is it okay for me to do the presentation now or is 622 there any discussion that needs to occur? 623 MR. JONES: I think you can proceed with your 624 presentation. 625 MS. FRIEDLANDER: Great. 626 Akida, I'll just tell you roughly when to change the 627 slides, if that's okay. 628 MS. ROUZI: That works. 629 MS. FRIEDLANDER: All right. Thank you again for 630 having us here tonight. 631 We're here to discuss the condominium building which 632 is part of the 1.3 million square foot mixed use development 633 that you all may have heard a little bit about that is being 634 developed on the existing high school site. 635 This is actually a view of the condo building on the 636 right. You can see it's a 13 story building. It's going to be 637 in concrete. It's going to be rather unique for Falls Church, 638 which is part of our argument tonight in that this particular 639 building type was probably not contemplated when the parking 640 ordinance was written. 641 If you want to change slides, that would be great. 642 So, if you were not already familiar with the project, 643 we have several buildings on the site, including a multi-family 644 building on the bottom right, also called Building A. We have 645 an office building across the street to the left on this plan 646 called B-1. We have a hotel building north of that called B-2. 647 And then the condo building that is the subject of our 648 discussion tonight is on Block C and then across from the condo 649 building is a senior housing building. 650 If you want to change slides real quick. 651 So, this is a view of the condo building. We're 652 really excited about it, it's probably our favorite building in 653 terms of architecture on the site. It will be the first of its 654 kind I think in Falls Church. It will be 13 stories. It steps 655 down as required by the governing documents of the project down 656 towards the high school site. 657 You can see in the key plan, there's steps but in the 658 rendering it's stepping down on the right side of the building. 659 One of the key features of this building is its height 660 and density which is part of what makes the project work. And 661 one of the things about that means that because of the height of 662 the building, we have to build it out of concrete. And concrete 663 structures of this nature have certain structural requirements 664 and that's one of the reasons why we're asking for the variance. 665 You can switch slides, Akida. 666 This is a view from the back so you can see better the 667 step design of the building, going down towards the school and 668 then on the ground floor is retail and a music school and above 669 the second floor is an outdoor space that will be used by the 670 residents of the condo. 671 You can switch slides. 672 So, this is the garage plan and it illustrates roughly 673 what we're talking about tonight. So we're asking for two 674 things. We're asking for the ability to do tandem spaces or 675 stacked spaces and we're asking for the ability to locate 676 columns less than three feet back from the drive aisles. 677 So some of the things that we understand from staff 678 and from reviewing the Zoning Ordinance many, many times with 679 them, is that the Zoning Ordinance was written in, I would say, 680 in reaction to a problematic garage elsewhere in the City and 681 that garage was a public garage. It was used for commercial 682 uses. Folks who were unfamiliar with the garage were going 683 there and not knowing the right way to navigate the garage may 684 have made mistakes and maybe hit the columns that were not 685 generously placed in the spaces. 686 So here, this garage, is going to be strictly for the 687 condominium residents. Each space will be sold to a specific 688 resident. So in the case of the tandem spaces, each of the 689 single tandem space, or the two spaces stacked on top of each 690 other, would be sold to a single person or a single owner. 691 So much like a single family house with a driveway, 692 the owner of the two cars will be able to coordinate and move 693 the cars as needed in their tandem spaces. 694 So it wouldn't be that someone would be sold the space 695 in the back and someone would be sold the space in the front and 696 they weren't in the same household and they'd have to argue with 697 each other about how to get in and out of the space. It would 698 be managed like anyone would manage their own driveway. It 699 would just be managed by a condominium owner. 700 Similarly, this garage is, because it is private and 701 will only be accessed by the owners and their guests, the people 702 that are using this garage will be very familiar with its design 703 and its layout and will have, you know, you'll know exactly how 704 the best way to get into your space is. And you'll decide, you 705 know, okay, it's better for me to turn down this drive aisle 706 rather than that one and I'll approach this space from this 707 direction and I'll get in just fine. 708 One of the other key features to keep in mind here is 709 that the spaces themselves are the required dimensions so they 710 are 9 by 18. We're not asking for any changes to the dimensions 711 of the space itself. We're only asking for the ability to 712 locate those columns in a different space relative to the drive 713 aisle than the Ordinance requires. 714 And this column placement requirement is actually 715 somewhat unique to Falls Church. It's not a requirement that 716 we've experienced in other Northern Virginia jurisdictions. So 717 if you were to build this garage in Fairfax County, for example, 718 we could build it the way that we want to build it with no 719 problems. 720 What else should I say? The structural reason why we 721 want to place the columns where we want to place them is because 722 of the stepped nature of the structure. So, Chris Huffer, our 723 architect, can talk more about this than I probably can, but 724 basically because the building is stepped back, the way that the 725 columns have to transfer the load, requires that the columns 726 need to be in the places that you can see on this drawing in the 727 gray. If they're in the red areas, that would require extensive 728 transfer beams which are very expensive and we are trying to 729 avoid that. 730 So I think we calculated the additional costs to be 731 tens of thousands of dollars per space if we were to construct 732 the garage as required by the Ordinance. So that's why we're 733 asking for relief. 734 So, overall I think in conclusion, this garage will be 735 used by private residents. It's not a commercial structure. 736 It's not something that people are going to be using once and 737 never going in again and will not be familiar with where they're 738 going. 739 And the reason that we're asking for these changes is 740 for efficiency so the tandem spaces make the garage more 741 efficient and allow us to get more spaces into the garage 742 without wasting a very, very expensive concrete structure. 743 And the column placement is also a cost-saving measure 744 that will allow us to build the building more inexpensively. 745 So with that, I'm happy to answer any questions. 746 Dave, I don't know if you want to share anything. 747 Oh, I wanted to say that we were also thankful that 748 the Planning Commission did vote to give their support for this 749 application. We had long conversations with them about this 750 request and they were supportive so we're hoping that the BZA 751 will be the same. 752 MR. LASSO: Thank you, Amy. 753 This is Dave Lasso. If I could add a couple of 754 points. 755 These particular issues, particularly the stacking 756 issue is not new. Stacking was permitted by variance for City 757 Hall. Stacking was permitted I think in Founders Row. Akida 758 can help me. 759 It is simply a manner of the placement of spaces that 760 is not included in the Zoning Code and consequently when it has 761 come up like at City Hall, and it's been shown to the 762 satisfaction of the City, staff in particular, and the Board, 763 that there's a way of reasonably moving the people parking 764 around without any undue difficulties, I would say in 765 distinction to, say, a retail environment where people park as 766 they come in and you'd have to find a customer and get them to 767 move a space. This is not like that. Stacking has been 768 permitted. 769 So, that has occurred. And given everything that 770 Amy's outlined for you in terms of the amount of costs and 771 providing the space, it really is necessary to have stacking in 772 this development. 773 The other issue which is the placement of the piers is 774 an oddity created by the Code in response to a particular 775 situation, which I suppose is a situation that can't be 776 overstated. And because of that, the Code was changed and it's 777 created this situation where I think you're going to see 778 developers running into it more often than not. This is an 779 example. 780 And then I'd like to provide a little, just a very 781 quick, a bigger picture on two points. 782 First, the standard of review is really not hardship. 783 The Zoning Code was changed now several years ago at the state 784 level to provide more flexibility to local governments to deal 785 with these unusual situations. Hardship is one of three 786 options. 787 The first option is when the strict application of the 788 terms of the Zoning Code make development prohibited. That's 789 not the case here. 790 Or, and this is the case, unreasonably restrict the 791 use of the property; or, third, create a hardship which must be 792 ameliorated. 793 So it's a little bit of an overstatement to say this 794 is a hardship case. It's really not. It's that second category 795 which the State Code says: A variance shall be granted if the 796 evidence shows that the strict application of the terms of the 797 ordinance would unreasonable restrict the utilization of the 798 property. 799 And really, that's what we have here. That's the 800 standard. 801 And then something that I often think about in these 802 new mixed use developments, which is the dynamic that's created 803 when the City Council creates for the City a zoning framework 804 and a review process that essential decides what the height will 805 be, the type of buildings, the use, all manners of details at 806 their level, that's the special exception, and then having done 807 that, the development is put in the position of having to make 808 it work under existing regulations that frankly don't always fit 809 very well with what the City Council has required in its special 810 exception approval. That's what's happening here. 811 So with that framework in mind, you can see that, as 812 Amy has outlined, there needs to be some relief. The stacking 813 would be very necessary to make this feasible. It's been done 814 before. We'd ask that it be done again here for the reasons 815 shown. And then the movement of the required placement of the 816 piers is very much needed also for the reasons discussed. 817 Thank you. 818 MR. JONES: Thank you, Mr. Lasso. 819 Amy, does that conclude your presentation? 820 MS. FRIEDLANDER: Yes. 821 MR. JONES: Thank you. 822 Any questions from the Board for the applicants? 823 MR. CALABRESE: If I could start, I have two 824 questions. First of all, to be clear, where are the placement 825 of the columns that are in question here? Is it the red dots? 826 MS. FRIEDLANDER: So the red dots are where the 827 columns would have to go and the gray dots are where we would 828 like them to go. 829 MR. CALABRESE: Okay. So they're in closer towards 830 the lanes. So they're closer to the lanes that you'd be 831 driving. 832 MS. FRIEDLANDER: Correct. 833 MR. CALABRESE: If we take, as Mr. Lasso said, we look 834 at those three criteria and we look at the unreasonableness of 835 the restriction of the use of the property, Ms. Friedlander, 836 when you described the hardship, you described it as a cost 837 issue. Are you saying that it unreasonably restricts the use 838 because you have to spend more money to design it this way? 839 MS. FRIEDLANDER: Correct. 840 Dave, I don't know if you want to add anything to that 841 but that is generally, we would have to build a lot of 842 additional structure in order to accommodate the columns as 843 required by the Ordinance. 844 MR. LASSO: Yeah, and I guess I would just emphasize, 845 that it's not a minor cost increase, it's a substantial cost 846 increase that really makes the project, when you add that to 847 some other issues, it just becomes one that at some point the 848 project becomes unfeasible. 849 I don't know that this one issue does that and I'm not 850 saying that but -- 851 MS. FRIEDLANDER: Yeah, I think that we would say that 852 this garage would be financially unfeasible if we had to place 853 the columns as required by the Ordinance. 854 MR. LASSO: Great. I'm glad you said that because I 855 don't know the numbers as well as the design team. 856 There was a similar discussion at the Planning 857 Commission about the magnitude of the change, the overhangs, the 858 structure that had to be carried by the beams and the placement. 859 And you're right about focusing on the relative 860 position of the beam to the drive aisle. 861 In the building, it's the Flower Building we're all 862 talking about, where they used concrete piers, not cast piers, 863 cast concrete, but just beams that are right out at the drive 864 aisles so that as you try to pull in, people are still clipping 865 those beams. And so that was why that problem came up. 866 These drive aisles are plenty wide to allow for a safe 867 turn and the size of the spaces themselves are wider than in the 868 Flower Building, so the issue is largely taken care of. That's 869 the issue. 870 MS. FRIEDLANDER: And I would also add, that we would 871 not be proposing this if we didn't think that these columns are 872 placed in adequate location and that the condo purchasers would 873 be able to access their spaces in a perfectly functional manner. 874 So we feel very confident that despite it not meeting 875 the Ordinance, that it will be a very functional garage. 876 MR. CALABRESE: So you said that these would be 877 residents that would be using the garage, so therefore there 878 wouldn't be as much concern because they'd be familiar with it. 879 MS. FRIEDLANDER: Correct. 880 MR. CALABRESE: However, you also said that it would 881 be used by guests, who presumably would not be familiar with it, 882 is that right? 883 MS. FRIEDLANDER: Well, the guest who has to use the 884 person who owns the space's space. So they would probably be 885 guests who are coming with the person that lives in the condo 886 building. 887 MR. CALABRESE: So back to this cost issue, and then 888 I'll let others speak. 889 But again, when I think of a standard as something 890 that, you know, a hardship we look at variances that we just had 891 earlier today, we look at an unreasonable restriction that could 892 make it impossible essentially for enjoyment of the property. 893 I think initially you said that the cost would be in 894 the tens of thousands of dollars and then -- 895 MS. FRIEDLANDER: Per space. Per space. And there 896 are hundreds of spaces. 897 MR. CALABRESE: So you're saying on the record, that 898 the cost would be so exorbitant that you could not build the 899 building. 900 MS. FRIEDLANDER: Correct. 901 MR. CALABRESE: Okay. I don't have any further 902 questions. 903 MR. JONES: Thank you, Mr. Calabrese. 904 Ms. Friedlander, I have a question. When this 905 building was being designed, engineered, at what point during 906 the process did you come across this sort of restriction or the 907 hardship that would be created by the placing of the current 908 poles? 909 MS. FRIEDLANDER: I'm not sure I heard the beginning 910 part of the question. Can you repeat it? 911 MR. JONES: Sure. So when this building was being 912 designed and engineered, sort of at what point in the process 913 did you discover this sort of hardship? When the building was 914 being designed and engineered, was it readily apparent at that 915 time or is this something that during the sort of the process of 916 designing this building it was discovered? 917 MS. FRIEDLANDER: So, part of the other difficulty 918 with this particular building is that we can't expand the garage 919 laterally, so we can't make it wider on any of the sides, based 920 on the site. 921 So, I think, Charles, correct me if I'm wrong, but we 922 recognized this pretty early on and this has been something that 923 we've been talking with staff about for a long time. 924 So we were negotiating ways we could solve this 925 problem with staff, including actually exploring ways we could 926 modify the Ordinance to allow this garage to be constructed, and 927 the recommendation from staff was to come and request a 928 variance. 929 MR. CALABRESE: I'm going to follow on with Mr. Jones. 930 I'm sorry if I'm speaking out of order here. 931 So you designed the building from -- so this design 932 has always assumed that you were going to have these columns in 933 this location. Why couldn't there be a different design that 934 wouldn't cause the same structural problems that would then 935 ameliorate the costs? 936 MS. FRIEDLANDER: Chris, maybe you can jump in here 937 and explain exactly. Maybe I'm not being clear. 938 MR. HUFFER: Yeah. Hi. This is Chris Huffer from 939 SK+I Architecture. 940 As Amy mentioned, basically the size of the block is 941 kind of restrictive based off of the rest of the design of the 942 whole site plan. So, there's very little we can do in terms of 943 lengthening the garage in either direction. And right now the 944 goal is to try to make the most efficient garage structurally 945 and layout-wise as possible. 946 So that coupled with the requirements that we have 947 towards the high school with these setbacks and with the streets 948 coming around, it kind of boxes you into a specific area where 949 you can have your building. 950 So in an effort to try to create the most efficient 951 building as possible in terms of layout structurally and for the 952 condo units themselves, we laid it out as such. 953 And I think early on we noticed that this unique 954 zoning requirement in terms of the column locations and we 955 discussed it internally and I know Amy and her team has been 956 doing a lot of actual early due diligence on their budget 957 because it's a very budget-conscious project. So I think in the 958 long run we're lucky we have been discussing it as early as we 959 have. 960 But as she's mentioned, the size of the parking space 961 and the size of the drive aisle are very generous as well. So 962 that coupled with placing these columns farther away from the 963 drive aisle just starts to create excessive building spans for 964 the building design. 965 So if you zoom in on any of those texts, a typical 966 building of this size, built in concrete, our goal is a seven 967 inch slab, concrete slab going all the way up and expand from 968 column to column that's about 27 feet wide. That's a pretty 969 standard concrete structural design throughout the area. 970 So as you start widening the spaces between these 971 columns at the drive aisles, you start getting into 31, 32 feet 972 apart and so every time you widen the distance between the 973 columns and then in the case of these setbacks, it creates 974 bigger cantilevers, edges of slabs, you create a lot more 975 deflection. 976 So the deflection, the only way to mitigate that is to 977 either add large beams or to thicken up your slab. And that is 978 not just like a level by level. That ripples through the entire 979 project. And that's kind of why it's not like a $10,000 fix for 980 just the garage. This problem kind of ripples through the 981 structure from bottom to top. 982 MR. CALABRESE: I want others to ask questions but you 983 said initially this was a unique design, a step design. Are the 984 placements of these columns a result of that unique design? 985 MR. HUFFER: It's unique in the sense that we're 986 required to have the setbacks because of the site plan with the 987 school. 988 MS. FRIEDLANDER: Yes, the Special Exception 989 Entitlement has required the setbacks. 990 MR. LASSO: And that's what I meant when I said 991 earlier that this dynamic of the site is seemingly quite large 992 but when you put in the streets and all of the requirements that 993 the City wants and the developer wants, it begins to taper down  994 to creating a footprint for the building that's very restrictive 995 and the school site plan impacts on it and this is what's left 996 and so it has to work. There's only one way to do it and to 997 keep it functional and that's by moving these piers. 998 And again, I'd like to get away from this idea that 999 the particular rule prohibits the development. Even in the 1000 first variance you had tonight, you could apply that same 1001 analysis and you'd say, well, just don't put your dormer up. 1002 You could still build the house, it would be very nice but you 1003 couldn't do it very well. 1004 So that's why the Zoning Code was changed about ten 1005 years ago, so that there's three options. One is where the 1006 terms of the Code actually prohibit development or secondly, 1007 unreasonably restrict the use of the property, or three, 1008 alleviate a demonstrable hardship approaching confiscation. 1009 This is not a hardship approaching confiscation but it's in that 1010 area of unreasonable restriction on the reasonable use of the 1011 development, which is I suppose why the staff has been 1012 supportive of applying for a variance. 1013 MR. JONES: Would it be accurate to state, I think 1014 this is sort of where I was coming from in my line of 1015 questioning and I may not have been clear, is this hardship, to 1016 some extent, self-inflicted, where in its essence, could have 1017 been designed differently and it wasn't. 1018 And so, that would be sort of my question. If you 1019 could sort of help flush it out for me. 1020 MS. FRIEDLANDER: Sure. 1021 MR. JONES: Is this a self-inflicted hardship? 1022 MS. FRIEDLANDER: I think as Carly and Akida may also 1023 be able to weigh in on, but this site is incredibly complicated. 1024 And we are balancing many different priorities and competing 1025 interests. 1026 So in order to execute the financial structure that 1027 the City needs for this deal to work and for it to work for us 1028 and for us to get all the uses on the site, and for us to get 1029 the setbacks that are required for the school, we are doing our 1030 very best to meet as much of the Ordinance as we can. 1031 And with all those constrictions we're left with a 1032 very specific box and that's what this garage box is. This is 1033 how we're trying to fit what we need to fit into that very 1034 specific box. 1035 For example, if this were a parcel, like if this had 1036 been sold to somebody and someone was trying to build this 1037 building in this specific box and it wasn't us, they would have 1038 the same problem. So it's really about fitting the uses and the 1039 parking spaces and everything that we need to fit in that box, 1040 into this box. 1041 And unfortunately the way that the Ordinance is 1042 written is not allowing us to do that in an effective manner. 1043 MS. AUBREY: This is Carly Aubrey with planning staff, 1044 just to provide some more background and context for this site. 1045 The City adopted a comp plan amendment so this area is 1046 within a special revitalization district. And some of the goals 1047 and some of the subsequent zoning standards that were adopted, 1048 encouraged greater heights and greater densities for the site. 1049 So that's where, this building is going to be up to 13 stories 1050 which then leads to the special concrete steel construction. 1051 And in terms of the step-backs, that really came out 1052 of a lot of discussions that we had with the schools and with 1053 the School Board. They're very sensitive with how this building 1054 interfaced with the school plaza and the new high school. So 1055 that's where those step-backs came. 1056 So really, the design of this building came out of a 1057 lot of discussion with staff and with the Boards and 1058 Commissions, with the School Board, with the school staff, so 1059 that's kind of where, how we got to the design and where it's at 1060 right now. And that kind of trickled down into having issues 1061 with the Code requirement for the columns. 1062 MR. JONES: I guess a final point I'll make and I'll 1063 certainly defer to other members of the Board is that it 1064 technically could be made within Code, it would just be 1065 prohibitively expensive to do so. Is that generally a summation 1066 of -- 1067 MS. FRIEDLANDER: Yes. 1068 MR. JONES: Thank you. 1069 MR. EPPLER: If I could just ask one question. 1070 You said a couple of times that the driveway in the 1071 parking garage is of generous size and I see it's 23 feet. Do 1072 you have the option of simply shrinking it down by 6 feet and 1073 therefore, you would maintain your 6 foot setback, or your 3 1074 feet setback on either side because I assume that -- 1075 MS. FRIEDLANDER: Well, then we would need a variance 1076 for the drive aisle width. 1077 MR. EPPLER: What is the minimum drive aisle width? 1078 MS. FRIEDLANDER: I believe it's -- 1079 MR. HUFFER: 23 feet. 1080 MS. FRIEDLANDER: -- 23 feet. 1081 MR. EPPLER: So you're at the minimum right now. 1082 MR. HUFFER: Yes. 1083 MR. EPPLER: All right. So you have no option there. 1084 Thank you. 1085 MS. FRIEDLANDER: Very clever though. I wish we could 1086 do that for you. 1087 MR. BOYLE: Mr. Chair, if I could, I think the Board 1088 is struggling with the same type of issue I found myself 1089 struggling with in meeting with the applicants and maybe other 1090 staff would agree. And then the light bulb moment for me, when 1091 the light bulb went off, was when staff asked, Is this your 1092 preference? Is this the only way of carrying the weight of this 1093 building or are there many ways to build this and this is just 1094 your preference. 1095 And a lot of discussion followed about the unique 1096 height of this building, it's going to be by far the tallest one 1097 in the City. It's going to be made of concrete and steel, not 1098 wood. So there's a load-bearing issue that was driving the 1099 location of these columns. 1100 Once that was explained to staff, then we started to 1101 get our head around the difference between is this their 1102 preference or are there actual structural engineering features 1103 of this. 1104 If someone on the applicant's team could address that. 1105 I'm listening to the conversation and I think that point is just 1106 being missed a little bit and if the applicant agrees with my 1107 take on that, perhaps you could speak to that for the benefit of 1108 the Board. 1109 MS. FRIEDLANDER: Chris, if you want to take that, 1110 that would be great. 1111 MR. HUFFER: Yeah, I think we've looked at what you 1112 mentioned, with the height of the building and the size of the 1113 building and the setbacks of the building, we looked at several 1114 different types of construction methods. Going from a more 1115 steel-based system, through we looked at shorter buildings using 1116 a wooden podium. You just can't get the density. And then 1117 working through everything, concrete is just the most efficient 1118 system to build this. It's the most economical and it's really 1119 very typical in this area as well. 1120 And I think as I mentioned earlier, what we're asking 1121 to do isn't unusual, especially in this area. We do this all 1122 the time and that's why it's generally not an issue because we 1123 can have in other jurisdictions columns up against the drive 1124 aisles and typically the drive aisles in other areas, especially 1125 in say, Fairfax or Alexandria, they're smaller drive aisles as 1126 well. So actually smaller drive aisles, that ability, it's 1127 never really come up before. 1128 And I think like Amy said, once we start doing these 1129 things and the size of the block, not only do we start losing 1130 parking because you can kind of see those interior corners of 1131 the interior part of the donut of the garage, you not only lose 1132 parking, you lose efficiency, and that's everything, you know, 1133 increase costs really. 1134 MS. FRIEDLANDER: Yeah, it's really a multiplier 1135 effect across the building. It's not our preference. We would, 1136 of course, want to build the building according to the 1137 Ordinance, but it's also our preference to build the building. 1138 In order for us to do so, we need to do it in a way that we can 1139 afford, and the only way to do that is to put the columns in a 1140 different place. 1141 MR. JONES: Thank you. 1142 Any other questions for the applicants from the Board? 1143 (No response.) 1144 MR. JONES: Okay. Hearing none, we'll close that 1145 portion and open up to a discussion of the Board. 1146 I guess I'll lead off. 1147 I'll be honest, in part I feel that this is sort of 1148 self-inflicted hardship. The design could be built a different 1149 way. It's not being built that way due to cost restrictions 1150 which I think the applicant is saying is what is the hardship 1151 here, is the cost associated with building it within Code. 1152 So personally I'm struggling with getting over that 1153 hurdle before I can get to the second piece of this, which is 1154 sort of the cost aspect to this. 1155 MR. CALABRESE: I would agree with you, Mr. Jones. 1156 The other problem I have, I'll be perfectly honest, 1157 the presentation we have here, we have this diagram with some 1158 dots and then we've had, I'll be honest, more thorough written 1159 presentations from people doing minor variance applications for 1160 their homes. 1161 So what I'm struggling with is that the self-inflicted 1162 question, but all we have to make a decision of this magnitude 1163 is what we're looking at on the screen, and then these 1164 discussions of engineering issues, which I'm assuming the 1165 petitioners know that it goes over our head. 1166 So as a decision maker, it appears very difficult, if 1167 not bordering on impossible, for us to make a reasoned judgment 1168 on a matter that would have some pretty big implications, 1169 regardless of the history of why it's the law. It is the law. 1170 We have to follow it. 1171 So I'm just having a little bit of a hard time and I'm 1172 a little frustrated with the information we're provided, which 1173 is all oral. Nothing else that we can look at except for this 1174 map, which means nothing to me. 1175 MR. BARTLETT: David, this is Keith Bartlett. 1176 I would just look to the actual variance in response 1177 to your question about the specific reasons why they are looking 1178 for a variance. 1179 And if you look at page one, specifically about, 1180 location requirements of, the section, are unique to Falls 1181 Church, that each of these jurisdictions require aisle space 1182 dimensions that are similar to our Code but do not specify that 1183 the columns must be placed a specific distance from the aisle. 1184 And their structural requirements require them to move it a 1185 little bit to make it safe and secure but also needing a 1186 variance from our seemingly extra Code requirement. 1187 The relief is that the strict application of the 1188 ordinance would unreasonably restrict the utilization of the 1189 property for the specific building construction type, and unique 1190 circumstance. 1191 So I think they've presented that. I'm not necessarily 1192 sure that it's a hardship like we're looking at a home. I think 1193 this is a part of a larger structure that has a small problem. 1194 I know that we're talking about costs and other things but I'm 1195 not sure I'm looking at it as an unprepared application where we 1196 are talking a lot of it about the actual space itself and 1197 distances, but they have provided a lot of information. 1198 MR. EPPLER: I'll just add my two cents in here. 1199 I mean, as I understand the Code, the standard we're 1200 applying is unreasonably restricts the property, if we assume 1201 that the design of the building is what has been worked out and 1202 what has been approved through the planning process and given 1203 that they cannot expand out the garage to the sides which as I 1204 understand is what would normally be done in these sorts of 1205 situations where you need to reinforce the building, you would 1206 expand the concrete at the bottom of the base of the step 1207 design. 1208 So I'm not sure that it's so much that the three foot 1209 is unreasonably restricting the property as perhaps the 1210 restrictions that were placed on the site plan that are 1211 unreasonably restricting the property. But it comes down to the 1212 same thing. Is it reasonable for them to have these columns 1213 moved? 1214 Given the enormous cost if it really is tens of 1215 thousands of dollars a piece, and I haven't counted them but 1216 we're looking at probably 50 or 60 just on the one floor that's 1217 shown, it's a huge cost addition to a building that's gone 1218 through an enormous amount of planning. 1219 What we don't know at this point is what would it cost 1220 to redesign the building within the restrictions where they 1221 cannot expand out the subterranean part to meet our 3 foot 1222 setback. I don't know what that would take but it seems like it 1223 would take an enormous amount. 1224 MR. KIEN: This is Mr. Kien. 1225 I echo David's frustration with the information. I do 1226 wish there was more but I am sympathetic to this unique 1227 situation which is the largest building to have been built in 1228 our City and the potential for the Code to not have been 1229 prepared for that. I think when we talk about expense climbing 1230 into the millions, then that is a level of impact that shows 1231 hardship, so I'm sympathetic to that as well. 1232 For me to, and maybe just to clarify, I believe the 1233 comments were made at the beginning that this parking garage 1234 could be built in our surrounding jurisdictions without any type 1235 of variance needed, and not that we need to take our cues from 1236 Fairfax County or any of the surrounding counties, but I do 1237 think that that does say something for the uniqueness of our 1238 Code and how it may potentially be ill-prepared for something of 1239 this magnitude. 1240 MR. CALABRESE: So I'll just say that I don't feel I 1241 have enough information, however recognize that this is a unique 1242 situation so I'll just telegraph the fact that I think I will -- 1243 I don't want to be a hindrance to the parties moving forward, 1244 although I'm not very comfortable with the presentation so when 1245 we vote, I'm going to abstain. 1246 MR. EPPLER: Could I just ask, in terms of setting a 1247 precedent, what would this do for us? 1248 MR. BOYLE: I think based on my experience with the 1249 BZA, we have an attorney or two here, if there's a definition of 1250 precedent, by all means, jump in. But it is very typical for 1251 the BZA to look back on how it's handled things in the past 1252 because its decision-making process needs to be consistent over 1253 the years. 1254 So I think this would set a precedent. How frequently 1255 we'd see this particular situation, time will tell. 1256 MR. LASSO: If I might, John, I think it's a good 1257 precedent. And maybe look at it this way: Again, this is a 1258 situation of whether the strict application of this Code, which 1259 as was noted if this building were somewhere else, this could be 1260 built. But it can't be built here because when these greater 1261 heights, greater density was added to the Code, the City didn't 1262 change its Zoning Code. 1263 So they created a situation in that Code that when you 1264 add to, and this also was I think the point made by Mr. Eppler, 1265 this building is designed the way that it is after requirements 1266 by the School Board that it be set back. It wasn't just a design 1267 preference. In many ways this is the requirement. This is the 1268 box we were given. This is what has to be built here and now we 1269 find that the cost is prohibitively high. 1270 So from a precedent perspective it fits very nicely 1271 into a situation where the strict application of the terms of 1272 the ordinance would unreasonably restrict the utilization of the 1273 property. That's what this is. It fits. It's a good 1274 precedent. You might not find it in another situation. You 1275 still have some discretion. But I think this fits very nicely 1276 there and sets up a good precedent. 1277 MR. JONES: And, Mr. Boyle, if there is a motion to 1278 approve this application, for the motion to carry based on the 1279 number of Board members we have present, assuming there is one 1280 abstention, the applicant would need three "yes" votes to move 1281 forward, is that correct? 1282 MR. BOYLE: That's correct. Any motion that's made 1283 requires three. Two to two would be a defeat. 1284 MS. FRIEDLANDER: Can I just -- 1285 MR. JONES: Go ahead. 1286 MS. FRIEDLANDER: We'd be happy to come back, if you 1287 think we need to provide more information. We could come back 1288 with more information, a better presentation, and maybe that 1289 would get folks more comfortable with what we are proposing. 1290 MR. JONES: You have the option to continue before we 1291 actually vote. You have the option to continue, if you are 1292 interested in providing additional information for the next 1293 Board meeting. 1294 Is that correct, Mr. Boyle? I want to make sure I 1295 characterize that correctly for the applicants. 1296 MR. BOYLE: That's correct. They can ask for a 1297 continuance. They also have the option of letting the Board 1298 vote and then asking for a reconsideration based on additional 1299 information being provided. 1300 MS. ROUZI: John, it's Akida. 1301 Is it appropriate to poll the Board to see if we have 1302 enough "yeses" to go forward with an approval and if not, then 1303 let the applicant continue; is that an option? 1304 MR. BOYLE: We've allowed, the Board has allowed and 1305 I've seen, motions to continue taken right up to the last 1306 minute. 1307 What might be interesting is to see if there's a 1308 second on a motion. To hear a motion and then see if there's a 1309 second on that motion, and then make the decision at that point. 1310 That would be a real tell. 1311 MR. JONES: Okay. I guess with those options laid out 1312 there, is there a motion? 1313 MR. EPPLER: I will make a motion for approval of 1314 variance application V1618-20 by FCGP Development LLC, 1315 applicant, for variances to Section 48-933 and continuing on 1316 through the rest of the summary. 1317 MR. JONES: Is there a second? 1318 MR. KIEN: I will second that motion. 1319 MR. JONES: Okay. I think that was Mr. Kien. 1320 Roll call please, Akida. 1321 MR. LASSO: Could we -- so we have a first, we have a 1322 second, and we have one abstention that's a likely "no". 1323 I think it makes sense to come back at your next 1324 meeting and give you a thorough explanation of how the project 1325 on this particular piece got to where it is and try to answer 1326 the questions that have been raised tonight. 1327 You should get all the information you feel you need. 1328 MR. JONES: Okay. John, the applicant has advised 1329 that they are seeking a continuance. Procedurally, is there 1330 anything that we need to do for the applicant? 1331 MR. BOYLE: I don't believe so. But do we have the 1332 Rules of Procedure handy? I think it simply says the applicant 1333 can request one continuation and there's no detail. 1334 MR. JONES: Okay. And then with that motion -- with 1335 that request, we can continue the application to the next Board 1336 of Zoning Appeals meeting which I believe takes place in 1337 January, John? 1338 MR. BOYLE: That's correct. 1339 MR. JONES: Okay. Thank you very much for your time 1340 this evening, and your application. 1341 MR. LASSO: Thank you all very much. It's very 1342 important and again, you should have all the information you 1343 need and we'll see to it that you get it. 1344 MR. JONES: Thank you very much, sir. 1345 1346 6. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1347 a. Approval of the November 12, 2020, Meeting Minutes 1348 MR. JONES: The next item on the Agenda is the 1349 Approval of the November 12, 2020, meeting minutes. 1350 We should have all reviewed this a little bit but if 1351 you need just a few minutes to go through it, then we can 1352 certainly entertain a motion to approve those minutes. 1353 (Minutes reviewed.) 1354 MR. CALABRESE: I'll make a motion to approve the 1355 minutes. 1356 MR. JONES: Do we have a second? 1357 MR. KIEN: I'll second the motion. 1358 MR. JONES: Roll call please, Akida. 1359 RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Eppler. 1360 MR. EPPLER: Approve. 1361 RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Bartlett. 1362 MR. BARTLETT: Yes. 1363 RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Calabrese. 1364 MR. CALABRESE: Yes. 1365 RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Jones. 1366 MR. JONES: Yes. 1367 RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Kien. 1368 MR. KIEN: Yes. 1369 RECORDING SECRETARY: Thank you. 1370 1371 7. OTHER BUSINESS 1372 a. Certificate of Appreciation to BZA Chair Roy Jones 1373 MR. JONES: And the Other Business tonight besides we 1374 adjourn, as I mentioned at the last meeting, my term will expire 1375 31 December, so this will actually be my final Board meeting. 1376 It's been a good five years. I've enjoyed my time tremendously. 1377 And, Mr. Boyle and Akida, to you especially, it has 1378 been a real pleasure working with you, and to my fellow Board 1379 members, it's been an absolute pleasure. 1380 I will be checking in from afar, but I certainly wish 1381 you the best of luck and my sincerest appreciation working with 1382 all of you for as long as we have. 1383 So thank you all very much. 1384 MR. CALABRESE: Roy, I really appreciate your 1385 comments. I really enjoyed working with you. I think we all 1386 have. You joined the committee, I think you weren't as familiar 1387 with some of the issues but you really were a quick study and 1388 your time as chairman has been really good. I think you're 1389 really fair and an even-handed person and it's really shown. 1390 So I would just say thank you and congratulations for 1391 a good term and a very effective chairmanship. I personally 1392 would like to wish you the best and hopefully we can stay in 1393 touch. 1394 MR. JONES: Absolutely. I appreciate the kind words 1395 and I learned quite a bit from you, so thank you very much. 1396 MR. CALABRESE: Thank you. 1397 MR. BARTLETT: Likewise, Roy, it's been great. I said 1398 some of the similar words at the last meeting when you 1399 announced. It's been great, joining a few years ago, you've 1400 been there, fire aside, helping us, keeping us consistent and 1401 calm. 1402 It's great timing that you suggested that we continue 1403 that to the next meeting, really appreciate that, still left a 1404 variance application. Very, very subtle there. 1405 No, but, great congratulations and thank you and best 1406 of luck and obviously it's a very, very small town so we'll see 1407 you around. 1408 MR. JONES: Absolutely. Look forward to it. 1409 1410 8. ADJOURNMENT 1411 MR. JONES: Okay. Then with that sort of sad bit of 1412 business out of the way, the last item is a motion to adjourn 1413 the meeting tonight. 1414 MR. CALABRESE: So moved. 1415 MR. JONES: Is there a second? 1416 MR. BOYLE: I move not to adjourn. Let's make him 1417 wait a little bit. 1418 We'll miss you, Roy. 1419 MR. JONES: Likewise. Thank you. 1420 MR. BARTLETT: I think Akida has a little token of 1421 something to share. 1422 MS. ROUZI: I did. We have this beautiful certificate 1423 signed by Mr. Keith Bartlett and John Boyle. That's going to be 1424 nicely framed and be in your mailbox soon. 1425 And I just want to say that I'm going to miss you. 1426 Aside from your professionalism, you have this kind air about 1427 you that I've always enjoyed observing and working with. So 1428 that's the last thing I'll say. 1429 MR. JONES: I appreciate it. Thank you, Akida. 1430 The final roll call. 1431 MS. ROUZI: I disconnected for a like two seconds. 1432 Are we ready to adjourn, is that what I'm doing the roll call 1433 on? 1434 MR. JONES: Yes. I think we're ready to adjourn. 1435 RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Eppler. 1436 MR. EPPLER: Approved. 1437 RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Bartlett. 1438 MR. BARTLETT: Yes. 1439 RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Calabrese. 1440 MR. CALABRESE: Yes. 1441 RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Jones. 1442 MR. JONES: Sadly, yes. 1443 RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Kien. 1444 MR. KIEN: Yes. 1445 RECORDING SECRETARY: Thank you. 1446 Good night, everyone. 1447 1448