Board of Zoning Appeals

1 BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING AGENDA 2 VIRTUAL PUBLIC HEARING 3 Thursday, January 14, 2021 4 7:30 p.m. 5 6 1. CALL TO ORDER 7 MR. BARTLETT: Call the meeting to order. 8 Today is January 14, 2021, Board of Zoning Appeals 9 meeting. 10 11 2. ROLL CALL 12 MR. BARTLETT: At this point we will do a 13 roll call of the Board of Zoning Appeals members. 14 MR. BOYLE: Mr. Bartlett. 15 MR. BARTLETT: Here. 16 MR. BOYLE: Mr. Kien. 17 MR. KIEN: Here. 18 MR. BOYLE: Mr. Eppler. Mr. Eppler. I think 19 we saw him enter. 20 MR. BARTLETT: It's one of the snafus. He was 21 on. 22 MR. BOYLE: Okay. We'll come back. I did see 23 him. 24 Mr. Calabrese. 25 MR. CALABRESE: Here. 26 MR. BOYLE: Okay. There he is. 27 MR. BARTLETT: One more, John. 28 MR. BOYLE: Mr. Eppler. 29 MR. EPPLER: I am here. Sorry, I'm having 30 some technical difficulties. New computer, but I think 31 it's working. 32 MR. BOYLE: Okay. We got you. We have a full 33 Board. 34 MR. MISLEH: John, you left me off. 35 MR. BOYLE: Oh, gee wiz, we do have a full 36 Board. 37 And, Mr. Misleh. 38 MR. MISLEH: Here. 39 MR. BOYLE: I crossed you off instead of Roy 40 Jones, so you're Roy Jones tonight. Okay. 41 42 3. PETITIONS 43 MR. BARTLETT: John, are there any new 44 Petitions in front of the Board this evening? I wasn't 45 made aware of anything other than this variance 46 application in front of us. 47 MR. BOYLE: That's correct. There's no 48 Petitions. 49 50 4. OLD BUSINESS 51 a. Variance Application V1618-20 by FCGP Development 52 LLC, applicant, for variances to Section 48-933 to allow 53 1) the stacking of parking spaces and 2) placement of 54 columns less than three (3) feet from the drive aisle 55 within a parking garage, for the purpose of constructing 56 a parking garage and residential condominium on premises 57 known as 7124 Leesburg Pike, RPC #52-221-006 of the 58 Falls Church Real Property Records, zoned B-2, Central 59 Business. 60 MR. BARTLETT: Okay. So we'll move on through 61 to Old Business, a continuance from our last Board of 62 Zoning Appeals meeting from December 2020, variance 63 application V-1618-20 by FCGP Development LLC, 64 applicant, for variances to Section 48-933 to allow 1) 65 the stacking of parking spaces, these tandem spaces, and 66 2) placement of columns less than three feet in the 67 drive aisle within a parking garage, for the purposes of 68 constructing a parking garage and residential 69 condominium on premises known as 7124 Leesburg Pike, 70 Real Property Code #52-221-006 of the Falls Church Real 71 Property Records. 72 At this point I would ask that anyone who is 73 not a City employee or a Board member to raise your 74 right hand and attest and swear that you will tell the 75 truth and nothing but the truth. 76 (Witnesses sworn.) 77 MR. BARTLETT: Thank you very much. 78 Yes, this is a continuance from our last 79 meeting. We had some questions and some concerns about 80 some of the information that was shared at that meeting, 81 specifically about the columns and the need for a 82 variance. 83 And I see that you have created and provided a 84 thorough and lengthy presentation. I know that we had 85 looked at some of that information before.  86 So what I will do right now, I'll ask John, I 87 don't believe there's any update but, John Boyle, I 88 don't know if there's any update from you but I also 89 feel like we should start from the beginning, if 90 possible, because Mr. Misleh was not at our December 91 meeting and he is our fifth Board member at this meeting 92 and so his input will be essential. 93 So, if you would like, it would be appreciated 94 if you would provide a staff report. I know that, I 95 think it was the Planning Commission provided an updated 96 report to us and recommendation to us, that's the Board 97 of Zoning Appeals So, maybe start with that and then 98 proceed with the developer to share their rationale for 99 the need for a variance. 100 MR. BOYLE: Yes, sir. We have with us tonight 101 Planning Director Paul Stoddard and Principal Planner 102 Carly Aubrey. 103 Paul and Carly, would it be appropriate given 104 how this matter has been presented and gone back for 105 review and additional comment, would this be the 106 appropriate time for you as staff to speak and bring the 107 Board up to date on the City's position, or should we 108 defer to the applicant at this time? 109 MR. STODDARD: I think we'd be happy to start 110 with the staff report and then turn it over to the 111 applicant for the technical details and merits of the 112 application. 113 MR. BOYLE: Okay. 114 MR. STODDARD: Good evening, folks. My name 115 is Paul Stoddard. I'm the Planning Director for the 116 City of Falls Church. Thank you for letting me be here 117 tonight and speak with you all. I appreciate the 118 opportunity. 119 So it was distributed to you, I think last 120 week, was the Planning staff memo dated, looks like July 121 11, and I wanted to walk through just a few pieces of 122 that. 123 So as was already mentioned to set up this 124 conversation, the request before the BZA is to take 125 final action on a variance application related to the 126 West Falls Church project. And the variance application 127 is fairly targeted. It's to specific pieces of the 128 Zoning Ordinance related to how the parking spaces are 129 arranged. Stacked tandem spaces is the proposal, as 130 well as the spacing of how the columns relate to the 131 drive aisles and the end of the bays. 132 As was said earlier, you all previously saw 133 this at your meeting on December 17th but at the request 134 of the applicant the final decision by the BZA was 135 deferred to this meeting so that additional information 136 could be provided. 137 Recommendation section in the memo, the 138 planning staff at this time is making a positive 139 recommendation on this application and that's based on 140 the State definition of a variance as it was amended in 141 2015, as well as the specific circumstances of this 142 project as it relates to this site and the specific 143 language within the Zoning Ordinance. 144 And the rationale for that staff 145 recommendation is included and detailed in the planning. 146 The staff report that went to the Planning Commission on 147 December 2nd, I believe that was also distributed to you 148 all and in that analysis, what the planning staff was 149 looking at was the site condition specific to the 150 project, the specific City requirements that relate to 151 this project, as well as how the Zoning Ordinance, the 152 Special Exception Entitlement process and the 153 requirements of the Comprehensive Agreement all combined 154 to create the situation that's before you. 155 The Planning Commission did hear this variance 156 request at its December 2nd meeting and did also make a 157 positive recommendation to approve the variance 158 application. 159 I think it would help to walk through the 160 information in sort of two parts. The first being the 161 complexities of the site ownership, the entitlement 162 process which is unique to the West Falls Church area of 163 the City; and how the site design and the building 164 engineering relate to that. 165 For that, I'd actually suggest turning it over 166 to Principal Planner Carly Aubrey, and then for the 167 specifics of the site and the engineering of the 168 building, I would recommend turning that over to the 169 applicant team. 170 MS. AUBREY: Good evening, Board. Carly 171 Aubrey with the planning staff. 172 As Paul mentioned, the memo and the Planning 173 Commission staff report goes through kind of a detailed 174 history of what has gone on with the site as far as land 175 use planning and entitlements and that does lend to the 176 justification for how the, not just how the site got 177 designed, but also how this particular building was 178 designed. 179 So, as I'm sure you're all aware, the site was 180 annexed into the City as part of the water sale 181 agreement with Fairfax County in 2013. After that, 182 discussion started on the high school, as to whether to 183 renovate the existing high school or to build new one. 184 It was decided after several community workshops that a 185 new high school would be built in such a location that 186 it could open up a portion of the site for economic 187 development. 188 And in November of 2017, voters approved a 189 $120 million bond for a new high school and as part of 190 the taxpayer cost mitigation strategy for that bond, it 191 was decided to develop approximately 10 acres of the 192 site as mixed use economic development. 193 So throughout 2018, land use actions were 194 taken for the site to facilitate both an economic 195 development project and an urban scale high school. 196 One land use action was an amendment to the 197 Comprehensive Plan that included text with a goal of a 198 mix of uses on the site with a density of 2 and a half 199 to 4.0 floor area ratio or higher and with at least 1.2 200 to 1.5 million square feet. This was followed by an 201 amendment to the B-2 Zoning District to create new 202 special exception provisions that included allowing 203 heights up to 15 stories and densities needed to achieve 204 significant mixed use. 205 Also during 2018, the City conducted a request 206 for proposals and selected the team of Falls Church 207 Gateway Partners and we entered into a public/private 208 partnership with them that includes a ground lease 209 between the City and them and land payments to the City. 210 So since 2019, the entitlement process has 211 been ongoing and the Special Exception Entitlement was 212 approved in July of 2019 and that comprises eight 213 buildings, 7 to 15 stories in height and approximately 3 214 and a half FAR. 215 The special exception site plan is currently 216 under review for phase one which includes the subject 217 condominium building. 218 During the review of these applications, the 219 interface between the mixed use development and the 220 school property was a regular topic of discussion. And 221 to provide a well-designed transition between these two 222 projects, the multi-family condominium building and 223 Block C is configured to have a step-back design to 224 alleviate shadow concerns on the new high school. 225 So in summary, the design of this site as well 226 as the condo building design has been in response to the 227 primary goal which has always been in place for the 228 site, which is to create an urban place with a high 229 quality mix of uses, well-designed streets and public 230 spaces while also generating revenue for the City to 231 offset capital costs and in addition to providing a 232 well-designed transition with the new high school. 233 So with those heights and other density 234 requirements, those do come with unique building code 235 situations, so at this point I'd like to turn over to 236 the development team and they can go through those 237 specifics. 238 MR. BOYLE: Okay. I think I can share my 239 desktop with the group here. 240 MS. FRIEDLANDER: John, I can share mine as 241 well. It will probably be easier for me to share so I 242 may move around as needed. 243 MR. BOYLE: Okay. Very good. 244 MS. FRIEDLANDER: Can everyone see my screen? 245 MR. BOYLE: Yes. 246 MS. FRIEDLANDER: Thank you all for the 247 continuance and allowing us to come back and share 248 additional information with you all. Carly and Paul did 249 a great job kind of setting up, framing this discussion 250 tonight and I'll go into a little bit more detail and 251 show you a bunch of pictures. 252 Mr. Bartlett, as you mentioned, it is a long 253 presentation so if it is too detailed or if you want me 254 to skip ahead, please feel free. We just wanted to make 255 sure that we had all the information that you might want 256 to know in order to make your decision. 257 So with that, I have a brief agenda, basically 258 outlining what we're going to go over tonight. 259 So, Dave Lasso, our land use counsel, is here 260 tonight and he will go over the legal standards for this 261 application. Following that, I will explain a little 262 bit more about the Economic Development Project as a 263 whole and where we are in the process and where we've 264 been and how we've come this far. 265 Reiterating the requested variance, and then 266 going into detail about the block that the subject 267 condominium building is on and the building constraints 268 on that particular block, followed by a discussion of 269 the building construction type and those constraints on 270 the building. 271 Lastly, we'll go back through the tandem and 272 stacked parking concept and then summarize everything so 273 you can make the decision. 274 I'll turn it over to Dave real quick and he 275 can go through the legal standard for the application as 276 well as the SEE Ordinance that we are subject to. 277 MR. LASSO: Thank you, Amy, and members of the 278 BZA. 279 What I wanted to emphasize rather than repeat 280 the really good memos, is the legal standard was changed 281 in 2015 for granting of variances. And what we want to 282 make a point of is that really where it talks about the 283 strict application of the terms of the ordinance would 284 actually prohibit or would unreasonably restrict the use 285 of the property. 286 The issue of whether there is a hardship 287 approaching confiscation and then the counter to that, 288 whether a particular owner has created a hardship, is 289 really a third option or a third way to grant a 290 variance. It's not the only way. 291 We're really concentrating on the strict 292 application of the terms of the ordinance when it's 293 applied, and here we're talking about to the placement 294 of the piers, or to the inability to get tandem spaces. 295 The strict application of those terms makes the use -- 296 it unreasonably restricts the use of the property. 297 And in this case we'll talk later about the 298 cost associated with that and frankly, the fact that 299 it's so prohibitive that it would change the design. 300 And I think I want to bring in the point that 301 Carly made early on to bring the two together, which is 302 this is a new zoning district. This is the B-2 Zoning 303 District that has been dramatically changed in 2018. 304 This is the first experience that the City's had with 305 it. It allows for the first time commercial buildings 306 that can be as high as 15 floors. It also allows 307 density in the 4 to 5 FAR range. And, of course, the 308 current maximum height that you've seen in the City is 7 309 or 8 floors, about 2 and a half or 3 FAR. 310 But this dramatic difference in the height and 311 in the density is going to cause new construction 312 standards to have to be employed and then you have to 313 take into account the way that the zoning district 314 works. 315 It's really two steps. The first one is the 316 establishment of the Special Entitlement Exception or 317 Special Exception Entitlement or SEE. And that's the 318 parameters. It is the zoning. It isn't just to say 319 it's B-2. It's B-2 subject to an SEE which is approved 320 for this site. And it's the SEE as it applies to this 321 specific building site that brings into play the need to 322 have the step-back. 323 When you come in later and you look at the 324 location of the building relative to the plaza area for 325 the school and the shadows that would be created if the 326 building were not stepped back, you can see how the 327 Council mandated in its approval that the building be 328 stepped back and in order to get the necessary density, 329 the building had to be designed in a way different than 330 has been designed so far in the City. 331 And I do think it's also important from the 332 legal perspective to think about this in terms of the 333 amount of density and the amount of height, it's really 334 not something we want to do just because we can do it. 335 It's required. This is required because the City 336 insists that this project develop a certain amount of 337 income. That income is going to pay for the school and 338 minimize taxes and consequently the development's got to 339 be of a certain magnitude in order to work. 340 And so when you look at the way that the 341 zoning is applied, and then you look at the specifics of 342 the regulations that were left in place unchanged, those 343 regulations as it relates to the inability to have 344 tandem parking and the requirement that columns be 345 placed in a particular location that really have no 346 relationship to buildings like this, this building 347 simply couldn't go forward. 348 So when you look at this and you hear Amy and 349 the designer of the building explain the specifics, 350 you'll see why the strict application of the terms of 351 the Ordinance would unreasonably restrict the use of the 352 property. 353 Amy. 354 MS. FRIEDLANDER: Thank you, Dave. 355 I would be remiss if I didn't introduce 356 everybody on the call today. 357 For the record my name is Amy Friedlander with 358 FCGP Development. I'm joined here tonight with Dave 359 Lasso, of course. Charles Battle also with FCGP 360 Development, Robin Betteral with FCGP Development and 361 Chris Huffer of SK+1 Architects. 362 So as Carly and Dave mentioned, this site is 363 subject to the Special Exception Entitlement which was 364 approved back in 2019 and it was a result of a very 365 robust community process, with input from the City, from 366 the schools, from the community. 367 And that process in addition to the 368 contractual requirements of the financial deals between 369 the developer and the City in order to finance the 370 school, resulted in the building envelopes, the height 371 limits, the setbacks, the step-backs for all the blocks 372 and buildings on this site that are required as Dave 373 mentioned by the SEE approval. 374 And specifically for the condo building which 375 we'll get into more detail in a couple slides, the 376 schools required step-backs for the block C-1 building, 377 where the condo is located, to minimize solar impacts on 378 the new building, on the new high school building. 379 Maximizing the SEE-established building height 380 requires concrete construction and not wood, or wood 381 over podium, and that is governed by the Virginia 382 Uniform Statewide Building Code. 383 This 13 story building in concrete 384 construction may not have been considered when the 385 parking ordinance of Falls Church, those changes were 386 being drafted to the ordinance. So we're here today 387 because of the structural complex between the parking 388 ordinance and the SEE ordinance and the building code. 389 So we've all kind of talked about this a 390 little bit but this is an illustration of the heights 391 that are mandated by the SEE. 392 So you can see, these are all the blocks of 393 the project and I'll go into each block in a little bit 394 of detail so you know what's happening on each block. 395 I just want to show you initially, the 396 building that we're talking about tonight is the one 397 that I've highlighted in red and you can see the 398 step-backs that are on the building. And it goes from 399 15 stories furthest from the new high school, to 10 400 stories in the middle, down to seven stories closest to 401 the high school. 402 As we mentioned, the Economic Development 403 Project as a whole pays for the new George Mason High 404 School through land payments, ground rent, and the 405 overall increase to the tax base. 406 This project needs to be economically viable 407 and financeable in order to provide these benefits to 408 the City. 409 And not only does the project need to balance 410 financial and contractual obligations, the design needs 411 to incorporate all the wonderful things that we've heard 412 from the community thus far and that will be essential 413 to creating the place that the City really wants to have 414 here and deserves to have, including the mix of uses, 415 the open spaces, the urban design, the infrastructure 416 including transportation and roads, and bike and 417 pedestrian infrastructure, all of the great things that 418 makes it a place the City wants it to be. 419 If you're not already familiar, this project 420 will include retail, residential uses including the 421 for-sale condo and rental apartments, hotel, office 422 space, and senior living. 423 This is a plan view of the project with Route 424 7 on the bottom and Haycock going up on the right. The 425 condo building that is what we're talking about tonight 426 is in the upper left-hand corner, Block C-1. Below the 427 condo building is the hotel in purple, B-2, and the 428 above-grade structured parking garage. Below that is 429 Block B-1 which is the office building in blue. 430 Across the Common is the A-1 Apartment 431 building, and then north of the apartment building in 432 pink is the senior living building, the structured, 433 above-grade structured parking garage. And then in red 434 outline are the future Phase 2 buildings, the 435 residential building on B-3 and the future office 436 building on B-4. 437 This is the ground floor of the project and 438 all of the red is our retail. So we are going to have 439 about 100,000 square feet of retail including a grocery 440 store and the retail is lining the central open space of 441 the Common, which will help create this exciting space 442 that people will want to come to. 443 So we wanted to start kind of from a macro 444 level and work in toward the C-1 block. We've talked a 445 lot about all the different things that are on the site 446 so far. But here's my way of trying to illustrate all 447 the pressures on Block C-1. 448 So, first of all, the site is only so big. We 449 have to fit all the things we need to fit on it. It's 450 got a specific shape and that's what we have to work 451 with. So that's the overall site limitations and 452 setbacks. 453 Then we have to deal with the streets and the 454 street grid and the alignment of where the streets are 455 going to connect. Because essential to a good urban 456 space is a walkable street grid and creating blocks that 457 are pedestrian scale. So we needed to align the central 458 spine or the Common, with the existing street 459 connections on the south to the future alignment of the 460 streets, the projects to the north, actually the 461 Virginia Tech site and the WMATA site. 462 Then, one of the things that I think really 463 resounded with the City in terms of our actual key 464 proposal from several years ago was creating this 465 central open space, or the Common. 466 So in order to maintain the right amount of 467 open space in the middle to create the Common, because 468 if you keep moving the buildings closer and closer, 469 you're left with no open space. It's not useable. It's 470 not a gathering space any more. 471 So we needed to maintain this width so that we 472 could preserve the open space in the middle and that's 473 one of the things that was, I think, the selling point 474 to the City of our proposal. So we have pressures in 475 that arena on Block C-1. 476 Finally, we have the constraints of the school 477 and the sustainability goals of FCCPS and their desire 478 to use solar energy on the high school site and so we 479 had to make sure that our tall buildings were not going 480 to overly shadow the high school building. 481 So, those were the macro constraints. These 482 are more micro constraints on Block C-1 itself. 483 So, to the north on C-1, we're constrained by 484 the property line, obviously. We can't go any further 485 north because we don't own that property. We're 486 constrained to the east by the open space and the uses 487 and their required setbacks and the street alignment 488 that I mentioned before. And we're constrained to the 489 south by the amount of space that we needed to provide 490 for the other buildings and the other streets. 491 And then we're constrained to the west by the 492 need for lane 4, which is a critical street grid 493 connection. The maximum amount of cantilever the 494 building can physically create and so we'll get into 495 that in a little bit. As well as the step-backs 496 required by the school. 497 In conclusion of all that, this is the feeling 498 and the energy that we really want to create here and 499 that's what we're balancing as we are trying to design 500 the building to reflect what we're trying to create 501 here. 502 And if you haven't seen these before, these 503 are what we call our "sugarcube models", so it gives you 504 a better sense of the mass and scale of the project 505 overall as well as its relationship to the other 506 projects adjacent to it. 507 So you can see, the orange arrow points 508 towards the Metro, and ultimately this 40 acre 509 redevelopment including the Metro site and the Virginia 510 Tech site, it will all connect. It will be this 511 wonderful city of its own on the west side of Falls 512 Church and it will connect the retail center core on the 513 high school side all the way to the Metro and it will be 514 a place that people want to be and walk and enjoy. 515 The condo building as shown highlighted here 516 in purple and then you have the high school and Mary 517 Ellen Henderson in the background. 518 In the foreground are the rental apartment 519 building and then the office building is across the 520 street and the hotel. 521 Again, this is the apartment building in the 522 foreground, the condo building in purple in the back. 523 The Route 7 views for the office building and 524 the apartment in the foreground and the condo building 525 in the back. 526 And this image really starts to illustrate how 527 the step-back works on the condo building down towards 528 the school plaza so that the building at the school 529 plaza level is a lower scale than the tall 13 story part 530 of the building that's on the Commons. 531 Again, just so you can see the building 532 stepping back to the right towards the high school. 533 This is an illustration of the architecture of 534 the building. It's one of the buildings that we're most 535 excited about in terms of architecture and the ability 536 to use concrete construction. And you can see on the 537 back side, the step-down again. 538 This is just a view from more of the school 539 side with the step-down towards the school. 540 So, as a reminder, we are asking for a 541 variance to Section 48-933 to allow the stacking of 542 parking spaces within a parking structure, and to the 543 placement of columns less than three feet from the drive 544 aisle per Section 48-933(b)(8). 545 I covered this before but just a reminder, 546 these are the constraints on Block C-1 itself, to frame 547 what we're going to discuss in a minute. 548 Again, the height and the step-backs required 549 by the SEE approval. 550 This is just to illustrate the sun concept so 551 you can see. I've circled in pink is the high school 552 and the relationship between the high school and the 553 condo building and how the step-backs create less shadow 554 on the high school. 555 With that, I'm going to turn it over to Chris 556 Huffer, our architect, who will go into detail about the 557 micro-constraints within the building structure itself. 558 MR. BARTLETT: Hey, Amy, this is Keith 559 Bartlett. 560 MS. FRIEDLANDER: Yes. 561 MR. BARTLETT: I would just like to pause for 562 a second and see if at this point anyone has any 563 questions for you before we proceed with the specific 564 details about the columns. 565 (No response.) 566 MR. BARTLETT: Seeing none, okay. Thank you. 567 MR. HUFFER: Good evening, everyone. As Amy 568 said, my name is Chris Huffer. I'm an architect with 569 SK+I Architecture. And I'm going to kind of walk you 570 through kind of the micro-scale of our request today. 571 So, on the screen here you can kind of see 572 we've highlighted the basic things we're going to talk 573 about today. 574 We're looking at the first floor of the garage 575 plan. Below it we have one additional level, a G-2 576 level, which is essentially identical to this level. 577 So here you can see, starting on the left, 578 highlighted blue, we have lane 4 which gives circulation 579 around the site to the north and to the south and 580 access to the east and then farther to the left is 581 getting close to the high school. 582 The red outline is the residential building 583 above highlighted so you can see its relationship to the 584 columns in the garage. The blue vertical lines there 585 are the step-backs we continue mentioning and you can 586 kind of start seeing the relationship also with the 587 columns that we're showing here. 588 In pink, these are the location of the stacked 589 parking/tandem spaces that we are requesting. And all 590 those little red dots are the locations of the columns 591 where they would have to be required due to the zoning 592 requirement. 593 So you can see all those little gray dots are 594 our proposed location. So all around our tiny, 595 efficient garage, those are up against the 23 foot drive 596 aisle. 597 MR. BARTLETT: Chris, can you go back to that 598 slide for a second? 599 MR. HUFFER: Yes. 600 MR. BARTLETT: All right. Just to make sure 601 everyone understand, maybe it's just for me, so you're 602 actually putting the entire garage underground and this 603 space where your little curser is is actually green 604 space above ground there? 605 MR. HUFFER: Yes. So that area is going to be 606 the green amenity terrace that's above our civic and 607 retail space. So that's located on the third floor. 608 MR. BARTLETT: So the parking garage isn't 609 just under the building structure, it's under the entire 610 site? 611 MR. HUFFER: Yes. It's under the entire site 612 and also extends under lane 4 there. 613 MR. BARTLETT: And that allows you to have two 614 floors of garage instead of more if you just -- I think 615 I saw some reference in your application about only 616 using two floors because of how you're allowed to 617 maximize this space. 618 MR. HUFFER: Yes. So essentially because of 619 all the requirements and the constraints that Amy has 620 mentioned, our garage basically extends to the 621 utter-most farthest points of our site. So, any 622 tighter, we'd have to potentially go lower and add more 623 parking. So we're stretching this as far as we can and 624 using every square inch possible here. 625 Amy, if you want to go to the next page. 626 So Amy mentioned and so does Dave, on this 627 site because of the height, we are using concrete 628 structure. And that's kind of, it all kind of goes back 629 to not only zoning requirements of the height but also 630 to conform with building codes, because after certain 631 heights, to comply with fire safety, certain materials 632 need to be used. 633 So here's the brief overview on kind of the 634 height levels that are typically allowed to be built to 635 follow Code. 636 So typically, for a wood building for 5-A 637 construction, it can go up to 4 to 5 stories but under 638 65 feet from your measuring point. 639 A podium building like you see on our other 640 residential building on the site, that is a combination 641 of 1A and 111A construction. 1A construction is 642 essentially concrete construction and 111A is an 643 upgraded wood construction that has fireproofing. 644 In that type of construction you can build up 645 to 85 feet to the top of your roof structure and that 646 will consist of typically five stories of that 111A wood 647 construction over one to two stories of concrete 648 construction. 649 And then anything above 85 feet, especially in 650 our area, is typically built out of concrete, 1A 651 construction. 652 So just to kind of give you a very brief 653 overview of the limitations of concrete construction, 654 concrete buildings have columns that extend from the 655 bottom to the top of the building and those help 656 distribute the load throughout the entire structure. 657 Based off of the structure, the distance between the 658 columns is limited in terms of their size, the thickness 659 of the slabs, and the distances in between them. 660 Among other constraints of the building is 661 it's not a standard rectangle that goes straight up 662 because of our limitations with the step-backs and the 663 orientation towards the school which kind of limits 664 essentially where all the columns can be placed, as well 665 as with the orientation of an efficient garage. 666 Meeting the requirements of the ordinance 667 would involve significant modifications to the column 668 grid and the overall structure of the building. 669 So you can see here, this is a section we've 670 cut through the step-backs of the building. You have 671 lane 4 on the left and then our step-backs going up. 672 And what those red arrows kind of highlight is all the 673 columns that are extending from top to bottom. So this 674 building works as one structural unit in terms of the 675 concrete slabs, the columns, any beams, any setbacks. 676 So typically if the separation and the 677 distance between any of these columns increases, each 678 one of those horizontal slabs will potentially have to 679 get thicker. So as I mentioned for concrete 680 construction, it all works as a whole. So, if you 681 change one thing, that kind of creates a ripple effect 682 throughout the building. 683 You can also see here on the building 684 step-backs, on each one of those step-backs we have 685 columns located on each one of those lines. Just 686 because of how this whole structure works, that is one 687 of the key things to make the structure efficient and 688 work going through the building. 689 Here, to contrast what we're showing, is kind 690 of a typical podium section. So this is the building 691 that we'll say has a height limit of 85 feet. And the 692 two different constructions types, between the concrete 693 which is highlighted in blue and the pink which is a 694 wood construction. 695 And you can kind of see that horizontal blue 696 line, that's what we refer to as the podium or the 697 transfer slabs. That's usually a thicker concrete slab 698 and everything below that is similar to our building, in 699 the sense that that's what works together. 700 So the columns only extend up to that point 701 and they don't travel throughout the rest of the 702 building so they don't typically go through and interact 703 with the units above. So they don't have to be located 704 and designed to not only work with potentially retail, 705 parking, or garages below, they can kind of just step 706 and be separate so then you don't have to have the two 707 talking to each other. 708 So on the screen here we're going to kind of 709 talk about what happens when you start putting these 710 columns three feet away from the drive aisle. And it 711 basically starts to create a fairly inefficient garage, 712 especially at these interior corners. 713 I've highlighted three spots there where you 714 can kind of see where we're showing parking, a 715 staircase, and because of the step-back from the drive 716 aisle on either side, it starts to eliminate areas for 717 useable parking spaces and it starts to kind of 718 clustering columns in those areas. 719 So in this case, it creates an inefficient 720 layout which overall would create a net loss of up to 721 three plus parking spaces per floor. 722 MS. FRIEDLANDER: I think this is a actually a 723 good place for me to also add that in general, 724 underground parking, the name of the game is efficiency, 725 right? So, each space can cost between 50 to 80,000 726 dollars a space. And when you're talking about having 727 to provide enough spaces for a building of 126 units, 728 that can add up very quickly. 729 Any developer will tell you that when you're 730 building an underground garage, or even an above-ground 731 garage, you have to make it as efficient as possible or 732 else it just doesn't work. 733 So what Chris is going to continue to 734 illustrate is that the layers of efficiency become 735 cumulative in terms of making the -- taking what is not 736 necessarily a perfect garage to begin with and 737 continuously making it less and less perfect and making 738 it less efficient and making it harder for it to become 739 -- to be financially sound. 740 So this is one of the layers of what happens 741 when the columns are placed where they're required by 742 the Ordinance and Chris will go through the other layers 743 that kind of add up to the impact on the efficiency is 744 severe. 745 MR. BARTLETT: Amy, can you share how many 746 total spaces are we talking about? 747 MS. FRIEDLANDER: It is 76 plus nine -- Chris, 748 can you tell me? 749 MR. HUFFER: Yeah, the total of the garage is 750 178 spaces I believe. 751 So where the columns are now would eliminate 752 at least six parking spaces from there. And that total 753 parking number includes the total tandem spots. So 754 without tandem parking, there's only about 150 parking 755 spots, so we have another additional another 20 spots. 756 MR. BARTLETT: How many units are there? 757 MS. FRIEDLANDER: There are 126, am I right? 758 MR. HUFFER: Yes. 759 MR. BARTLETT: So some will be allocated two 760 spaces and some will be allocated one or none? 761 MS. FRIEDLANDER: That is correct. 762 MR. BARTLETT: Paul Stoddard, I have a 763 question for you. And I hate to interrupt, but the 764 question is does the City restrict or require or have 765 any input on the number of spaces required in this type 766 of scenario? 767 MR. STODDARD: So there is. Thanks for the 768 question. 769 So, yeah, I think as you're all aware there 770 are certainly zoning requirements to provide a minimum 771 number of parking spaces for each unit and then of 772 course there is a waiver provision through which the 773 developer can request a reduction in the required 774 minimum number of parking spaces. 775 MS. FRIEDLANDER: And I'll add that as part of 776 the SEE approval that we discussed earlier, there were 777 minimum and maximum parking ratios approved as part of 778 that process. The condo building is in compliance with 779 the ratios as approved by the SEE. I believe theirs is 780 higher than the minimum approved in the SEE and that's a 781 decision that the developer wants to make from a market 782 perspective. 783 If we can build the garage as we're asking to 784 build it tonight, we believe that that number of parking 785 spaces is sufficient to meet the demand of our future 786 condo buyer. And that the number of spaces in that 787 garage will be sufficient to make sure that everybody 788 that wants the parking space that they want will get 789 one. 790 MR. BARTLETT: All right. Thank you very 791 much. And it seems what I'm getting at is that you're 792 not just trying to just overload the facility with as 793 many parking spaces as possible. You're trying to meet 794 needs and metrics of the actual building requirements. 795 MS. FRIEDLANDER: Correct. 796 MR. BARTLETT: Just making sure. 797 MR. CALABRESE: If I could just ask, you 798 mentioned a cost per space of 50 to 80,000 dollars. 799 What does that mean? Are you saying that's a loss of 800 revenue per space without that? Is that what it costs 801 in theory to build each space or to construct? 802 MS. FRIEDLANDER: That is how much it costs to 803 construct the space. 804 MR. CALABRESE: But there's three less spaces 805 though. You're saying the cost would be 50,000 less? 806 MS. FRIEDLANDER: Yes. If we lost three 807 spaces, we'd still have to build the whole garage, 808 right? So if we lost, on this page, two levels, if we 809 couldn't build those three spaces on each level, that 810 would be a loss of six parking spaces, we'd still have 811 to build the whole box. We would still have to spend 812 the money that would otherwise had been allocated to the 813 space that we could sell to somebody. 814 MR. HUFFER: It increases the cost per space, 815 there you go. 816 MS. FRIEDLANDER: And it increases the cost 817 per space, so, yes. So developers tend to use roughly 818 50 to 80,000 dollars as like a ballpark estimate of how 819 much it costs to build an underground parking space in 820 the region. 821 So that's just to give you an understanding of 822 what we're -- the order of magnitude that we're dealing 823 with as we're balancing efficiency in the garage. 824 MR. MISLEH: Well, while we're on this topic, 825 what are the minimum number of spaces for this property? 826 MS. FRIEDLANDER: The minimum number. I can 827 get you that in one second. 828 Carly, I don't know if you have that readily 829 available. 830 MS. AUBREY: I was pulling it up while you 831 guys were talking about the previous question. 832 So it looks like you guys are providing around 833 176 for the condo building. 834 MR. HUFFER: Yes. 835 MS. FRIEDLANDER: Yes. 836 It's kind of nice to have my computer here so 837 that I can pull everything up. 838 MS. AUBREY: It comes out to about 1.39 spaces 839 per unit which is about 75 percent of the required per 840 Code. But as Amy did mention, they did get approved 841 near the max as part of the SEE. 842 MS. FRIEDLANDER: Right. So the SEE minimum 843 is one space per unit and we are providing roughly 1.4. 844 MR. MISLEH: Thank you. 845 MR. BOYLE: Amy or Chris, is there a way to 846 zoom in on the red text boxes? 847 MS. FRIEDLANDER: Yes. Hold on. 848 MR. BOYLE: Thank you. 849 MR. HUFFER: The only difference is the one on 850 the -- right below where Amy is saying is we'd have to 851 essentially flip-flop or move that stair to where one of 852 those parking spaces above it would be, instead of just 853 losing a space there. 854 MS. FRIEDLANDER: Any other questions or shall 855 we move on and we can come back to questions if you have 856 them? 857 MR. BARTLETT: That's fine with me. Thank 858 you. 859 MR. HUFFER: Moving on, so in addition to what 860 we just talked about, one of the standards for a 861 building like this, is in the concrete a typical slab 862 thickness for those above-grade floors is seven inches. 863 And the columns that correspond with that are 16 by 28 864 inches and that's kind of what you see in the plan 865 there. 866 For that to work, the span between those 867 columns typically needs to be between 25 feet and 29 868 feet. We do this so that we kind of avoid excessive 869 deflection in the slab. And you can see in the bottom 870 right there, there's kind of just a small diagram of 871 what deflection is. Deflection is excessive bending of 872 the slab at points in between the columns. 873 So in order to mitigate that, you have to 874 either add more columns to make the distance in between, 875 the columns lower so that it doesn't have as much 876 room to drop. It kind of stiffens up the slab. Or you 877 have to have a thicker slab. Those are kind of your two 878 main options to mitigate with that. 879 If we need to zoom in, we can but we'll start 880 at that top left corner. You can see, I'm putting a 881 dimension roughly on how far in red, how far the 882 required column locations would end up being with the 883 three foot setback from the drive aisle, the 23 foot 884 drive aisle, and then the additional three feet. 885 So it comes to essentially in a typical layout 886 31 feet 4, kind of center to center between these 887 columns. Whereas I just mentioned that the typical span 888 that we like to use is between 25 to 29 feet. And so 889 around this drive aisle you can see that if we can push 890 those columns in, it's going to be six feet closer 891 together, so it's going to help eliminate any of that 892 deflection and we can use the thinner slabs going all 893 the way up. 894 So basically all these dimensions going 895 around, it's kind of a very consistent thing because as 896 we mentioned, we're trying to design a very consistent 897 and efficient garage. So a lot of these issues, if it 898 happens in one place, it's going to happen in other 899 locations. 900 So on top of the excessive distances between 901 the slabs, we've mentioned these step-backs. Because of 902 where we have lane 4 over that partial area of the 903 garage on the left and kind of where the building sits, 904 how everything lines up with where these columns are, 905 the step-backs are, and where the slabs end up being, we 906 have kind of some cantilever conditions on the west side 907 of the building. 908 Currently we've worked it out so that those 909 cantilever conditions are already kind of at their 910 maximum span so any additional distance of moving these 911 columns an additional three feet away from the edge of 912 these columns are going to require either additional 913 beams or thickened slabs throughout the building because 914 once again, the farther you get from a stiff point in a 915 column and the end of your slab, you get excessive 916 bending and deflection in the slab. 917 So that little diagram that Amy is 918 highlighting there, you can kind of see here in the 919 section of our lower step-back here, kind of a condition 920 where we have these balconies extending and the typical 921 floor slab and how pushing that column away from it is 922 just extending that distance from our maximum already of 923 13 and a half feet to 15 and a half feet. 924 So, just to kind of give summary of what we've 925 just talked about here, the concrete construction 926 requires columns to align from the bottom of the garage 927 to the top of the penthouse. And everything is 928 consistent and uniform through that building. 929 The distance between the columns is limited by 930 the thickness of the slab, the floor they support, and 931 the further apart the columns, the larger the columns 932 and the thicker the slab, otherwise the slab deflects 933 and bends too much to have a flat floor. 934 Increasing the slab thickness and column sizes 935 means more concrete, which in essence means more cost. 936 The SEE-required step-backs on the west side 937 create excessive cantilevers that further limit the 938 distance between the columns for the remainder of the 939 building. 940 And placing the columns as required would also 941 result in a loss of up to three spaces per floor which 942 increases the cost and adds the additional structure and 943 also decreases the efficiency of not only the rest of 944 the building but also of the garage. 945 MS. FRIEDLANDER: With that, I'm going to stop 946 here and see if there are any other column or related 947 questions before I move on to the tandem spaces which I 948 think will be a lot quicker. 949 MR. CALABRESE: I would just say, I thank you 950 for your presentation. This is much clearer to me now 951 what the problem that's being faced. 952 MS. FRIEDLANDER: I appreciate that. I'm glad 953 we could share this information and I apologize that we 954 didn't provide it the first time. 955 MR. EPPLER: Could you just address a little 956 bit, you talked a little bit about the increased costs. 957 I know you talked with some numbers at the last BZA 958 meeting. Could you just address what we're talking 959 about in terms of increased costs if the Ordinance is 960 enforced. 961 MS. FRIEDLANDER: I would think that it would 962 -- I'll share a little bit later. It decreases the 963 efficiency by 18 to 20 percent if we don't get any of 964 these variances tonight, which not only would increase 965 the cost of the garage per space, we might have to 966 consider building a third level, which is financially 967 infeasible because the deeper you go, the more expensive 968 it becomes. 969 I would put it in the order of millions of 970 dollars. 971 MR. MISLEH: Amy, would the approval of this 972 variance help alleviate some of the financial hardship 973 that you've been presenting to Council on this project? 974 MS. FRIEDLANDER: In terms of the deal 975 structure? 976 MR. MISLEH: Yes. 977 MS. FRIEDLANDER: Robin, I don't know, do you 978 want to address that? I think that they're somewhat 979 separate issues. 980 Or Charles. Anyone. 981 Go ahead. 982 MR. BATTLE: No, they are separate issues. 983 Our planning already assumes that this is how 984 we're going to build the building, if you will. We 985 would have to go back and refigure the building and redo 986 costs if we had to conform strictly to the guidelines 987 being presented.  988 MS. FRIEDLANDER: In other words, it would 989 potentially make it worse. 990 MR. BATTLE: Don't say that. 991 MR. MISLEH: I have a couple other questions 992 since I wasn't in the last meeting. 993 So, these two levels of the garage are 994 strictly for residential use and they will be deeded 995 spaces to the condominiums? 996 MS. FRIEDLANDER: Correct, yes. I apologize. 997 Yes, we talked about that a lot the last time. 998 It is a private garage, it is not shared with 999 other uses. It's unlike commercial garages where I 1000 understand, there's one garage in particular that I'm 1001 sure everybody is familiar with in the City that people 1002 who are unfamiliar with the garage layout may come once 1003 or twice a year and not know where they're going. This 1004 garage, each space will be owned by a condo owner. They 1005 will know exactly how to get into that space, they'll 1006 know what the best way to get into that space is, 1007 they'll feel comfortable doing it. And so it is unlike 1008 a commercial garage where you might have unfamiliar 1009 parkers. 1010 MR. CALABRESE: I'm sorry, if I could just add 1011 though, you did mention before I think earlier, last 1012 time, this time, that there would be visitors. 1013 MS. FRIEDLANDER: I think that if a visitor 1014 came, it would be because they're very close with the 1015 person that owns the space and they'd have to park in 1016 the space that the condo owner owns. The condo owner 1017 would go with them, I would imagine. 1018 MR. CALABRESE: There's no visitor parking is 1019 what you're saying. 1020 MS. FRIEDLANDER: Correct. 1021 MR. MISLEH: So in theory, the tightness of 1022 the drive lanes would only be applicable to the 1023 purchasers and their intended users of that lot. 1024 MS. FRIEDLANDER: Correct. And to further 1025 emphasize, each of the spaces meets the Ordinance 1026 dimensions. So they are the correct dimensions per the 1027 Ordinance, each individual space themselves, and the 1028 drive aisles are also the correct dimensions. 1029 MR. MISLEH: So there's no turning radius 1030 issues that we'd face by reducing that drive aisle? 1031 MR. HUFFER: No. 1032 MS. FRIEDLANDER: Right. And we're not 1033 reducing the drive aisle itself, right. We're just 1034 reducing the distance from the drive aisle that the 1035 column is placed. So the drive aisle itself does not 1036 change in width. 1037 And so most of the spaces don't have -- 1038 there's lots of spaces that don't have columns next to 1039 them at all. 1040 MR. MISLEH: Thank you. 1041 MS. FRIEDLANDER: Can I answer any other 1042 questions before I head to the next one? 1043 (No response.) 1044 MS. FRIEDLANDER: No. All right. 1045 So I hope this part is a little bit quicker. 1046 We're requesting the ability to use tandem and 1047 stacked spaces because it will help us again increase 1048 the efficiency of the garage structure by maximizing 1049 spaces without leaving unusable areas that we couldn't 1050 use for parking. 1051 Again, the set of the two stacked spaces would 1052 be sold to a single condo owner. And it would operate 1053 like a driveway in a single family home. 1054 The City has approved tandem spaces previously 1055 in other projects. And tandem spaces are very common 1056 throughout urban developments and urban condominiums and 1057 permitted by other Virginia municipalities. 1058 Quickly, again, the tandem spaces are 1059 highlighted in pink. The tandem one is the one behind 1060 one, the set of spaces would be sold to a single owner. 1061 Tandem spaces operate just like this driveway 1062 on the 700 block of Highland Avenue. I hope that is 1063 none of your houses. I just went on Google maps and 1064 tried to find one. 1065 But much like somebody that owns a driveway 1066 like this, if the minivan wants to go somewhere, they're 1067 going to have to coordinate the cars and move one so the 1068 one in the back can go where it needs to go. 1069 And just to illustrate the amount of space 1070 that would be lost or other unusable if we could not 1071 have tandem spaces, we have nine tandem spaces per floor 1072 and they are 9 feet by 18 feet and so that is equivalent 1073 to nearly 3000 square feet of space that would otherwise 1074 be unusable for parking if we could not stack them. 1075 So, in conclusion, this is the overall summary 1076 of the impacts of the Ordinance requirements across the 1077 building. 1078 So efficiency is really the key here. As 1079 proposed, the way that we want to build it, the garage 1080 is approximately 90 percent as efficient as a typical 1081 cast-in-place garage given just all of the constraints 1082 that we've talked about tonight. 1083 But meeting the strict application of the 1084 Ordinance would reduce the efficiency by an additional 1085 18 to 20 percent, which is a critical amount of 1086 efficiency. 1087 Given the reduced efficiency, the reduced 1088 amount of parking could negatively impact the 1089 marketability of the condos to potential buyers. And 1090 then the structure would necessarily have to change 1091 including transfer beams or thicker slabs and would 1092 affect the structure throughout the building, not just 1093 in the garage, the cost of which would be in the 1094 millions. 1095 So I've included these slides, just in case 1096 there are any questions, this is just kind of laying out 1097 what we've put in our application, the variance 1098 standards by which the variance should be reviewed. If 1099 you have any questions, we can come back to that. 1100 But overall, the strict application of the 1101 ordinance we believe would unreasonably limit the use of 1102 the property. 1103 The City Parking Code and the SEE approval 1104 that we are subject to does not necessarily contemplate 1105 the conflicts between these ordinances for high rise 1106 concrete construction and nor did it provide a relief 1107 valve or flexibility to address the conflicts, which is 1108 why we are here before you tonight. 1109 The proposed design includes parking spaces 1110 and aisle dimensions that meet the ordinance 1111 requirements. The condo parking is private unlike 1112 commercial garages where parkers may be unfamiliar with 1113 the layout and therefore have difficulty parking. 1114 The design constraints and the construction 1115 type affect the column placement in this garage. 1116 Tandem and stacked spaces are typical in 1117 residential condominium garages. Those tandem spaces 1118 would be sold to a single owner and operate like a 1119 single family driveway. 1120 And the requests preserve the efficiency of 1121 the garage to provide sufficient parking to meet the 1122 demand while minimizing costs. 1123 So that is it. Are there other questions I 1124 can help answer for you? 1125 MR. MISLEH: I have two questions about the 1126 tandem spaces. 1127 In a tandem space scenario when you deed it to 1128 the owner, will it be considered a single, deeded space 1129 or will they be considered two spaces? The reason I'm 1130 asking is in the future would they be able to split them 1131 or sell them individually? 1132 MS. FRIEDLANDER: That is a question that I 1133 think Charles or Robin would have to answer. 1134 MR. BATTLE: That is an excellent question. I 1135 don't think we've gotten to that detail as we don't have 1136 our condo docs formulated yet but I'm going to make a 1137 note of that. It's likely they will be deeded as to one 1138 owner, basically like two spots to one owner. But 1139 that's a good question. I'm going to have to ask the 1140 condo attorney that one. 1141 MR. MISLEH: Thank you. I think it's 1142 important that they be restricted so that you don't end 1143 up with -- 1144 MR. BATTLE: Yeah, with somebody getting 1145 land-locked. 1146 MS. FRIEDLANDER: I'm sure the condo 1147 association would not be happy with that situation 1148 either. 1149 MR. BATTLE: No. And I'm sure the condo 1150 attorney knows exactly how to word that as they've 1151 probably seen it. 1152 MR. MISLEH: And the second question is you 1153 have a handicapped space reflected in one of the tandem 1154 spaces. How are you going to enforce that? 1155 MR. BATTLE: I'll say typically we reserve the 1156 handicap spots until last, to assign them last in case a 1157 disabled person does come and needs that spot, then we 1158 can deed them that spot. 1159 In the end, if we're sold out and no one 1160 disabled needs that spot, then it just becomes a regular 1161 spot at that point. 1162 MR. MISLEH: Thank you. 1163 MS. FRIEDLANDER: Any other questions we can 1164 help answer? 1165 They were all excellent, by the way, 1166 MR. CALABRESE: So I'll just go again. I 1167 think one's a comment and one is a question. 1168 So, first of all again, thank you. I think 1169 this is much clearer than last time. 1170 But one of the challenges we face consistently 1171 is that we're, as the Zoning Board, asked to evaluate 1172 variance requests based on either outdated, 1173 inappropriate, or other otherwise insufficient 1174 ordinances. And it happens, this is not your problem, 1175 of course, but it's just a general comment. 1176 But I do think there needs to be something 1177 that needs to be done to update the Zoning Ordinance. 1178 If, in fact, this requirement is no longer necessary, if 1179 it was relative to one building, then the law needs to 1180 be changed and either the -- I don't know if it's the 1181 City Council or the legislature does this. 1182 So, anyway, that's just a comment. 1183 The other, is that, just to be clear, Mr. 1184 Lasso said at the beginning that the standard in the law 1185 that applies here is part of the harm requirement, is 1186 the unreasonable restriction of the use of the property. 1187 And just to be clear, what you're saying is that that 1188 unreasonable restriction is the loss of the six spaces, 1189 am I correct in saying that? 1190 MS. FRIEDLANDER: The combination of the loss 1191 of the six spaces and the eighteen spaces of the 1192 tandems. So it's six plus eighteen which is 24. And 1193 then additionally, the impact across the whole building, 1194 the shift in the column grid would create. 1195 MR. CALABRESE: Just focusing on the column 1196 problem, if you were just to do the column issue, that's 1197 six, right? Then the tandem adds an additional number 1198 of spaces, is that correct? 1199 MS. FRIEDLANDER: The column problem is six 1200 spaces I believe. Chris, correct me if I'm wrong. 1201 MR. HUFFER: Yes. 1202 MS. FRIEDLANDER: Plus the impact across the 1203 building in terms of the structure. 1204 MR. CALABRESE: Okay. Thank you. 1205 MR. BOYLE: Mr. Chair, if I might, the loss of 1206 those spaces would also not be excused in the plan. 1207 They would have to be produced somewhere on site. They 1208 simply couldn't use them as they're proposing if they 1209 don't get this variance. The approved amount of parking 1210 has to be provided, whether these spaces are utilized or 1211 not. 1212 MR. MISLEH: But, John, am I correct in 1213 understanding that there are point 4 per unit excess 1214 parking in this proposed construct so in theory there's 1215 some variation, there's some allowance in there to make 1216 modifications. 1217 MR. BOYLE: I think there is but it's not a 1218 one for one trade. 1219 The required parking is a bit of a science 1220 that traffic engineers come to us with demand studies 1221 and what have you and they've arrived at a number that 1222 works for this type of building. And the fractions I 1223 think are helpful for seeing the demand in a table but 1224 in reality you're not going to see a fractional space. 1225 They'll have to build that area but they wouldn't be 1226 allowed to count it towards their total. I'm not sure 1227 it would be a one for one trade across the entire site. 1228 They might be able to recapture a couple. 1229 But I think it's important to consider that 1230 all of this space that is currently shown for parking, 1231 if a percentage of that falls away, if they don't get 1232 the variance, their required parking load is not going 1233 to be reduced to match. They are still going to have 1234 to provide all that parking. 1235 MR. MISLEH: Thank you. 1236 MR. BARTLETT: So this is Keith Bartlett. I 1237 have sort of a running question on the tandem request as 1238 a variance. 1239 John, I would ask you, the Code is silent on 1240 tandem spaces? 1241 MR. BOYLE: Yes. And we looked at other Codes 1242 from other communities. It's very common for the 1243 language of parking ordinances to be fairly identical 1244 from town to town. 1245 We do have some significant differences in 1246 that ours does not address tandems, and so the concept 1247 was that the Code is clear that each space needs to have 1248 its own access from an aisle. And tandem, the inside 1249 tandem space would not. So I think on that basis alone, 1250 that is why we're looking for the variance. 1251 A number of years ago a garage was proposed 1252 entirely of tandem spaces and their argument was that 1253 it's not prohibited. And we just thought from a 1254 planning view, the functionality of a garage like that, 1255 and it was rental apartments and they wanted to have I 1256 think staff on site to move the vehicles. It would not 1257 have functioned well and so we argued hard that, yes, 1258 it's not specifically prohibited but we're going to take 1259 the position and interpret that each space needed its 1260 own drive aisle access. So that's why they're here for 1261 the variance. 1262 MR. BARTLETT: And when Spectrum was built on 1263 Broad Street, those tandem spaces received a variance to 1264 allow tandem spaces? 1265 MR. BOYLE: I'm not sure. Let me look at 1266 that. 1267 MR. LASSO: This is Dave Lasso. I've worked 1268 on the Spectrum Development, that's correct. They were 1269 allowed to build the tandem spaces. 1270 And, John, I think that City Hall parking 1271 garage has tandem spaces. 1272 MS. FRIEDLANDER: Yes. 1273 MR. BOYLE: Yes, it did -- yes, it does, and 1274 they did get a variance for that. 1275 MR. EPPLER: And so does Pearson Square. 1276 MR. LASSO: Correct. 1277 MR. BARTLETT: And so my follow-up question 1278 and then I'll probably be done with the whole tandem 1279 space conversation is, why are we calling it a tandem 1280 space and not just one large space that allows two cars? 1281 Is there a definition in parking space that is limited 1282 to one car? 1283 MR. BOYLE: Not in our Code but I think it's 1284 an industry term. 1285 MR. BARTLETT: Okay. Interesting. 1286 And then following up on Mr. Calabrese's 1287 comment on outdated Codes that we are dealing with all 1288 the time, I just appreciated him bringing that up and it 1289 will be interesting to figure out a way to resolve some 1290 of these upfront when City Council or planning 1291 department or folks are contemplating development, 1292 things like this, that they contemplate some of these to 1293 include in their provisions. 1294 Does anyone else have questions from the BZA 1295 for the applicant? 1296 (No response.) 1297 MR. BARTLETT: Does the applicant have 1298 anything further to add to their presentation? 1299 MS. FRIEDLANDER: No, I just wanted to say 1300 thank you for giving us the opportunity to come back and 1301 give you the information that you needed. And I hope 1302 that this was what you were looking for and informs your 1303 discussion in a positive way. 1304 MR. BARTLETT: Thank you, Amy. Thank you, 1305 David. Thank you, others. 1306 At this point the Board will go into open 1307 discussion in front of the applicant about our 1308 considerations and questions and concerns. 1309 Would anyone like to start? 1310 MR. EPPLER: Keith, this is Dale. If I could, 1311 I'm keeping my video off because I seem to lose 1312 connection every time I turn my camera on. 1313 I was going to suggest, do we need to do both 1314 of these as one or do we consider the tandem and the 1315 column issues as two separate questions? Because I 1316 think we could probably deal with the tandems relative 1317 quickly. 1318 MR. BARTLETT: Does anyone have any feedback 1319 on that? 1320 I don't think it's an issue, but anyone else? 1321 MR. CALABRESE: This is Dave. I think that's 1322 fine. I'm okay discussing both but if we want to break 1323 it up, that's fine too. 1324 MR. MISLEH: I think we should just go ahead 1325 and discuss both, if there's any dissent, then we can 1326 vote on them independently. 1327 MR. BARTLETT: That's a good path forward. 1328 MR. CALABRESE: I'll start. I think I made 1329 the comments before so I feel more comfortable. Again, 1330 we're faced with sometimes an impossible situation where 1331 we have to enforce requirements that are fairly very 1332 strict. The harm as noted is a fairly high bar and so 1333 we have to show and it has to be shown that the granting 1334 of the variance is really going to alleviate something 1335 that's really serious. So that's always the challenge. 1336 And when the Codes are written in a way that 1337 makes it difficult to move forward in a matter like 1338 this, it just creates this challenge. 1339 Anyway, I think that we have much more 1340 information this time and it's understandable. So 1341 personally I don't have the same objections I had 1342 before. 1343 MR. BARTLETT: I will follow up with Mr. 1344 Calabrese in stating that I have a much better 1345 understanding of the specific restrictions and issues 1346 associated with the columns themselves. 1347 I was a little confused earlier or last month 1348 about moving them less than 3 feet from a drive aisle 1349 because you wanted more parking spaces, but when I was 1350 reading more thoroughly through the application and 1351 based on the conversation tonight and information 1352 presented, the situation that you were placed in to 1353 build this building with a certain square footage and 1354 certain requirements and building code requirements that 1355 our Ordinance does not contemplate dealing with concrete 1356 structures and height issues, I'm much more comfortable 1357 with that request for a variance. I have no issue with 1358 the tandem spacing issue. 1359 MR. EPPLER: So I would just add, I agree with 1360 Mr. Misleh about the tandem spaces. They shouldn't be 1361 severable. They should not be able to be separated. 1362 But other than, and I've seen them in many places and 1363 I've seen them here in Falls Church as well so I don't 1364 have a problem with them. But the idea that you could 1365 separate those two spaces and sell them separately, 1366 doesn't make sense to me. 1367 MR. MISLEH: I'll just say that everything 1368 presented this evening makes sense and to unreasonably 1369 restrict the marketability of this project would I think 1370 go against the intent of the City for the entire site, 1371 so I don't see any issue with approving the variance as 1372 requested. 1373 MR. KIEN: I agree with John on that. I don't 1374 think the tandem parking space issue is an issue at all. 1375 And while last month it was fairly clear that the cost 1376 impact was -- and the feasibility of mitigating those 1377 costs was real, the additional information that was 1378 provided tonight really makes it clear in regards to 1379 what has now been said multiple times: The current Code 1380 is just not adequate to deal with this. 1381 And I don't see anything that would change my 1382 thoughts from last time which is to move forward. 1383 MR. BARTLETT: At this point, does anyone 1384 have any further questions or comments? 1385 (No response.) 1386 MR. BOYLE: Mr. Chair, I think we do have one 1387 or two members of the public. If we could offer them an 1388 opportunity. 1389 MR. BARTLETT: Sure. Of course. I don't have 1390 names of folks from the public. If one at a time would 1391 like to open up your mic and make comment, that would be 1392 wonderful. And state your name for the record please. 1393 (No response.) 1394 MR. BARTLETT: John, do you have information 1395 that specific members of the public would like to speak 1396 or just that they are in attendance? 1397 MR. BOYLE: Just that I see them on the list. 1398 MR. BARTLETT: Okay. If anyone has any last 1399 minute comments that their mic's not working or if you 1400 want to put anything into Chat, let me know. I don't 1401 see anything in Chat, so I'm assuming no one wants to 1402 make any further comments. 1403 All right. Thank you, Mr. Boyle. 1404 Would anyone like to make a motion? 1405 I'll make a motion to approve variance 1406 application V1618-20 by FCGP Development LLC, applicant, 1407 for variances to Section 48-933 to allow 1) the stacking 1408 of parking spaces and 2) placement of columns less than 1409 three feet from the drive aisle within a parking garage, 1410 for the purposes of constructing a parking garage and 1411 residential condominium on premises known as 7124 1412 Leesburg Pike, RPC #52-221-006 of the Falls Church Real 1413 Property Records, zoned B-2, Central Business. 1414 MR. MISLEH: I second. 1415 MR. BARTLETT: Mr. Boyle, with receipt of 1416 second and first motion for approval, would you do a 1417 roll call vote? 1418 MR. BOYLE: Yes, sir. 1419 Mr. Eppler. 1420 MR. EPPLER: Agree. 1421 MR. BOYLE: Mr. Kien. 1422 MR. KIEN: Yes. 1423 MR. BOYLE: Mr. Calabrese. 1424 MR. CALABRESE: Yes. 1425 MR. BOYLE: Mr. Misleh. 1426 MR. MISLEH: Yes. 1427 MR. BOYLE: Mr. Bartlett. 1428 MR. BARTLETT: Yes. 1429 MR. BOYLE: Thank you. 1430 MR. LASSO: Thank you very much. 1431 MS. FRIEDLANDER: Thank you very much. 1432 MR. MISLEH: Congratulations. 1433 MR. BARTLETT: Thank you again for presenting 1434 more information. I really appreciate it. 1435 1436 5. NEW BUSINESS 1437 a. Election of Officers 1438 MR. BARTLETT: Moving on to New Business, as 1439 it's our January meeting and annual tradition, we have 1440 an opportunity to elect new officers for the Board of 1441 Zoning Appeals now that Mr. Jones has left us as our 1442 chair. We have two positions open, one for chairman and 1443 one for vice chairman. We also have to elect a 1444 secretary for the following year and then eventually we 1445 will then move on to establishing a calender for the 1446 2021 session and then update any Rules of Procedure for 1447 the Board of Zoning Appeals themselves. 1448 MR. CALABRESE: Well, I would nominate Mr. 1449 Bartlett as the chair. 1450 MR. KIEN: So would I. 1451 MR. BARTLETT: Oh, Dave, thanks. 1452 MR. CALABRESE: Is that something you want? 1453 MR. BARTLETT: I've thought about it, yeah, 1454 and I think it's fine. I will make comment, I won't 1455 offer the comment right now but if there are others that 1456 would like to chair nominations. 1457 Mr. Misleh has been here for a long time. 1458 MR. MISLEH: No. Keith, I think you'll do a 1459 great job. 1460 MR. BARTLETT: I just ask that if that's the 1461 case, that we all recognize that this is a great team 1462 and team effort and I'll be relying on all of you to 1463 help along the way and provide guidance and clarity and 1464 the great resource that you are. 1465 MR. MISLEH: Do we need to go ahead and 1466 nominate all positions or all offices? 1467 MR. CALABRESE: Just to clarify, the 1468 secretary, is that a new position or is that staff, the 1469 secretary, Mr. Boyle? 1470 MR. BOYLE: It's a position the Board has 1471 traditionally just acknowledged and I think years ago 1472 there was a secretary that was not performing so the 1473 Board took the opportunity to object. 1474 I don't think it requires a vote but I can 1475 assure you Akida is going to be the secretary. 1476 MR. CALABRESE: Yeah, that's what I thought. 1477 MR. BARTLETT: The requirement is for us to 1478 appoint a secretary annually at this meeting. And this 1479 is year four for me and we've always asked Akida to 1480 serve in that role and she's willingly done so. 1481 MR. BOYLE: Yeah. You can put it in the 1482 minutes as a request. 1483 MR. MISLEH: So as vice-chair, would Mr. 1484 Calabrese be willing to serve in that role? 1485 MR. CALABRESE: Well, certainly I'd be happy 1486 but I mean if there are others that would like the 1487 opportunity, I don't want to be -- I've done it before 1488 and I'd be very happy to do it again but if others who 1489 have been on the Board would want to do it, I'd be very 1490 happy to nominate them. 1491 So, don't be shy. If someone wants to do it, 1492 please speak up and I'd be very happy to step aside for 1493 them. If there are no others, I'm glad to do it as 1494 well. 1495 MR. BARTLETT: I will say the position of vice 1496 chair was quite simple this past year and I have perfect 1497 attendance at meetings so you won't have a problem. 1498 MR. CALABRESE: Right. 1499 MR. BARTLETT: I'll second the nomination for 1500 you, David, to serve as vice-chairman. 1501 MR. CALABRESE: Okay. Thank you. 1502 MR. MISLEH: Thank you, Dave. 1503 MR. KIEN: Thank you, David. 1504 MR. BARTLETT: Mr. Boyle, is there a 1505 requirement to conduct a vote at this point if we only 1506 have one nomination for both positions? 1507 MR. BOYLE: Let's, just to be safe, but I 1508 think we can consolidate it in two both, one motion for 1509 both. 1510 MR. BARTLETT: Mr. Misleh, you want to make a 1511 motion for both? 1512 MR. MISLEH: Yes. I move to nominate Mr. Bartlett 1513 as chair and Mr. Calabrese as vice chair of the Board of 1514 Zoning Appeals for the year 2021. 1515 MR. KIEN: I'd second that. 1516 MR. BOYLE: Who was the second, I'm sorry? 1517 MR. KIEN: It's Peter. 1518 MR. BOYLE: Thank you. 1519 Roll call. 1520 Mr. Eppler. 1521 MR. EPPLER: Yes. 1522 MR. BOYLE: Mr. Kien. 1523 MR. KIEN: Yes. 1524 MR. BOYLE: Mr. Misleh. 1525 MR. MISLEH: Yes. 1526 MR. BOYLE: Mr. Calabrese. 1527 MR. CALABRESE: Yes. 1528 MR. BOYLE: And, Mr. Bartlett. 1529 MR. BARTLETT: Yes. 1530 MR. BOYLE: Thank you. 1531 1532 b. 2021 BZA Calendar 1533 MR. BARTLETT: The next order of business is 1534 the 2021 BZA calendar. I don't see any reason to change 1535 our schedule which is the second Thursday of each month, 1536 is that correct? 1537 MR. BOYLE: It's the second Thursday after the 1538 first Monday. 1539 MR. BARTLETT: The second Thursday after the 1540 first Monday. Sometimes that's different? 1541 MR. BOYLE: Yeah. 1542 MR. BARTLETT: Why such confusing language, 1543 John? I don't understand. 1544 MR. BOYLE: It's Falls Church. 1545 MR. BARTLETT: Is it like Thanksgiving? Such 1546 a reference to historical times. 1547 MR. BOYLE: We go through and select dates 1548 that avoid any federal holidays. There's always one or 1549 two each year. This calendar seems to steer clear of 1550 any issues like that. 1551 MR. BARTLETT: Only place, I see tax day is on 1552 here, the 15th of April, June 17, July 15, no meeting in 1553 August, September 16, October 14. November 11th is 1554 Veterans Day, which is now a holiday in the City of 1555 Falls Church for schools and others. A federal holiday 1556 as well. 1557 Would we want to move that one to the 18th, is 1558 that what your past practice would recommend? 1559 MR. BOYLE: It shouldn't be on the schedule. 1560 Was that sent to you? 1561 MR. MISLEH: It's noted as the 18th on the 1562 schedule. 1563 MR. BARTLETT: Oh, great. I didn't click on 1564 that link in the Agenda. 1565 MR. MISLEH: John, I have a request for you. 1566 Would it be possible to ask Akida to send us a meeting 1567 invite for all of these dates to the Board members? 1568 MR. BOYLE: Sure. Good idea. 1569 MR. MISLEH: Thank you. 1570 I'll move to approve the meeting schedule for 1571 2021 for the Board of Zoning Appeals. 1572 MR. BOYLE: Perhaps for something like this, 1573 could we do "all in favor, any opposed"? 1574 MR. BARTLETT: All in favor? 1575 (Chorus of "ayes".) 1576 MR. BARTLETT: That was five "ayes." 1577 1578 c. Rules of Procedure 1579 MR. BARTLETT: So the next order of business 1580 is our Rules of Procedures. 1581 Mr. Boyle, were there any changes to the 2021 1582 Rules of Procedure from the prior years? 1583 MR. BOYLE: The only thing recently was the 1584 option for electronic meeting and now we're all experts 1585 at that. 1586 Remember when that first came up, it was like, 1587 this will never work. 1588 MR. CALABRESE: That was a real big deal at 1589 the time. 1590 MR. BOYLE: I think that's the most recent. 1591 MR. BARTLETT: Did anyone see anything that 1592 caused them consternation or concern, or have any 1593 recommendations to update our Rules of Procedure? 1594 MR. MISLEH: No. 1595 MR. BARTLETT: All in favor? 1596 (A chorus of "ayes".) 1597 MR. MISLEH: John, I have one comment on the 1598 electronic procedure. And that is it would be great if 1599 there was a way to allow people a phone number to dial 1600 in. 1601 MR. BOYLE: Oh, yeah. 1602 MR. MISLEH: I think not only for the purpose 1603 of the Board members and the applicants, but also for 1604 the public. It can be challenging for those that are 1605 not familiar with how to use Teams or if they don't have 1606 audio on their device. 1607 MR. BOYLE: No, that's a very good point. 1608 Just speaking for staff, we use about three 1609 different remote meeting systems, and the more familiar 1610 you get with each, the more they become unusable. You 1611 don't remember what worked with which. 1612 That's a good idea. 1613 MR. EPPLER: Actually I think Teams actually 1614 has an option for dial-in. At least the ones at my 1615 work, they have a dial-in number that works with that. 1616 MR. BARTLETT: It should. 1617 MR. BOYLE: Maybe it's an IT thing with us. 1618 I'll look into that. That's a very good idea. There 1619 should be a number on the posted agenda to call in. 1620 MR. BARTLETT: That's a good suggestion, Mr. 1621 Misleh. 1622 MR. MISLEH: Thank you. 1623 1624 6. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1625 a. Approval of the December 17, 2020, Meeting Minutes 1626 MR. MISLEH: All right. Are there minutes, 1627 Mr. Bartlett? John? 1628 MR. BOYLE: Yeah, you should have received the 1629 minutes. Did we or did we not? 1630 MR. EPPLER: It's listed here on the Agenda 1631 but I did not find a link to actually see them. 1632 MR. BOYLE: Okay. Let me look in my folders. 1633 MR. EPPLER: David, could I ask a question 1634 while we're waiting, because I wholeheartedly agree with 1635 you being stuck trying to fix these problems. 1636 In this case is this something that should 1637 have been dealt with in the SEE? 1638 MR. CALABRESE: I don't know. It's a good 1639 question. It's a good question. 1640 The challenge we have, as you all know, is 1641 that we need to apply the law but the law is just not 1642 always appropriate and it leads to frustrations on both 1643 sides. 1644 When was the last time, Mr. Boyle, when there 1645 was a change to the Ordinance? I mean, we can make 1646 recommendations I believe. Is it the City Council or is 1647 it the legislature that has to actually do the changes? 1648 MR. BOYLE: The City Council, through our 1649 charter, can make code amendments but it has to run 1650 cooperatively with the State. 1651 I keep a running list of changes to the Code. 1652 I'll rattle the most recent ones off here. 1653 For the minutes, staff has not received them 1654 from the secretary that does those, so there's no 1655 minutes ready for you for this meeting. 1656 MR. BARTLETT: Speaking of our Code, I feel it 1657 would be wonderful if we could even update the standard 1658 in the City Code about how to get a variance and the 1659 standard that we're supposed to be considering and 1660 looking at. 1661 Every time we get a sophisticated applicant, 1662 they bring up the fact that the Virginia Code is 1663 inconsistent with our City Code but obviously the 1664 Virginia Code supersedes ours. 1665 And so, it will great at some point if we can 1666 figure out a way to, I don't know if you can update 1667 portions of the Code, or if you open the Code, you have 1668 to take public comment on the entirety of the Code. 1669 I think that's a question that we can probably 1670 pose to the City Attorney about how and when it's most 1671 appropriate to update our standards for ourselves 1672 but also the limitations of that as well. 1673 MR. BOYLE: The burden for a variance has been 1674 out of date in our Code for quite a while. And staff 1675 has asked, there is a draft ordinance that has been 1676 presented and it's structured in a way that would 1677 automatically update the Code by reference. We got at 1678 least that far with the City Attorney. She thought that 1679 portion of Code could be just a rolling reference to 1680 State code, so we don't have to keep updating it, just 1681 insert what the State does. 1682 So, zoning code updates are difficult from 1683 staff's perspective to obtain them, but top-down, they 1684 seem to happen pretty well. 1685 Just for example, the last one that was 1686 updated was definition of a group home in 2018. Also in 1687 2018, the definition of persons with disabilities. I 1688 think that was a State requirement. 1689 But the biggie you all recall is in 2017 was 1690 the cottage housing amendment. 1691 MR. BARTLETT: They just dumped the whole 1692 thing in there. 1693 MR. BOYLE: Yeah, that was pretty loose. 1694 Just prior to that, there's some really good 1695 structural ones where the Planning Commission can revise 1696 required parking numbers at site plan so they weren't 1697 continually coming to the Board asking for a reduction 1698 in numbers, the Planning Commission could consider that. 1699 So we have had one every year or so but 1700 there's some biggies, even some simple things like typos 1701 that we'd like to see. This is a glaring one, the 1702 burden for a variance. 1703 MR. BARTLETT: Okay. 1704 MR. BOYLE: So, no minutes. We'll get you 1705 those. 1706 MR. BARTLETT: Okay. We'll go through them 1707 next time. 1708 1709 7. OTHER BUSINESS 1710 MR. BARTLETT: Is there any Other Business at 1711 this point? 1712 (No response.) 1713 1714 8. ADJOURNMENT 1715 MR. BARTLETT: Without New Business or any 1716 Other Business, I move to adjourn the Board of Zoning 1717 Appeals meeting for January 14, 2021. 1718 MR. KIEN: Second on that. 1719 MR. BARTLETT: All right. Thank you very 1720 much. 1721 1722