Board of Zoning Appeals

1 BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING 2 CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 3 Thursday, September 14, 2023 4 7:30 p.m. 5 6 1. CALL TO ORDER 7 a. Request for electronic participation during this 8 BZA meeting by Vice-Chair Kristine Ward due to family matters. 9 10 MR. MISLEH: Good evening. I'd like to call the 11 meeting of the Board of Zoning Appeals for Thursday, September 12 14th to order. 13 14 2. ROLL CALL 15 MR. MISLEH: Ms. Willis, please call the roll. 16 RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Gene Gresko. 17 Absent. 18 RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Peter Kien. 19 MR. KIEN: Here. 20 RECORDING SECRETARY: Present. 21 Mr. John Misleh. 22 MR. MISLEH: Here. 23 RECORDING SECRETARY: Ms. Kristine Ward. 24 MS. WARD: Here. 25 RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Keith Bartlett. 26 Absent. 27 RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Dale Eppler. 28 MR. EPPLER: Here. 29 RECORDING SECRETARY: We have a quorum. 30 MR. MISLEH: Thank you. 31 I think for a matter of record we need to take a vote 32 to approve electronic participation. 33 MS. ROUZI: Yes, that's correct. 34 MR. MISLEH: Does that require a motion, Akida? 35 MS. ROUZI: Yes. It requires a vote. 36 MR. EPPLER: I will make a motion that we allow 37 Kristine Ward to participate in the September 14th Board of 38 Zoning Appeals meeting remotely. 39 MR. KIEN: I will second that. 40 RECORDING SECRETARY: Ms. Ward. 41 MS. WARD: Yes. 42 RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Misleh. 43 MR. MISLEH: Yes. 44 RECORDING SECRETARY: Motion passes. 45 46 3. PETITIONS 47 MR. MISLEH: Do we have any Petitions in front of this 48 Board this evening? 49 RECORDING SECRETARY: No, sir. 50 51 4. OLD BUSINESS 52 MR. MISLEH: Any Old Business? 53 MS. ROUZI: We do not. 54 MR. MISLEH: Thank you. 55 56 5. NEW BUSINESS 57 a. Variance application V1643-23 by Oak Park LLC, 58 applicant and owner, for a variance to Section 48-1101 to allow 59 maximum lot coverage of 55% instead of the 40% to construct a 60 two story daycare facility, at 711 Park Avenue, RPC #51-131-017 61 of the Falls Church Real Property Records, zoned T-1, 62 Transitional District. 63 64 MR. MISLEH: So let's move on to the New Business. 65 We have one application on our Agenda this evening. 66 It's application V1643-23 by Oak Park LLC, applicant and owner, 67 for a variance to Section 48-1101 to allow maximum lot coverage 68 of 55% instead of 40% to construct a two story daycare facility 69 at 711 Park Avenue. 70 Please come forward, those who plan to speak this 71 evening. 72 If you wouldn't mind, please fill out the form on the 73 table. And in the meantime, I'd like to ask everyone who plans 74 to speak to raise their right hand. 75 (Witnesses sworn.)  76 MR. MISLEH: Thank you very much. Welcome. 77 If you wouldn't mind, please introduce yourselves. 78 MR. WILBERN: Yes. I'm Jack Wilbern. I'm a member of 79 the Oak Park LLC. 80 MR. MISLEH: Welcome. 81 MR. YOUNG: Bob Young, also a member, president of the 82 Young Group Bank. 83 MR. MISLEH: Welcome. 84 MR. PAINTER: My name is Andrew Painter. I'm a zoning 85 attorney at the law firm of Walsh Colucci assisting the 86 applicant. 87 MR. MISLEH: Welcome, everyone. 88 Thank you for coming. 89 So, we'll let staff kick this off with a little brief 90 summary on the application. 91 MS. ROUZI: Sure thing. 92 Good evening, Board. 93 For just a quick summary of the application, this 94 property is zoned T-1, Transitional District. The applicant 95 proposed to construct a new two story daycare center. This 96 project is considered by right development, subject to site plan 97 approval by the Planning Commission. 98 The only exception here is the lot coverage which 99 exceeds the maximum permitted in this zoning district. The 100 maximum lot coverage permitted under the T-1 regulations today 101 is 40 percent and the applicant is requesting to provide 55 102 percent. 103 As with commercial variances, the planning staff 104 reviews the application and provides the recommendation based on 105 the merits of the application. 106 In this case, as you can see from the staff report 107 before you, planning staff recommended approval of the variance. 108 The Planning Commission reviewed the application at 109 their July 19th public hearing. Three members voted against 110 approval and three members voted for approval which resulted in 111 a tie decision. 112 Staff received some questions from the Board in the 113 past few days, mainly related to adjacent properties and the T-1 114 Zoning Code updates, so I'll just provide a quick summary of 115 that information that I provided by email. 116 The T-Zone Code update was delayed to September 26th 117 because of a noticing issue. If the recommended staff motion is 118 adopted as is on the 26th, the new Code is approved by the City 119 Council, the Code changes will go into effect on January 1, 120 2024. 121 Staff was also asked about lot coverage requirements 122 under the current Code versus the new Code. 123 As I mentioned earlier, the maximum coverage under the current 124 Code is 40 percent and the new Code proposes 60 percent by 125 right, and up to 70 percent by Special Use Permit subject to 126 Council Approval. 127 So the proposed lot coverage of 55 percent would be 128 by right under the new Code; however the applicant wants to keep 129 moving with the project so the application has to be evaluated 130 under the current Code and the proposed coverage will require a 131 variance from the Board this evening. 132 Another question from the Board was about precedent 133 for lot coverage variances. 134 Looking back at our electronic files, I found several. 135 The majority of those were for residential properties but the 136 most recent commercial lot coverage variance was actually for 137 the City's public library. 138 That variance was granted in 2018 for 57 percent lot 139 coverage. The maximum permitted coverage in that district was 140 35 percent. 141 And that's all I have to share on the application. So 142 I'll defer to the applicant for their presentation. 143 MR. WILBERN: Thank you very much for your time this 144 evening and thank you very much to City staff for giving me the 145 clicker. It's really awesome. 146 Just as a quick introduction, Bob and I and the other 147 members of Oak Park are long time members of the Falls Church 148 environment. Our offices have been here for over 20 years. Bob 149 lives in the City, serves on the ADA; I've been part of the 150 City's variance for Building Code Committee which has maybe met 151 once, so we're very inactive. 152 We have a long time interest in doing right by the 153 City, not just with this project or previous projects but going 154 forward. 155 With that, I'll try to keep this as brief as possible. 156 Just a brief introduction. The site is at the corner 157 of Oak and Park Street. It is landlocked on two sides as you 158 can see in the photograph I believe, there is a parking garage 159 wrapped around us, precluding us from ever connecting or 160 expanding the site in any way. So we're unable to assemble the 161 property. 162 It's very small for a commercial property. It's .36 163 acres. It's roughly 15,000 square feet. 164 There are also, because it's a corner lot, much like 165 the library, there's all sorts of conditions for getting any 166 kind of entrances or access points too close to the corner so 167 we're very constrained in that way as well. 168 On the other hand, it's got a really high walkability 169 score: It's only 1500 feet from Cherry Hill Park. So it's a 170 really, really tough site for any kind of commercial use, given 171 its size, it's landlocked, its proximity to the corner, but it 172 has some redeeming features that are especially useful for a 173 daycare facility which is what we're proposing. 174 It's a nice part of the town. It faces the 175 residential. It's not subsumed in a lot of busy commercial 176 activity and it's really close to the park. 177 Just as some background information and I'll leave 178 this on screen, but I might point out, that the EDA actually had 179 a recent study for the City and they identified as one of the 180 top three things that the City needed to provide to become a 181 thriving city and maintain its thriving city status is a daycare 182 facility. 183 The unfortunate truth is most of the sites that would 184 be suitable for daycare are non-existent in the City. They're 185 either residential properties that can't do a facility this 186 scale, and as we well know, child care all over the country is 187 having a lot of problems for affordability and basic body count. 188 We predict a lot of the small facilities will fail. 189 And so we've looked at this site for a lot of 190 different uses and this was the one that seemed most applicable 191 to the City and we've worked with -- we've looked at a lot of 192 different operators nationally that would have the sort of 193 wherewithal to understand how to do this site and deal with it. 194 Most of them were not interested. 195 This one operator was very interested because it was 196 in the City of Falls Church and we were basically the only game 197 in town for them. And we have maintained their interest but 198 we're also under the gun contractually to get the project done. 199 If we can go to the next one. 200 This was the information that was in the original 201 application. It just demonstrates two concepts. The one on the 202 left is a three-story, 40 percent footprint, which is what is 203 allowed by Code. 204 What we are proposing is to take that top floor and 205 essentially push it down to the second floor and put it over the 206 top of the parking lot; hence the variance for lot coverage, 207 because it's the building footprint that is being measured, not 208 the impervious area, nothing else. 209 What that allows us to do is use otherwise just 210 impervious concrete or paving and actually also increases our 211 amount of open space by almost 10 percent to provide play area 212 on the first floor. 213 So our variance is sort of an odd duck. We're asking 214 for a variance not to maximize square footage, not to increase 215 your overall density. What we're asking to do is provide a 216 variance in relief that allows us to provide a better solution 217 for the site and for the City. 218 The next slide, sort of demonstrates that -- this is 219 an earlier presentation. 220 We're actually asking for lot coverage relief so that 221 we can provide a more residential scale two story project with 222 pitch roof facing the neighbors. 223 The next slide, this is the proposed site plan. We're 224 able to provide full streetscape per the approved plan for the 225 City along Park and Oak. There is street parking on Park but 226 there is none on our side of the street for Oak. And this just 227 gives you a little bit better feel for the first floor footprint 228 and then the second floor drives out to this area, the parking 229 remains in the back. You can see the bulk of the parking garage 230 which is tied to their 10 foot setbacks and the added green 231 space we're able to do. 232 We are working with the Planning Commission, AAB, to 233 provide a sort of activated streetscape and it all meets all the 234 required setbacks. 235 Some basic ideas. As I said, granting a variance 236 allows us to provide a pretty important use for the City on a 237 very difficult site. It also serendipitously allows us to 238 provide a better solution for the City in terms of not putting a 239 three story relatively massive building facing Park Avenue. 240 We're able to drop it to two stories and provide a more 241 residential-scale building. And we increase green space by 242 almost 10 percent for the play area. 243 We used the same mailing list that the City did to 244 notify all the neighbors. We reached out several to phone, some 245 walking. And we have not heard back from any of them except for 246 two, we understand, actually wrote written letters of support 247 for the project. 248 Next one. Nearby precedent. Obviously the library is 249 57 percent. It's on a slightly larger site. It's 22,000 instead 250 of our 13. But it's a corner lot and it has some of the same 251 issues that we have. 252 The hotel project that's immediately adjacent is 253 almost 69 percent lot coverage and extends from West Broad all 254 the way to Park. While not subject to BZA approval, SUPs for 255 mixed use development throughout the City have ranged from 75 to 256 90 percent. And as Ms. Rouzi, the current T-Zone and staff with 257 the Planning Commission acknowledge that the Code as it stands 258 right now is relatively onerous and is looking to up the T-1 lot 259 coverage and we're doing something fairly similar. 260 The next slides are really outlining the variance 261 criteria which I'm sure you're well aware of. We also had a 262 very supportive staff report coming into this project where they 263 enumerated and went through all the points and they were 100 264 percent supportive. We have a hardship, it's in good faith, 265 we're not a substantial detriment, not a generally recurring 266 situation, library notwithstanding, and we meet all those. 267 I would venture to say that the single based issue, 268 one more slide and another, it's not that we're trying to do an 269 end run or change the rules. What we're really trying to do is 270 say that we can provide a better solution for this site and for 271 the City with a fairly modest increase on lot coverage. 272 As it stands we are actually only at 51.6 percent lot 273 coverage so we would be fine with a 52 percent lot coverage but 274 we were encouraged to give ourselves a little wiggle room, the 275 extra 3, but it is not necessary. 276 MR. PAINTER: If I could pick up on that too and, Bob, 277 turn it over to you as well, you had talked about, my 278 understanding is that you had spoken with many potential 279 operators, thus demonstrating the need for child care obviously 280 in the City but most of those operators are looking at suburban 281 single story sites. It is very difficult in the City of Falls 282 Church to find locations for child care uses. You're not going 283 to put it in a strip mall. You're not going to be able to find 284 high bay warehouses to be able to do it. 285 So, to be able to take this site which I jog by every 286 single morning as the St. James Catholic School kids are coming 287 in, to take this site which today are really two Cape Cod houses 288 and a lot of impervious surface and be able to find a way to be 289 able to create additional green space on the site and deliver 290 the streetscape that's called for in the Streetscape Master 291 Plan, I think is a good use of the property. 292 Keep in mind too that even if the lot coverage request 293 is not granted, it's not like they're paving over, they're going 294 to be keeping additional green space. 295 We're basically taking, as you can see here, the 296 parking lot that's on the back side of the building, and 297 298 building over it, making a higher and better use of the 299 property. 300 One of the things too, I think we all know that 301 T-Zones have been politically charged. There are very strong 302 opinions on both sides. This issue will exist irrespective of 303 the outcome of the T-Zone issue. 304 The reason, in all my discussions at least with Bob 305 and Jack, this is not an end run around T-Zones. It's not 306 trying to preempt it. It's not trying to hedge bets about what 307 happens if T-Zones doesn't get approved, because T-Zones also 308 brings other issues that we have to deal with too. 309 What this is about is an agreement that you have with 310 a prospective tenant and if you're not able to move forward in 311 an expeditious fashion, you're going to lose that tenant. 312 And, Bob, you can sort of speak to that as well. 313 The very narrow issue that's before the Board this 314 evening is whether or not to grant the increase in lot coverage 315 area. Again, the library was in excess of 57 percent. Right 316 along Park Avenue, Spectrum, they have about 74 percent, 75 317 percent lot coverage. 318 So there are precedents for other properties along 319 Park Avenue and I think you'd also mentioned that 69 percent for 320 the hotel. So we will exist irrespective of that. 321 And sometimes the variance process too, I mean there 322 are enumerated criteria that are in the statute which applicants 323 324 are supposed to meet. I think this Board has probably seen its 325 fair share of variance requests that aren't exactly hardships 326 approaching confiscation but it's really just whether it will 327 restrict the reasonable use of the property. 328 So that threshold was reduced in 2015 but the Zoning 329 Ordinance sometimes, whether it's for parking or whether it's 330 for signage, leaves really only the variance process available 331 for modifying these things. Whereas in other jurisdictions you 332 might be able to do it administratively or you might be able to 333 do it by a modification by the local legislative body but not 334 with the City. 335 So, Bob, I don't know if you want to speak to your 336 negotiations at all with this particular user. I think that 337 they've shown flexibility because with what you've been able to 338 do with the architecture at least, it's not everyone's cup of 339 tea, you know, but at the same time it's making use of a site 340 that is very challenging. 341 So, Bob, you want to talk. 342 MR. YOUNG: Well, I don't think I have a lot to add. 343 We've been working with this particular daycare 344 operator for many, many months. This has been, I think it's 345 fair to say, an arduous process. That's the way it is. We 346 would like to move forward. We think our application is a 347 reasonable one and we think we meet the criteria with respect to 348 hardship. 349 MR. PAINTER: Just a couple of things. We did receive 350 one citizen letter yesterday with respect to this which was 351 hopefully provided to the Board. There were three issues that 352 were raised. 353 One was doing something about the St. James traffic 354 which is really outside the scope of this application. The 355 second was with respect to sidewalks and landscaping, which we 356 are meeting the 2017 Streetscape Master Plan plantings and the 357 widths and the setbacks along Park and Oak. And the third was 358 not wanting to install scrawny trees. 359 I think the City Arborist will tell you that we will 360 plant the caliper trees that are recommended for long term 361 maximum growth. 362 And the last thing too, the T-Zone reference one more 363 time, Planning Commission and staff recommended lot coverage of 364 60 percent as a matter of right is I think a statement that the 365 City believes that there are higher and better uses of property, 366 at least the Planning Commission staff, that there are better 367 uses of property than impervious parking lots. I'll just 368 mention that too. 369 MR. MISLEH: Thank you. 370 I'd like to open it up for the Board to ask questions. 371 MR. KIEN: Yeah, I have a few questions. 372 You did say that you had explored alternative options 373 outside of the daycare. Would you be willing to share what 374 375 those were and what the reasons were for going this direction 376 versus others. 377 MR. WILBERN: The issue was resolved to say that 378 13,000 square feet is not big enough for practically any 379 commercial use. You're not going to be putting a bank and 380 recent events in our macro-economy have made it, you're not 381 going to put stores or offices, things that might have been 382 reasonable before are no longer. 383 And on top of that, it was the idea that we could just 384 leave it a couple of houses but that didn't seem like a 385 reasonable solution. We actually look at this property from our 386 offices and so when it came up as an option we said we believe 387 that we can make something that would be good for the City here. 388 And it's taken us a long time. We've owned the property two 389 plus years and we've gone through all sorts of machinations. 390 We also built Scramble and that's what sort of led us 391 to the daycare because that place is busy all the time and has 392 been a fantastic addition. But it just basically introduced us 393 to the idea that daycare is such a pressing need and you read 394 about it every day in the papers and so we went after that 395 fairly hard. 396 MR. PAINTER: I think also, well, Scramble at least, 397 my wife and I were asking our kids where we wanted to go out to 398 dinner the other night and they said Scramble which, that's not 399 our idea of a nice night out. I mean, it's fun but I admit is 400 heavily used. 401 It's also at a pretty critical juncture, intersection 402 of the City. Four way stop conditions but in the mornings it is 403 traffic-heavy. So when you're talking about trying to attract a 404 commercial use that will benefit the City from a financial 405 perspective, you naturally tend to gravitate away from high 406 traffic uses. And a daycare center is one that's just got a peak 407 area for drop off in the morning, a peak area for drop off in 408 the evening but doesn't really have much of an impact on the 409 surrounding neighborhood during other periods. 410 The other thing too is that when you all were looking 411 at potential users, when you look at St. Joseph's, CommuniKids, 412 Columbia Baptist Church, in order to bring new entrants into the 413 City, really you're looking at national credit tenants, tenants 414 that have experience. It is tough to find sites for them. So I 415 think they've all pretty much settled on, and your brokers have 416 said they've settled on a minimum of about 12,000 square feet 417 and 150 kids and that's what you all have been able to provide. 418 MR. YOUNG: Let me just add, we looked very hard at 419 residential uses under the current Code as well as the proposed 420 Code, and bottom line, we simply couldn't make the numbers work, 421 given the combination of small site, huge increase in interest 422 rates, huge increase in cost of construction and so on. 423 MR. WILBERN: And very restrictive parking options. 424 MR. YOUNG: Yes. 425 MR. WILBERN: When you're that small form follows 426 parking a lot of times so that added constraint and we 427 definitely didn't want to put traffic onto Park, facing the 428 neighborhood. So just a whole bunch of things handcuffed the 429 project. 430 MR. KIEN: Thank you. 431 My other question was in regards to the 40 percent 432 coverage and the 52 percent coverage illustration that you 433 provided. The 40 percent coverage is a three story of the same 434 square footage that you're proposing, is that correct? 435 MR. WILBERN: Correct. The idea was to put 40,000 -- 436 I'm sorry, 12,000 square feet in a three story configuration. 437 That poses a lot of issues for it because you can't put 438 toddlers, little tiny babies have to be on the first floor and 439 also have to have adjacent open space. 440 So that was another issue for us is that when we lined 441 up the 40 percent coverage and then also have play area for the 442 small children, there was no way to provide it on site. 443 In fact, our solution uses that play space on the 444 first floor, that extra 10 percent of open space for the 445 toddlers but then we're putting a roof deck essentially as a 446 play area for the older children. 447 MR. KIEN: And, Akida, I don't know if this is 448 something that you can touch right now, the variance that was 449 450 provided for the library, is there reference to what the 451 hardship that was on that variance to be approved? 452 MS. ROUZI: As I recall it was the library itself 453 existed and then it was an addition to an existing structure so 454 that footprint was there and they just needed to add some. I 455 believe that was the reasoning behind it. They could not expand 456 vertically, they had to expand laterally because the structural 457 requirements to expand vertically just was cost prohibitive. I 458 believe that was the reason. 459 MR. MISLEH: I can touch on that, Peter. 460 They had a retaining wall that already extended to the 461 sidewalk where the building envelope ends now and the way it was 462 pitched to this Board, Mr. Painter here, was that the 463 improvements needed to be done in order to accommodate handicap 464 accessibility. 465 MR. KIEN: Okay. Those are all my questions. 466 MR. EPPLER: If I could ask, this might be my own lack 467 of understanding, but you went to the Planning Commission. It 468 was a tie vote at 3-3. What does that mean? Does the project 469 have to go back, does it have to be re-voted? What does that do 470 in terms of process? 471 MS. ROUZI: That was the recommendation on the 472 variance. The site plan is going back to the Planning 473 Commission in October so they'll vote on the site plan. So that 474 wasn't a decision on the site plan, just the variance component. 475 And the way our Code is written, we are required to 476 forward the application for the Planning Commission and then the 477 Code says "they may render a recommendation." So their 478 recommendation is not a requirement and the Board can consider 479 the application based on its own merits. 480 MR. EPPLER: Okay. Thanks also for addressing the 481 letter from the citizen. I appreciate that. 482 One of the questions, it seems like what you are 483 asking for, is you're asking for a variance on the lot coverage 484 but essentially to double use the impervious, in other words, 485 the impervious coverage is not going to change. 486 MR. WILBERN: Correct. 487 MR. EPPLER: There's not going to be any more -- 488 you'll actually have more green space this way. You have the 489 same amount of impervious coverage, it's simply that the parking 490 lot -- half of it is going to be covered. Some people have 491 nice, cool cars on a summer day. But nothing, it's not like 492 you're cutting down the trees so you can have this additional 493 building or addition on the back. 494 MR. WILBERN: No. And we're conforming with all other 495 setbacks. 496 MR. EPPLER: Thanks. 497 MR. MISLEH: Mr. Painter, you mentioned that the 498 ordinance was modified in 2015 regarding hardship. Can you 499 explain that please. 500 MR. PAINTER: Yes. If you take a look at the staff 501 report, it used to be, and it's Criterion No. 1. It used to be 502 that it was a hardship approaching confiscation. Okay? So it 503 was an extremely hard, you know, high burden for the Board, for 504 any Board of Zoning Appeals to grant a variance. 505 They then reduced that because variances were being 506 granted across the Commonwealth for things that there was no 507 other relief out. 508 So, for example, in the Greenway Downs neighborhood, 509 there's really no way for building expansions to take place 510 except to come to the BZA and ask for a variance for side yard 511 setbacks if you want to expand the house. There's no other 512 mechanism. 513 And it's hard to say that that's hardship approaching 514 confiscation when you're the one that's actually proposing it, 515 right? 516 So in 2015, they modified it, the Commonwealth, the 517 legislature lowered it to unreasonably restrict the utilization 518 of the property. So that provides a lot more leeway to Boards 519 of Zoning Appeals to consider other factors other than if the 520 strict application of the ordinance occurred, you're basically 521 going to be doing inverse condemnation on a piece of property. 522 So I think what Mr. Wilbern is trying to lay out is 523 sort of some of the unique challenges being sort of landlocked 524 on two sides by a garage and a wall essentially, the access 525 issues along Oak Street, and then also just the overall size of 526 the property and being unable to really do much in the way of a 527 unique site design in order to get tenants on this site. 528 MR. MISLEH: Akida, on this Planning Commission 529 report, it still references it as clearly a demonstrable 530 hardship approaching confiscation. 531 MS. ROUZI: So that is the old Code and we actually 532 have a Code amendment on the books to update it to match the 533 2015 update of the State Code. So I believe they're using the 534 old Code. But I think if you look under staff analysis, that 535 bold text in the first paragraph, that actually is a copy/paste 536 of the State Code, the new language, which says, "unreasonably 537 restrict the utilization of the property or that the granting of 538 the variance would alleviate a hardship due to a physical 539 condition". 540 MR. MISLEH: Thank you. 541 My next question is for staff. 542 There's been some touch on the upcoming Council vote 543 on the proposed amendment from Planning. What other than the 544 lot coverage going from 40 to 60 percent, what other changes 545 would impact this site if that were to be adopted prior to this 546 application being accepted? 547 MS. ROUZI: I believe it's the setbacks. The setbacks 548 right now, the front setback requirement is a minimum of 15 feet 549 and that's what the providing on Park and Oak. With the new 550 Code, that increased to 20 feet. So they would be required to 551 increase their setbacks under the new Code. 552 MR. MISLEH: Gentlemen, I'll ask this question of all 553 of you. How would that 20 foot setback impact your project at a 554 60 percent lot coverage? 555 MR. WILBERN: There's still no way to get there. 556 We're still trying to put -- the parking geometry is fairly 557 tight. We are pursuing a waiver process for the landscaping in 558 order to provide adequate parking. And the geometry of the 559 daycare internally they have 35 square feet per child. They 560 have so many small children that they're trying to provide. 561 That five feet basically kills the project. 562 MR. MISLEH: Thank you. 563 MS. WARD: Can you hear me okay? 564 MR. MISLEH: Yes. 565 MS. WARD: I just had two questions. I heard 566 reference to letters of support. I don't know if we could just 567 touch on them for the record. 568 And then my second question is it's hard for me to 569 read the height with the 40 percent lot coverage versus the 570 proposed height. If you can just let me know what those heights 571 would be. 572 Thank you. 573 MR. WILBERN: If we can go to the next slide. 574 So the allowed height by Code right now with the 40 575 percent is 45 feet and three stories. And what we're doing is 576 we're measuring the 35 feet is from the top of the first floor 577 to the average roof height of the pitched roof which is how 578 pitched roofs are measured for zoning height. So that's 35 579 instead of 45. 580 And in no case does anything ever project above that. 581 I mean you're allowed to put stair bulk heads and elevator cords 582 above that but in our case nothing sticks above the 45 and the 583 bulk of the building is 35 feet or lower. 584 MR. MISLEH: Mr. Wilbern, can you explain the massing. 585 If you were, what you're explaining is the 45 foot height is by 586 right. You could do that without the Board's approval tonight. 587 MR. Young: Right. 588 MR. MISLEH: Can you explain the massing on the site 589 to us. Is there a slide that you can help us understand. 590 MR. WILBERN: If we can go back one slide. 591 So, in effect, 40 percent covers the lot all the way 592 from Oak all the way to the parking garage. So it is literally 593 a 45 feet tall wall facing Park, is what's allowed under Code. 594 And we think that's obnoxious actually, frankly, and not in 595 keeping with what we would want to provide in that location. 596 And so that would essentially be, the setbacks are from the curb 597 and the side yard so that would be almost a 100 foot long 598 building that's 45 feet tall. 599 And what we're doing is we're shrinking it down to I 600 believe it's 82 feet and only two stories. 601 MR. PAINTER: So in other words, you push the building 602 down, your lot coverage increases. You push the building up and 603 it becomes 45 feet, 100 feet long. 604 MR. WILBERN: Correct. 605 MR. YOUNG: You're going to address the letters? 606 MS. ROUZI: We have two letters of support, right? 607 Three letters of support. 608 We're pulling it up on the screen. 609 So we have a letter of support from the owner of 703 610 Park, 705 Park, and 821 South Broad Street, and then we have a 611 letter of support from the owner of Hilton Garden Inn. And then 612 I believe we have an objection letter from Leslie, which was 613 also in -- yes, Ms. Spitzedson raised several concerns. 614 And then the third letter of support -- Bob, do you 615 know who's that from? 616 MR. YOUNG: I don't know which one you mean. 617 MS. ROUZI: I have two in my packet. One is from the 618 owner of 703, 705, and 821; and then the other one is from 619 Hilton. That's two. 620 MR. WILBERN: Yeah, we're only aware of two. 621 MS. ROUZI: Okay. That's what I thought. Three in 622 total. 623 Ms. Ward, does that answer your question? 624 MS. WARD: Yes. Thank you. 625 MR. MISLEH: Just for the record, the one that was not 626 in favor is a residential property across the street, is that 627 correct? 628 MS. ROUZI: Yes, the address is, her address, Ms. 629 Spitzedson's address is 205 North Lee Street. 630 MR. YOUNG: That's a block down. 631 MS. ROUZI: That's correct. 632 MR. YOUNG: And around the corner. 633 MS. ROUZI: It's not directly adjacent to the project. 634 MR. MISLEH: And the other two that are in favor are 635 both commercial properties, is that correct? 636 MR. YOUNG: Right. 637 MR. MISLEH: Thank you. 638 MR. EPPLER: I'm asking, this is probably for the 639 lawyer in the group. 640 I'm reading over authority to grant variances and I'm 641 really struggling to understand how it is that we have the 642 authority to do what you'd like to do. 643 So I'm looking at this and I'm saying, okay, we can do 644 it by reason of the exceptional narrowness, shallowness or shape 645 of the property. It doesn't seem to really fit. 646 Or by reason of exceptional topographic conditions or 647 other extraordinary exceptional situations. The strict 648 application of the Code would prohibit or make unreasonably 649 restrict the use of the property. Or where it would alleviate a 650 clearly demonstrable hardship approaching confiscation. 651 I'm looking at three round holes and I'm trying to fit 652 a square peg in there and I'm not sure I can do it. I 653 appreciate your thoughts on that. It sounds like you have some 654 experience in this. 655 MR. PAINTER: Well, just looking at the updated 656 language, which I don't know if it's available or not. Number 657 one is unreasonably restrict the utilization of the property. 658 So we feel like we've made a case on that. 659 Or the granting of the variance would alleviate a 660 hardship due to a physical condition related to the property, 661 which I think, Mr. Wilbern, you had mentioned the size, what's 662 surrounding the property and access to property. 663 Or alleviate a hardship by granting a reasonable 664 modification to a property on or behalf of a person with a 665 disability, which is not applicable. 666 So I think we'd be going under one or both of the 667 first two, which is unreasonably restrict the utilization of the 668 property, and then, two, would alleviate a hardship due to a 669 physical condition related to the property due to its size, due 670 to its location at an intersection and due to what surrounds us 671 with the wall of the garage on the southern and eastern side of 672 the property. 673 MR. EPPLER: Thank you. 674 MR. MISLEH: I have a question regarding the comment 675 of, "We're under the gun." 676 Can you explain why you're "under the gun" and whether 677 or not the by right building would alleviate you being under the 678 gun. Would they do the deal with the by right? 679 MR. WILBERN: No. They have not been able to provide 680 the exact Code but they have the impression that they are not 681 allowed to put children on a third floor. 682 They know for sure they can't put toddlers anywhere 683 but the first floor and they were saying that's a nonstarter for 684 them, they do not put children on a third floor. 685 So for their operation they may have Code in New 686 Jersey and other places, I've been unable to find it in Virginia 687 but they deem that as not best practice. 688 MR. PAINTER: You want to talk about "under the gun"? 689 MR. WILBERN: Well, the "under the gun" comment is 690 there have been any number of uses brought to the City where 691 they have crashed and burned at the last moment because projects 692 are delayed. The world of government process works immensely 693 slow compared to what private practice thinks is normal. 694 And so they're trying to expand their business and 695 move forward. They're basically one of the only national 696 operators who was interested in what is kind of an unusual site 697 for them. They were open-minded enough whereas a lot of the 698 other ones were not. And we fear that we will delay the project 699 and push them into uncertainty and they will move their bus to 700 another station. 701 MR. PAINTER: Well, from a precedential nature, I know 702 that there might be concern about the T-Zone setting a 703 precedent. Again, the T-Zone is much more than just lot 704 coverage issues. It's a whole slew of changes. This is a lot 705 coverage issue that has already been addressed further down on 706 Park Avenue. It would exist irrespective of the outcome of the 707 T-Zones and this potential tenant as I understand it would not 708 want to wait four months, which assuming if the City Council 709 adopts on September 26th, the effective date would be January 1. 710 And then to come back and file for a special use permit to 711 reduce the front yard setbacks or whatever the case might be. 712 MR. WILBERN: Correct. 713 MR. YOUNG: We're talking a year or more down the 714 road. 715 MR. WILBERN: Yeah. This is not the first time that 716 the T-Zone has been delayed. We were very interested in it at 717 first and it's crash and burn at least twice. So that level of 718 uncertainty is sort of the death knell for real estate deals. 719 MR. MISLEH: Thank you. 720 There was some commentary regarding parking 721 arrangements that you were going to make if you were able to 722 make this deal. 723 Can you enlighten us on how you would address the 724 parking? There was I think a reference to off-site parking in 725 the application, is that correct, or did I misread that? 726 MR. WILBERN: I actually have the -- staff is 727 supportive of us doing two things. One of which is to reduce 728 the parking count under the Zoning Code to match what is normal 729 in the Zoning Code for parking in every other jurisdiction 730 around us and they also supported the parking count based on 731 their analysis of existing childcare facilities within the City. 732 We would be providing at Code level for any other 733 jurisdiction and actually higher than pretty much any other 734 daycare within the City, none of them which have problems with 735 parking or traffic, etcetera. 736 But in order to meet that we're asking for the use of 737 12 spaces on the adjacent property inside the hotel property. 738 There are 25 spaces that are dedicated in that lot for daytime 739 use for the office building at 800 West Broad and what we're 740 doing is reassigning 12 of those to this project. 741 MR. MISLEH: So what are the total number of spaces on 742 site? 743 MR. WILBERN: On site is 19 and an additional 12 off 744 site. 745 MR. MISLEH: And how many providers does it take to 746 operate a 150 child facility? 747 MR. WILBERN: We provided a complete plan to the City 748 in conjunction with the site plan application and they're 749 reviewing all that information to make sure we're providing 750 adequate parking, that we're coordinated with adjacent St. 751 James. 752 We approached St. James and they said that most of 753 their drop offs are on Spring Street between 7 and 7:30 and then 754 their pickup is between 3 and 3:15. I've observed this for the 755 past 20 years on a fairly daily basis. It's the most 756 orchestrated exiting process I've ever seen and our pickup 757 doesn't start until 4. So we have no conflict either time-wise 758 or proximity-wise with St. James which is the major driver on 759 that traffic area. 760 And we provided a fairly in depth level of information 761 to the City staff demonstrating that the way in which children 762 are picked up and dropped off, you cannot just drop them off and 763 curb. You actually have to park your car, walk into the 764 facility and essentially chain of custody is give your child to 765 the people and then walk out. And then the same thing coming 766 in. 767 So people are on site for 8, 10 minutes, even with 768 that procedure. You spread it out over two hours. We have no 769 more than 12 to 13 patrons on site at the time in terms of 770 clients. And then the rest of the time the spaces are 771 essentially open for employees. 772 We are within 150 feet from a bike share right on Oak 773 Street and so as I said, this parking count is commensurate with 774 the ITE standard as well as what Fairfax County has adopted as 775 fair, parking count. 776 MR. YOUNG: Fairfax County would require 24 parking 777 places. 778 MR. MISLEH: Understood. 779 MR. WILBERN: The operator actually came to us and 780 said we want 30 and I feel like that's empirical proof that 781 they're not going to design a business that would fail and not 782 have adequate parking for their own employees or for their 783 patrons. 784 MR. MISLEH: I don't understand how the employees can 785 use the parking if they're being used for drop off. So where 786 are the people that are -- 787 MR. WILBERN: Staffing is actually assigned, as people 788 come into the building, the staff comes online. So if they have 789 very few children for the first hour, they don't have as many 790 staff people. As well as the fact, as I said, not everybody is 791 using their car to get around in Falls Church now. 792 MR. MISLEH: And the idea that you're going to assign 793 12 of the spaces that belong to 800 West Broad, weren't those 794 part of the required parking to meet the Code for that building? 795 MR. YOUNG: No. 796 MR. MISLEH: They're excess? 797 MR. WILBERN: Well, they certainly are now. 798 MR. MISLEH: Well, it's a condo. You can't take them 799 away. 800 MR. WILBERN: They're not assigned to the condo units. 801 MR. MISLEH: They're not? 802 MR. YOUNG: No. And four to five, six are used on a 803 regular basis. 804 MR. MISLEH: Thank you. 805 MR. WILBERN: I will say that City staff and Planning 806 Commission are all over that. 807 MR. PAINTER: I think one of the Planning 808 Commissioners had gone through examples in the City of childcare 809 uses. She cited St. Joseph's again where all three of my 810 children went which has six spaces out front for about 120 kids. 811 I can't say I can count on one hand over the eight 812 years we were dropping kids off about how many times I parked on 813 the street but it wasn't memorable at all. Just because of the 814 staggered nature of pickup and drop off. And you're only in 815 there for about five minutes and then you roll. 816 MR. MISLEH: I take my son to the bus stop right past 817 St. Joseph's and if I'm driving my wife's Yukon, it's hard to 818 get through that street at drop off. 819 Thank you. 820 MS. WARD: Just one other question while we're on that 821 topic. 822 Just for clarification about the T-Zone proposed 823 updates, there would be no modification to require parking for 824 this site use I guess with the proposed updates; is that 825 correct? I guess we'd still be looking at waivers and different 826 things, correct? 827 MR. WILBERN: Correct. The parking would still be a 828 Planning Commission waiver and I don't think the City has the 829 wherewithal to edit all of their Zoning Code simultaneously, 830 archaic as some parts are still. 831 MS. WARD: Thanks. 832 MR. MISLEH: I think it's important to point out the 833 staff noted the Hilton as an example of the lot coverage 834 variance but correct me if I'm wrong, but that was a Planning 835 Commission/Council approved rezoning of that site; is that 836 correct? Can you explain that. 837 MS. ROUZI: That's right. The Hilton Garden Inn Hotel 838 site used to be T-1 Zoning. They rezoned it to B-1 to 839 facilitate the special exception application for the height 840 bonus. It did not go through a variance process but they maxed 841 out their building footprint but within their setbacks. 842 MR. MISLEH: Would that same process be applicable to 843 this site? 844 MS. ROUZI: No. 845 MR. PAINTER: If I may too, again, sort of the 846 examples of the library, the Spectrum was also a mixed use 847 848 development project that was recommended for approval by the 849 Planning Commission and approved by City Council. Hilton Garden 850 Inn, same thing, you can modify when you do those mixed use 851 special exceptions. We can't modify because this is as a matter 852 of right. 853 But I think it goes to the point, as does the Planning 854 Commission's recommendation for increasing lot coverage, to the 855 sole reason we're here this evening which is does it make sense 856 to allow an increase in lot coverage. 857 Mr. Wilbern, Jack, you've demonstrated or shown with 858 your three story building it's the same GFA but in a different 859 configuration and you get different results. And in this 860 particular configuration we had the same GFA, it's lower to the 861 ground, and we've been able to preserve additional green space 862 because of it. 863 MR. WILBERN: That's correct. And in the 40 percent 864 lot coverage we were unable to provide the toddler play space 865 which has to be at grade. 866 MR. MISLEH: Thank you. 867 Do we have any more questions from the Board? 868 (No response.) 869 MR. MISLEH: No. 870 All right. With that said, is there any more comments 871 from the applicant? 872 (No response.) 873 MR. MISLEH: No. 874 All right. We'll open it up for deliberation. Would 875 somebody like to kick it off? 876 MR. KIEN: So I don't doubt the project as designed is 877 a better use of space than certainly what it is today and what a 878 three story building might be. 879 I continue to struggle with this Board's ability to 880 make a judgment on highest and best use and City Council 881 stripped us of our ability to do that some time ago and we kind 882 of have the strict guidelines in regards to allowing these types 883 of variances for a varied known and hardship and economic 884 hardship is not normally something we take into consideration. 885 So not being able to foot another by right type of 886 development on this because it doesn't make economic sense I can 887 understand, but it does not mean that with time or 888 consideration, or change in the economy it couldn't be done at 889 another time. 890 I understand you're under a time constraint. I just 891 don't know if the Board can take a time constraint as a hardship 892 or an economic hardship into consideration. 893 I agree the highest and best use looks like what 894 you're doing. I don't know if we can make that decision. 895 MR. EPPLER: Yeah, I guess I'm also struggling with 896 our ability to do a project which seems to me something the 897 neighborhoods I suspect would really prefer this project to a 898 three story 100 foot long blob on the corner and to have green 899 space which obviously would be great, it seems like you've come 900 up with a great project. 901 I'm just not sure that we have the authority to do 902 what you want to do. 903 MR. WILBERN: If I may, just to reiterate, we also 904 have structural impediments and hardships on this site. It is 905 tiny for any kind of commercial space. 13,000 square feet is 906 the size of most buildings, not any kind of commercial 907 structure. 908 So to advance a plan for the City, we feel that the 909 tight constraints, the inability to expand to where the lot 910 coverage would not be so disproportionately onerous. That's 911 part of the problem. When you get that small, the lot coverage 912 in conjunction with parking and other requirements becomes 913 disproportionately onerous. 914 In addition being a corner lot, we can't reconfigure 915 or do things very easily because you can't put driveways too 916 close to the intersection. 917 So we believe that we actually have fundamental 918 hardships that are not economic or self-imposed. 919 MR. PAINTER: And I might also say too, as a corner 920 lot you also have two front yard setbacks which is not something 921 that other properties experience interior to the block. So you 922 have to deal with both of them on Park and on Oak. 923 But the economic argument is not part of -- I mean 924 it's the reason that we're here this evening as far as why we 925 wouldn't want to wait for a T-Zone change that may or may not 926 ever get approved. That's not really the issue. The issue is 927 the configuration of the lot, its location, and the constraints 928 associated therewith. 929 MR. WILBERN: Number one, yes, under the status of 930 the law we think the application of the Code is an undue burden 931 to a good solution for this site. 932 So it's a weird application, I understand, but the 933 struggle, we're asking for a variance in order to provide a 934 better solution, if you will. 935 And I don't know that that fits into the law but it's 936 certainly I think within the scope of the Board to take that 937 into account. 938 MR. PAINTER: I think it certainly fits under the law 939 based on the lower thresholds that the Commonwealth granted as 940 far as changing the variance standards, unreasonably restricting 941 the use of the property or alleviating a hardship created by the 942 condition of the property. 943 MR. WILBERN: Right. All the other criteria we're 944 hitting out of the ballpark. 945 MR. MISLEH: Ms. Ward, do you have any comments? 946 MS. WARD: Yeah. I'm also kind of teetering back and 947 forth. I fully agree that we would do well to have more daycare 948 949 centers in the City and I do agree that the solution you're 950 proposing is better than the three story option. 951 Listening to what you guys are saying about the 952 hardships, some of it does seem self-imposed in that you're 953 selecting a daycare so therefore some of these hardships exist. 954 But I do recognize it as a corner lot. It is a relatively small 955 lot. 956 So I do agree with some of the "unreasonably restrict 957 the use" from some of the statements you've been saying. 958 MR. MISLEH: Thank you. 959 I personally don't disagree with the need for 960 additional child care in the City having gone through it with my 961 four children, I understand how hard it is to find reasonable 962 and good child care in the City. It's hard. 963 And I also know how hard it is to drop off in the 964 morning, even with unlimited parking because everybody wants to 965 park in front. So I do think the peak drop off is a concern for 966 the community, even if the hardship which it sounds like the 967 Board perceives as somewhat self-created, even if we were able 968 to see past that and follow some of the more modernized 969 reasoning, I think that we would alleviate one hardship and 970 possibly create another, which is a concern. 971 I think the opinion of the Planning Commission and 972 City Staff regarding the 60 percent lot coverage by right is 973 spot on. I believe that we should increase the lot coverage but 974 as you have clearly said, that hasn't passed Council yet because 975 there's a lot of community pushback regarding that topic and as 976 you clearly pointed out tonight, the setbacks are getting larger 977 as some of the horse trading goes on with that proposed 978 amendment. 979 And we've heard from one other Board member who's not 980 here tonight, and I know you touched on this, but I think 981 there's some concern to set a precedent prior to Council taking 982 up that amendment. 983 So that's just some feedback I have on this. 984 MR. PAINTER: Mr. Chairman, if that might be the case, 985 I'm not sure if it might make sense then to request deferral of 986 the Board's action until after Council has rendered an opinion 987 on that topic. 988 MR. MISLEH: And obviously this Board is respective of 989 your timeline with your prospect tenant and we don't want to put 990 you in an unreasonable position but at the same time I think 991 everyone here can appreciate both positions. 992 And I don't want to speak for everyone else on this 993 Board but I don't think that would be a bad idea. 994 MR. EPPLER: I think we can make a case for that this 995 an unreasonable use for a by right use of the property, given 996 the lot size, given that it's a corner lot. 997 There is an argument there that this could be 998 construed under the rules as being an unreasonable restriction. 999 1000 You have a small lot, you have a corner lot. You have an 1001 otherwise by right use that everyone seems to agree and the City 1002 agrees that it's a need in the City. 1003 But it's a really close case and I'm not sure what the 1004 results would be if we put it to a vote so it's your call. 1005 MR. YOUNG: It's a case, the new Code is adopted next 1006 week or whenever that may be, that that would help in coming to 1007 a decision? 1008 MR. KIEN: The short answer would be yes. We see a 1009 lot of these and most of them are residential requests and they 1010 have corner lots and they have small lots and they bought those 1011 lots, and buyer beware. You know what you're purchasing. And 1012 we restrict them the same. 1013 So in fairness if we were to alleviate a known issue 1014 there, I think all of us have pretty strong support for what 1015 you're trying to accomplish but we don't think we can make the 1016 decision. 1017 MR. YOUNG: If the Code were changed, even though 1018 we're not under that Code would that -- 1019 MR. MISLEH: Mr. Young, if I understand your question, 1020 I think at that point it would just be an administrative action 1021 on this Board to allow you to proceed earlier. 1022 MR. YOUNG: Thank you. 1023 MR. MISLEH: With that said, would you like to -- 1024 MR. WILBERN: We would like to defer action until your 1025 next meeting. 1026 MR. MISLEH: All right. Thank you for coming this 1027 evening and thank you for presenting and I think you got a lot 1028 of support here for the end result. It's just a matter of 1029 getting there. Thank you. 1030 MS. ROUZI: Mr. Chair, just to clarify, are we 1031 continuing this item to a date certain that we hold this meeting 1032 after Council action on the T-Zone amendment? 1033 MR. MISLEH: I'd like to leave that up to the 1034 applicant. 1035 MS. ROUZI: So procedurally if you can defer it or 1036 continue it to a date certain which is October 12 after the 1037 September 26th Council meeting, we do not have to do the 1038 readvertising of the notices. So I think we need to go on 1039 record and defer it to a date certain. 1040 MR. MISLEH: For the record we're going to continue 1041 this variance application until the October 12th meeting of the 1042 BZA. 1043 Thank you very much. 1044 MS. ROUZI: All those who agree? 1045 (A chorus of "ayes".) 1046 MS. ROUZI: Ms. Ward. 1047 MS. WARD: Aye. 1048 MS. ROUZI: Thank you. 1049 6. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1050 A. Approval of the June 15, 2023 Meeting Minutes 1051 B. Approval of the 2020-2022 Virtual Meeting Minutes 1052 MR. MISLEH: So now we're on to Approval of the 1053 Minutes. First one is approval of the June 15, 2023, Meeting 1054 Minutes. Let's scroll through and if someone would like to 1055 make a motion. 1056 (Minutes reviewed.) 1057 MS. WARD: So just a question about, for the 2020 to 1058 2022, how will we go about handling that one if some of us were 1059 or were not present for portions of it? Do we say it in terms 1060 of the ones we were present for as a general term? 1061 RECORDING SECRETARY: The only information I received 1062 from the City Clerk was that it just had to be a regular vote as 1063 if it were minutes from the previous month. 1064 MR. EPPLER: So there's no requirement that the people 1065 who vote were actually present? 1066 RECORDING SECRETARY: Not that I was informed of, no. 1067 MR. KIEN: John and I were here. 1068 MR. EPPLER: I was here too. 1069 MR. MISLEH: I'd like to go ahead and make a motion to 1070 approve the meeting minutes from June 15, 2023. 1071 MR. EPPLER: I will second. 1072 RECORDING SECRETARY: Ms. Ward. 1073 MS. WARD: Yes. 1074 RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Misleh. 1075 MR. MISLEH: Yes. 1076 RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Kien. 1077 MR. KIEN: I will abstain. I was not present. 1078 RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Eppler. 1079 MR. EPPLER: Yes. 1080 RECORDING SECRETARY: Motion passes. 1081 1082 MR. MISLEH: Our item on the agenda is Approval of the 1083 2020 to 2022 Virtual Meeting Minutes. 1084 RECORDING SECRETARY: I do apologize. I meant to sent 1085 this in an email to all the Board members. This came from the 1086 City Clerk's Office to reapprove all virtual meeting minutes 1087 through State Code. 1088 MR. MISLEH: Just for the record, did anything change 1089 from the minutes that were already previously approved during 1090 those meetings? 1091 RECORDING SECRETARY: No, sir. No changes were made. 1092 MR. MISLEH: This is just a reaffirmation of already 1093 approved minutes. 1094 RECORDING SECRETARY: Yes, sir. 1095 MR. MISLEH: Thank you. 1096 Then I'll go ahead and make a motion to approve these 1097 minutes. 1098 MR. KIEN: I will second. 1099 RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Eppler. 1100 MR. EPPLER: Yes. 1101 RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Kien. 1102 MR. KIEN: Yes. 1103 RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Misleh. 1104 MR. MISLEH: Yes. 1105 RECORDING SECRETARY: Ms. Ward. 1106 MS. WARD: Yes. 1107 RECORDING SECRETARY: Motion passes. 1108 1109 7. OTHER BUSINESS 1110 MR. MISLEH: Do we have any Other Business? 1111 MS. ROUZI: No. 1112 1113 8. ADJOURNMENT 1114 MR. MISLEH: Then if everyone's all right, we can go 1115 ahead and adjourn. 1116 MR. KIEN: Motion to adjourn. 1117 MR. EPPLER: Second. 1118 (A chorus of "yeses.") 1119 MR. MISLEH: Thank you. 1120 1121 1122 1123