Board of Zoning Appeals

1 BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING 2 CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 3 Thursday, October 12, 2023 4 7:30 p.m. 5 6 1. CALL TO ORDER 7 MR. MISLEH: Good evening. I'd like to call 8 the meeting of the Board of Zoning Appeals meeting for 9 October 12th to order. 10 11 2. ROLL CALL 12 MR. MISLEH: Please call the roll. 13 RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Peter Kien. 14 Is absent. 15 RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. John Misleh. 16 MR. MISLEH: Here. 17 RECORDING SECRETARY: Ms. Kristine Ward. 18 MS. WARD: Here. 19 RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Keith Bartlett. 20 MR. BARTLETT: Here. 21 RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Dale Eppler. 22 Is absent. 23 RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Gene Gresko. 24 MR. GRESKO: Here. 25 RECORDING SECRETARY: We have a quorum. 26 MR. MISLEH: Thank you. 27 28 3. PETITIONS 29 MR. MISLEH: Do we have any Petitions before 30 us this evening? 31 RECORDING SECRETARY: We do not. 32 33 4. OLD BUSINESS 34 a. Variance application V1643-23 by Oak Park 35 LLC, applicant and owner, for a variance to Section 36 48-1101 to allow maximum lot coverage of 55% instead of 37 the 40% to construct a two story daycare facility, at 38 711 Park Avenue, RPC #51-131-017 of the Falls Church 39 Real Property Records, zoned T-1, Transitional District. 40 41 MR. MISLEH: I believe we have the one item of 42 Old Business, variance application V1643-23 by Oak Park 43 LLC, applicant and owner, for a variance to Section 44 48-1101 to allow maximum lot coverage of 55% instead of 45 40% to construct a two story daycare facility at 711 46 Park Avenue. 47 We have the applicant here. Thank you for 48 coming this evening. 49 Before we start, if you could please fill out 50 the sheet on the table and for everyone that's going to 51 speak this evening, raise their right hands. 52 (Witnesses sworn.) 53 MR. MISLEH: Thank you very much. 54 I'll go ahead and turn it over to staff to 55 give us a quick update. 56 MS. ROUZI: Thank you, Mr. Chair. 57 This item was continued from the Board's 58 September hearing. At that September hearing, the Board 59 discussed the item, the application and decided to wait 60 until after Council action on the T-Zone Amendment. 61 The City Council approved the final Code 62 amendment on September 26th and with that approval the 63 new Code will go into effect January 1, 2024. 64 I'll provide a quick summary of the 65 application and then turn it over to Ms. Willis to 66 provide a summary of the public comments received on the 67 application. We've had a couple since the last hearing. 68 This property is zoned T-1, Transitional 69 District. The applicant proposes to construct a new 70 two story daycare center. The project is considered by 71 right development subject to a site plan approval by 72 Planning Commission. The only exception here is the lot 73 coverage which exceeds the maximum permitted in the 74 zoning district. The maximum lot coverage permitted 75 under the current T-Zone regulations is 40 percent and 76 the applicant is requesting 55 percent. 77 As with commercial variances, the Planning 78 staff reviewed the application and provided a 79 recommendation based on the merits of the project. In 80 this case staff's recommendation was approval of the 81 variance. 82 The Planning Commission reviewed the 83 application at their July 19th hearing. Three members 84 voted for approval and three members voted against which 85 resulted in a tie vote. 86 The AAB held a public hearing last night on 87 the site plan and recommended approval of the proposed 88 project. 89 And as a matter of procedure before I turn it 90 over to Ms. Willis, without this variance tonight the 91 project cannot proceed to site plan approval by the 92 Planning Commission this month. 93 With that, that concludes my presentation. 94 MS. WILLIS: The written comments received 95 from the public are attached under the second staples in 96 your packet along with the summaries and the original 97 comments submitted. 98 We had a total of six. 99 The following wrote in opposition to the 100 proposed variance application: Ms. Catherine Lockwood 101 at 900 Park Avenue. 102 The following wrote with concerns and 103 suggested a change to the proposed variance: Ms. Leslie 104 Spitzedson at 205 North Lee Street and Ms. Rachel Swan, 105 corner of 200 North Oak Street and Park Avenue. 106 The following wrote in support of the proposed 107 variance: Rich Palmer of 706 West Broad Street, Hilton 108 Garden Inn, Inns of Falls Church, LLC, and Noel Sweeney, 109 703-705 Park Avenue and 821 West Broad Street. 110 We did have another comment submitted from 111 Peng Highnam at 206 North Lee Street. And that's all we 112 received. 113 MR. MISLEH: Thank you. 114 MR. PAINTER: Thank you very much, Chair 115 Misleh. 116 My name is Andrew Painter. I'm a zoning 117 attorney at the law firm of Walsh Colucci working with 118 Oak Park LLC. Jeff Wilbern is the project architect and 119 Bob Young is a member of the partnership as far as the 120 LLC. 121 Last month we appeared before you, we asked 122 for deferral of your vote to allow Council action. This 123 was kind of where the discussion ended. 124 We did provide a full presentation last month 125 and over the past month really two major things have 126 occurred. In response to Planning Commission comments, 127 we have made substantial changes to the architecture and 128 Jack is going to walk us through those with you. 129 And then as staff mentioned as well, T-Zones 130 were approved by Council's signal that a 60 percent lot 131 coverage from a public policy perspective, at least is 132 appropriate making better use of what limited land the 133 City has, especially from a commercial perspective. 134 Last time we also discussed 15.2-2309(2), 135 which allows variances under three circumstances. One 136 of which is obviously to alleviate a hardship due to the 137 physical condition of the property. And I think the 138 Board members were kind of concerned about whether or 139 not it met that criteria, what does it mean. 140 And then the other one, of course, you can 141 grant a variance is to provide relief, if the ordinance 142 would unreasonably restrict the utilization of the 143 property. 144 There's a third one as well related to 145 individuals with disabilities but that's not really an 146 issue. 147 We did talk through some of the -- 148 MR. BARTLETT: Can I pause you for a second? 149 MR. PAINTER: Yes, certainly. 150 MR. BARTLETT: Can you slow down and repeat 151 what you just said about the two allowable circumstances 152 for a hardship. 153 MR. MISLEH: I'm sorry, Mr. Painter. I just 154 want to point out that the three members here, Ms. Ward 155 attended the last meeting virtually, the other two 156 members were not here. So I'm the only one that was 157 present. 158 MR. PAINTER: Understood. Certainly. 159 If you look at 15.2-2309(2), there are three 160 circumstances in which variances could be granted. One 161 is if it is going to unreasonably restrict utilization 162 of the property, application of the ordinance will 163 unreasonably restrict the utilization of the property. 164 That was added to the Code in 2015. 165 The second one is the granting the variance 166 would alleviate a hardship due to the physical condition 167 related to the property. 168 And the third is that it would alleviate a 169 hardship by granting a modification to the property or 170 improvements requested by or on behalf of an individual 171 with a disability. 172 So those are the three circumstances. 173 And before 2015, we talked last time about 174 before 2015, it was a very high bar. It has to be 175 basically a hardship approaching confiscation. The 176 General Assembly changed that to add in the first 177 criteria which is unreasonably restrict the utilization 178 of the property. So it lowered that bar. And that's 179 statutory. 180 We did talk about the unique character of this 181 property. We talked about its small size. We talked 182 about it being at a corner configuration at Oak and 183 Park, which means you have to have two front yard 184 setbacks. There were also restrictions to where access 185 can occur due to distance from stop signs, a corner 186 intersection. 187 We are effectively having walls on two sides 188 due to the Hilton Garden Inn parking garage which is 189 relatively new in the City. 190 And then we had a brief discussion about other 191 projects. And the number of projects that have received 192 lot coverage modifications, there are some. But I think 193 the most applicable, the one that's most similar is the 194 library where it received a lot coverage waiver in 2018. 195 If any of you all are familiar with the 196 library, it is also a corner lot at Virginia and Park. 197 There they were requesting a lot coverage variance from 198 41.6 percent to 57 percent. They also requested setback 199 variances along Park and Virginia. All three variance 200 requests were granted. 201 And there was an issue with that case as well 202 about storm water management. Like that site, there was 203 no storm water management provided there, that means a 204 sheet flowed off the property. The same thing is true 205 here. And there was a note that this would improve 206 storm water management similar to what we are providing 207 here. 208 So in looking at least at the most analogous 209 project with the library, we're really not asking for 210 anything different than what was provided by the BZA for 211 the library expansion. 212 If you look at the similarities, number one, 213 same geographic constraints of the corner, number two, 214 same lot coverage request, only it was more than what we 215 are requesting here. And then three, the same statutory 216 construct and standards that were in effect in 2018 are 217 in effect here. 218 There are some differences though. We are 219 requesting fewer variances. They were requesting three; 220 we are requesting one. 221 The second difference is that we are 222 requesting a lesser variance. Instead of 57 percent, 223 it's 55 percent. 224 And then third, the T-Zones has been approved 225 which is not in effect as far as the Code here but it 226 does signal the City Council's public policy preference 227 for increasing the maximum lot coverage or the maximum 228 lot coverage you have as a matter of right in a T-Zone. 229 We have worked over the past several months. 230 There have been multiple deferrals of votes of various 231 bodies. We've gone to the Planning Commission a number 232 of times. And I would say too last night we did present 233 the revised architectural plans to the AAB which gave us 234 a unanimous recommendation of approval. So we're happy 235 to have that and again, Jack is going to walk through 236 that. 237 But again, this is an economic development 238 opportunity for the City to take under-utilized ground 239 and turn it into something that can pull in individuals 240 and generate tax revenues. It's also an opportunity to 241 redress the deficiency of child care availability slots 242 in the City, to deliver quality streetscape as 243 envisioned by the City's Small Area Plan and the 2017 244 Streetscape Master Plan. And as I mentioned before, 245 address storm water. 246 So with that, I'm going to turn it over to 247 Jack, the architect, who can walk you through some of 248 the changes and we'll go from there. 249 MR. WILBERN: My name is Jack Wilbern. I'm a 250 registered architect in Virginia, but I'm also a member 251 of the Oak Park LLC, so I'm here in two capacities. 252 For those of you who weren't at the meeting, 253 this is the corner of Oak and Park, tucked into the 254 little piece. We're about 20 percent smaller than the 255 library site, just to put it in context. 256 Just to reacquaint everyone, the image on the 257 left is the 40 percent lot coverage footprint which 258 would under Code allow us to be three stories and 45 259 feet tall. 260 The image on the right is what we're proposing 261 to do is not just eat up more site. What we're actually 262 doing is reducing our footprint that touches the land. 263 We're swinging the upper floor over the parking lot. So 264 in this case there is no increase in the pervious and 265 there is actually more green space. 266 As Andrew was saying, to the right side of our 267 reduced footprint we were able to put a storm water 268 structure in the back of the parking lot and take it out 269 through Park, alleviating what is otherwise a sheet flow 270 down into the parking garage. 271 This is the decorative site plan that we've 272 been updating. Staff has indicated that they have a 273 separate process to allow us to do a different planting 274 structure on the parking. They've indicated they 275 support that. 276 All along Park we're doing a full streetscape, 277 with buffer trees, decorative sidewalks, planting all 278 the way to the building. 279 On the Oak Street, which has no street 280 parking, we're actually constrained by utilities to fold 281 the tree line inward in which case we have to use 282 dogwoods but that seems like a net benefit. We get to 283 use the pretty trees on Oak which is where our main 284 entrance is. In addition our planting strip that's 285 against the trees will have the little urban fence 286 detail so it keeps kids from coming out of our building 287 and going into the street. 288 So this was a lot of design progression. Our 289 operator had a prototype that we've then evolved and got 290 feedback at one point to bring it and make a false 291 entrance on Park. The AAB said no, don't do that. And 292 they also asked us to do a complete redesign and make it 293 more in keeping with current conditions and more recent 294 architecture in the City. 295 This shows the elevation from Park. It shows 296 the parking garage, the hotel beyond, the hint of 800 297 West Broad off to the right and the St. James parking. 298 The most dramatic condition is to take this 299 side which is the actual entrance, the smaller opening 300 is for pedestrians to come in and enter through the 301 middle of the facility and the right hand is for the 302 parking which is fully screened by walls and stairwell. 303 That has been transformed into this. And as 304 Andrew said, we have 100 percent, AAB, saying it was 305 fantastic. They were thrilled to -- come in and say we 306 were approved as opposed to the previous application. 307 This again shows the context of the existing 308 B-1 Zoning which allows 35 feet, two and a half stories; 309 our building which is two stories. And then the 85 to 310 100 feet that's up on West Broad. 311 So we are very much in the Transition. We're 312 37 feet to the average roof line rather than 45 but we 313 have kept everything below 45, even the ridges or any 314 kind of stairwell or elevator. 315 And that's where we are. 316 It's not particularly pertinent but we were 317 just really excited. We made a really big change on 318 this project in the past month and we wanted to bring 319 you all up to speed on it. 320 And that's us. That's it. 321 MR. MISLEH: Thank you. 322 I have a question. I'll open it up. On this 323 slide in particular, Mr. Wilbern. 324 MR. WILBERN: Yes. 325 MR. MISLEH: I see there's a reference to the 326 setback on Park Avenue. 327 MR. WILBERN: Correct. 328 MR. MISLEH: As 16 foot 6 inches. 329 MR. WILBERN: Correct. From the back of curb, 330 we're required to do 15 or 16.6, to get us full 331 streetscape. The setback on Polk is almost 20 feet 332 probably because of the utilities and we had more 333 freedom in that direction than we did the other way 334 because the parking had to go to one of the buildings on 335 that location because of the setbacks imposed. 336 MR. MISLEH: Those have both changed since the 337 last time? 338 MR. WILBERN: The AAB? 339 MR. MISLEH: No, the setbacks. They've 340 increased since the last time meeting with you? 341 MR. WILBERN: No. Those are the same ones. 342 MR. MISLEH: Thank you. 343 MR. GRESKO: Mr. Wilbern, back to, I don't 344 know what chart it was where you're showing the top-down 345 view of the property. 346 MR. WILBERN: The overall property or the one 347 that shows the -- 348 MR. GRESKO: Shows 40 percent versus -- 349 MR. WILBERN: Yeah, this one. 350 MR. GRESKO: You stated that this proposed on 351 the right has more green space. 352 MR. WILBERN: Correct. 353 MR. GRESKO: But isn't that a function of 354 your, on the 40 percent lot you're reserving parking to 355 surface versus any consideration for underground which 356 could have alleviated some of the need that was looking 357 at over there. 358 MR. WILBERN: That's economically not feasible 359 for this site because if you have a ramp, you would 360 basically eat up the entire site anyways and you would 361 push an entire parking lot underneath the building. We 362 wouldn't increase or benefit parking and it would be 363 economically infeasible for any project that's 30,000 364 square feet of lot to provide parking which is estimated 365 somewhere between six and eight times per space. 366 In other words, if a half grade is 10,000, below 367 grade is 40,000. So that is not economically feasible 368 for any project this small on this site to do. 369 MR. GRESKO: And this small is saying you have 370 to have that much square feet for this property, I don't 371 know if it's going to be a lessee or whatever the 372 situation, what that square feet -- 373 MR. WILBERN: Daycare has sort of a sweet spot 374 in terms of operational standards as you all probably 375 well know, read the papers. Daycare is having a huge 376 problem retaining staff, in coordinating. So some of 377 the larger companies have established that they want to 378 provide state-of-the-art facilities with areas necessary 379 to meet Code plus so that they have the best 380 opportunities in having employees and the best 381 opportunities for people to use the facility. 382 So they -- almost all facilities that are 383 smaller than this are closing up shop left and right 384 throughout the area. So that's pretty much a function 385 of this use needs about 12,000 square feet. 386 MR. GRESKO: So like Rich has said, for us to 387 be viable -- 388 MR. WILBERN: We've met with brokers to talk 389 about the other facilities in this area, and they're all 390 hitting that same number. 391 MR. YOUNG: Or more. 392 MR. WILBERN: Or larger. 393 MR. MISLEH: Do you have any questions? 394 MR. BARTLETT: Sure, I have questions. 395 What do you mean by green space and how is it 396 increasing? How do you find green space? 397 MR. WILBERN: In this case it's playground for 398 the kids. We're able to provide them with 1050 square 399 feet. So the building by right could be 109 feet long. 400 We're 84 feet long. So on this plan, plan right, that 401 could be covered with building but we're providing open 402 spaces. 403 MR. BARTLETT: What's your definition of green 404 space? 405 MR. WILBERN: We're following what the Code 406 definition says. It's open space. It's not building, 407 it's not impervious. 408 MR. BARTLETT: Open pervious space? 409 MR. WILBERN: It's not impervious. 410 MR. BARTLETT: Not impervious. 411 MR. WILBERN: Correct. 412 MR. BARTLETT: Pervious space. 413 MR. WILBERN: Correct. Flammable, 414 inflammable. 415 MR. BARTLETT: How much pervious space is 416 currently there? 417 MR. WILBERN: Total, I'd have to look at the 418 submitted documents from the civil engineer but we are 419 increasing some existing, it's two very small houses, 420 and there's a fair amount of parking but it's not -- 421 MR. BARTLETT: I just see like, I mean the 422 pavement is just very full and more green space, I don't 423 see how you're -- 424 MR. WILBERN: Well, we're providing -- 425 basically the math is by right 40 foot lot coverage is 426 109 feet long. And we're only 84 feet. Because what 427 we're doing is we're swinging and making the second 428 floor bigger so we could be shorter and we could swing 429 it over top of the parking lot. 430 So that shrinks our footprint that is touching 431 the ground and -- 432 MR. BARTLETT: By right, not by reality. Like 433 what's currently there. 434 MR. WILBERN: In comparison to what's there? 435 No, no. Any development on this site would increase the 436 amount of pervious area. What we're talking about is 40 437 percent by right would result in less open space than 438 what we're proposing. 439 MR. BARTLETT: So you're not saying actually 440 this is more green space that's currently there. 441 MR. WILBERN: No. 442 MR. BARTLETT: This statement is actually more 443 green space than I have to provide. 444 MR. WILBERN: Floor -- correct. 445 MR. BARTLETT: That's the correct definition. 446 MR. WILBERN: Yes. 447 MR. BARTLETT: Not more green space. Because 448 you're not actually increasing green space. 449 MR. WILBERN: From what's there? 450 MR. BARTLETT: Yes. 451 MR. WILBERN: No. No project would because -- 452 MR. BARTLETT: Well, that's not true either. 453 You could choose to increase green space, actual green 454 space. 455 MR. PAINTER: If I may, it really is the 456 difference between what could be built as a matter of 457 right on one side of the screen versus what we are 458 proposing on the other side of the screen. 459 It does have reduced footprint. It does have 460 reduced height. And we are able to capture more open 461 space. 462 MR. BARTLETT: Thank you. 463 MR. MISLEH: For the benefit of our Board 464 members who weren't here at the last meeting, can you 465 explain to us the reasoning why you need the playground 466 space there and you couldn't put it on the roof. 467 MR. WILBERN: We had a couple of discussions 468 regarding that. 469 MR. MISLEH: Correct. And why you need the 470 setbacks where they are versus potentially in 471 conformance with the Council-approved T-Zone. 472 MR. WILBERN: There's a two tier requirement 473 for the smallest children versus older children in this 474 case. From zero to 2, toddlers have to be at grade. 475 They can't be above grade. You have to be able to 476 emergency exit them immediately to grade. 477 So that's what's on the first floor and their 478 playground is immediately adjacent so that, in fact, 479 they have the easiest path. 480 The older kids are all up on the second floor 481 and they have rooftop access. And the rooftop access 482 playgrounds in most daycares are not all simultaneously. 483 They feed them in waves, they let them play outside in 484 waves. So we were able to provide all the outdoor space 485 at grade for the top, the smallest children, and the 486 remainder on the roof deck for the older children. 487 MR. BARTLETT: So on this page right here, 488 that top right corner, that's the ground level -- 489 MR. WILBERN: -- playground. 490 MR. BARTLETT: -- pervious ground. 491 MR. WILBERN: Correct. 492 MR. BARTLETT: That is not the only ground 493 cover. 494 MR. WILBERN: Well, we have also the -- we 495 have the buffer planting alongside the right side of the 496 parking lot. We're doing a green screen across the 497 bottom and we actually in essence have an extra five 498 feet of green space on Oak. We had the ability to have 499 our cake and eat it too, we could push and make more 500 green on Oak Street but still have the Code-required 501 green space for the children on the right side. 502 MR. BARTLETT: And then you're putting this, 503 their play space, their outdoor space is on the roof? 504 MR. WILBERN: Yes. We have a plan of that 505 later in the presentation but basically it requires them 506 to be impact resistant and shaded and playful. There's 507 a lot of State requirements in play. 508 MR. BARTLETT: I hope so. 509 MR. WILBERN: Yeah. 510 MR. BARTLETT: I wasn't here last week so I 511 have some basic questions. 512 Mr. Painter, you said there's basically three 513 scenarios to issue a variance. One is not really 514 applicable. Two, the physical condition of the property 515 leads to a hardship, and then the Code unreasonably 516 restricts utilization of the property, right? I think 517 that's where you're leaning. 518 MR. PAINTER: I think we go under either one. 519 MR. BARTLETT: In that this Code is 520 unreasonably restricting your ability to use this 521 property. 522 Can you explain to my why it's unreasonable 523 and why -- I'll start with that. 524 MR. PAINTER: Well, when we were here last 525 time it was really the granting the variance to 526 alleviate a hardship due to the physical constricts of 527 the property. So, the things that I mentioned earlier: 528 The size, the corner configuration, the front yard 529 setbacks, two streets, being hemmed in by two pieces of 530 property that have no opportunity for consolidation. No 531 ability to punch through, no light or air or trespass or 532 anything like that. 533 Those are the hardship arguments that we made 534 at the last meeting. They're the exact same ones that 535 the library produced when this Board approved its lot 536 coverage. 537 MR. BARTLETT: So the physical constraints of 538 the property are, says you can't use the property. 539 MR. PAINTER: You can use the property but 540 we're also talking about too is whether it unreasonably 541 542 restricts the utilization of the property. So there are 543 an infinite number of different uses and layouts that 544 you could provide. 545 In this instance we believe we've presented a 546 use that is reasonable, something that is recommended by 547 the City's comprehensive planning documents as there 548 being a demonstrated need for and for that reason we're 549 suggesting that we look at the hardship problem, the 550 three. 551 MR. BARTLETT: So you're citing the 552 Comprehensive Plan, documents a need for a child care 553 center or child care in the City. 554 MR. PAINTER: Just child care in generally but 555 also -- 556 MR. BARTLETT: And the only way to meet that 557 need, demonstrated need for child care in the City is to 558 build this size child care facility? 559 MR. PAINTER: If you want to have child care 560 in the City and find sites that provide child care, you 561 have to have certain parameters that market conditions 562 dictate: Size, the availability of land, etcetera. 563 So when you look at the City's existing child 564 care, whether it's Columbia Baptist Church, St. 565 Joseph's, Easter Seals, and CommuniKid, they're very 566 limited. Very limited opportunities for those types of 567 facilities with direct access to outdoor space or 568 anything like that. 569 So if this is something that the City would 570 like to do, would like to have, to address a need, you 571 have to meet market conditions or at least provide 572 industry standards for what is expected by brokers and 573 by operators. So that is something that we are 574 providing. 575 When you look at the streetscape standards for 576 example, if this went in as a matter of right and there 577 were absolutely no modification requests or anything 578 like that, there would be architectural review because 579 the AAB does have the ability to review things during 580 site plan process, but there is no subjective, no 581 imposition of any type of subjective things at the site 582 plan process because there are no requirements. So no 583 streetscape, no, you know, let's move the door here, can 584 we do other things. 585 So when you look at the hardship, I think that 586 we certainly meet it. If you look at unreasonably 587 restrict utilization of the property, that's really the 588 eye of the whole and whether or not you think that 589 that's the case. 590 Now you only have to find it under one of 591 three but it is a subjective determination from this 592 Board. 593 MR. BARTLETT: Yeah, I was here for the 2018 594 library. I think your cases are distinct. This is not 595 as similar a request from the library board as you make 596 it. 597 Do you know what their existing footprint was 598 before they asked for a variance? 599 MR. PAINTER: I know that it was 41.4 percent 600 or 41.4 percent of lot coverage of the property. 601 MR. BARTLETT: It was? 602 MR. PAINTER: And they requested 57 percent, 603 received 57 percent. 604 MR. BARTLETT: So they went from 41 to 57. 605 MR. MISLEH: That project was presented as an 606 accessibility requirement for a public service building. 607 So it's still a lot different. 608 MR. BARTLETT: I look at the library now. I 609 look at that wall, that second floor up on Virginia 610 Avenue, and if you're tall, I was trying to think about 611 it, I was looking through the transcript and I was 612 trying to think about why we did it. 613 And I remember they were in the setback when 614 they requested the variance. Like the existing wall 615 616 there on Virginia Avenue was not conforming. So when 617 they needed to go up, because they couldn't go anywhere 618 else, that to me was more like a true public need. 619 Because they couldn't go anywhere else. There's no 620 other property available. The cost was astronomical to 621 move. 622 And so we allowed them to go straight up where 623 this like huge planter box was, that was like, I don't 624 know, 15 by 30 feet, maybe even longer, all the way down 625 Virginia Avenue to the neighbors. 626 So we allowed them to go straight up. They 627 didn't take up any more -- they didn't build up or 628 increase their pervious landscape per area when they 629 built up. 630 We issue variances for people that go up in a 631 lot of circumstances where the existing structure is not 632 conforming. 633 So in principle though, variance requests are 634 to increase their space or their setback that they're 635 already in that setback or they're already occupying 636 impervious space. 637 I would argue that this request is taking two 638 small structures that are, I don't know, I don't see the 639 math here. I don't see the numbers. I don't know what 640 the currently occupying is and the total percentage of 641 the two lots. I would love to know that condition, as 642 to what they're currently occupying as far as a 643 percentage of your total current lot average. 644 I'm presuming it's, I'm just going to guess, 645 it's probably less than 40 percent. 646 I just see a huge distinction between the two 647 projects. 648 MR. PAINTER: Would you happen to know, when 649 you're talking about the front, the lawn, we run into 650 this situation a lot too. I ran into it too with my 651 house. I think that might be the reason why the request 652 is -- because they violated the front yard setback 653 because of improvements. Any time you increase the 654 building massing that's already in a non-conforming 655 situation, you simply have to go through a variance 656 process. 657 But that doesn't really go to, I don't know if 658 it's true or not, I don't know if that goes to the lot 659 coverage issue. Because if you're going up, you're not 660 increasing necessarily the lot coverage of it but they 661 did receive a request to increase to 57 percent so the 662 footprint of the building is increased. 663 MR. BARTLETT: Yeah. I remember that one big 664 wall that's been going up. And documenting how we were 665 granting variances with concurrent non-conformances. 666 MR. MISLEH: You, myself, and Mr. Painter, he 667 represented the library. 668 MR. PAINTER: No, no, no, I didn't represent 669 the library. 670 MR. MISLEH: Oh, you didn't. 671 MR. PAINTER: No, but I'll be happy to take 672 the credit for it. 673 MR. BARTLETT: No, I think the Board just did 674 it themselves. 675 MR. MISLEH: For some reason I remember, maybe 676 I'm mistaken. 677 MR. PAINTER: I guess what I'm saying is the 678 variance for the wall or whatever it might be, totally 679 makes sense from a front yard setback perspective. But 680 that's a separate variance and a separate calculus than 681 increasing the footprint of the building and seeking an 682 increase in the lot coverage. It's just a separate 683 issue. 684 MR. BARTLETT: Yeah, sure. It's part of our 685 consideration of granting it, the entirety of the build. 686 MR. PAINTER: I understand. 687 MR. WILBERN: I have a number for the existing 688 impervious. I don't have the lot coverage. The 689 existing impervious, this is on Sheet C0702 of the 690 submitted site plan, predevelopment impervious surface 691 is 12,850, which is 82 percent of our 15,625 square foot 692 lot, and there are two structures within that. 693 MR. PAINTER: It's pretty much paved. 694 MR. BARTLETT: The current structures take up 695 18 percent of their two lots? 696 MR. WILBERN: No, that includes the two 697 houses. That includes the building and all the paving. 698 It's pretty solidly paved. 699 MR. BARTLETT: I'm not talking about total lot 700 coverage. 701 MR. WILBERN: I do not have that information. 702 They were just calculating storm water, etcetera. 703 MR. BARTLETT: I've been on this Board for 704 seven years and I think the library is the only lot 705 coverage variance we granted. 706 MR. MISLEH: Thank you, Mr. Bartlett. 707 Anything? Ms. Ward? 708 MS. WARD: Yes. 709 So we know that T-Zones have been approved 710 come January. Can you guys speak to I guess what the 711 differences would be between what you're asking for if 712 you just waited until January and just went with that 713 Code, as it applies to this lot. 714 MR. WILBERN: There are multiple things. One 715 is it is -- we've been at this from early in the year. 716 717 I think we first formally submitted in April, it took us 718 months if not a year or more to get our tenant who has 719 been extremely patient with us. So we feel like we are 720 at significant risk for delaying, it's not just the 721 three months because we would have to essentially 722 formally resubmit and change the documentation. 723 The building wouldn't necessarily change but 724 then we wouldn't have to pursue two variances. So it's 725 variance me now or variance me later because we would be 726 underneath their 60 percent, struggling with a 20 foot 727 setback on Park that we can't meet that and all the 728 other requirements. 729 We're already playing all sorts of nuances on 730 the parking buffers and we're right at what Fairfax 731 County 19D requires, the tenant requires us in terms of 732 parking, 12 spaces which we're doing offsite. We're 733 doing it offsite in the building next door. 734 So it triggers us going to an SUP and 735 prolongs our progress and essentially starts our clock 736 all over again. 737 MR. MISLEH: Can you give us specific 738 differences. 739 MR. WILBERN: I have not done a comprehensive 740 study. We know that the SUP allows, process allows for 741 reduction of parking, 20 to 15, but that's a variance. 742 We would meet the lot coverage. We would meet 743 the height. We would actually be the thing, you know, 744 multiple feet underneath the Code. 745 And we believe that puts at great significant 746 risk for us in terms of losing this, whole project 747 falling apart. 748 There may be other requirements under the T-1, 749 to be honest we were doing a fairly broad brush and 750 during the period of that year and a half as we've been 751 watching T-1, it has mutated multiple times and been 752 delayed multiple times. 753 MS. ROUZI: Just a point of clarification. 754 The new special use permit process isn't the same as 755 what we have on the books now. Right now the special 756 use permit goes to BZA for approval but that special use 757 permit would go to City Council, so they are looking at 758 months. City Council processes do take very long. 759 MR. MISLEH: Can you explain why they would 760 require that. 761 MS. ROUZI: Right now all they need is a lot 762 coverage which is a variance process. But if they come 763 in in January, the lot coverage would be by right but 764 the setbacks wouldn't meet the new Code requirements 765 which is 20 feet. They have 15 feet. They need to be 766 at 15 feet. The requirement is 20 feet. So to be at 15 767 feet they need a special use permit from City Council. 768 Does that answer your question, Mr. Chair? 769 MR. MISLEH: Yeah. 770 MS. WARD: Are they at 15 or 16.6? Or am I 771 confusing it with the curb extension? 772 MR. WILBERN: If they're measuring the same, 773 which I can't swear to you but backup curb we're 774 building is 16.6 which is currently 15, A-1 would still 775 be 15 with an SUP option to greater than 15. 776 I'm sorry, 20 down 15. I said that backwards. 777 MR. PAINTER: So if I have this correct, just 778 so I understand completely, right now there is a request 779 for a lot coverage variance to increase it to 55 780 percent, correct? Come January 1, 60 percent, 5 percent 781 more than what we're requesting, will be permitted as a 782 matter of right but the front yard setback on Park 783 Avenue, you would need a reduction in that through the 784 special use permit process granted by City Council. 785 MR. WILBERN: That's the biggest one I'm aware 786 of. 787 MR. PAINTER: Right. 788 MR. WILBERN: It's been a moving target. 789 MR. PAINTER: Right. I think when we looked 790 at this, that has been the issue. So it's a process: 791 792 It's either the lot coverage or it's the reduction. Lot 793 coverage might not be granted, reduction might be 794 granted. They could feasibly both be granted as part of 795 independent processes, but I think going back to what 796 you said, variance me now, variance me later, it's a 797 paperwork exercise in some respects to the same result 798 and the question is whether or not it makes sense to 799 hold up this project because of that. 800 MR. WILBERN: Right. 801 MR. PAINTER: I think I got that correct. 802 MR. WILBERN: We had originally approached the 803 BZA with the theory from our perspective that strict 804 application of the Code precludes what we believe is a 805 better solution for the City in terms of lower and 806 screen, two stories to three, 84 feet instead of 109. 807 So that doesn't fit into the Code but that's sort of our 808 thought about how this could work. 809 MR. MISLEH: Thank you. 810 Can you please just state what the setbacks 811 are on Oak Street. 812 MR. WILBERN: It's -- I think it's 20 feet -- 813 MR. MISLEH: While you look for that I have 814 another question. 815 On Park Avenue there are other existing 816 buildings: The St. James school building, the new 817 818 Founders Row building. Have you done any study or has 819 staff looked at what the setbacks are for those other 820 buildings along Park and are any of them 15 feet? 821 MR. WILBERN: Founders Row is -- I can't swear 822 to Founders Row. I know the one behind the Spectrum is 823 15 feet which is actually four stories but that didn't 824 come in under T-1. It came in under the special -- 825 MR. YOUNG: 15 feet less the handicap ramp. 826 MR. WILBERN: So that's the condos, right? 827 MR. YOUNG: Yeah. 828 MR. WILBERN: There are a number of residences 829 that are 15. 830 MR. YOUNG: The library is 15 I think. 831 MR. WILBERN: In fact our neighbor across the 832 street is at 15. 833 MR. PAINTER: If I can also say too, under the 834 2017 Streetscape Guidelines, it's right around there 835 too, Park Avenue. 836 MR. MISLEH: Sorry. Can you clarify that, Mr. 837 Painter. 838 MR. PAINTER: On the 2017 Streetscape 839 Guidelines it looks to be around 16 feet, is what the 840 recommended streetscape is on Park Avenue. 841 MR. WILBERN: So we were able to squeeze down 842 by taking out some of the buffer planting in the garage, 843 844 us and the garage, because the garage really doesn't 845 benefit from buffer planting, so we could do the 846 streetscape on Park. 847 I can't read it. It's smaller than small but 848 my memory is it's 20 feet and change. 849 MS. ROUZI: Mr. Chair, I pulled up their most 850 recent submission of the site plan that has the proposed 851 yards. So for front yard on Park Avenue they're 852 providing 16.5 feet and then on Oak Street they're 853 providing 20 feet. 854 MR. MISLEH: Thank you. 855 Now the obvious site plan questions. Is there 856 anything you can do to squeeze out more setback on Park? 857 MR. WILBERN: We've already done this twice 858 with the operator. Their biggest constraint is the fact 859 is that's where they come in, they have a security and 860 access control, they have an elevator, two stairs, and 861 then we have toddlers and they've already relocated 862 basically. That's the whole thought process for 863 swinging the second floor over. And then they have what 864 they consider the minimum requirements for toddlers 865 which is typically one third of the total square footage 866 but it's less than one third of the total population 867 because toddlers requires more area. 868 MR. PAINTER: Mr. Chair, are you asking for 869 why are streetscape setbacks on Park Avenue? 870 MR. MISLEH: Yeah. I'm asking if it's 871 possible for you to get anywhere near the 20 feet. 872 MR. PAINTER: Well, 16 feet is recommended by 873 the City's planning policy documents so we exceed that 874 by half a foot. So it's 16 feet along Park Avenue and 875 we're at 16 and a half feet. 876 MR. WILBERN: We basically pulled it out. 877 That's one of the things we're doing on the downhill 878 side of the plan here is, we used to have 4 feet and now 879 we have 2 and a half feet so we're actually doing a 880 vertical green-scape screen wall there, to sort of take 881 the landscaping and you're putting it up in the air like 882 we have at 800 West Broad. 883 MR. MISLEH: Thank you. 884 Mr. Painter, one of the concerns I think is 885 that the residential comments that we got from the 886 neighbors were either in opposition or reminders of the 887 specifics of the new T-1 Amendment that was approved by 888 Council. 889 Oftentimes this Board looks to the applicant 890 to go out and get neighbor support, specifically 891 residential neighbor support, to help us help make the 892 job of this Board's approval. We don't have that here 893 and so what we do have is people calling out the fact 894 that the T-1 Amendment does call for a 20 foot setback. 895 And I think as far as my layman's 896 interpretation, this versus what Council has recently 897 approved, the only real difference here is that 3 and a 898 half feet. 899 Staff, am I interpreting that right? 900 MS. ROUZI: That's true for setback but as 901 Jack was saying, I haven't evaluated the plan to see if 902 it meets muster every requirement now adopted in the 903 T-Zone. There might be other things. I just can't say 904 for sure. 905 But the setback, yes, it's true for setback. 906 MR. BARTLETT: Do you have any understanding 907 as to why Council retained its special use permit review 908 authority for T-1 Zones? Why it went from the BZA in 909 certain circumstances? 910 MS. ROUZI: I don't have that reasoning. But 911 it was specifically delegated to Council as opposed to 912 the BZA. 913 MR. BARTLETT: I imagine it's because, I'm 914 speculating here, because it's larger projects 915 potentially and new and potentially more controversial 916 subject. And they are trying to, obviously trying to 917 provide more opportunities in T-1 Zones. 918 It troubles me that in light of all of the 919 City's deliberations and interaction with the public in 920 amending this T-1 Zone, that we have an opportunity to 921 sort of approve and consider approved a variance that 922 would obviate that more robust special use permit review 923 by City Council. And what I'm hearing is potentially 924 other potential restrictions in these T-1 Zones that 925 we're not aware of. 926 So I'm very reluctant to address this at the 927 BZA at this juncture. 928 MR. GRESKO: I appreciate that comment but I 929 also have the point here of saying, I have to like say 930 here's the rules now, today. And yes, there's something 931 coming down in which there was enormous going around and 932 around all the community, business, residential, 933 etcetera. And I appreciate that but I understand that 934 the applicants are going for what is now and saying, 935 here's what we want, to say we're in compliance with all 936 of these, we want this one variance. 937 I'd have to put my -- I respect that 938 something's coming down the line but in my role I think 939 I have to go by what is currently the law of the land. 940 That being said though, I go back to what 941 Mr. Painter keeps going at in terms of 50-2.209, which 942 is the powers and duties of the Board for Zoning. 943 And I do look at those in the directions that 944 you suggest. 945 Let's start with the first one: Unreasonably 946 restricts utilization of the property. And whenever you 947 have unreasonable, that's a function of (inaudible). 948 And you view reasonable versus unreasonable. 949 You just briefly mentioned in your intro but I 950 saw in the minutes much more pointing at this issue of 951 these are small lots. I remember reading that, well, 952 gee, how much can I do with a small lot? 953 But then I say, I understand that but the 954 owners knew what the Codes were and bought these lots. 955 I don't know what their rationale of what they could use 956 or not. They saw what the requirements were, now, what 957 they could do, what they could not do. So saying that 958 well, things have changed, well, they went in with 959 knowing what they could do. So am I taking away 960 anything? I don't think so. 961 The second one we say hardship, which then 962 gets to the point of, again, what you've decided to do 963 with this, of all the litany of things you could do with 964 this commercial property, you've focused on this 965 application, daycare, of all the other things you could 966 do with this property, went down this line and then 967 also, the person, the business you're working with, 968 obviously they did their due diligence, right? They 969 probably saw that there was issues, right? 970 So I'm saying, once they went back to the 971 document, it says, Any hardship was not created by the 972 applicant or the variance. Well, you've chosen to put 973 this building, of all the uses, thus, in effect, are you 974 creating the hardship? 975 Again, I'm just looking through the rules that 976 we have to abide by, I'm saying I'm having a hard time. 977 So I've said a lot maybe at this point and, 978 Mr. Bartlett, you want to weigh in in terms of that? 979 MR. BARTLETT: I actually will say your 980 thoughts and points are well spoken and I appreciate you 981 focusing on the here and now. It's important. 982 I agree with you that to recognize that that's 983 where we are right now. I'm also aware of the 984 conversation that everyone's had about the potential 985 changes to the zoning of this property. So I'm trying 986 to like balance both and that's where I am. 987 MR. MISLEH: Before we get too far in the 988 Board's comments, do we have any more questions 989 regarding the application or is there anything else 990 you'd like to share? 991 MR. PAINTER: Mr. Chairman, I do not but I 992 would like to recognize Mr. Young who would like to 993  994 speak to the partnership, what one of the factors of the 995 application that the variance would supply. 996 MR. YOUNG: Well, let me start with we think 997 that this is the perhaps the best transition use of the 998 policy. What is it that the City's trying to accomplish 999 with T-Zones is the transition between six story 1000 buildings behind us and one story or two story houses 1001 across the street. 1002 A two story building of this kind, filling a 1003 very, very big need in the City for daycare we think is 1004 an excellent use of the property. 1005 It's obviously not the end all, a signed 1006 letter, but I would opine to be a pretty small variance. 1007 In addition to that now announced existing 1008 public policy, doesn't go into effect until January, but 1009 nevertheless the Council has spoken and said that 60 1010 percent is by right under the new Code from the old 1011 Code. That's why we're here asking for an increase. 1012 Look across the whole landscape and see whether this is 1013 a reasonable request. Obviously we think it is. 1014 MR. PAINTER: And if I might say too, we're 1015 really talking about just the lot coverage issue. And 1016 if it is true that the library has been the only other 1017 place where lot coverage has been granted, the front, 1018 side yard setbacks, those are two separate issues. 1019 Now, you might have been looking at it 1020 holistically, but the issue that whether the lot 1021 coverage should be granted, really should have been 1022 considered on its merits separable, not as part of a 1023 whole. 1024 Because really what you're getting to there is 1025 the height full massing for the building and the 1026 efficient use of land. So the question is, okay, what 1027 is the difference between this and building as a matter 1028 of right. 1029 And I think that it can be said pretty clearly 1030 that this is a better use of a small piece of property 1031 or any piece of property when you can actually do 1032 things -- when you can actually go up and expand but 1033 make better use of the property where you're actually 1034 placing part of the building over an existing parking 1035 lot. 1036 The alternative to this is a by-right 1037 development. By-right development which would have no 1038 subjective criteria or insertion of opinions about 1039 architecture, you may not get the full streetscape, and 1040 it may end up taking up or it may create a more 1041 impervious surface as I think, Jack, your second slide 1042 showed. 1043 So that is the risk that we all run. So, I 1044 just wanted to say that. 1045 MR. MISLEH: One more question. Can you show 1046 the elevation on Park. 1047 MR. WILBERN: This one, which was single pitch 1048 with dormers and we added more corner feature at AAB's 1049 request. We increased the amount of glazing and reduced 1050 the amount of brownness. 1051 MR. MISLEH: Thank you. 1052 Do we have any other questions for the 1053 applicant? 1054 (No response.) 1055 MR. MISLEH: With that, we'll go ahead and 1056 close the comments portion. Thank you. 1057 MS. WARD: I can start. 1058 I know I said this at the last meeting, the 1059 last meeting on hardship, how we could justify a 1060 hardship but I wanted to see how it went with the City 1061 Council, to see if that would kind of help to make the 1062 decision a little easier. And I said it then, I fully 1063 support the variance but I agree, we stated similar 1064 things last meeting too. 1065 I think just looking at it holistically, I 1066 will be able to agree with the lot coverage increase if 1067 there was some sort of caveat that other T-Zone 1068 requirements were also met. Provided that the City's 1069 T-Zone requirements are being met, that would apply. So 1070 that we would make sure that if they don't, they would 1071 have to go through a process, something along those 1072 lines. That's personally how I feel about it. 1073 MR. GRESKO: Yeah, I definitely agree in terms 1074 of, yes, the Board has -- City Council has been 1075 excruciating in terms of policy and we respect that and 1076 understand. 1077 But at the same time if it was, like you said, 1078 everything else fits and it was at the new 60 percent 1079 that is, but now we were saying, well, it's only 60 1080 percent but now it doesn't fit this. So you can't have 1081 like Chinese, one from Column A, one from Column B, 1082 of -- it just doesn't work. You've got to pick one and 1083 stick with it. 1084 I'm sticking with the current rules here and 1085 respectful of what is coming down the line but what's 1086 coming down the line, this still wouldn't fit here. 1087 And I just struggle with that. Either way it 1088 wouldn't fit as proposed. 1089 MR. BARTLETT: That's exactly where I am. I'm 1090 just uncomfortable with the justification that this is 1091 an unreasonable restriction of this property. Simple as 1092 that to me. 1093 MR. MISLEH: So I certainly agree with this 1094 being a much needed use and fitting within the Comp 1095 Plan. 1096 I like the building. I think obviously City Council has 1097 spoken, that they feel that 60 percent is an acceptable 1098 lot coverage so I'm not concerned with 55 percent. 1099 I am concerned with what Mr. Gresko has 1100 commented, that these are rules coming so if we're 1101 making exceptions, we sort of need to pick one way or 1102 the other. But we're having a hard time with the 1103 hardship. 1104 I like this project. I think I would like to 1105 see the applicant explain to us a little bit more about 1106 what the precedent, where the precedent has been set in 1107 the lot coverage and setbacks along Park Avenue. I 1108 would like to see some of the neighbors from across the 1109 street on Oak Street speak in favor of it, support from 1110 some of the neighbors. I think that's helpful. 1111 MR. YOUNG: That's just not going to happen. 1112 MR. MISLEH: I know. I think it's a great 1113 project but I understand the other Board members 1114 position at this point. 1115 MR. BARTLETT: I hear what you're saying that 1116 in a vacuum, the project's fine. Where it's located, I 1117 can't reconcile the need for a variance in this 1118 scenario. 1119 MR. MISLEH: I guess at this point, does 1120 anyone want to make a motion? You want to proceed to a 1121 vote? 1122 MR. GRESKO: We can do it in the positive or 1123 the negative. I mean the easiest one is to say make a 1124 motion to approve the variance as submitted. Say yes or 1125 no. Is there another way? 1126 MR. BARTLETT: We certainly have that ability 1127 to make a motion either way. And when someone would 1128 make the motion, someone would second that motion, and 1129 then we vote on that motion, however that original 1130 motion was made. 1131 MR. GRESKO: Okay. Then I make a motion to 1132 approve the variance as presented. 1133 MR. MISLEH: I'll second that motion. 1134 RECORDING SECRETARY: Ms. Ward. 1135 MS. WARD: No. 1136 RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Bartlett. 1137 MR. BARTLETT: No. 1138 RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Misleh. 1139 MR. MISLEH: Yes. 1140 RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Gresko. 1141 MR. GRESKO: No. 1142 RECORDING SECRETARY: Motion fails. 1143 MR. YOUNG: Thank you very much. 1144 MR. MISLEH: Thank you for coming. Good luck. 1145 1146 5. NEW BUSINESS 1147 MR. MISLEH: Next item is New Business. Do we 1148 have any New Business? 1149 MS. WILLIS: We do not. 1150 MR. MISLEH: Thank you. 1151 1152 6. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1153 a. Approval of the September 14, 2023, 1154 Meeting Minutes 1155 MR. MISLEH: We're down to the Approval of 1156 Minutes, approval of the September 14, 2023, meeting 1157 minutes. Has everyone had a chance to review those? 1158 (Minutes reviewed.) 1159 MR. MISLEH: Would someone like to make a 1160 motion? 1161 MS. WARD: I think we'll have to defer, not 1162 everyone was here. 1163 MS. ROUZI: That's what we were whispering 1164 about. 1165 MR. MISLEH: All right. We'll defer that to 1166 the next meeting. 1167 1168 7. OTHER BUSINESS 1169 a. Meeting Date Change and Board's Feedback 1170 MR. MISLEH: Next is we have the meeting date 1171 change and Board's feedback. 1172 Would staff like to bring us up to speed. 1173 MS. WILLIS: This came from the City Clerk's 1174 office. Once Covid procedures started to slow down a 1175 little bit and more committees and Council started to 1176 come back in full swing of meeting in person, they 1177 started having issues of accessibility with their 1178 members and getting them in a location that was safe for 1179 them and also accessible for the date and times. 1180 One committee that they spoke about that was 1181 having such issues was the Environmental Safety 1182 Committee. They have a member that needs the elevator 1183 usage to get to the conference room that they're 1184 currently using and unfortunately in City Hall that 1185 elevator is a 50-50 shot on if it's going to work. 1186 They just wanted to know if this was a change 1187 that the Board would be willing to make in the New Year 1188 or if not, they said they're asking every Board and 1189 Committee. They're not just singling anybody out. They 1190 just need to figure out the best move moving forward. 1191 And the change would be to be the second 1192 Thursday of the month, at the same date and time and 1193 location, just removing the language "after the first 1194 Monday of the month." 1195 MR. BARTLETT: So it's basically the second 1196 Thursday, instead of us having to figure out which. 1197 Second Thursday after a Monday, I love the idea of 1198 having it the second Thursday. It just makes sense. 1199 I was just curious, I was always wondering 1200 like this 1870 language and why we have meetings on the 1201 second Thursday after the first Monday after it rains 44 1202 inches. 1203 MS. ROUZI: Putting together that calendar for 1204 your approval is like a jigsaw puzzle. Like, is this 1205 the second one? 1206 MR. MISLEH: If we don't have to make the 1207 decision now, I'm not sure we should take it up since 1208 this meeting has been held on this date for a long time. 1209 MS. WILLIS: Well, there's no action that the 1210 Board could take tonight until it's time to adopt the 1211 new Rules of Procedures to officially change the date. 1212 It is purely for discussion to give the City Clerks an 1213 update on a poll of feelings and opinions about the 1214 proposed changing of it. 1215 MR. MISLEH: This is for other Boards? 1216 MS. WILLIS: No, currently they use one of the 1217 conference rooms upstairs but they would potentially be 1218 using the Council Chambers at the second Thursday 1219 following the first Monday of every month. 1220 MR. MISLEH: Is their meeting published in the 1221 paper, those requirements? 1222 MS. WILLIS: I'm not sure. I can look into 1223 that. 1224 MR. MISLEH: I feel that the community has 1225 been accustomed to this meeting at its current date and 1226 time for many years. 1227 MS. ROUZI: That's a good point. 1228 MR. MISLEH: I feel it may be better not 1229 changing this meeting unless the other Boards and 1230 Commissions are asked the same question. That's my 1231 personal opinion. 1232 MS. WARD: I have no preference. 1233 MR. GRESKO: No great preference. 1234 MR. BARTLETT: I agree. 1235 MR. MISLEH: Thank you. 1236 1237 8. ADJOURNMENT 1238 MR. BARTLETT: I'll make a motion to adjourn. 1239 MR. MISLEH: Second. 1240 RECORDING SECRETARY: All in favor? 1241 (A chorus of "ayes".) 1242 RECORDING SECRETARY: We are adjourned. 1243 1244 1245 1246 1247 1248 1249 1250 1251