Board of Zoning Appeals

1 BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING 2 CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 3 Thursday, November 16, 2023 4 7:30 p.m. 5 6 1. CALL TO ORDER 7 MR. MISLEH: Call the meeting to order. This 8 is the meeting of the Board of Zoning Appeals for 9 Thursday, November 16th. 10 MR. MISLEH: Angel, call the roll call please. 11 12 2. ROLL CALL 13 RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. John Misleh. 14 MR. MISLEH: Here. 15 RECORDING SECRETARY: Ms. Kristine Ward. 16 Absent. 17 RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Keith Bartlett. 18 MR. BARTLETT: Here. 19 RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Dale Eppler. 20 MR. EPPLER: Here. 21 RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Gene Gresko. 22 MR. GRESKO: Here. 23 RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Peter Kien. 24 MR. KIEN: 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 MR. MISLEH: Thank you. 33 34 4. OLD BUSINESS 35 MR. MISLEH: Any Old Business? 36 RECORDING SECRETARY: We do not. 37 MR. MISLEH: Thank you. 38 39 5. NEW BUSINESS 40 a. Variance 41 i. Variance application V1644-23 by Jeff and 42 Susan Henrikson, applicant and owners, for a variance to 43 Section 48-263(3)a to allow a side yard of 7 feet 11 44 inches instead of the 10 feet minimum to construct a new 45 addition at premises known as 916 Park Avenue, RPC 46 #51-203-008 of the Falls Church Real Property Records, 47 zoned R-1B, Medium Density Residential. 48 MR. MISLEH: As far as New Business we have 49 one variance application, and that's variance 50 application V1644-23 by Jeff and Susan Henrikson, 51 applicant and owner, for a variance to Section 52 48-263(3)a to allow a side yard of 7 feet 11 inches 53 instead of the 10 feet minimum to construct a new 54 addition at premises known as 916 Park Avenue. 55 I assume the applicant is here to present. 56 Please come forward. 57 Thank you for coming. There's a sheet on the 58 table with a pen. If you'd please sign in and while you 59 do that I'll ask you to raise your right hand and repeat 60 after me. 61 (Witnesses sworn.) 62 MR. MISLEH: Thank you. Welcome this evening. 63 I'll ask staff to pull up your application on 64 the screen and we'll invite you to walk us through this 65 variance application. 66 I'm sorry. I missed a step. I'm going to 67 invite staff to brief the Board on this application and 68 then we'll ask you to present. 69 Thank you. 70 MS. ROUZI: I'll be very brief. 71 This property is zoned R-1B and it is 72 substandard for minimum lot width. The requirement in 73 the R-1B District is minimum of 60 feet and the current 74 lot is at 50 feet. 75 The existing house is also non-conforming for 76 side setback and it sits about 7 feet 11 inches from the 77 right property line facing the house. The applicant has 78 designed a rear addition around these existing 79 constraints and is requesting relief to continue that 80 non-conforming side setback for the proposed addition. 81 MR. MISLEH: Thank you. 82 And I see we have someone joining us remotely. 83 MR. UPWALL: Yes. I'm Greg Upwall, the 84 architect for the Henrikson property. 85 MR. MISLEH: Welcome. 86 MR. UPWALL: Thank you. 87 MR. MISLEH: Mr. Henrikson, would you like to 88 proceed? 89 MR. HENRIKSON: I'm Jeff Henrikson. This is 90 my wife, Susan Henrikson. We're the owners of 916 Park 91 Avenue. We're trying to build a master bath/master 92 bedroom on the back of our house and in order to do that 93 we would like to get a variance to build 7 feet 11 94 inches from the right side property line. 95 Do you have my Power Point? There we go. 96 In order to obtain a variance you have to show 97 hardship for the property. The existing hardships as I 98 see them are that the width of the property is 50 feet 99 wide and that the primary structure is 7.9 feet away 100 from the property line on the right hand side where 101 we're seeking the variance. 102 The primary structure is 9.8 feet from the 103 property line on the left hand side and actually the 104 enclosed porch is 3 feet away from the property line on 105 the left hand side. 106 So those are the hardships as I see them. 107 So the next slide is, so once we found out 108 that the addition should be 10 feet away from the 109 property line, our architect tried to redesign a little 110 bit and in doing so he was forced to create a few 111 unattractive qualities. Those being that the new 112 structure would not line up with the existing structure 113 on the right hand side and also that the deck there, 114 we're trying to have that become more of a part of the 115 house rather than a deck and so that also takes away 116 from that effect. 117 The new addition is actually one foot narrower 118 than what we were hoping to do and the -- on the left 119 hand side you can see there's a window there in the 120 family room and that window now looks straight out onto 121 the, what would be the addition. It's going to be 122 literally right next to the window. 123 And also there's a fireplace on the left hand 124 side, an existing fireplace on the left hand side and 125 126 the new addition would create a gap up against that 127 fireplace that is 2 feet deep and 3 feet wide. 128 So that's the problems that we see and why 129 we're seeking the variance. 130 Next slide is the more desirable design that 131 we want and are seeking the variance for. And what this 132 design accomplishes is that the addition will be 7 feet 133 11 inches away from the property line and line up with 134 the existing structure and so the deck becomes more a 135 part of the house. The addition will be one foot wider 136 which is more desirable and the new addition on the left 137 hand side will line up with the existing fireplace and 138 avoid the 2 foot by 3 foot gap up against the fireplace. 139 And the view from the window in the family room is much 140 improved. It's not going to be perfect but it's much 141 improved because the new addition would be 2 or 3 feet 142 further to the right. 143 We have great neighbors. Neighbors on both 144 sides have agreed to the variance, to the 7 foot 11 145 inches, and actually I found in my mailbox this morning 146 that a neighbor a couple doors down the road gave me a 147 letter saying that he also approves of it. I found it 148 in my mailbox this morning and I thought that was kind 149 of cute and appreciative. 150 And that is about it. 151 Any questions please? 152 MR. MISLEH: Thank you. 153 I'd like to open it up to the Board for 154 questions. 155 MR. KIEN: I have a question for your 156 architect. 157 I understand the aesthetic issues here. Are 158 there any structural issues that haven't been brought to 159 light that would keep the project from proceeding within 160 City guidelines? 161 MR. UPWALL: Thank you for the question. 162 I assume that you're asking if the design 163 could be accomplished with a 10 foot side yard setback. 164 The answer is it could but the issues are 165 mostly the obstruction of the window and the light into 166 the home and so forth. So we looked at the existing 167 side yard of the home as a point of departure, this is 168 an issue that really needs to align to provide the 169 appropriate design. 170 When we came across the fact that the 10 foot 171 setback was going to be required, it certainly 172 compromised the design significantly. 173 MR. KIEN: Thank you for that. 174 MR. BARTLETT: Just to confirm, and I'm not 175 sure which direction this is facing, I'm not sure how 176 177 your home aligns with your neighbors, but I'm just going 178 to go left and right for a frame of reference. 179 So on the left hand side, where your window of 180 concern is located, there is nothing on the property 181 that prevents you from moving this addition 2 feet one 182 inches to the left. Its design and aesthetic and your 183 preference for this right hand side to line up instead 184 of the left hand side to line up. 185 MR. UPWALL: I'll jump in there. The original 186 intent was to have it aligned sort of on both sides with 187 the existing side yard setback on the right hand side, 188 the right hand side is roughly, I've got the site plan 189 open here, it's not true north. Give or take, the right 190 hand side would be the east side, the left hand side 191 would be the west side. 192 So on both sides, the original design was 193 again to match the existing on the right or east side 194 and then to align with the existing chimney or the 195 fireplace on the left or the west side. 196 And I think to Jeff's point, the gap and the 197 shift really creates -- it buries the chimney and if you 198 look at their home in three dimensions, it starts to 199 create a very awkward resolution. Because when it 200 aligns with the chimney it creates a very nice balance 201 and that's how everything was preliminary envisioned and 202 designed. So again, it's significantly compromised with 203 the shift. 204 MR. BARTLETT: I'm just going to point out 205 that we don't see what you're referring to as the 206 chimney and fireplace. I'm confused about your 207 fireplace/chimney reference. Can you just point that 208 out. Is that above letter E, Family Room, there's a 209 little hexagon there. 210 MR. UPWALL: Yeah. 211 MR. BARTLETT: And that's the existing 212 fireplace? 213 MR. UPWALL: That's the existing fireplace, 214 the existing rear of the home, yeah. 215 As you can see, we aligned the addition with 216 the current chimney to provide, it's a much better 217 architectural and really a structural resolution, 218 because this shift then creates waterproofing concerns. 219 It creates a lot of other concerns that weren't 220 problematic before the shift. 221 MR. HENRIKSON: Would it be helpful for me to 222 point it out on the PowerPoint where the fireplace is 223 and the window are that I'm talking about? 224 MR. BARTLETT: On this slide, we can see the 225 window that you're talking about and I can see now above 226 the Letter E that little nook there adjacent to is the 227 fireplace that you're referring to. 228 Do you have any diagrams or something we can 229 look at, designs that show this? Can you go back, the 230 one we were just looking at. 231 We don't have anything that shows this no gap 232 by existing fireplace. We just don't see anything like 233 the original or way it would look if it were in 234 compliance. 235 MR. MISLEH: Back to the PowerPoint, the slide 236 before please. There we go. 237 MR. BARTLETT: What is that gap and why is 238 that gap there, if you can explain that. 239 MR. UPWALL: I can try my best. 240 So what that would do is again, it would 241 create sort of a gap between the two buildings. We 242 can't architecturally just envelope the chimney. The 243 idea is that it's much better detailing if the exterior 244 wall is to abut into the brick wall of the chimney, for 245 Fire Code reasons. There's a lot of bad detailing 246 situations that would arise. 247 So as sort of a kind of band-aid solution, we 248 came up with this gap but it's the kind of design that 249 it can't be accessed easily, it can't be detailed or 250 finished very nicely. It's probably going to trap 251 moisture. There's a lot of things that are not very 252 good about it. 253 And again, I keep coming back to the word 254 "compromised". 255 MR. EPPLER: If I could go back to the 256 fireplace then, just a couple of questions on that. 257 You mentioned Fire Code, I think you mentioned 258 structural. Could you talk a little bit about, is there 259 actually a Fire Code reason why that gap there would be 260 a problem, or I'm sorry, what's on the screen now, if 261 the wall had come all the way in and the gap was not 262 there, would that violate the Fire Code or would it 263 create a structural weakness in the house? 264 MR. UPWALL: It would create a concealed space 265 which is not really allowed per fire -- buildings under 266 the Fire Code requires that every place is accessible so 267 it does create kind of an odd concealed space. It 268 doesn't really have a nice resolution. 269 And furthermore, the other problem, the major 270 problem I think is what it does to that window, the 271 existing window that's right there adjacent to the left 272 of that wall, it suddenly becomes obstructed pretty much 273 by the new addition. 274 Again, we sort of go back to where we began 275 with the process and that was a very nice, balanced, 276 277 harmonious resolution which was aligning with the 278 existing house on the right and aligning with the 279 chimney on the left. 280 So what you're looking at here again is just 281 what was done to the design in order to meet the 10 feet 282 side yard requirement. And that's what led us to this 283 variance application. Because our clients, Jeff and 284 Susan, just really felt very disappointed with this 285 compromised design that we had to rely on. 286 MR. EPPLER: And if I could, just one question 287 for you, Mr. and Mrs. Henrikson. You've got notes from 288 your neighbors on the left and the right. I know your 289 back neighbors are like 70 feet back from you but was 290 there a notice sent out to the people on the back side 291 as well? Or are there neighbors, I don't know what's 292 behind you. 293 MR. HENRIKSON: I'm sure there was a notice 294 sent out. We did not approach them to have them sign a 295 letter. I'm sorry about that. 296 MRS. HENRIKSON: We're back to the trail. 297 MR. HENRIKSON: Well, that's true. We're back 298 up again the trail. 299 MR. EPPLER: So there's no abutting neighbors 300 on your back side. 301 All right. Thank you. 302 MR. GRESKO: Yes, Mr. and Mrs. Henrikson, I 303 always like to start with, obviously your family is 304 here, welcome, and just sort of dynamics, obviously you 305 have a small home, right? And I don't want to put words 306 in your mouth but what's the sort of master plan that 307 you're saying what sort of drove you to even start this 308 whole process with your architect? Just a point of 309 curiosity. 310 MRS. HENRIKSON: Sure. I mean, we do have a 311 small house and our kids are getting bigger and they've 312 been sharing bedrooms and things like that. We have 313 only two bathrooms so we were just wanting to expand 314 upon the space and so we were hoping to build sort of a 315 master bathroom and a master bedroom just to kind of add 316 a little bit, not necessarily make it too big but just 317 enough to -- and that's pretty much all we're hoping 318 for. 319 MR. GRESKO: And just to follow up on that, 320 when you were thinking about doing this, correct me if 321 I'm wrong. I'm looking at the plat, and that shows what 322 you currently have on that plat and it looks like 323 somewhere along the line an addition was built, behind 324 -- a one story addition was built behind that very small 325 tape, if you will, probably back in the day, right? 326 MR. HENRIKSON: Before our time, yes. 327 MR. GRESKO: Before your time, I understand. 328 Maybe the question was, what drove you to say, 329 build above that versus, sounds like you're just ripping 330 that off and just putting this new. 331 MR. HENRIKSON: No, no. So we're keeping that 332 and then the new addition would be out beyond that 333 actually, like a little further in the back. 334 MR. GRESKO: Is that incorporating that 335 current one story way-back-when addition? 336 MR. HENRIKSON: Yes. The door to the new 337 addition would go through that room to the right of the 338 fireplace. Like where the fireplace is, to the right of 339 that would be the door going into this new addition. 340 MR. GRESKO: So you're incorporating that old 341 addition plus your new to make a total big new master 342 and -- 343 MR. HENRIKSON: That's the plan. 344 MRS. HENRIKSON: We're mostly leaving it the 345 same. The old addition is the same just exception of 346 one door. And then the new addition will come off that 347 area. 348 MR. GRESKO: In the guts of this is being 349 pulled off and putting in -- 350 MR. UPWALL: No. It remains in place. If you 351 go back to the floor plan I think you -- 352 MR. GRESKO: Sure. Please. 353 MR. UPWALL: The other plan with the colored 354 section is probably the easiest because the colored area 355 indicates what's new versus what's existing. The one 356 that has the light blue shading in the new addition. 357 MR. GRESKO: Maybe I'm color blind but I'm 358 struggling to see the differentiation. 359 MR. UPWALL: I'm trying to find -- there we 360 go. Right there. 361 This drawing in front of you all, the new 362 addition is shaded in light blue or what might look like 363 gray but that existing family room area to the lower 364 left, that is the first addition. So we're adding. 365 We're behind that. 366 MR. GRESKO: Okay. Then, before that was put 367 in, boy, this is really a small house before that was 368 put in, right? 369 MR. UPWALL: Yeah. 370 MR. HENRIKSON: Apparently they had five 371 children at one point in that very small house. 372 MR. GRESKO: God bless. 373 Okay. I think I've got it. 374 Maybe one more time that I'm struggling with 375 the question and, Keith, on this gap, one is the window 376 which is the aesthetics of a window. I got it. That's 377 straightforward. 378 The other is this gap because on one side the 379 chimney is enclosed but you say you have concern of 380 enclosing both sides around the chimney and I'm saying, 381 maybe I'm just missing it, Mr. Upwall, in terms of, 382 again help me out with what the gap -- there's a concern 383 with a gap in terms of either structural or you can't 384 access, I didn't quite get it. So one more time. 385 MR. UPWALL: Totally understand. 386 So really, the gap is a situation that -- so 387 the building code says you can't create what would be 388 called an inaccessible concealed space so it's often 389 something that would be blocked off or something. 390 So, that's why we've chosen to leave it open. 391 Because the idea of a small, concealed space is that 392 they could be a combustible area that could result in a 393 fire. 394 And so rather than concealing that little gap 395 on the exterior, it's basically a void is what it would 396 be, we've chosen to create sort of a recess or gap but 397 then by creating that recess or gap, it starts to bring 398 on other potential issues: Detailing-wise, 399 waterproofing-wise, and structurally in terms of 400 expansion and contraction, isolating against the chimney 401 and so forth. It just sort of goes against a lot of 402 preferable good practice design. 403 So again, it's one of these things that our 404 initial design worked well. That's why we did it the 405 way we did it. The 10 foot setback and the shift has 406 created a compromise and it just sort of has that 407 trickle-down effect in a way, how it compromises things. 408 I don't know if that's a clearer answer or 409 not. It's one of those things where sometimes you sort 410 of arrive at something and you way, well, I guess this 411 can work, but again, Jeff and Susan said, we don't like 412 that answer. This is our home. We don't want "I guess 413 it works." We want the quality design that we began 414 with. 415 MR. MISLEH: Mr. Upwall, let me help. I'm 416 going to ask the question a different way because I 417 think I'm hearing what my fellow Board members are 418 trying to ask. 419 And that is why are you not starting this 420 design from the west corner rather than from the east 421 corner. 422 MR. UPWALL: Well, in a sense we've started 423 from both. The other point is the design of the deck, 424 at the lower right hand portion of the drawing, the idea 425 that the alignment of the new addition to the existing 426 home creates a nice balanced room, space, an upper room 427 space there. 428 So that was how the right hand side or the 429 east side of the home was aligned. And then on the 430 left, when you're doing additions, and we've designed 431 many, many, many additions in many, many homes, over 20 432 years doing this, the right placement was the alignment 433 with the chimney. 434 As soon as I assessed their home and saw the 435 windows and I've spent several visits to really study it 436 from on-site, both in the rear yard and within the home, 437 that is really the right position to align the addition 438 from the west, or left-hand side. 439 Because it would look very clumsy if we were 440 to sort of align it somewhere else on the chimney or the 441 rear of the home. So when you're doing additions and 442 modifications to existing homes, these are the kinds of 443 things you have to consider and that's what we do. 444 So, is that a better clarification? 445 MR. MISLEH: Thank you for your explanation. 446 I have a couple other questions if it's okay. 447 So the height of this addition, is it just one 448 story with a flat roof? 449 MR. UPWALL: Yes. 450 MR. MISLEH: Question for staff. You 451 mentioned that it's a sub-standard R-1B lot. The 452 setback that's on the existing structure, the 7 foot, 453 11, was that within the Code when it was originally 454 constructed? 455 MS. ROUZI: I don't know the answer to that 456 question but it is non-conforming under today's 457 standards, that I can tell you. 458 MR. MISLEH: Do we know when the original 459 construction was? 460 MS. ROUZI: I can probably look it up from 461 our -- 462 MR. HENRIKSON: 1939. 463 MS. ROUZI: There you go. 464 MR. MISLEH: 1939. 465 MS. ROUZI: Most likely the Code to require 466 the 10 foot came way after that. 467 MR. MISLEH: Or it changed. I think that's a 468 key point of information. 469 Those are my only questions. Thank you. 470 MR. BARTLETT: City staff, is there any issue 471 with their rear setback? 472 MS. ROUZI: There is not. They are within the 473 setback requirements. 474 MR. BARTLETT: So this current structure is, I 475 think I read that it was, the design is 23 feet wide 476 by -- 24 by 25 feet, so 24 feet wide by 25 feet deep. 477 There are a couple of phases to my line of 478 questioning here. We have no issue with the possibility 479 of designing this addition to cover the same square 480 footage but be within current Code and still aligning it 481 with your aesthetic desire to design this on the west 482 side corner of that chimney, retain all of your current 483 light and aesthetic need for that window in that 484 northwest corner of the existing family room, but you 485 could actually leave it on that west corner, narrow the 486 structure, lengthen it and still have the same square 487 footage and be conforming. 488 My Chair asked the question about why did you 489 start on the west side. I think you could still start 490 on the west side. I asked the question why didn't you 491 start your design to be conforming with current zoning 492 requirements instead of now having to like try to fit 493 this into non-conforming space and make it seem like a 494 compromise? 495 MR. UPWALL: I think the initial response to 496 that is that we reacted strongly to the existing home 497 and that we tried to design what we think is the right 498 complement to the existing structure. We find in their 499 home to be quite historically pleasant and nice and we 500 want to do it justice. We want to design an addition to 501 it that doesn't look botched. That doesn't look like 502 it's a mistake. 503 So the alignment on the left side with the 504 chimney is part of that but the alignment on the right 505 side, aligning the existing home creates a very balanced 506 and aesthetically proper, proportional design. 507 So to do the 10 foot setback automatically 508 created an imbalance. We looked at it. It doesn't 509 really work well in terms of how it relates to the 510 existing home and I think that's an important 511 consideration. There's qualitative and quantitative 512 considerations. And I think the one I just pointed out 513 is much more qualitative but I certainly think that's 514 important in a discussion like this where we're 515 considering a variance to mostly quantitative 516 regulatory requirements. 517 But this should also matter to your community 518 in my opinion. That the homes and additions to them 519 don't look like awkward additions were done but they 520 look more balanced and proportionately pleasing. 521 MR. BARTLETT: Thank you for your answer. I'm 522 going to just sort of add an additional question to that 523 and just make sure you're saying this correctly, that to 524 design and build this addition conforming would be a 525 mistake and that it won't look good. And I think we in 526 the City have lots of issues with people wanting to 527 install and build additions and a great, great majority 528 of them recognize that they have to build within the 529 current setback and they do compromise and they don't 530 try to balance everything perfectly and get everything 531 they want. 532 What I'm not hearing is actually any real 533 hardship to applying the Code to your property and being 534 able to build this addition. I hear a lot of options 535 that you could utilize to build a wonderful, beautiful 536 addition that's very functional and meets your needs and 537 also balances as many possible elements that you would 538 like to satisfy but I don't see anything that like is 539 actually preventing you from using your property to do 540 what you want. That's just for now. 541 MR. EPPLER: I would just add that I fully 542 understand the aesthetics side of it but as the Board of 543 Zoning Appeals we have to focus on the hardship as 544 presented and we don't get to make a qualitative 545 decision so that's why we're asking all these questions 546 about the hardship and about the fire code and 547 structural issues. 548 MR. GRESKO: Akida, again this is a 549 substandard lot, right, R-1B, and it should have what, 550 60 wide and it only has 50 wide. 551 MS. ROUZI: Correct. 552 MR. GRESKO: I think we've discussed this 553 before. Isn't there some guidance in the Code that say 554 if you are less on a non-conforming there is some leeway 555 in terms of what can be side to side? 556 MS. ROUZI: Yes, there is administrative or 557 by-right relief afforded to sub-standard lots and we 558 have a formula to provide that relief and the side 559 setback can be reduced to 20 percent of the lot width. 560 But in this case that won't get them anywhere 561 because 20 percent of 50 is 10 feet and so that's the 562 same as the standard setback. 563 But some of the lots in the City are severely 564 sub-standard and when they're 40 or 30 feet wide, that 565 formula works out so that they do have a setback relief. 566 But for them because it's 50 feet, it's sub-standard but 567 it's not near enough to get them the relief that they're 568 looking for. 569 MR. GRESKO: Again, it's one of these 570 scratching my head days. 571 Help me with the formula. They should have 60 572 feet. They only have 50. So walk me through the 573 574 formula, what that would say that the side is reduced 575 by, you say administrative okay or by-right so and you 576 said two things there. Please specify. 577 MS. ROUZI: By-right means a plan that we can 578 administratively approve. So administrative approval is 579 a by-right development. So the by-right relief is 20 580 percent of the lot width which is the 50 feet. So they 581 can reduce the setback to 20 percent of the lot width. 582 But in this case, the formula gets them to 10 feet, 583 which is the standard requirement. So it's not really 584 providing them with a relief. If they were like 40 585 feet, then that would give them a lesser setback 586 requirement than the 10 feet. 587 That's the administrative relief or the 588 by-right relief. 589 MR. GRESKO: Even though, you took it -- how 590 did you get to 10 again? 591 MS. ROUZI: 20 percent of 50 feet is 10 feet. 592 MR. BARTLETT: If it was 45 feet wide, it 593 could be 9. 594 MS. ROUZI: Correct. 595 MR. GRESKO: It's not a reduction, it's 596 absolute? 597 MS. ROUZI: It's absolute. 598 MR. GRESKO: Okay. That's where I was 599 struggling. You're saying that the absolute would have 600 to be still the 10, no matter how you slice and dice it. 601 MS. ROUZI: Yeah, the formula stays the same. 602 Depending on the width, that either gets them relief or 603 it doesn't. In this case the math doesn't work in their 604 favor. 605 20 percent of 50 is 10 feet. 606 MR. GRESKO: Yeah, I got it now. I thought it 607 was a reduction of the side. But it's just an absolute 608 number. 609 MS. ROUZI: Yeah, yeah. 610 MR. GRESKO: Got it. 611 Thank you. 612 MR. HENRIKSON: If I could just say something. 613 So if the lot was standard where the right hand side of 614 the property was 10 feet away from the property line, 615 then we wouldn't be coming before you now. So to make 616 the deck and to line it up on the right-hand side so 617 that it looks good because the lot is substandard, it's 618 only 10.9 feet away from the property line, that's what 619 brings us to you now. 620 And to keep going, when Greg, we said, hey, we 621 want to do the master bath/master bedroom addition and 622 Greg went forth and what he came back to us with we 623 really liked. Because if you look at that, there's two 624 doors, there's a door under the deck and there's a door 625 from the existing family room and then you kind of go 626 into a hallway and then there's a sort of a separation 627 between the bedroom and the rest of the house which is 628 created by the bathroom and then there's two closets on 629 each side. 630 And so what Greg came up with, we liked quite 631 a bit and we gave him a lot of freedom. But again, if 632 the existing house was 10 feet away from the structure, 633 we wouldn't be coming before you now. 634 MR. MISLEH: Thank you. 635 Are there any other considerations that you'd 636 like to present: Cost concerns, value, impact in value 637 if you weren't able to construct it this way? Anything 638 else you'd like to present? 639 MR. HENRIKSON: I don't think so. 640 MR. UPWALL: I have a quick question if I 641 could. It sounds like you're wrapping up. But with 642 their existing home on the side yard setback I guess it 643 would be considered sort of an existing non-compliant 644 structure. And is there anything that -- how does that 645 play into an interpretation such as this? 646 The reason I raise the question, if we were 647 seeking a variance that was closer, that was sort of 648 649 like greedy, and say, hey, we want to just go right up 650 next to something that's not there, I wonder if there's 651 any consideration that we are trying to respect what 652 already exists rather than exceed it. 653 MR. BARTLETT: There are a lot of 654 circumstances in the City where folks come to us with 655 existing non-conforming structures asking for a variety 656 of variances due to what they would like to build. 657 When we have existing non-conforming space and 658 applicants and owners would like to go vertical, go 659 above and build up and not current and existing 660 non-conforming space, there's actually flexibility in 661 the Code, that states that you have to get a variance 662 that you can build up as long as you don't increase the 663 non-conforming space. 664 So what we see a lot is these older homes that 665 would like to build a second story and we usually allow 666 and give variances to applicants who would like to build 667 a second story as long as they don't increase their 668 non-conforming space with the addition. 669 But this is actually asking for an increase in 670 non-conforming space to align with the current 671 non-conforming space without any real need to do so or 672 you're interfering with your ability to build something 673 in compliance with current Code. 674 I hope that helps. 675 MR. UPWALL: Yeah, I mean I understand. 676 Again, I guess the only point I'm making is 677 the proposed design is trying to align with the existing 678 structure and while it might not meet current 679 regulations or requirement, it doesn't exceed or 680 increase the non-conformity in that sense. 681 MR. BARTLETT: That's correct, that's correct. 682 And there are a lot of circumstances where we've had 683 applicants seeking a variance to extend a current 684 non-conforming side yard setback, like further into the 685 rear setback, and I don't recall us ever approving an 686 extension of non-conforming space from a current 687 non-conforming side yard setback. 688 I don't know where we're going with this but 689 we see a lot of those and we usually don't approve them. 690 MR. GRESKO: One more question. 691 Ms. Henrikson, you said something in passing 692 that you couldn't go up. 693 MR. HENRIKSON: Yeah, I actually have a slide 694 on this. It's the last slide. 695 MS. HENRIKSON: We were thinking about that 696 quite a bit but it would require another variance. 697 MR. HENRIKSON: Yeah, there were a couple of 698 reasons why we didn't go up. One is if we went up, the 699 700 plan was to take out the deck that we were talking about 701 and we would still be becoming before you with a 702 variance because we would want to go up to the 7 foot 11 703 inch regardless. And also the stairs in our existing 704 structure are not up to Code and somewhat dangerous even 705 to me now. So as we age then the thought was we don't 706 want to go upstairs unless we have to. 707 MS. HENRIKSON: It doesn't give enough room 708 for us to do that, to do a master bedroom. We looked at 709 that. 710 MR. GRESKO: Thank you. 711 MR. MISLEH: Any other comments or questions? 712 (No response.) 713 MR. MISLEH: No. Staff have anything else to 714 add? 715 MS. ROUZI: No, sir. 716 MR. MISLEH: Thank you. 717 All right. Anything else, Mr. and Mrs. 718 Henrikson, or Mr. Upwall, to add? 719 MR. HENRIKSON: I don't think so. Thank you. 720 MR. UPWALL: No. 721 MR. MISLEH: At this point we're going to 722 deliberate amongst the Board and then we'll take a vote. 723 Thank you. 724 So, I don't know if somebody would like to 725 start off. 726 Well, I'll start by saying I think it's 727 important to recognize that the lot is substandard. I 728 think that's first and foremost in our consideration. 729 The home was acquired in its existing condition which is 730 already not conforming with the current Code and I think 731 that's a hardship in and of itself on the applicant, 732 that their needs from the home, it's challenged to meet 733 those needs by the substandard nature and the way the 734 existing home was constructed at the time when it was 735 constructed and how that impacts their current life. 736 MR. GRESKO: I'm struggling, as Mr. Bartlett, 737 similar situations, but I too, look at this home and I 738 pass by it, I drove down Park, and this is a small 739 house. God bless you. I've seen this house and I 740 think, Wow. Okay. 741 So I understand what you're trying to do, 742 okay, growing family, growing children. And it is 743 small. And trying to accommodate reasonable, what they 744 say, ordinance to utilize your property, and I 745 understand that. Trying to utilize a small space, add a 746 nice bathroom, bedroom, just makes it work better for 747 you. And I sort of hear the issues of Mr. Upwall, of, 748 you know, trying to align. Some of it is aesthetics and 749 some of it is, yeah, you wouldn't want to jerry-rig 750 around a space if you don't have to and make that 751 chimney space like a dead one foot notch. 752 So things are going through my mind in terms 753 of trying to, is it a hardship if they moved it over and 754 not have the window? Probably not. But utilizing that 755 property, are they trying to really utilize this 756 property well? That's where I sort of, you know, am 757 going back and forth. 758 MR. EPPLER: I'm trying to define I guess what 759 is the hardship which I think is what we were discussing 760 earlier and it seems we just touched on this at the very 761 end but it was the last slide. 762 If they're going to go up, they would still 763 need a variance. So, we have a variance to go back, we 764 have a variance to go up, the better design it seems and 765 certainly the preferred one and the one that the 766 neighbors do not object to is the one to go back. 767 And as you've noted, they didn't just buy this 768 house and come up with this, this is something they've 769 bought and owned. And it does seem that it's not really 770 usable for a family of four so they're not trying to 771 build some giant like mansion here. 772 MR. MISLEH: I'd also like to add that the 773 cost to go up I would imagine is substantially more 774 775 expensive and that would create a whole additional 776 hardship. 777 I also think, two things I think are important 778 to note is, that are important here that I heard are 779 function and value. So I think if they were to take 780 away that other window and create that gap or to 781 encumber that window, you impact the natural light 782 coming into the existing home and that creates a whole 783 other hardship. 784 Those are some of the things that we heard the 785 applicant present so I'd just like to make sure we 786 consider that. 787 MR. KIEN: Thank you very much for putting the 788 time and thought and effort into this and I certainly 789 understand the desire for continuity. 790 Generally if we're going to approve a 791 variance, it's because there are no alternative 792 solutions. That would be the hardship. Because there's 793 no way to, other members say, utilize the property in a 794 reasonable fashion for our existing family. And in this 795 case, it looks as though the design started in a 796 particular place based on aesthetics. It continues to 797 go that direction, rather than maybe having started 798 within Code and tried to move as close to the aesthetic 799 desire that we wanted. 800 I do see an ability to build this exact same 801 size room on this exact property within the setbacks as 802 is. Whether it's moved 3 feet or moved all the way to 803 the west edge of the home, losing a window and gaining 804 the square footage, the bathroom, the bedroom sizing and 805 everything, I don't see that having disparate value 806 impact. 807 So I do struggle with not having started the 808 design or exhausted other options to then be able to 809 come before the Board and say, This is the only one that 810 works. That's not what I'm hearing. 811 MR. BARTLETT: I would just like to point out 812 that this is a really wonderful design and addition to 813 your home and I think it would be wonderful for you to 814 build it and you'd be really happy with it. 815 I also see, as Mr. Kien just pointed out and I 816 tried to discuss earlier, that there is an alternative, 817 a subtle alternative, that would allow you to build this 818 and be very happy. And I don't think it would be a 819 design mistake. I think it would look really great. It 820 would allow you to keep that west side corner available, 821 keep your window available, and you build something that 822 actually does conform with Code. 823 And I'm a big proponent of trying to be 824 consistent in our approach and how we handle these 825 826 variances, so I'm just uncomfortable with the idea of 827 approving a variance where there are alternatives and 828 nothing is preventing you from actually seeking 829 alternatives that conform. 830 MR. MISLEH: Do we have any other comments 831 from the Board? 832 MR. EPPLER: I was perhaps going to ask 833 perhaps if they would like to have their architect take 834 a look at what the alternatives would be and come back 835 and make a case to us if there is, if this really is a 836 true hardship. It's just not going to work. 837 MR. MISLEH: I think that's reasonable. 838 I think what Mr. Eppler is suggesting is, 839 would you like to request a continuance before we vote, 840 to take another look at it, and see if there were an 841 alternative design, and if not, maybe rearticulate the 842 hardship at a future meeting. 843 Thank you. 844 So at this point, do we have someone that 845 would like to make a motion? 846 I'd like to point out one more time, I think 847 there was a slide that we glazed over at one point that 848 showed the rear of the property looking at the new 849 addition from the back. I thought that was a telling 850 slide and we didn't stop on it. 851 This one. And I think it's important, you can 852 see the chimney and you can see the adjacent window that 853 goes into that family room. And I think that helps 854 paint the picture that Mr. Upwall and the applicant were 855 trying to point out, that if they were to go further 856 west, how it would impact the value and the light that's 857 able to penetrate into their living space. 858 I think that was a key point that they made 859 but we may have glazed over. 860 MR. BARTLETT: I appreciate that, Mr. Misleh, 861 and I agree that that look is better than shifting the 862 addition west and covering that window or having some 863 sort of design issue with that corner and that chimney. 864 My issue is really that the opposite side 865 doesn't need to be in the setback and you can have the 866 same space as far as square footage, if you just moved 867 it back two feet instead of asking for the variance of 868 two feet on the east side. That's all. 869 MR. MISLEH: And the other point is, if the 870 property were conforming R-1B it would be 60 feet and 871 that variance wouldn't be necessary to build it this 872 way. 873 MR. UPWALL: I know we're past our comments, 874 but the next slide really demonstrates the other side. 875 Like this is a very good illustration of the alignment 876 and then this other one, the hope is that it illustrates 877 the importance of the alignment on the other side 878 because of what it does to create the new courtyard 879 space. 880 MR. MISLEH: Thank you. 881 Any other comments? Would somebody like to 882 make a motion? 883 MR. BARTLETT: I'll make a motion. 884 I'm going to make a motion to deny variance 885 application V1644-23 by Jeff and Susan Henrikson, 886 applicant and owner, for a variance to Section 887 48-263(3)a to allow a side yard of 7 feet 11 inches 888 instead of the 10 feet minimum to construct a new 889 addition at premises known as 916 Park Avenue, RPC 890 #51-203-008 of the Falls Church Real Property Records, 891 zoned R-1B, Medium Density Residential. 892 MR. MISLEH: Thank you. Do we have someone 893 that would like to second? 894 MR. KIEN: I will second that motion. 895 MR. MISLEH: Thank you. 896 Ms. Willis, if you would take the vote please. 897 RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Gresko. 898 MR. MISLEH: Before you vote, Mr. Gresko, does 899 a "yes" mean "no" or does a "no" mean "no"? 900 RECORDING SECRETARY: The motion on the table 901 is to deny the application. A vote "yes" would be an 902 agreement to deny the application; a vote of "no" would 903 mean to approve the application. 904 MR. MISLEH: Thank you. 905 RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Gresko. 906 MR. GRESKO: No. 907 RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Eppler. 908 MR. EPPLER: No. 909 RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Kien. 910 MR. KIEN: Yes. 911 RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Misleh. 912 MR. MISLEH: No. 913 RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Bartlett. 914 MR. BARTLETT: Yes. 915 RECORDING SECRETARY: Motion fails. 916 MS. ROUZI: So we need a new motion and a new 917 vote. 918 MR. MISLEH: It did not get approved by 919 default. 920 Would somebody like to make a motion? 921 MR. EPPLER: All right. I will make a motion 922 to approve variance application V1644-23 by Jeff and 923 Susan Henrikson, applicant and owner, for a variance to 924 Section 48-263(3)a to allow a side setback of 7 feet 11 925 inches instead of 10 feet minimum to construct a new 926 addition at premises known as 916 Park Avenue, RPC 927 #51-203-008 of the Falls Church Real Property Records, 928 zoned R-1B, Medium Density Residential. 929 MR. MISLEH: Thank you. Would someone like to 930 second? 931 MR. GRESKO: I'd second. 932 MR. MISLEH: Thank you. 933 I'd like to propose an amendment to that 934 motion in that we limit that approval to the depth of 935 the extension proposed which is 24 foot 9 inches. So 936 that encroachment into the setback only limited to the 937 proposed 24 feet 9 inches back. 938 MR. EPPLER: Agreed. Or second, whatever. 939 RECORDING SECRETARY: We have a motion and we 940 have a second. 941 MR. MISLEH: All right. 942 RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Bartlett. 943 MR. BARTLETT: No. 944 RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Misleh. 945 MR. MISLEH: Yes. 946 RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Kien. 947 MR. KIEN: No. 948 RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Eppler. 949 MR. EPPLER: Yes. 950 RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Gresko. 951 MR. GRESKO: Yes. 952 RECORDING SECRETARY: Motion passes. 953 MR. MISLEH: Congratulations. Good luck with 954 your project. Thank you for coming. 955 MR. HENRIKSON: Thank you. 956 957 6. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 958 a. Approval of the October 12, 2023 Meeting 959 Minutes 960 b. Approval of the September 14, 2023 Meeting 961 Minutes 962 MR. MISLEH: Next order of business is the 963 Approval of Minutes from October 12th and approval of 964 the minutes from September 14, 2023. 965 (Minutes reviewed.) 966 MR. EPPLER: We would like to make a motion 967 for Other Business. 968 I would like to make a motion that henceforth 969 for the Board of Zoning Appeals that all of the minutes 970 be distributed electronically and not be printed on 971 paper. 972 MS. ROUZI: Yeah, save the environment. We're 973 on board. 974 MR. BARTLETT: I'd like to second that motion 975 as a permanent employee of the Environmental Protection 976 Agency. 977 MS. WILLIS: It will be adopted in January, so 978 it's a good idea. 979 MR. MISLEH: Great. 980 Has everyone had a chance to read all the 981 thousand pages? 982 MR. GRESKO: On the October, the last meeting 983 we had, I was reading through, and on line 947 where I 984 must have been mumbling, I'm sure I was, where it says: 985 That's a function of "inaudible", I think I meant to 986 say, That's a function of judgment. They were talking 987 about unreasonable or reasonable use. Well, what we do 988 here is all judgment, right, we have to debate it. So 989 applicant was saying you're unreasonably restricting and 990 I'm saying, well, that' a matter of judgment. That's 991 what we're up here to do. 992 So I think "inaudible" was a "matter of 993 judgment". 994 MR. MISLEH: Can we get a motion? 995 MR. GRESKO: A motion to change the October 996 BZA meeting, row 947, where it says "That's a function 997 of "inaudible", to change it, That's a function of 998 judgment.  999 MR. MISLEH: I meant a motion to approve the 1000 minutes. 1001 MR. GRESKO: Oh. Okay. 1002 MR. BARTLETT: I'd like to make a motion to 1003 approve the minutes of October 12, 2023, and September 1004 14, 2023. 1005 MR. GRESKO: Second. 1006 MR. MISLEH: Thank you. 1007 Ms. Willis. 1008 I think we should call them separate. 1009 RECORDING SECRETARY: Yes. 1010 Mr. Misleh. 1011 MR. MISLEH: Yes. 1012 RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Kien. 1013 MR. KIEN: Yes. 1014 RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Eppler. 1015 MR. EPPLER: Yes for September 14, and then 1016 abstain on October 12th because I wasn't here. 1017 RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Gresko. 1018 MR. GRESKO: Yes on the October one. 1019 RECORDING SECRETARY: Just October, yes. 1020 MR. GRESKO: Yes. 1021 Mr. Bartlett. 1022 MR. BARTLETT: Same. Just October please. 1023 RECORDING SECRETARY: Just October. 1024 Motion passes to approve the October 12th 1025 meeting minutes. 1026 MR. MISLEH: And September 14th? 1027 RECORDING SECRETARY: I can only do one motion 1028 at a time, so we'll need to make an official motion for 1029 the September meeting minutes. 1030 MR. KIEN: Motion to approve the September 1031 14th meeting minutes. 1032 MR. EPPLER: Second. 1033 RECORDING SECRETARY: I'm sorry, was that Mr. 1034 Eppler who seconded? 1035 MR. EPPLER: Yes. 1036 RECORDING SECRETARY: Thank you. 1037 Mr. Gresko. 1038 MR. GRESKO: Abstain. 1039 RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Eppler. 1040 MR. EPPLER: Yes. 1041 RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Kien. 1042 MR. KIEN: Yes. 1043 RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Misleh. 1044 MR. MISLEH: Yes. 1045 RECORDING SECRETARY: Mr. Bartlett. 1046 MR. BARTLETT: I was not here. I'm 1047 abstaining. 1048 RECORDING SECRETARY: Motion passes. 1049 MR. MISLEH: Thank you. 1050 1051 7. OTHER BUSINESS 1052 a. Zoning Code Amendments Discussion 1053 MR. MISLEH: It appears we have some Other 1054 Business, Zoning Code Amendment Discussion. 1055 Ms. Rouzi, would you like to -- 1056 MS. ROUZI: Sure. We do have a list of Code 1057 amendments proposed, to be considered by City Council. 1058 Most of the Code amendments proposed by staff 1059 at this time is basically corrections or reformatting to 1060 the Code. They're not substantive changes. But there 1061 is as part of that staff report an attachment that 1062 includes future possible Code amendments suggested by 1063 staff. 1064 And I believe Mr. Gresko had a question about 1065 some of these and wanted to discuss it during the 1066 meeting, so I will defer to Mr. Gresko with his 1067 questions. 1068 MR. GRESKO: Yes, thanks. 1069 That attachment though isn't a part of this, 1070 is it? I didn't see it. 1071 MS. ROUZI: Oh, you know what? Attachment is 1072 not part of the staff report in the hard copy but it is 1073 electronically so we might be able to pull it up. 1074 Let me send you the link now to the 1075 attachment. 1076 MR. GRESKO: Okay. Basically on that 1077 attachment if you pull it up, there was one item there 1078 which refers back to what Keith was mentioning in our 1079 last discussion; namely we have, and apologies if you've 1080 reviewed this multiple times, where if you have a first 1081 floor that was built before Code and it is incringing on 1082 a front or a side, and if someone wants to keep that 1083 footprint and just build above, no other changes, I 1084 think this Board has often said, yes, that makes sense, 1085 okay. And has said, why is it even here? 1086 MR. EPPLER: Why can't staff approve this? 1087 MR. GRESKO: Why can't the staff approve this, 1088 right? 1089 And I've heard that sort of agreement in the 1090 past saying, why are we even here to do that. 1091 My only concern on that was back to that 1092 section in the Code where you say you can never go below 1093 7 and a half feet side. So, with that if someone is, if 1094 the first floor is 5 feet, built before the Code and 1095 they're 5 feet and they're supposed to be, let's say, 1096 10, and they want to build above that, what this future 1097 amendment would say that administratively, you can say, 1098 sure, you're going to go to the BZA even though the Code 1099 says you can never be closer than 7 and a half feet, so 1100 you're saying that the 7 and a half feet minimum for 1101 those situations above will be waived. 1102 And I just want to make sure, again, we're not 1103 a policy group per se, but I think this group has sort 1104 of initiated that request that you're now bubbling up to 1105 Planning, right, and I just want to make sure that my 1106 fellow Board members know that you can be now, if that 1107 bottom floor is 5 or anything lower than 7 and a half 1108 which was sort of the bench mark of minimum, you can 1109 then build above without coming here. 1110 And I just want my fellow Board members to 1111 say, does that make sense? 1112 MS. ROUZI: That is the intent of this Code 1113 amendment, correct. 1114 If was to be adopted or approved by the City 1115 Council, anything you described, non-existing footprint 1116 and if the addition goes directly above that, not 1117 encroach further from the existing non-conformity, then 1118 that would be administratively approved. 1119 But I'm sensing you want to put a restriction 1120 to that. 1121 MR. GRESKO: Yes, I am. Because again, it 1122 seems like whoever put the Code together, 7 and a half 1123 feet was sort of like the minimum side to side that you 1124 had unless some extenuating circumstances that the BZA 1125 would review, not to say that the BZA would absolutely 1126 put a thumbs down, but at least when you're encroaching 1127 on that sort of 7 and a half, do we just want to still 1128 have a BZA review, or just completely say, Well, it's 1129 above the footprint and just go for it. 1130 MS. ROUZI: I think that's a perfectly 1131 reasonable request, if you want to have a restriction to 1132 say, well, staff can approve it to this extent but no 1133 less than, the setback cannot reduce less than 7 and a 1134 half feet or five feet. 1135 If you want to have that cap or restriction, 1136 you can suggest that but it's up to the City Council 1137 whether they want to approve that. 1138 MR. GRESKO: I understand. But I'm looking 1139 for my Board members to weigh in, if that's reasonable 1140 for what our thinking. Again, we want to get things off 1141 the BZA that just makes, you know, in cranking it 1142 through, do we want to go and how far do you want to 1143 just, open kimono and just say go for it. 1144 MR. KIEN: Seven and a half feet is the 1145 minimum today, if I'm hearing this correctly, 7 and a 1146 half, there will be none less, I think you can set that 1147 as kind of a line of demarcation. Because I would want 1148 neighbors a have a chance to weigh in if there's single 1149 story structure five feet off of their property, that's 1150 now going to go up another story. That could have a 1151 significant effect. 1152 MR. EPPLER: Especially if the other house is 1153 also 5 feet away, because neighboring houses got built 1154 that way. 1155 MR. KIEN: Or their garage structure is 3 feet 1156 off of the line because they were allowed to do that and 1157 now we're really pinching. 1158 So I agree with the concern and say that 1159 minimum, I think 7 and a half is probably a reasonable 1160 place since it's already represented in the Code. 1161 MR. EPPLER: Actually I thought the 7 and a 1162 half, I thought that was there because that was a 1163 minimum size necessary for an emergency vehicle to get 1164 in. 1165 MS. ROUZI: That is a possibility but I don't 1166 know definitively what the fire code requirement is. 1167 MR. EPPLER: I think that's where those side 1168 setbacks, the minimum side setbacks come from, because 1169 they want to be able to get an emergency vehicle. 1170 MS. ROUZI: Yeah, that sounds right. 1171 MR. EPPLER: To get a truck, for example, if 1172 the power line is down. 1173 MS. ROUZI: Yeah, I've heard those concerns 1174 before. That makes sense. 1175 MR. EPPLER: But if you have a house that's 1176 already there, you're not going to move it. 1177 MR. MISLEH: Part of the intent when you hear 1178 me say, Why can't staff approve that, I've been known to 1179 say that often, is because you don't want to put an 1180 unnecessary burden on the citizens and have them have to 1181 pay the fee and go through the process to apply for a 1182 variance that otherwise should be approvable at the 1183 staff level. 1184 So I think it's more in protection of that 1185 citizen. And I understand Mr. Gresko's concern of not 1186 wanting to give carte blanche and still allow this Board 1187 to see variances that would encroach. 1188 So I'm open to whatever my fellow Board 1189 members think is reasonable. 1190 MR. EPPLER: A question, roughly, if you know, 1191 how many structures are we talking about in the City 1192 that would have less than 7 and a half feet on a side 1193 setback? 1194 MS. ROUZI: Somewhere in our archives that 1195 data exists and I'll dig it up. 1196 I know years ago a planner, Garrison Kitt, had 1197 done that study. He counted the non-conforming 1198 1199 structures and setbacks. He had some quantitative way 1200 of representing and identifying non-conforming in the 1201 City. 1202 I might be able to pull that up. I'll send it 1203 if I find it. 1204 MR. GRESKO: My goodness. 1205 MR. EPPLER: Now they can do it by satellite. 1206 MS. ROUZI: There you go. 1207 MR. MISLEH: So is there anything we need to 1208 do? 1209 MS. ROUZI: No. Seven and a half is the 1210 number you feel comfortable? 1211 MR. GRESKO: I do but again, I know Mr. 1212 Bartlett has been very adamant on this point in the 1213 past. 1214 MR. BARTLETT: Maybe. 1215 MS. ROUZI: And, Mr. Eppler, I could double 1216 check on what the rationale or reasoning behind 7 and 1217 half was. 1218 MR. EPPLER: But in this particular case if 1219 we're talking about just being able to build straight 1220 up, it doesn't matter because if you have a house that's 1221 there, regardless, it's still blocking. But I believe 1222 the 7 and a half feet is the size for an emergency truck 1223 to get in. 1224 MR. KIEN: I care less about the 7 and a half 1225 feet and I care more about the immediately adjacent 1226 neighbor impact and not having the ability to get it be 1227 represented and have their opinion heard. 1228 MR. EPPLER: Yeah, it seems like 7 and a half 1229 feet is a reasonable compromise and it should cut 1230 down -- I mean I'm sure we may have had one that was 1231 less than 7 and a half but I can't recollect. 1232 MR. KIEN: I remember one in what, five years. 1233 MR. EPPLER: I haven't been on that long. So 1234 it's going to cut our Board load down. 1235 MS. ROUZI: You don't have to do anything. I 1236 will include it in our next round of staff report and 1237 say this was a suggestion by the Board of Zoning Appeals 1238 for Council consideration. 1239 MR. MISLEH: Great. Thank you. 1240 Any other comments? 1241 MR. EPPLER: No. 1242 MR. MISLEH: All right. I think there was one 1243 other item that is not on the Agenda but it was open 1244 from the last meeting and that was the request from the 1245 City manager's office to change the day of the month for 1246 this meeting. 1247 Is that still an open topic? 1248 MS. WILLIS: It is an open topic. It's not 1249 officially on this month's Agenda, so I will defer to 1250 Akida on the process to continue discussing that. 1251 MS. ROUZI: I think folks want a decision. I 1252 think they want to move it and they want your blessing 1253 to move it. 1254 Are we all okay? 1255 MR. BARTLETT: That's a different message than 1256 we've been asked before. 1257 MS. ROUZI: Oh, really? 1258 MR. BARTLETT: We were asked amongst all 1259 Boards if they were interested in potentially moving 1260 their dates. The initial request wasn't, BZA, do you 1261 want to, will you move your dates? 1262 MR. MISLEH: I think that -- no, there's been 1263 an email that is directly asking us to move. 1264 MS. WILLIS: After last month's meeting I did 1265 receive an email from Andy, our interim deputy City 1266 manager, asking for an update on the Board's opinions 1267 about the suggested change. 1268 I told him the stances were initially a few 1269 Board members were leaning toward yes, get us away from 1270 that after the first Monday language. And after a 1271 little bit more discussion it was brought up, well, this 1272 is a long-standing meeting, that our citizens and 1273 everyone is well accustomed to and that you didn't want 1274 to put hardship on them for changing it. 1275 And if I remember correctly, the exact 1276 terminology to end the meeting was -- I'm sorry. I'm 1277 drawing a blank now. 1278 MR. EPPLER: I'm sorry, I missed this. What's 1279 the rationale for moving? 1280 MS. WILLIS: So since the City is now back 1281 into full time meetings without virtual, the City 1282 Council chambers, the conference rooms are becoming a 1283 little overloaded with meetings. People are scheduled 1284 at the same times and the same locations. 1285 The specific scenario that I was given from 1286 the City Clerk's Office who initially brought this issue 1287 up was that there is one committee that meets the same 1288 day as us and they were meeting upstairs in a conference 1289 room that was their scheduled place of meeting. They do 1290 have a member that is disabled and is not able to get to 1291 the conference room without the use of an elevator. And 1292 I'm not sure if any of you are aware but it's a 50-50 1293 shot that that elevator is going to be working that day 1294 or night. 1295 So they were looking for any Board or 1296 Commission that was able to change their date and time. 1297 So they did ask everybody. I'm not privy to what those 1298 Boards and Commissions' discussions was. I'm sure it's 1299 open online somewhere. 1300 But after speaking with the Board, getting you 1301 all votes and opinions, took that back to the City 1302 Clerk, and Mr. Young, it was highly suggested that we be 1303 the one to compromise on date and time. 1304 MR. BARTLETT: Did you say Bob Young? 1305 MS. WILLIS: Mr. Andy Young. 1306 MS. ROUZI: Do you guys know who Mr. Andy 1307 Young is? He is our new Deputy City Manager and he 1308 oversees the community, planning, development office and 1309 the public works, two divisions. He's the new boss. 1310 MR. BARTLETT: Did you say interim? 1311 MS. ROUZI: He's interim but I think it's 1312 pretty set in stone. 1313 MR. KIEN: Is there a suggested day that it's 1314 moving to? 1315 MS. WILLIS: Yeah, it's literally just 1316 changing the language from the second Thursday of the 1317 month following the first Monday. Just removing the 1318 language of the first Monday. So it would actually be 1319 the second Thursday of every month. So instead of some 1320 having being the third Thursday. 1321 MR. KIEN: Yeah, I don't know how much I care 1322 about that. 1323 MR. GRESKO: But there are months where it 1324 would still create a conflict. 1325 MR. MISLEH: Not if the other Board has the 1326 same -- 1327 MR. BARTLETT: So once every three years 1328 there's an alignment of stars. 1329 MR. EPPLER: Yeah, Jupiter is in alignment. 1330 MR. MISLEH: Should we go ahead and take a 1331 vote on this topic or does this need to be advertised? 1332 MS. WILLIS: I would feel more comfortable if 1333 it was added on to the Agenda to make a proper motion as 1334 well as it's something that has to be changed in the 1335 Board's Rules of Procedure. So that will need to be on 1336 the Agenda specifically. 1337 MR. BARTLETT: Should be table this until 1338 January like we're tabling our environmental concerns? 1339 For the Environmental Committee. Fantastic. 1340 MR. MISLEH: All right. Great. So we'll pick 1341 that up in a future meeting. 1342 Do we have a December meeting? 1343 MR. KIEN: Second Thursday. 1344 MS. WILLIS: At this time we don't have any 1345 applications for the Board. If you did want to meet to 1346 go over any amendments or changes or plans that you have 1347 in mind for the Rules of Procedures, you're more than 1348 welcome to let me know to schedule that. 1349 If not, we will need to meet in January to 1350 adopt, have the elections. 1351 MR. MISLEH: Perfect. 1352 1353 8. ADJOURNMENT 1354 MR. MISLEH: We'll see you in January. 1355 I move to adjourn. 1356 MR. EPPLER: Second. 1357 (A chorus of "ayes".) 1358 MR. MISLEH: Thank you. 1359 1360 1361 1362 1363 1364 1365 1366 1367 1368 1369