you you you you you you you you you you I can see everyone but I cannot hear anybody. Hello, Peter. There we go. Can you hear me? I can't. Can you hear me? Peter, can you hear us? I can't. Can you hear me? We can't hear you. Now, we can't hear him. He can hear us. Yeah, I just I just knocking here. But I can't you can't hear me. All right, well, while we. That I'll ask you to please stand up and raise your right hand. Try to tell the truth. Hello. Thank you for coming. Okay, the staff we can get the happy. It's all right. So I'm Linda Valenzino, the owner of the property in Florida, the East Jefferson Street, and I'm also the applicant, our defense and the budget manager on the budget in person. All right, great. Okay. Light up. Okay. Maybe that's helpful. Okay. Feedback. Okay. Sure. Okay. Is your team. Can you give us a little test? I can hear you. Can you hear me? I'm sorry. I thought you were waiting to pull something up. You just want me to explain the project. Sure. So, we purchased this existing. I'm sorry. I thought you were waiting to pull something up. But you just want me to explain the project. Sure. So we purchased this existing 1937 two story brick home that has a addition on the back, single story with a very flat, you know, low pitched roof that stretches from the left side of the existing house to the right side from a bridge in the two-story house to a single-story side portion. And we'd like to add a two-story addition just over the portion of the rear addition that is behind the two-story house, not extending it the full width. But in order to do that because the house sits at an angle on the property not parallel to the property lines the front corner of the existing house on the back corner of the 16 house both encroach into the property lines because of the angle of the house on the property so the very very little bit of the corner of the rear left of the house that we want to take advantage of the existing foundation and just put a second store master bedroom addition over the existing existing first floor to connect into the into the addition because of the house sitting at that angle as it does so. We're asking for the setback reduction so that we can put the second floor over the existing foundation. And then I guess the other that's not highlighted in red is just the there's a currently a wood deck behind that screen porch and we just want to add a little stone landing and that stone landing that's open is allowed to encourage three feet into the setback but in order for it to be within code if that setback is 12 feet then that will also be within code if it's you know if it's reduced from 15 to 12, then putting a nice little three-foot stone landing there instead of a deck, because we're gonna center the door on that screen porch, would put it into compliance with the setback reduction. But that's really what we're looking for. Yeah, I'll just point out the in for the second floor as well. Sorry. Pretty is located at 411. Sorry. I have 11 East Jefferson and it has a lot area of 17,245 square feet and a lot width of 80 feet, both which complies with the minimum requirements for this district. The variance request for a side yard setback of 12 feet instead of the 15 feet maximum for the properties for a second floor addition of an existing encroaching single store rear addition, sorry, which was constructed by previous owners in 1991. This is shown in their plan on page five of attachment three. The BCA has approved nine out of nine variants requests for minimum setbacks in 2023 under similar conditions. One public comment has been received in favor of this application. Less incentive for worsen located at 403 East Jefferson. Where is 40? the property on the other side of the property line. The one most affected by the addition. The adjacent property on that side. The original of the addition. The portion that's already. I we don't know that information, but it does pre-do the client code in terms of setback requirements yet. No, I did not ask the other neighbors and I think that was probably just because I felt that they weren't really very affected by it, so I didn't go knocking on doors. But yes, they've seen the plans, they've been inside the house. Yeah. they've been inside the house. Yeah, I mean, and again personally, you know, for me, and they were very excited about us not tearing the house down. And as I said, for me, I'm very happy to not tear the house down and work with the house and keep the 1937 house there. Because clearly, if I were to tear the house down and straighten out and build a house parallel to the property lines, it would make things a lot simpler. But because I really want to keep the house down and straighten out and build a house parallel to the property lines. It would make things a lot simpler, but because I really want to keep the house there, we'll work it with the angle. Because it's a nice big deep lot and we can't really take advantage a lot of the views straight out the back because of the way the property skews. But we're trying to work with it. Yeah. Yeah. No, this is not subdividable. It has to be. This is only 17,000 would have to be 22,500 to be subdividable. Oh, the very bad. But you can't see there. It's cut up. I actually have the full plat in my possession. Now the city did not have the full plat. I got it from Dubarian Davis. Behind parcel A is owned by the city of Falls Church. They sold off the back portion to the city as part of Formal Run. So the city owns 3,000 square feet, but even with that, it would not have been subdivided. I think it was 20 before. But yeah, the city owns that now. Yeah, yeah, no, yeah. Yeah. And I don't know why yeah, and for me because I was trying to get the full plot with the scale and the seal, which I actually have now I didn't have it when I did the submission. I wanted to get the full plot with the whole thing showing, which they were kind enough to dig up at Dubarian Davis for me. So when I found out for my building permit, I will actually have the full scale. It has the title blocking on it. Oh, or maybe I did get it subsequent. No, no, I did actually add a second one. When I drew it, I didn't have it. But yes, there is a full one. You're right. Yeah, yeah. I got it. Let's try. I did get it in time to give it with the plot. I just didn't have it. It took me a while to get it originally after I bought the house. Yeah. Can you hear me now? No. Which I'm sorry. I can't see. There's just there's stone walkways in the back and in the front, which is slate. You mean, I mean, next to the corner. Right. And what's the question about that? Stone walkway. No, there's a walkway. I'm saying there's going to be a landing behind the screen porch. There's a deck right now or would deck. I don't know what stone walkway you're. There is a long stone walkway. Yes, there's splice stone walkways. Well, the screen porch has right now there's a deck. There's a there's a wooden deck that connects a door going into that room under my addition and the screen porch. But the walk that has to be above ground, I mean, I'm basically putting a landing with a three foot landing so that, you know, you can take two steps down from the door to get to the walkway because it's the porches above grade by like, you know, two feet. So it's just a landing to get from the door down to the walkway. No, I mean, I will have an increase in impermeable surface overall with the property, also when I build the porch on the back. I mean, I would do those calculations for that. I'm going to do that. I'm going to do that. I'm going to do that. I'm going to do that. I'm going to do that. I'm going to do that. I'm going to do that. I'm going to do that. I'm going to do that. I'm going to do that. I'm going to do that. I'm going to do that. Yeah. No, just going straight up. Just going straight up. And the reason that we're, you know, it's set in second floor is because the 10 feet to the right were that 24.1. That part will remain will be no second floor better. That will remain the shed roof because it sits behind single story. You know, the two story houses only is not the fourth 38 feet, only 28 feet of that front with this is two story. So my two story edition is only going to go as wide as the two story house in front of it. And that all that area to the right is only single story. And the porch is going on the back will be single story. So no other higher roof line on the right hand side. Sure no problem. I'm going to say that. I'm going to say that. I'm going to say that. I'm going to say that. I'm going to say that. I'm going to say that. I'm going to say that. I'm going to say that. I'm going to say that. I'm going to say that. I'm going to say that. I'm going to say that. I'm going to say that. I'm going to say that. I'll kick it off and I think this is a great project and I understand why you need to variance and this is pretty consistent with how we operate. You have a very, a skew house on a very narrow lot and you know it's obviously your choice to whether to tear it down or fix it. And I like that you're retaining a great majority of it and improving it. I'm going to go to the next slide. I'm going to go to the next slide. I'm going to go to the next slide. I'm going to go to the next slide. I'm going to go to the next slide. I'm going to go to the next slide. I'm going to go to the next slide. I'm going to go to the next slide. I'm going to go to the next slide. I'm going to go at the variance of rules and I think to reject it would be unreasonable. For the utilization of the property, I mean, you're adding above the current footprint. As an encroachment is already what you bought, but they're not changing anything, they're just utilizing the space. And so that's a reasonable utilization of your property. So I have a problem. Now what I agree with you, we've been routinely looking for these weather going straight up about the span here. Great, well, and someone might come up with a motion. I will make a motion. Whereas the board of zoning appeals has held a newly advertised public hearing of the report team 2024. On case number of the 1658-24 by Chad Price applicants on behalf. So long one. Sorry. See you tonight. Okay. That didn't sound right. Halfway through. Here we go. Whereas the board of zoning appeals hasals has held a duly advertised public hearing on November 14, 2024, in case number of the 1657-2 Board, variance to section 48-238-3A to allow a side yard setback of 12 feet instead of the 15 feet minimum, to construct a second floor addition on property located at 411 East Jefferson. And whereas the DCA finds that the applicant has met all applicable standards for variances as set forth in sections 15.2-201 and 15.2-209 of the Code of Virginia the city of false church zoning ordinance section 48-1726. Therefore be it resolved that the the case. The case. The case. The case. The case. The case. The case. The case. Keane. Yes. Sorry. Mr. Eppler. Mr. Cresco. Motion passes. Thank you very much. Good luck with your project. New business via variance application V1658-24 by Chad Price. Applicant on behalf of West Broad Holdings LLC owners for the following variances. Section 48-12652 to allow projecting sign area location and quantity above the maximum 10.10 square feet, one sign per tenet, not extending above the lower sill line of the second floor windows and extending more than 4 feet from the wall. Section 48, gosh, 1, 2, 6, 5, 10 to allow building identification sign quantity above the maximum one building identification sign per development. Section 48, dash 1, 2, five, one, we'll allow wall sign quantity above the maximum, two wall signs maximum per business at the premises known as one, zero, three, three, west broads, two. So welcome to Stephen. If you would please sign that or fill out that form on the table. And when you're done, I'll just ask you to raise your right hand. I'm sorry. Is there a hand? Do you swear to tell truth and nothing but the truth? So yeah. Welcome this evening. Please. this evening, please go ahead and introduce yourself. No. Can you press the button on your microphone? your chat price and you're representing the others. I'm going to stop you there and ask staff to just read on the record. The application. That's the value. Thank you. Property located at 1033 West Broad is owned as B1 limited business. The applicant is proposing to construct multiple signs for the Mandar project to include the following. Tier projecting signs over the maximum allowed quantity size and location allowed to building identification signs over the maximum quantity allowed as one is allowed by right. Four of all signs over the maximum quantity allowed as two are allowed by right. The city sign ordinance has not been updated recent years and our regulations are not proportionate with the scale of development and buildings the city has experienced in the last few decades. As such, sign variances are common for this scale of project in the city and has been consistently granted by the board to provide reasonable and necessarily relief from outdated restrictions and limitations on sign quantity and size. The BZA has approved two sign variance applications in 2023 to include a comprehensive sign plan for the Broad here regarding the signage. The main challenge we're facing is having two entrances into the site, via the garage, along West Broad and Southwest Street. We've proposed adding additional signage along Lesbord and Southwest. So in the elevation plan or in this plan, you can see those two blade signs, e1.1 and e1.2 are located on Southwest and West Broad. And one is approved by right, the other world requesting the variance for. The two other more data signs, e2.1 and e2.2. Again, we're both belong Southwest and West Broad Street at the top of the building and the additional Thank you. Any questions. You just can you just clarify a couple of them. Thank you. I'm happy to see this building be completed. You clarify which of the E1, E1, E2, E2, E2, E2, both are the by-right signs and then which ones are not by-right and ones you're asking for. Yes, so the E even got one sign. We're asking really for events of size and quantity. So it's it's almost two twofold from the by right perspective. We're not approved by the size, but there's also the piece of there being two signs. So if it was one sign and the correct size, it would be approved by right. It's too big. Correct. Yes, that's correct. Any of these by right. Yes. So other signages or signs would be E2.1. One of those, which is the M, Madera sign. One of those would be by right the additional signage would request a variance. So on the next there's a slide here that breaks out each request and the glitches approved by the code of lants. Be the parking signs. So that would be e1 dot 1, e1 dot 2 all the way to e3 dot 2. And the elimination of those signs that I mentioned before that will be illuminated will have a dimmable dimmable feature so you'll be able to with the temperature depending on the amount of lumens it's it's protruding. I don't have any lit signs. Ellison, is that correct? That's correct. Any signs on Ellison? I'm going back. No signs. Oh my god. Is there any entrance on from Ellison? No, there's the glass. Just from broad. Yes. Yes. I'm going to go ahead and I'm going to go ahead and I'm going to go ahead and I'm going to go ahead and I'm going to go ahead and I'm going to go ahead and I'm going to go ahead and I'm going to go ahead and I'm going to go ahead and I'm going to go ahead and I'm going to go ahead and I'm going to go ahead and I'm going to go ahead and I'm going to go ahead and Thank you. Is that rhetoric? Yes. All right. Thank you, sir. Thank you. Please. I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I You know, response to that. And I was just having questions like. I understand these documents are complicated big, etc. But I always think myself, well whatever you learn from the first one. Why did I all that. I'm pretty good at reaching all approval for this one. So get experience across the street. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I'm sorry. You know, I'm before I joined no Creek. So when I joined about two years ago, I took on this project when it was completed to the design process. I think a few things might have slipped through the cracks this being one of them. But you know what we've done is look at phase one as an example and make the signage a bit smaller in size. So that's my response. Yeah. I'm going to go. I'm going to go. I'm saying, I'll, I'm saying, I'll, I'm going to go. People. I understand it's a team connection, so it's only a failure strength. Thank you. I'm going to just re-array some questions in the different way just that. Why, why is the signage not addressed in the project? Is it a good time to the Council and planning commission. A lot of jurisdictions have a process into zoning ordinance called comprehensive signage plan. We do not. And so it is pretty common for developers without that process available to them. They don't like my guess is they don't need to provide signage design at conceptual development or site plan. They typically come in with their design details for a designage proposal after site plan approval. And this project is not the only one all of the previous development, mixed use development projects have shown their signage conceptually at CDP, which is Conceptual Development Plan and Entitlement, and then a little bit more further refined during site plan, but still not to the details where staff can do a code analysis with dimensions, location, all those details are typically available to them and to staff when they start leasing or having tenants in place lined up for the ground floor spaces and that's that's been the common practice for a lot of these projects. I think that the honestly. I appreciate it. I. I completely agree with you. In fact, we've been advocating that they come in earlier with these fixed signage, but I guess they're rationalists and still going to wait until the very late process in the site plan and after site plan for the tenant signs anyway they might as well do a comprehensive holistic sign design at that point. This is not my I'm just assuming I've never had this conversation with any of the developers of course. Yeah thank you. In most cases, tenants are able to stay within the Thine Wardenings. It's these project signs that are high on the building or massive, the projecting signs and we call them identity signs. Those have exceeded the code allowance. It's typically the project signage that need the variance and tenants are okay with the code parameters. But if they do want to have an access of what's allowed or larger than what's allowed by the code then they would have to come in for variances. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah, I'm coming in. I think Joe, yeah. Yeah. Yeah, I'm coming. I think Joe. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Good. For additional insight. I want to give you that home. I have a question on the fringe of one neighborhood. I'll let the question come up. Fantastic questions. I want to ask the question to stay out of this this silence. It's a right to policy of the kind of action? Seeing simple, I don't have the front of the point. I don't have the kind of, you know, the input of the principle, or some of the other large, you know, the development. It seems like it's more or less, it's very similar, but I don't know if it's there or how it depends. I think they're very similar. All of the commercial projects mixed use development we've seen have had to get variance for just similar categories and that's similar like the signage quantity area placement. It's been pretty consistent. Yeah. Real quick, I'm sorry. Are you all having trouble with your mics? Because I can barely hear you over here. Didn't hear me at all. Not through the mic, no sir. It's a little ringing from crack. I'm sorry. Did I answer your question, Saplow? OK. Yeah. Yeah. the the top of the top of the top of the top of the top of the top of the top of the top of the top of the top of the top of the top of the top of the top of the I'm going to have a presentation back to the staff. We're. Again, it's kind of hard with what is adjacent time that. It's kind of hard, but we're people. How far have a notice was given to maybe anyone on Ellison or on West Street in terms of this against that like a representative program or no, that's our neighbor, that's our neighbor, tiny neighbor. But with type of fuel was offered to give comments or not. A specific application for a variance was given at least two weeks notice. Two, two, how far? I'm sorry, 150 feet from the property in every direction. So 150 feet from the project was notified. No, sir, we did not. It was to give notice that there would be a variance request for this project and it did give details that the agenda would be available to Friday before we link to the materials. So I mean the people noticed had six days to look at this for comments if they so wanted to. questions at this point. Any other questions for the applicant? Do you have anything else to add? Thank you. Thank you. I'm going to go ahead. I'm so bored. Okay. Let me just start. I would like to start by a comment that was included in the. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. As such, sign variants are common for the scale of project in the city and have been consistently granted by the board. Prior to reasonable and assertly updated restrictions and limitations on sign plan of income size. My feel like that is something that the city, the city council should prioritize to resolve instead of placing the burden on the board of zoning appeals to review these randomly and inconsistently and make those decisions on behalf of the city. I feel like this is more like a permit approval to the board of zoning appeals instead of actually of needed and justified variance from city code. In light of that, I've seen that these are fairly consistent with other developments that are occurring throughout the city. Maybe they're happening too fast and the city just can't keep up and so they just defer to the board of zoning appeals. I'd like to. I must order of the development or economic development reasons in the city. But I'd like to echo most of 11 survivors have that this is doesn't seem to appropriate. And to negotiate the signage package on the development. We need to sit and look at that in the greater context of the entire development process and variance really is for our ship or to provide relief to the property owner. And when you're developing a new building out of the round, they really shouldn't even go really at this point. So now I'll leave my comments at that. I would agree with all of all of those comments. It is frustrating that we end up having to deal with this as a variance. I would find out that the architecture review. So in summary, I'm going to comment that. So thank you for coming. Some of the comments and. Given that it's not impacting your. issues with that. I understand. I understand. You need to earn a lot to. As everyone said. There has to be a better place that this is still. Got how many hours spent as the planning. The center has to approve this. Excuse project. But again, I sort of say it's here and I don't see an issue to, and it's point to inject it together, that you, it's not really appropriate. I'd like to just have one thing, you know, I want to but go would not be standing the way of this contest of this project but I am concerned with the light that may be coming on the steps that they could have taken to the scope earlier in the population and evaluate it. You just took it and have these values. So, you know, concerned that at some point in, big, big, big, big, big, big, big, big, big, big, big, big, big, big, big, big, big, big, big, big, big, big, big, big, big, big, big, big, big, big, big, big, big, big, big, big, big, big, big, big, big, big, big, big, big, big, big, big, big, big, big, big, big, big, big, big, big, big the city of and intensity of the brightness. And then impose that the code requirements, but I don't know. It's a quantitative value that they can't exceed certain amount of light intensity. I wouldn't be able to tell you now whether the lights they will have will exceed that if they do, and we get complaints. And then staff goes out there and figures out what it is over the code allowance, then we would ask them to demo it or reduce the lighting spell. Yeah, I think it's reasonable to impose a condition that they are subject to their light intensity regulations in the city charter. And just one to add up a point here that we're using the same consultant from phase one. So it's going to be the same. No means that you're seeing it at the phase one project in terms of lighting. Thank you. I don't know if have no bearing as to. I'm pairing this request to other similarly situated buildings as to whether or not this request is reasonable. All I can see is how they look on various elevation pictures. And so I don't know if it would help in the future for us if there is no resolution from the city about us that doing this, but if we are requesting the future to sign applications. Variants, it would be nice to see how they compare to make the sides of other. Similar to the geratinial rates. Oh yeah, we'll include that in our analysis, comparative analysis between what's approved before and thank you sir. I ask another question, please. Sorry. The way that this motion and resolution to approve is boarded. Simply states that they're allowed to exceed the code. I'm concerned about how it's drafted that it does not reflect. The actual request. Usually when we have a variance request, a motion to approve a variance, we identify how we're limiting the approval of that variance. Ever the 60 feet square feet limit. We're allowing 80 square feet. So I don't know if there's a way that we can limit freedom to exceed code within the actual variance. But that would be helpful to me. I think we need to make it specific to the package of the design of the scene, and with the light and the intensity of the image. I think it's both. I think find you the that language then maybe and even the section number give me one minute. As if we approve this variance, not the no creeper in the carousel. I do this, but they can put up eight sides. science. That's the variances worded. They as they wanted. I found the code section. It is in the environment chapter of the city charter. It's the section is 14-131 Tidal's spillage control. And the provision says, all light sources installed are left to maintain in any district. Shall be shielded or directed so as to confine the area of diffusion to the property which it is intended to eliminate. No light source shall be maintained in any manner or located where it creates a nuisance to the users of a joining properties. Nor shall any light source remain erected, which would create a traffic hazard. Spillage of light exceeding 0.121.0 foot candles measured at any point seven feet beyond the property line shall be prohibited. Yes. point seven feet beyond the property line shall be prohibited. Yes, and that's why I don't know how to enforce that one, but we do have staff who can look at it and we figure it out. Yes, sir. you If it helps the discussion procedurally when after a variance, sign variance has been approved, what's before staff is sign permit application and that permit application has to match the covariance packet that was approved by the board, staff does compare them and then when they do a complete and consistent with the variance packet then they approve and the sign permit can be issued. But if the board feels more comfortable to Mr. Bartlett's point, you can certainly tie the approval to the packet that's in the variance application today. you Section 48, page 1265, page 1265, page 1265, page 1265, page 1265, page 1265, page 1265, page 1265, page 1265, page 1265, page 1265, page 1265, page 1265, page 1265, page 1265, page 1265, page 1265, page 1265, and point the feet above the max on the 10 square feet, one sign to tenet. Not extending above the lower sill line for the second point windows and extending more than two feet from the wall. Two, section 48-1265, brand standing to allow building identification sign quantity above the maximum. One, building identification sign for development. And section 48-1265 and one to go now to all sign and want to be about the max upon two wall signs max upon per business. At the premises known as 103-3 West Broad RPC number 52-100-1070, or the search for zero-70. Of the full search for real property records of the one to business did. And whereas the DCA finds that the applicant has had to follow up with the standards for appearances as at floor of the inflection. And that's to consider one and. And that's to. I'm a third of Virginia at the city of Falls Church zone for the section for the dash one seven to six. And whereas the applicant will remain subject to the still age control regulation one four dash one three one of the false church city charter. Now therefore we have resolved that the user may give us a room variance application be 165-8-24. May I may I amend it without rereading? At each of the bullet points, at each of the reference sections, at the end of the event, can we have limited to the science? The science requires them in the very end of the event. Typically, at the end of the event, every bullet? Yes. I'll second that motion. Mr. Mizlick. Yes. Mr. Ebbley. Yes. Mr. Grestkin. Yes. Mr. Barley. Yes. Motion passed. Congratulations. Thank you. All the record, Mr. Price, when, when is the construction going to be finished? sure they're supposed to. Yeah, all the finished trades now and it's 7 a.m. It's dark out still. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. All right. So we're on to the approval of the minutes from October 10, 2024. Yeah, that's right. Could you please go please. Thank you. I think I was absent by the language then I've been still working with them. you Yes. Yes. Yes. Do we have any other business? Oh, anyone might move to andn. All in favor? I, I, please, Mr. Kean, have a good evening.