Planning Commission - public_hearing

We're waiting for one more board member, so please excuse the delay. Thank you. Okay, all board members are here, so let's get started. Welcome to the September 14th meeting of the Board of Zoning Appeals. For those who have not been to a meeting, here is a brief procedural overview. So when a case is called, the city staff will present for up to five minutes their case, after which the applicant and their representatives will also have up to a total of five minutes to present their position. And finally, the case will be open to public comments, with each speaker also limited to five minutes per speaker. Members of the public must fill out a speaker form for the record. And you can find those forms outside the room. The board may ask questions during any of these presentations. And the response to the board's questions do not count against your five minutes. However, speakers are asked to only respond to the question and refrain from elaborating, restating their position, or asking questions of the board. Once public comment is closed, the board will deliberate on the case during which the board may ask additional questions of staff or the applicant. As always, during this time, speakers are asked to only respond to the question and refrain from discussion. The Board of Zoning Appeals is a seven-member board with a four-member quorum requirement. All motions must have four affirmative votes to pass, regardless of the number of board members in attendance. So with that being said, Ms. Christensen, please call the roll.

Mr. Liu? Here. Mr. Justice? Here. Ms. Evelyn? Here. Ms. Brombasheer? Here. Mr. Burke?

Here.

Mr. Foley?

Here.

We do have a quorum. We do have an update to the docket. The BZA case 2026-00-0109, Potomac Court has requested a deferral.

I make a motion to grant the deferral.

Seconded. Okay, all those in favor of deferring that case, please say aye. Aye. All those against? Aye. Okay, the motion is passed five to one.

Next item. The next item on the docket is BZA 202600013, 908 Beverly Drive. Public hearing and consideration of a request for a special exception to construct an addition in the required side yard zoned RE residential.

Okay. Staff may begin their presentation whenever you're ready. Sure.

Good evening members of the BZA. My name is Bill Cook with the Planning and Zoning Land Use Preservation Division. This application is for special exception to construct the second story addition in the required west side yard. The addition simply extends the vertical plane up with no change to the building footprint. The R8 zone requires a minimum eight foot side yard. The existing side yard is 7.9 feet. With the proposed height of the addition, the requirement is 10.75 feet. Property address is 908 Beverly Drive and Alexandria Zone, Beverly Hills, which is zoned R8 residential and is surrounded by similar single unit detached dwellings on similar lots. Here's an existing and proposed front elevation, which is also shown in your staff report. And here is a proposed elevation from the side. We're here because the homeowner requests a special exception to permit the second floor addition in the existing 7.9 foot side yard. And we reiterated the numbers on the slide, which is already in the report, showing the relief requested of 2.85 feet, which is the difference between the existing side yard and the required side yard based on the one to two setback ratio of the height the the new height of the proposed structure as noted in the staff report granting the 2.85 special except 2.85 foot special exception relief would allow The homeowner to add living space that fits to the existing floor plan of the house coordinates with the exterior design of the structure and doesn't necessitate significant invasive foundation work. Staff recommends approval of the special exception request at 908 Beverly Drive. Staff's full analysis of the special exception standards can be found in the staff report and we're happy to answer any questions. Thank you.

Does the board have any questions for staff? Hearing none, the applicant may come up to the podium and present. And please introduce yourselves before you speak. Thank you.

Hi, I'm Louise Muth. And my husband, Tim Fetch, and I own the property at 908 Beverly Drive. And this is Christine Kelly, who is the architect who has been helping us. I would just want to say thank you for your time. Bill, thank you for the report. Mary, thank you also for your guidance along the way. I know you have a lot of these cases, so appreciate you hearing from us. Just wanted to say I don't want to repeat what he has said the walls would be above existing walls It's a substandard lot just like all the rest on our street I think there's 18 houses on our street seven of which have already done this Including the neighbors to the side the neighbors on both sides and behind and in front have all not only agreed but some said do we need to go and show our support which was very kind of them and And so there's nothing there's no new Imposition to any of the neighbors the walls are already there Anything else I should add I want to be respectful that you have a lot of other people to listen to you.

So thank you for your time We have a speaker form Louise DOES THE BOARD HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? NONE. ARE WE READY TO DELIBERATE OR MAKE A MOTION? I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION.

I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE BASED UPON THE STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS AND PREVIOUS PRECEDENTS WE'VE HAD ON SIMILAR CASES.

I SECOND THAT MOTION.

All those in favor of this motion, please say aye. Aye. All those against? Okay, hearing none, the motion is passed. Congratulations.

Next item.

The next item on the docket is BZA-2026-00014, 207 Woodland Terrace, public hearing and consideration of a request for a special exception to construct in addition the required side yard, Zoned R8 residential.

Staff may begin.

Good evening, members of the Board of Zoning Appeals. My name is Sean Killian. I'm an urban planner with Planning and Zoning. I have the pleasure to introduce you tonight the special exception request for 206 Woodland Terrace. It's a special exception to construct an addition within a required side yard, and the key element of tonight's discussion is the expansion of one non-complying wall within the required northwest yard. And on the right there is the plat for the property of the existing dwellings. The location and background information, this is a single unit detached dwelling and zoned R8 residential and it's surrounded by similar residential and is adjacent to a private academy school. The proposed addition is two stories off of the rear of the building and they wish to extend that one non-complying wall. The addition will match the existing height of the structure and therefore complies with all other elements of the R8 zone. the required side yard is requirement it will be 11.91 feet that's based on a setback to height ratio of one to two per the r8 zone they are proposing a five foot setback on that same non-complying wall therefore the relief tonight they're requesting is 6.91 feet staff recommends approval of the special exception as it complies with all the conditions required for special exception thank you

Do board members have questions for staff? Hearing none, the applicant may step up to the podium. And again, please introduce yourselves before you speak.

Hi, good evening. Can you hear me okay? Yes. Okay, great. Thank you, Mr. Killian. Good evening to the Zoning Board. My name is Elizabeth Millett. I am joined by my husband, Brian Millett. We have been proud residents. It's 207 Woodland Terrace. I think the initial deck said 206. I just wanted to be on the same page. For six years now. we moved in right before covid probably good timing but we love the neighborhood the schools and this is genuinely where our family has put in our roots definitely what you would call our forever home actually my parents two siblings and our kids is nine almost ten cousins all live within a mile so They probably wouldn't let us leave even if we tried. But we are, jokes aside, in this house for good. Our daughters, Nora and Caroline, are four and seven. And the reality is that the current floor plan isn't going to last much longer. We have two good sized bedrooms upstairs. But reconfiguring the second floor will help us make sure that the very tiny bedrooms are bigger to help them grow with it. We worked with our architect very thoughtfully to ensure that we are respecting the character of our home, our block, and the beautiful green surroundings that Woodland Terrace is known for. Appreciate the board's time and consideration. So thank you very much.

Thank you. Do board members have any questions for the applicant?

I remember correctly you did have a number of neighbors support you in this endeavor. Yes, ma'am and Especially all those that would be directly impacted. Yes, ma'am.

Thank you Additional questions Okay hearing none we can move on to deliberations Or would someone like to make a motion Mr.

Chair, I'd like to make a motion I would like to make a motion to approve the special exception special exception on account of staffs recommendation Seconded by miss Bailey all those in favor All those against Next item

The next item on the docket is BZA 202600012, 3333 Helen Street, public hearing and consideration of a request for a variance to construct a two-story and a second-story addition in the required rear yard, zoned RB, residential townhouse.

Mr. Killian, are you the same staff member? Yeah.

Once again, good evening, members of the Board of Zoning Appeals. In case you forgot my name, Sean Killian, Planning and Zoning Urban Planner. I have the pleasure to introduce you tonight, 3333 Helen Street. It's a variance request. Once again, the variance request for tonight is to construct a two-story addition and a second-story addition within the required rear setback. The key elements of tonight's discussion is the recent rezoning of the property that happened in 2025 and the rear yard setback requirements. Some context, this is a two-story single-unit dwelling that is zoned RB townhouse and is surrounded by single-unit homes, townhouses, and commercial uses. There's a picture of the proposed addition. The applicant is looking to match the existing two-story structure and extend that further back as well as add on to the existing second-story portion of the other side of the house. The required rear setback for the two-story addition is 21 feet and the requirement for the second-story addition is 17.5 feet. The applicant is looking to match the existing rear setback for both portions of the house at 11 feet. Therefore, for the two-story addition, they are requesting 10 feet of relief and for the second-story addition, they're looking to get 6.5 feet of relief. Staff is recommending approval of both variances as they do meet the standards for a variance. Thank you.

Does the board have any questions for the staff? Mr. Justice? Thank you.

I don't have the applicant materials in front of me, but I remember seeing something for the FAR where Oh, is it on here?

No, I don't have the FAR form here.

Where the narrative said it was below the limit for the lot, but it looked like in the table it was indicating that it was actually above. It's possible I'm misremembering and I'm just relying on my notes here.

I don't believe so. I believe it is. Yeah, so the maximum allowable FAR they're allowed to have is $2,100. With this proposal, they're at $1,831. Okay. Thank you.

Can you explain to us how this is related to the rezoning?

Yes, so in 2025, this went through a rezoning. The property was originally zoned RB, and then it was previously then rezoned to R25, which made the building a non-complying and the lot non-complying. So with it now in RB townhouse, the applicant brought it back into compliance so that basically the property now complies with all the requirements of the RB zone. But to add on to the property, the only way they could do so was to seek relief from the Board of Zoning Appeals.

So the property complies with the new zoning?

Correct, yeah. It just has right now currently the building is non-complying. It has a non-complying side yard setback, but the applicant in their proposal is meeting that setback, and that's why they're only looking to get the rear yard variance.

What was that? So the change that happened in zoning, what was that change? Or how did it impact the property? Was it a change in the type of the use that was available, or what was it specifically?

So no use changed at all. It was just the actual zoning of the property. So it went from an R25 to an RB. So the RB basically allows them to be within the lot size requirements and all the other factors of the RB zone. It's just the fact that the current positioning of the house prevents them from any expansion requirements. without seeking relief from the Board of Zoning Appeals.

You said earlier that it went from RB to R25. Can you clarify what was the initial zoning?

So originally it was RB. Then it went to R25. So this rezoning in 2025 brought it back to its original zoning of RB.

Okay.

And that matches the adjacent properties that surround it.

So RB is higher density than R25?

It does allow for, yeah, especially for a lot of this size, it brought the lot into compliance in terms of the minimum lot size, frontage, and everything of that nature.

Not to belabor the issue, but just for a brief edification here, why did it ever go to an R25 or whatever the other code was? So it went from an RB to an R25 back to an RB.

So when it was originally, when the lot was created, it was zoned RB. And then in 1992, they did a comprehensive rezoning of the city. And a lot of properties were changed. And there's not a lot of explanation for specific properties as to why they zoned them, what they zoned them. A lot of times, we think that it's based on the housing type that was located there. Since this isn't a townhouse, it was a single unit dwelling. that they zoned at R25. Kind of in that area seems to be what they were trying to do. But it made the lot extremely substandard. The R25 zone has a minimum lot area of 5,000 square feet, and this lot only has 2,800. I think it would also be substandard in, I think it's lot width. So this brought the lot itself back into compliance with the original zoning from when it was created.

Any other questions? OK. If the applicant can step up to the podium, please introduce yourself before you speak. The podium is right there.

Scott Fleming, Rush Sterling Architecture, representing the applicant, and the owner, Tomas, is sitting here. So thanks to staff for working with us. I've been to many different boards and commissions in Alexandria, but not the BZA. So I was very happy for their assistance. and coming here. So the house is, as mentioned, it's essentially a shallow depth lot. It's only 50 feet deep, which is pretty unusual for that area and Alexandria in general. And the limitation that it is subject to is on this section. And I saw it flip through with the red line. Just to be clear, it's just the triangular space above the red line. I saw it in your presentation somewhere, the one with the diagonal. There you go. So it's the one-to-one setback due to the depth of the lot, and that triangular shape that's above the red line is really where the relief is being asked for, and it was basically the same rear setback in the R25 zone that was discussed for RB. It's like a slight different variation. in the ground plane existence. So we looked at it a couple different ways. The roof form is a little atypical. It's kind of a pitched roof with then two other forms on top of it. And we looked at roof forms that might be incompliant with that. but due to the depth of the lot you're forcing all the roof forms to the front and It made it very kind of common alluded given the fact that it already had several roof forms already so it seemed like the most simple and logical approach was to take the two roof forms on the that already existed on the top and Extend them back ask for relief in this triangular area which you can see on the top there and then I think there was a It was the 3D in the presentation.

I have this one and then I have these three right here.

It basically takes the existing roof forms and I shredded my presentation. and extends them to the rear with one is a gable roof form and one is a dog leg or like a shed roof that continues back. I think it's in the application materials and I probably left it over at my seat. But anyway, I think that's the general gist. Is there any questions?

Are we ready to deliberate?

I just have a comment. I think this is a weird-looking house That's my comment Thank You mr. Foley any other comments I

I think it's a lovely house for the record and the the lot certainly is peculiar and it's it's zoning that forces this Rear setback requirement Seems unique to the area and I think it's reasonable that the applicant is asking for relief Not even for the full volume of the of the room that they're adding and that's kind of an elegant elegant solution here and I also think it is noteworthy that the addition is basically within the footprint of the first floor of the building. So I think in time you would forget that it was even there.

Other comments, questions?

Mr. Foley? There was no opposition from neighbors, was there?

Not that we received, no.

Were there letters in support?

Yes, I do believe there is a letter of support that we received. I don't have it in my packet currently, but I believe there was one email that was submitted that was a letter of support from a neighbor.

Just for my clarification, the variance request is being made under the RB zone. Correct, yes.

And just to further clarify that, the requirement, the rear yard setback requirement is the same in the R25 and the RB. So even if it was still zoned R25, it would still have this issue of a rear yard setback issue.

Understood, thank you.

I'd like to reinforce Mr. Justice's observation that this is essentially filling in a space between two existing walls and going up. I think based on staff's recommendation, I'd like to make a motion to approve. Okay.

Evelyn is making a motion to approve. Do we have a second second? Seconded by mr. Mr. Justice all those in favor of the motion. Please say aye aye All those against same sign Okay hearing none the motion is passed thank you so much congratulations The next item on the docket is the review of the fiscal year 2026 Board of Zoning Appeals annual report HAS THE BOARD REVIEWED THE REPORT BEFORE THIS MEETING? YES. OKAY. SO WE DON'T NEED A FEW MINUTES TO.

CAN I ASK A QUESTION?

YES, OF COURSE.

I'M JUST CURIOUS AS TO WHY THESE WERE PULLED OUT AS PARTICULAR

They always ask us to look for some unique cases that came before the board or if there's like a certain trend that we're seeing a lot of. So these were two that we sort of thought highlighted some of the issues that the board had been grappling with with accessory structures and fences on corner lots. So that's why we chose these cases.

Thank you, Mary.

So in other words, these were the more contentious cases this year.

I mean, they don't necessarily need to be contentious cases. I think the year before, we had a couple of special exceptions for corner lot fences that were approved. And it was just like a trend that we were seeing. So we highlighted those. But in this particular case, these were some of the cases that had some more discussion and were some of the things that the board's been SORT OF TACKLING THAT ARE A LITTLE BIT MORE UNIQUE THAN THE TYPICAL SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS FOR AN EXPANSION OF A NONCOMPLIANT WALL.

FOR FUTURE ANNUAL REPORTS, WOULD WE HAVE THE ABILITY TO RECOMMEND SOME THAT MIGHT BE FLAGGED AS A CASE STUDY?

ABSOLUTELY.

GREAT. THANK YOU.

MR. CHAIR. YES, MR. FULLER.

It was my experience that it is completely your prerogative to rewrite the report as you see it. It is your report going to the City Council, although as it was clearly articulated to me at one point, as I put a ton of effort into it one year, that the City Council really doesn't review it, but it is an official record, so it needs to be, it's a record that is going to be kept in place so it needs to be factual and it needs to be to the intent of what the report is supposed to be because who knows when somebody might read it or might reference it but it is it is your report to the to the city council understood thank you for for that clarification mr foley and let me just say this much when i was chair i always appreciated the staff helping me get through it not that i did it that many times but it was IT WAS JUST THE ONE TIME THAT I TRIED TO DO IT MYSELF.

MS. CHRISTENSEN, WHEN DOES THE CHAIR HAVE TO APPROVE OR SIGN THIS REPORT?

IDEALLY THE BOARD WOULD TAKE A VOTE ON IT TONIGHT. WHEN DOES IT NEED TO GO TO CITY COUNCIL? THE FIRST OF OCTOBER. SO IT DOESN'T ACTUALLY NEED TO BE A VOTE BY THE BOARD. THAT'S HOW WE HAVE DONE IT IN THE PAST. BUT IT'S UP TO THE CHAIR HOW YOU WISH TO PROCEED.

the report, and I don't find any problems or issues with them. So as much as I would like to rewrite this report, I don't think there's much to correct here. So I think the staff has done a really good job summarizing the case. Any other opinions from board members about the report?

Any problems that you see? Just a clarifying question for the attachment one, the attendance list. It looks like former member Bauman was absent more than 25% of the time but is not listed as those who did not attend 75% or more. Am I understanding this correctly?

Yeah. I think those are only for unexcused absences.

Just for further clarification, I do believe that's changing in this coming year that it's a number of total absences versus Excused versus unexcused and that would be in the training that the city clerk's office provides to the board Is there a procedure for

ADDRESSING ABSENCES? FOR EXAMPLE, HYPOTHETICALLY IF A PARTICULAR BOARD MEMBER DOESN'T SHOW UP AS OFTEN AS THEY SHOULD, WHAT STEPS WOULD STAFF TAKE?

SO STAFF HAS REACHED OUT TO MEMBERS THAT HAVE HAD HIGH ABSENTEEISM. WE'VE CONTACTED THEM. OUR DIRECTOR HAS REACHED OUT TO THEM. WE COULD ALSO RAISE IT TO THE CITY COUNCIL. CITY COUNCIL HAS THE AUTHORITY a member of the Board of Zoning Appeals or any member of the Board could raise it to City Council if they found it to be a problem for the Board. We were struggling with that a little bit last year with some attendance issues and myself, my Division Chief and the Director all had reached out to Board members to encourage attendance and stress the importance of it.

Thank you. Any other questions for staff? Are we ready to take a vote? Yes. Would someone like to make a motion?

I'd like to make a motion that the report as submitted and reviewed by Chairman Liu is approved to be submitted.

Evelyn is making a motion to approve the annual report. Do we have a second? Second. Seconded by Mr. Justice. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. All those against, same sign. Hearing none, the motion is passed.

The next item on the docket is the consideration of the minutes from the July 22nd Board of Zoning Appeals public hearing.

Reviewed the minutes that were submitted with the docket and found them to be correct and accurate to the best of my recollection and I would like to move that they are approved We have a second I'll second it Seconded by mr. Justice all those in favor of approving the minutes.

Please say aye aye all those against aye HEARING NONE, THE MINUTES ARE APPROVED. THAT IS ALL FOR TONIGHT. IS THAT CORRECT, MS. CHRISTENSEN?

YES, I JUST HAD ONE THING TO NOTE. THE NEXT MEETING IS OCTOBER 19th. IT'S ACTUALLY THE THIRD MONDAY OF OCTOBER DUE TO THE HOLIDAY ON THE 12th. SO THERE ARE CASES FOR THAT DOCKET, BUT IT IS THE THIRD MONDAY INSTEAD OF THE SECOND.

I UNDERSTAND. ALSO, CAN YOU GIVE THE BOARD AN UPDATE ON THE SEARCH FOR THE SEVENTH FUSARIAN MEMBER?

I WILL LET YOU KNOW WHAT I KNOW. SO THERE WERE TWO CANDIDATES THAT APPLIED FOR THE BOARD IN SEPTEMBER. COUNCIL DID NOT APPOINT EITHER ONE OF THEM FOR THE BOARD AND CHOSE TO RE-ADVERTISE. SO THE POSITION IS CURRENTLY VACANT AND BEING ADVERTISED. AND WE HOPE THAT AT THE HEARING IN OCTOBER THEY WILL APPOINT SOMEONE IF THERE'S SOMEONE

Is the posting up now?

It is open now, yes. So if you know anyone that is interested in being on the board, now's the time. It is.

OK. That's all I have. Would someone like to make a motion to adjourn?

I would like to, do we have to make a motion to adjourn? Sorry.

I have a question. Sorry. What would make, why would somebody not, is it like a job or like something that you, is there specific people who can't be on the board? I'm just thinking for anyone who would apply.

I THINK THERE ARE SOME SPECIFIC LIKE LIMITATIONS LIKE IF YOU WORK FOR THE CITY OBVIOUSLY YOU CAN OR IF YOU HAVE IT WOULD NOT BE ADVISABLE IF YOU HAVE A LOT OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST LIKE IF YOU'RE AN ARCHITECT THAT DOES A TON OF WORK IN THE CITY IT CAN SOMETIMES BE DIFFICULT BUT OTHER THAN THAT IT'S AVAILABLE TO ANYBODY SORRY WE DON'T NEED TO MAKE A MOTION TO ADJOURN I'M ON MY HOA BOARD WHICH SO THAT'S THE PROCESS FOR THAT SO YES THIS MEETING IS ADJOURNED THANK YOU