 Let the record reflect that all board members are present except for board member Kincaid who it will be here shortly There we are Should we take it from the top? for the for the record great call to order the Regular meeting of the city of Santa Rosa design review board for December 6 2018 and get a roll call Let the record reflect that all board members are present except for board member Kincaid who will be here shortly Great, and I want to reorder the agenda Putting items seven and eight after item five So require a motion are we okay to Okay Approval of minutes from the we don't we don't have any they didn't end up in the package So they'll be in next the next meeting Okay Moving on to board business. This is where I share the purview of the design review board for the public The review authority shall consider the location design site plan configuration and the overall effect of The proposed project upon surrounding properties in the city in general Review shall be conducted by comparing the proposed project to the general plan any applicable specific plan applicable zoning code standards and requirements Consistency of the project within the city's design guidelines architectural criteria for special areas and other applicable city requirements such as city policy Statements and development plans. So that is the purview of the design review board Moving on to public comment on items that are not on today's agenda. So if you have Public comments. I've got one card for Dwayne DeWitt Thank You sir. My name is Dwayne DeWitt. I'm from Roseland and I always like to hear that board business statement first You're one of the only governmental bodies that actually does something like that and it's quite helpful I can't stay for the rest of the meeting because There's an open government task force subcommittee meeting happening over in Roseland at Shepherd school at five o'clock And I just found out about it a couple days ago quite by chance Somehow the open government task force didn't get the word out as well as it could I bring that up here because the same thing is happening with a project being proposed by the Skellinger brothers Development company on Burbank Avenue and the last time I was here at this meeting. I Only found out at the meeting that it had been pulled from the agenda And I thought man, it's got to be a better way because a lot of folks were coming to that meeting that day Needless to say it's created a bit of consternation in the community Because they're uncertain as to what might be occurring and how things are going on I find even the planner of the project has changed and now there's a contract Employee who'll be handling the matter These things become a bit difficult for us community members because we're trying to do our best to help you Make sure that the overall effect of this project doesn't negatively affect the surrounding properties and There's an applicable city requirement That has to do with what's known as open space and parks and the amount that is available to the community they have a Guess you'd say a Equation that they've worked up that they utilize and they say that there should be Six acres of open space and parks per 1,000 residents of the city of Santa Rosa Over in our area of Roseland some of which was just recently annexed a year and one month ago there's far higher density of residents than then the rest of the city and far fewer Acres of parks and open space available to the community So I bring this up because we're also in what we call Tiger Salamander land That's the area where? The California Tiger Salamander is known to have habitat and we're close to it And it's one of these things that should be brought in to the equation early in the process But lo and behold the planners that are handling this project Haven't been interacting with us in the community to get that vital component known as Local knowledge and you need that to make sure and have a good project and make sure it goes all the way through To what they're trying to get I Bring this up to you because I'm hoping that you folks would reach out to the planning department and say look if this project's been Temporarily on our agenda and then polled Please make sure and do all the background work as much as possible as soon as possible So that when you bring it forward to us We know how we can put those low-impact design guidelines low-impact development guidelines Stormwater retention things all those other things that are a part of a really well-designed project Now I want to leave you with one thing Although the three-minute clock has not been on I'm stopping Three minutes. Thank you so much for your time Thank you any other members of the public to comment on an item that is not on today's agenda See none will close that part of the public hearing and move on to Statements of abstention any abstentions from today's item See none Moving on to number seven board member reports any board member reports Item eight department reports bill you have an item for us. I believe I Do just one item I think we may have sent an email out to the board querying your availability for a joint meeting with the CHB on January 17th of next year, and I just wanted to Mention that again if you haven't already responded to Patty if you could do so we are hoping you all can attend the joint meeting will be for One downtown policy project that we are working on and we are likely going to be scheduling another downtown Project application that development proposal, so hopefully you all can attend and if you would please notify Patty So we can ensure we have a quorum And please publicize that far and wide. Thank you What was the timing for that again? Sorry? The time for that meeting I believe it'll be a 430 start time. That's a regular DRB day I've got a question So if we don't meet quorum from both boards for that joint meeting Would we then push it again because I guess we there was thought of having it and then I guess we didn't meet quorum and then Yeah, what we've done in the past is we've kind of alternated these joint meetings So it would be on a regular DRB day and then the CHB would come in for that or then we would then Alternate the next meeting to be a regular CHB day So we would look for another day that would work We could also look for a special meeting date So just throw out an inquiry of a couple of dates and see which one will get the quorum for us We are Awaiting a member a board member to join and I think it would be worthwhile to take a 5 to 10 minute recess to get the full board here. So I will Call a recess for 10 minutes at this point. So we'll come back at 450 Or when the board member arrives, how's that? Move to item 6 our only scheduled item for this afternoon Public hearing for community Baptist Church Foe steeple and building mounted minor telecommunication facility design review This is minor design review and we'll get into that 1620 snowm avenue file numbers prj 18-003 and CUP 18-005 and Dr. 18-005 and for staff report we've got bill rose Thank You chair birch You stole my first slide, so I'm going to go right into my second slide So as you mentioned minor design review, it's for a foe telecommunications Installation in this case a foe steeple It is building mounted to the existing church The proposal at maximum height is 54 feet tall and the footprint is 12 feet by 12 feet There is an additional ground lease area that's separate from the steeple and it's 225 square feet It's for the ancillary equipment and there's a proposed six-foot tall composite wood fence around the perimeter for screening So the zoning code there are not Very many specific standards within the design guidelines This is a minor design review So technically it would go to the zoning administrator But the director has the authority to elevate to the design review given that there is Not that many specific design standards. There has been public interest. The director has determined that this would benefit By coming to the design review board. So as I mentioned, it's minor design review It's a little different than what you typically do with a preliminary and final two-step action This with minor design review is just one action So tonight one proposal before you one resolution as was mentioned the site is located at 1620 Sonoma Avenue It's in northeast Santa Rosa and here you can see in the center of the frame the site And the buildings are located near Sonoma Avenue the south side of Sonoma Avenue parking is to the rear of the building And these are some current street view images you can see from the top image That's from Sonoma Avenue as you come down on the bottom left That's the location of the proposed steeple and then the bottom right is to the rear where the Ancillary equipment will be located So the project came in to us in January of this year At the end of January the project received a notice of incomplete application Then in March a neighborhood meeting was held Later in March we received requests for public hearings the minor actions And I'll get to the both of the actions the minor design review and minor use permit that I'll explain in a minute Those are they come in and are required to have a public meeting and the public meeting public hearing Will be held when one is requested and they were requested in the only differences in the noticing The meetings are conducted in the same manner But we do a broader noticing with public hearings tonight this item before you as a public hearing Then in May a second round of incomplete notification went out Then a notice of application was distributed in at the end of May The project is located in proximity to a creek and therefore the waterways advisory committee reviewed this item The applications were deemed complete in June The Federal Communications Commission has a shot clock So these type of applications regulated by the federal government have certain timelines in which the local agencies must act There were two extensions. Those are agreements between the applicants and the city and then in November the public hearing notices were mailed the on-site sign installed newspaper publications were sent out and then Today earlier the zoning administrator held the public hearing for the minor conditional use permit and that was approved So this is a general plan image the color showing that the general plan for the site and the surrounding area is low density residential and Then the corresponding zoning is R2 Now that R2 zoning is a multifamily residential the general plan designation is for single family so there is an inconsistency there, however, the proposal is allowed in all of the different land use categories and The project itself is consistent with the general plan So therefore we were able to process this without the need for a rezoning application and this was also presented to the zoning administrator earlier today as I mentioned the site is next to a creek that is recognized in the creek side master plan and Hence the need for review by the waterways committee And now we get into some of the images for the proposal. So on the left side of this frame you can see the site plan the location of the steeple is at the Northwest corner of the site at the rear of the building and then the the equipment areas to the south of the site near the creek and then the elevations show as I mentioned the maximum height 54 feet and Then the last image there at the bottom is the screening the composite fence around the equipment area And this is another elevation showing the top of the steeple It's proportion relative to the building the maximum building height at the peak of the ridge is 23 feet and This is a south elevation looking to the north So I'm going to run through a couple photo simulations So this is an existing view from Sonoma Avenue and Then as we put in the steeple you can see its location as I mentioned It's to the rear of the ridge from this view of the existing building And this is a another shot. This is looking north on Hoenn Avenue, and there is the proposed steeple And this is a view southeast from Rosedale Avenue at Sonoma and there's the steeple And this is a close-in shot of the site plan showing the proposed ground lease area It's a 15 by 15 square and then you also see the 30-foot Creek setback The setbacks are measured from the top of the bank and all of the proposed Equipment defense is clear of that 30-foot setback. There's also a gravel walkway that is proposed It's not existing now and that will lead to the equipment area And this is just a little bit of a closer view of the equipment that will be in that fenced area And you can see the screening here as I mentioned. It's a composite material and this is another elevation So the zoning code allows for a six-foot solid fence and two feet of lattice and so the The recommendation here would be to include a two feet Lattice segment at the top of that fence to further ensure screening of the equipment This project is subject to the California Environmental Quality Act Staff has reviewed it pursuant to that act and has found that it is it is exempt Actually, there are several exemptions that apply one is the class one that has to do with existing facilities The other is the class three for new construction or conversion of small structures Sequa also says that those exemptions cannot apply if there is some other exceptional circumstance that exists in this case due to the age of the existing church and the prominence of a pastor that worked there Staff required a historic resource evaluation and the findings and conclusion of that report were that this site is not eligible for listing on any Required registries therefore, there are no impacts to historic or cultural resources So the original proposal was a 62 foot tall steeple with an 8 foot square footprint through ongoing discussions between staff and the applicants in response to feedback that we received from the public the height was Reduced to 54 feet. However the footprint as you can see in this slide was increased to a 12 foot square The DRB should note that building heights may be exceeded by certain features in this case towers Gables spires and similar structures staff finds this to be a similar structure Provided that no portion of the structure is that is over the height limit She'll cover an area greater than 15% of the building footprint area and no tower or similar structure Shall be used for sleeping or eating quarters nor for any commercial purpose other than is incidental to the use of the habitable space within the building Both of these conditions are satisfied As I mentioned we have received public input one of the the Concerns is an objection to the proposed use of this land for a telecommunications facility We receive questions whether this facility is actually necessary and Also questions and concerns about potential health impacts related to this type of installation Those had to do with the use we also received comments and concerns regarding the design Again questioning why the foe steeple is needed to accomplish the coverage objectives for the cell provider also concerns about the height and then Suggestions that this installation be moved to a more suitable location to the rear side of the church building So in conclusion staff finds that there are no unresolved issues with this proposal and is Recommending the design the design review board approve minor design review as I mentioned the minor conditional use permit was approved earlier today I'm happy to answer any questions the project proponent The team is available and will be prepared to provide a presentation as well Thank you bill order of order of business here. We'll do we'll get through questions for staff and City Attorney office is represented here today if there's questions from from the board and Then we will move to the applicants presentation and then we will take comments from the public after that So we'll start with questions for staff Scott. I'll start at your end and bring it down Eric Sabra Kevin Drew I have two or three questions What are the So this obviously, you know, you touched on this as his minor design view not major So there's one action. So it's either yes or no pretty much right either pass the resolution or don't pass the resolution or Or continue it for more information or direction to staff and direction to the applicants Okay That clears out in my mind to and this may be a question For staff and the applicant but because it's in your presentation I'm guessing When the steeple height dropped from 62 to 54 feet that potentially required more Antennas and thus why the footprint enlarge is that correct? I'm not certain of that but that's a great question for the applicant Yeah, okay, and then Yeah, the zoning code reference that you for the Any commercial purpose? So I'm a little curious about that Because this is technically like a lease on the property by the wireless provider to the church. And so that is a commercial Purpose sort of kind of but it's but I guess it is Incidental to the main use of the church because it's such a small component right with that height is that how you're reading that zoning code Exactly how we applied that. Okay. Cool. Thank you Warren yes, I think mine might have been similar to Drew's and that is that there was a discussion with planning commission about height and the actual width of the tower and By lowering the tower it created the 12 by 12 versus it being slightly taller at perhaps a narrower profile Same same question Well begin address that with the applicant as to what the design went after their presentation as to what the design What drove the design and change and that sort of thing? Quick question I think drew your your first question similar to mine and that is can the minor design review? Motion Can the resolution be conditioned also? Yes, it's I would say if you likened it to preliminary design review effectively, that's what you're doing tonight perfect, okay, and then I didn't find it But the staff recommendation the one staff recommendation seemed to be for the additional two feet of lattice on the utility yard But I wasn't sure if I couldn't find it in the resolution or anywhere else Would that be something that we would add or condition? That's correct. I you just reminded me I don't believe it did make it in as a condition of approval that would be the staff recommendation My understanding is the applicant is has accepted that but we can certainly present that to the applicant And if it's agreed upon between the board and the applicant we will add that as a condition Great, that's perfect So I will move on to the applicant presentation if you want to state your name and your relationship to the project before you start I think you can come down here and sit next to Bill and Ashley to present Good evening board members and chair and general public. My name is Jerry Johnson I am a representative of complete wireless consulting on behalf of applicant Verizon wireless I don't have much of a presentation other than to provide the board members with some sample materials and To answer any questions that the board members or public may have with respect to the project if if you wanted to Present the sample materials, I think that would be a great start and then we'll Probably go ahead and take public comment and then in the course of our discussion of the item engage in kind of questions from the board To you, but I do want to get the public comments in Prior to the board's questions. So If you want to make a presentation of the materials at this time, that would be great. Okay So what I have with me are samples of the wood composite material For the fence which will enclose the related ground equipment and then I have a sample Fo material it's a faux brick Keep in mind that the way the vendor prepares the faux materials that it's it's Built to order so what they will do is they will prepare a mold which will replicate the existing church brick material so The grout the size the texture of the existing brick that is replicated And then they will use that to build the faux steeple And if you'd like to you know hold these or I don't know how that Bring those on up and we'll pass them around that would be the best Their sample colors some different materials again, please keep in mind. That's just a sample of faux brick with respect to another project just to kind of give you an idea of How they replicate the material these materials are mold and water resistant they also Allow the penetration of the signals without overheating and things of that nature Great, so if that if that is the presentation at this time I think what we'll do is we'll move to public comment and then we'll jump into questions So I don't have any cards on the item But anyone's welcome to speak at this time if you want to speak from the upper podium up above you can Take turns and line or line up up there, and there's a three-minute time limit and give us your name and your Address I West Daniels. I'm the owner of 1625 just across the street and one of the people that was Really enthusiastic about trying to get the size of this down. We feel like our neighborhood is a dumping ground for microwave towers We've already got a bunch of them within a block of there and and in a perfect world We'd like them to be more spread out And I thought it was a decent idea to put them on wooden poles, but evidently other people didn't At this point having been Vocal and in writing about reducing the the scale of the steeple I've come to some realizations and and I want to give you guys Pictures of St. Eugene's Church, which is a couple blocks away on farmers Lane Montgomery This is a about a 9 by 60 foot steeple and pretty unobtrusive I was I was aghast to find out that there was a change for a small reduction in height. That's not even perceivable Yeah, yeah evidently get a different antenna array and you get a 12 by 12 Really ugly oversized thing And I would like it to go back to 8 by 8 or 9 by 9 like St. Eugene's is and evidently that little bit of extra hype that's difficult to perceive and and that's something that I'm a general contractor, so Maybe I had to know but the general public doesn't know and I didn't it didn't occur to me that That a small scale down like this We would resolve in something that's That's far more detrimental that the the 12 by 12 thing doesn't look like a steeple. It looks like a high-rise so so I would like this to be put back to To the way St. Eugene's is that I think that those design documents are kind of out there either way And so I think that I think that this design review board could look at this and realize that the that the stakeholders Didn't didn't want a big expansion 144 square feet instead of 64 square feet And and it's really not the square feet. It's really the it's really the visual impact So I would urge you to do and and I and I don't think Verizon has a problem with with Revisiting this as long as they can get their cell towers in there. Thank you. Good evening. My name is Allison Chandler I actually live at the house. Mr. Daniels owns at 1625 Sonoma Avenue and that means by the way that I am the house directly across the street from this and and I want to add my voice to his I think the word that I would Use is that I would like to see this be a little more graceful and I think that a Smaller footprint might be warranted. Thank you Thank you very much Anyone else from the public to speak on this item? All right, we'll bring it back to the board and we will Start with questions for the applicant and Scott. I'm gonna make you the hot corner again. So Take it away Were other site or other locations on the site considered and other means of Creating a pole like structure or a or a tree like structure as opposed to the steeple considered Other locations were considered With respect to the church a large part of the design a lot of that input We also received from the property owner from the church and the truth the church trustees And so the location ultimately Is at the discretion of the property owner? And so we've tried to work with the property owner and the public to create something that we thought was acceptable and that looked nice You know that the project is two-fold in that we are Trying to improve wireless services, but also we are trying to Create a feature that is appropriate for a church and so after speaking with the church and Getting their input. This was the design That was accepted by the the property owner Thank you. I don't have any other questions for the applicant eric sabra At the waterways committee We talked a lot about Both the removal of trees and the makeup of the Platform For the equipment what I didn't see in this document was what had changed So the original proposal was a chain link fence And the access was also Paved and so following the waterways committee. We have revised the design to Show a wood composite fence and a gravel access that short Access point to the equipment shelter is gravel. Excellent And You have no trouble putting Lattice work above the six-foot fence correct correct. So if we added that to the conditions that would be all right. Yes As a response to what our members in the audience said You already have a design that's been through A series of hurdles now and that's what's in front of us and you have a previous design that was eight feet square And much taller in my view taller Would you Consider going back to who the taller version So the height of the foe steeple The reduction in height was a direct response to public concern With respect to the height and so we went back and Decided to look at how much we could reduce the steeple without compromising or Without compromising the service objective. So we decided to Reduce the steeple and then after speaking with The construction management portion of the team It was determined that in order to have the antennas configured correctly within that structure We would need to widen the The steeple slightly And the construction manager mentioned that he had also had experience with these type of Structures and that the shorter wider Design would give it a more stout Look versus this really tall steeple and if You had the opportunity to return to the tall and narrow Uh design would that be a burden? No, there may be some Concerns with respect to the width But if the height, you know if If you prefer the taller structure, that's fine that that would be acceptable kevin I just wanted to be clear that you can't do the the shorter height with the the smaller footprint I'm not sure how much of the footprint would be able to reduced without affecting the the configuration Of the antennas, but i'm you know, I can definitely speak with the team And if it's possible that is something that we will do So looking at the sample here This appears to be you know, it's insulation with fiberglass on both sides, right? So In terms of durability I mean this makes sense to me as a material, you know where those antennas are located But not at like the pedestrian level, I guess The human interaction level and so what's the requirement For a structure of this type to have that this rf frequency You know transparent material is it only for the the height of the antennas or is it for the entire structure or You know, what's what are those requirements? I'm just not aware of that so The the overall structure would not consist of that material that would be primarily The portions where the antennas are placed the structure will be built According to california and city Codes and standards so as far as the structural integrity of the structure That is something, you know, we usually provide a structural analysis Those are documents that are prepared by Our architect and engineer firm So the the structure itself will be built to with the proper To the proper codes and standards And I guess we we kind of danced around this but nobody asked it directly But I guess maybe you don't have the answer but I get I'm gathering reduction in height More antennas Thus the wider footprint Essentially right so we have we did not change the height of the antennas That still remains at the same height and with me here tonight is the Verizon Engineer who can answer any technical questions with respect to the minimum functioning height The height of the structure was reduced In in response to to neighborhood concerns So if the the engineers here, I think that's a question I'd like to ask him is what's the minimum functioning height of the antennas What's them? What's the you know minimum required footprint of the antenna structure? Is it ground mounted? Is it actually attached to the building because there's really not a lot in here telling at least me Where you know that that poles come in what it's landing on what is attached to And I think that would impact obviously the the footprint the the ability of that footprint so Hi all good evening. First of all, uh, thanks for having us here. I'm Snehal Tiwari. I'm with Verizon Engineering To answer your first question the Speak a little closer to the mic. There we go. So so to We had to make the structure a little wider for the reasons that when we reduce the height all to the height remain the same We want to configure the antennas in a way for future use if you want to move them around. We should not see blockage That being said, we are still open to To working with the width as Gary mentioned, but we we cannot go back to the eight foot. That's just to Limited space for our antennas given the amount of antennas we're putting in there But we are certainly open to having A different footprint if that's of concern to everyone And do you have any other questions on that? So I think my first question you kind of answered so on the plans that we have We have a 12 by 12 footprint and on sheet a 2.2 You have what appears to be the floor plan layout of your antennas and so you have What appears to be antennas at four feet on center within some type of The azimuth element located between two antennas and so then within that, you know You've got them facing different directly obviously for your coverage Whatever So how are those so those antennas appear to be Mounted to some type of structural element that's going between the sides of the structure is accurate So usually within that structure they mount the pipes and on pipes the antennas are mounted I'm not a construction nurse. I cannot specify on every aspect But usually the antenna is mounted and behind the antennas the radios are mounted Okay, and then the power and the cable goes down all the way To the main there's no uh in this in this layout. There's no Ground-mounted Pole and then the pole runs up This is relying on the four sides that are then attached to the building to provide the structural rigidity For those antennas to be mounted inside of that 12 by 12 box. That's correct. Okay And then the ground-based equipment is where the lease area is and then it runs down Right. Yeah, it goes down into a yeah, it's got it goes into a trench and then it runs over the the ground unit Okay, so then you were saying With the 12 by 12 footprint That's kind of optimum for you in terms of future antenna relocation You know if it's it's preferred by our engineering because we can move it around it's it's convenient for us but Again, I mean it's it's it's not a make or break situation there. I mean we can reduce it We just cannot eight foot is way too less to to do any kind of tuning and with the limited height Which is 50 foot 54. I think in the situation We really want to make sure that we have the maneuverability in there Where we can if we need to change the directions of the antenna to better optimize the network we have that So if you went up in height Does that give you more flexibility in terms of shrinking the footprint or are you still in kind of the same situation? When you say up in height, so like if you went from 54 feet to 70 feet, let's just say Does that give you more flexibility with Yes, because if you go higher and in every situation is different But ideally if you are higher about certain height it just becomes noise because you're transplant everywhere, but Every time you prefer higher ground because then you can you can always shrink it down We can reduce the coverage by doing tilt by reducing power, but we can never gain coverage So if you are below a certain height you start every tree every building Starts obstructing your view. So it just dies down. So if let's say you plan to cover 5,000 people you end up covering only 3,000 and then you have to go and propose another facility to cover the rest Around the fringes. Okay. I think that makes sense today. Cool. Thank you Morning One quick question I notice with your between the the antenna and the wireless surge protectors and the the radio units As I look through a lot of your images as far as any interference with those between Screens or mesh any anything metallic aluminum does that does that compromise the signal? That's correct. And that's the reason we want a little wider footprint So we can still control it from the pipes or the pipe months We have because if you have if you shrink it too close and your antennas if you turn it Then the edges of the structure. I believe have Have a steel So you don't want those because that is going to block and reflect the whole thing back and that's Distorting the signal that that's why you've got this almost a triangulation your your triangle shape is offsetting the corners so that the Electromagnetism isn't compromised exactly great. I have a couple of questions about the I guess my My concern is that This sample of brick from the vendor is the only material that we have and there's not There's different levels of detail and different details within the package about what the tower looks like So in the plan set there's a suggestion of I think Horizontal reveal bands that stack up and in the photo simulation. There's a vertical tower with Corners that are colored almost to look like wood beams coming up to a top I'm I'm finding it difficult Just to understand what the design is and I don't know if there's something in the materials that you can point to That for the design review board are going to sort of clearly tell us What we're going to see should this be approved and should it get built because there's just a variety of things here So I don't know if there's any Explanation that you want to make or bring forward about Which is the which is it is it is it horizontal bands? Is it what I see in the photos photo simulation? What yeah, I don't know which of you should answer that We would replicate what is shown in the photo sims after speaking with the foe vendor We were advised that as I mentioned it is built to order and so if the board would require that Materials are presented prior to any type of building permit being issued or anything of that nature that That is something that we can do We did try to obtain samples prior to the hearing and the vendor indicated that You know, they would need to go out and actually Look at the church Structure they would replicate That existing brick material and colors and then they would provide us With with samples Chair birch Yes, I think I think I'm keyed off on one of your questions It looks to me if I'm interpreting this drawing correctly and the applicant team can confirm this with me But the horizontal banding appears to be the metal structure that we're seeing in plan on a 2.2 with the elements That's what I would think it would be and that's gives them the flexibility to have their antennas Wherever within that structure. That's the way I would read that It's more of a working drawing the skeleton more of a working drawing that shows the skeleton and then it has this like kind of First line that shows a cutaway. That's the cutaway. I understand. Yeah, so that's it So the photo simulation is the representation of what this will look like Corrected. We we submitted several different designs. Um, and then this is the preferred preferred design Great, thank you any other questions for the applicant before we bring it back to the board All right. I have one more and it's really just to clarify when I choose questions Is how is the faux brick go all the way down to the ground? Is that the intent? So it would be an overlay. Correct. There would be the um Underlying structure and then there would be the faux material Over that structure over the skeleton But how is it the entire height of the structure? Does it go all the way to the ground? All the way to the ground. Yeah, okay Mr. Chairman I I have a question And my I'm I'm disturbed that that that when this was uh presented to the community It was presented disingenuously with an eight by eight that we now understand could not be built I appreciate I think I need to keep the meeting in order. I understand your concern And I think that as the board discusses will probably get closer to probably bring that concern forward. So Thank you very much So we operate With Rosenberg's rules here and this is a little bit different system if you're not used to it from the public And that is that we look to bring a motion forward regarding the resolution at the start of our discussion Um, we look for a motion and then we discuss that motion very specifically in theory and most of the time it works It gets us to a clear Quicker resolution On a motion. So I don't know if there's a motion that is a board member interested in making a motion at this point We can start without a motion. We can do a number of things. What would the board? Like to do I'm not comfortable making a motion, but I think um, we should perhaps Have some discussion and then go from there. Yep that that works for me scott. You want to start the discussion? Yeah, sure, um, so Sorry, uh, personally have several concerns about the height the faux nature of the materials um, and the general location Kind of in turn with the height of the proposed cell tower and faux structure surrounding it Um, you know, I I get the concept I understand that the property owner prefers it to be at that location, but I would prefer to see a metal pole with antennas Pure and simple back of the property near the tree line And and forget about the faux business. I think the It's totally disproportionate to what's there and then add the faux nature of the facade to it. It just it just looks completely out of place With the property itself and then given the neighborhood single story structures for the most part Um, I don't know just Doesn't feel like it fits to me. So that's Going to where I sit as far as comments eric I believe I read somewhere because Doyle park is nearby and there's actually the entrance off the hoan avenue extension with a large baseball field there But I believe I read somewhere in the study if I Miss Johnson, maybe if you can correct me that that location was not Piece of bowl in regards to Uh, what you were trying to accomplish in regards to reach correct In regards to comments, I don't I don't have as much of a concern um, and I'm certainly sensitive to To the neighbors that are are bringing up some of those issues um But at the same time, I think that the impact is Minimal they'll always be an impact with cell towers Uh, and I I appreciate Verizon trying to minimize that Though the people that are here are the ones that are being impacted and i'm sensitive to that but I don't um I certainly feel that it's The least the least impact possible In accomplishing the same the goal that the Verizon is trying to accomplish Thank you Sabra Sorry There's something really pure about having cell towers look like cell towers and uh The sad truth is that a lot of us own cell phones and none of us really want to live near cell towers Or many of us don't want to live near cell towers So it's a convenience that people find somehow disturbing My own feeling is that The church benefits from this by getting someone else to build a steeple And that may be a big part of the reason why its design is as it is Um that steeple whether it's this height or taller would be a significant marker for Telling people directions It also clarifies and calls out that this is a church And so there's i'm seeing a benefit to the the property owner That uh a pole or a fake tree would not provide But at the same time I think My hesitation will continue to be the impact on the neighborhood from a design standpoint And so i'm struggling um if there's a convenience to having good cell coverage And yet um there's an impact that people Fear from seeing the raised tower So one of my questions of course now that I've thought through if is if I understood correctly That you could have a taller narrower profile For this faux steeple Because that would give you some flexibility in how the various arrays were arrayed that by Reducing the height you have to have the various antenna all in line rather than vertically composed and adjusted Back and forth to reach the coverage area If that's correct then I think As I as I'm thinking through that issue I would prefer to see a taller narrower footprint Kevin I agree with my earlier colleagues and I don't um I'm not opposed to the steeple being in front of the church for the reasons that seara went through But I think that it really has to be more true to the authenticity of the church itself In the materials and that that the faux brick just doesn't do it for me Especially down at pedestrian level So uh more authentic materials on it and I would prefer First choice would be the lower height and a smaller footprint Second choice would be taller height smaller footprint And the equipment stuff in the fence is fine true So um I did my homework actually and I have some things to read So uh The form in the massing does not keep with the existing church building The square footprint of the steeple is too large And does not match the aesthetic or time period of the existing church at that dimension When and if steeples were built in the mid 1950s during this time period They were either integral to the building or were wildly separated Usually thin and tall expressing metals or others similar to the main church buildings materiality There's a precedence for a large steeple or tower and actually as the gentleman from the public mentioned St. Eugene's is a great example similar time period similar building form and massing however The scale then of a steeple attached to this building needs to match the building and fit in with its materiality and context As of right now, I cannot approve this design as it is not of superior design in our design review board guidelines As it does not keep all four sides of the structure into its context and also the scale and nature surrounding building in the neighborhood Some references for existing churches in california that would be good to look at Are the west covena christian church in west covena st. Rita parish wayfarers chapel and la uh Then some other ones i found christ's church lutheran in minneapolis uh by sarinan new life worship in sarasota Resurrection of our lord parish in st. louis st john's abby and waco st martin's lutheran church in austin texas Chapel of the bountiful ninth ward in utah brisbane branch chapel australia faith lutheran church 1957 grand rapids I think it's torn down. That's why I have a date church of the lds in highthill maryland High park christian church in austin texas and st. Eugene's cathedral in san erosa One thing to note about st. Eugene's as st. Eugene's is about 15 feet taller in the building itself Therefore its steeple Being at 50 or 60 feet makes sense contextually with that building So if even at 54 feet this steeple is quite large for a 24 25 foot tall building So that being said those are my comments. I'm i'm not opposed to the steeple. I'm not opposed to a cell tower I just think if we're gonna do it we got to do it right And to echo kevin's comments It can't be fake In the pedestrian area. I think my question was very pointed In the area that needs to be rf transparent Obviously you would use the material appropriate for that area, but otherwise it needs to be a real structure Thanks warren Thank you Firstly, I want to thank staff for bringing this forward to the board. I know it's a tender issue I I reflect on some of the comments about the public about height and width I'm not a go on the brick at all or simulated materials in some ways Firstly, I I think it's an interesting wedding to have The the church benefits and communications benefits. So I'm not against cell towers Short of relocating it completely somewhere else not as a steeple I was remarking you have a killington vermont representation And It's when I think about openness like like the st. Eugene's the very top of it It's it's called kind of an egyptian eye that you look through A much smaller building Crate vine is a is it maybe a mini version, but it's a The idea that instead of just having a blunt top to this your eye follows through a canopy element Um It's the heaviness that troubles me over the lightness and what's intriguing about science physics and the the need for Communications is in your killington vermont application. It's actually There is a dissection or a fragmentation. You see this form in its mass Disappears more because you you you have the four steel legs flying through But instead of using brick whether it's metal or planking or plaster I you know I years ago I was a student of of russian and gothic architecture and how all these masses and buttresses work It's 2018. We're in this tech world and i'm trying to get my head around the visual and Maybe even if it was a narrow or an eight by eight profile I'm I'm not of the mind to ever want to prove the brick are a solid chunk a pike that even eight by eight going there. I I think to To drew's comments about height with proportions I don't want to use the word playful because that's not a respectful word for a church, but I think about how What what's really happening here is that the the bones inside this are four metal columns The the radio transmitters have to sit up at a certain height But the ability to to allow banding or or the breathing of the structure It's almost like suspended blocks if you took kids kids play box and and you I did a little sketch, but imagine Three to four foot gaps And then an eight foot and three foot eight foot, but but the idea that This structure tends to be something along that line It ties back to bruise Drew's comment, excuse me that There are precedents in the 50s 60s of detached steeples that have kind of a sculptural lighter flavor to them. They're They use steel and metal on on you. There's a there's a chapel there 1780 lupa that has a a steel Pike structure and it doesn't take away from the mass of the building that was circa 62 So my my common is that I'm not 100 opposed to where it's located. I think it's I think it's too opaque Um, I think it's it's mass even at eight feet is is not unsubstantial I would be personally willing to look at some way to Look at it as a as a metal structure with with panels That would maybe create a in a sense a steeple like form Um, but I I'm trying to be forward thinking Trying to wet it to this adobe structured church, which is a real hat trick You know as as druid mentioned to his credit He's trying to look at the history when the church was built I don't think anyone here is real hot on the idea of simulated brick So those are my comments Thank you Warren I think my my comments are in line with uh, virtually everything that I've heard here. Um, I've said I say this every time we have a A monopine and I can't believe I'm pining for a monopine Thank you. I worked on that all day But I but I I I'm okay with naked cell towers and I wish actually that I have seen a couple of examples of very contemporary Art Structures That become cell phone towers just a totally different approach something that becomes different than than a monopine or a monopalm or a and actually just recently driving in Nevada I saw The most unique thing I've ever seen Luthor Burbank would have loved it It was palm tops That were furry and almost like a deciduous tree on the trunk on the way down Or I don't know if they were trying to solve two problems But it was like the world's greatest stuck together tree I would prefer a different location on the property to the steeple I I keep It's interesting because I think the foe is supposed to You know relate to the material But it really is a foe steeple because it's essentially a It's essentially a 54 foot tall tough shed right now that just grew up behind the church And I can't wrap my head around its position and driving around the building. It doesn't make any sense and steeple's to drew's point You generally had a completely different function. They were either a freestanding sort of Place banking call to the church called a prayer out at the edge of the property or they're really centered on the building and I will say that looking through your vendors materials Frankly, I'm really impressed with a lot of what I see As possibilities, but I do see churches, but I do see steeple's on the front center top of the church I do see things that have architectural Context to them and this has none so my perspective Rethinking the location on the property thinking about a tree thinking about Something that's different than the steeple would be my first That would be my go to if we're going to stick with the steeple. I think that there have been several good comments made here I agree that we would absolutely need Building materials that were not faux building materials Up to a certain height and I think that we could your vendor it would appear that your vendor could probably Create a material for something over 30 feet Or 35 feet that may or may not be noticeable I have my concerns, but I'm you know, it's possible Warren's comments about the design of the tower are really well Well, you know, I believe that that really needs to be looked at The historical report called this a contemporary gabled design And the design of the tower right now is sort of a functional mid-century just sort of a really kind of a baseline Mid-century design that doesn't relate to the to the to the building at all as best I can see I'm I was trying to find anything There's an adequate number of details on the building that Something could be brought to the tower But I think from my perspective it would require a combination of some real materials up to a certain height And a real redesign of the tower if it was going to happen I would also be Very very much in favor of a smaller footprint in a taller tower We got a we got, you know It's tough. It's a two-humped camel designed by committee. It sort of good ideas caused This to change and that to change and all of a sudden we got this very strange Now it's not anything other than a box with a cross on it. So Those are my comments as well. I I'm I'm not sure if Given a good selection of comments here if there's a motion that we Need to make we could talk about whether or not a continuance is is an opportunity for the For the applicant based on the number of responses that I've heard Am I able to add any comments? I just wanted to add that Applicant does have control over how the structure is built and so if the board Preferred that the materials other than What is located near the antennas are real materials that is acceptable if the board prefers a taller smaller footprint That is also acceptable. I also want to add that during You know this design process we did look at various churches all over the country all over the world and there's I understand the history behind the steeple and the design of it But after review of all of these different churches, there was really no one particular design there were lots of various unique Steeples and so That was the attempt here was to try to mimic the existing structure to some degree But also add something new to that Existing structure So that is why we selected the brick with the wood which did does mimic What we thought the existing church building, but You know with the understanding that steeples are unique structures to churches Yeah, I I think I mean I I appreciate that As a as a starting point here as a as a thought for what would Maybe this could be better than a than a fake tree or something of that nature that the steeple Is a good direction to go this board was appointed by the city council design professionals building building professionals Objective is to sort of get our two cents and get our take on whether or not You hit the home run or or whether or not it needs work And I and I think that the opinion that I've mostly heard is that it does need some work I have two quick questions It Shot clock fascinates me Is is is We're having this great discussion here. We're working on Something that would be suitable for the applicant and the church and the neighborhood um Is this discussion one that is going to have legs Because of FCC regulations and shot clocks and that sort of thing Perhaps so the shot clock as I mentioned It's a federal regulation and it limits the time frame that cities have to act on a telecommunications installation The shot clock for this project Ends on december 20th The next designer view board meeting is december 20th So there's a potential option to bring this back to the december 20th meeting If we do that as the board routinely does we would need an applicant would need very clear direction The applicant In an agreement with the city, but it's the applicant has to be okay with an extension Can agree to that so the shot clock as you saw in my presentation. It has already been extended twice We would have to put that request to the applicant and see if they were willing to do so And then I wanted to mention one other thing regarding the location the height of this use As I mentioned earlier the use permit was approved today by the zoning administrator That allows and permits this installation at the location that you're seeing here and at that height if the Board wishes to Relocate this to another location Then that is going to affect that use permit and because this is not a this use isn't permitted by right because it needs a use permit Most likely it would have to go back through the use permit process. So This is a little more complex than what we normally have because it's it requires a use permit as well Chair birch Have a follow on question bill So with the use permit I mean, it's essentially locking in the site plan, right? Is there flexibility? Like To move it like a foot this way or does it need to be in the spot that the spot spot? I guess is what i'm asking Well, I think we would look at it for general and substantial conformance. So if it wasn't intensifying or exacerbating any Design criteria, then we would be we would find that acceptable what process what request or or action tonight would Effect whether or not the shot clock got moved back again thinking about Just just distilling What is being said here with the use permit? It would certainly sound like what we're What we'd be seeing would be a redesign of the tower. It's december 6 december 20th is the next meeting There's a lot of input from the board here um Not sure if if two weeks is enough time to reinvent the steeple Or not. So I Where do we go with the discussion about the shot clock and a continuance? Is that a conversation? With the applicant and and your team bill or yeah, that's what that's what typically happens And so it's with verizon and their representatives their legal representation. They work with our staff We've had a very good ongoing relationship with verizon as you've seen they've already extended it twice So it really is a question for verizon. I don't know if it's something that can be answered here tonight Certainly staff is willing to work with this applicant in an ongoing fashion I think Perhaps what We would want to do here is see if there was a motion for Denial or continuance or approval. We turned if that turned out to be a motion for continuance to the 20th I suppose that's as far as we can push it. It can't be a data uncertain past the 20th Because the shot clock and then if the shot clock discussion took place Subsequent to this meeting The We could we could you know The date could move out two weeks four weeks six weeks eight weeks give applicant time to Put together a new design or the applicant could have the design ready by the 20th Yes, I I think what you just described could be an option that is pursued tonight And I would agree if it's a motion to continue that definitely to the date certain of december 20th With specific direction to the applicant and staff as to the types of changes that you would like to see For their return on the 20th and if in fact we can reach a tolling agreement Thank you. We could potentially extend the time Chair birch Yes, I'd like to make a motion actually chair birch if I may I'd like to uh I'd like to let the applicant comment on the shot clock If the board would like us to continue the hearing to Put together a more acceptable design applicant is willing to extend the shot clock or or take the necessary steps to extend the shot clock to allow the continuance So ashley, I'll ask you if that Is is is it the cleanest safest way to if if a continuance is the motion Is it is it safe to move it to a date uncertain Tonight or do we move it to the 20th and we put that question to the applicant? We'll see what they say great I'm sorry We would be ready on the 20th Okay, if that's acceptable, okay Great, so we'll um true. You were gonna make a motion. I'm yeah, I'm ready um Okay, I would like to make excuse me I would like to make a motion to continue Uh community baptist church foce depot and building mounted minor telecommunication facility design review minor 1620 cinema av file number prj 18-003 And c up 18-005 dr 18-005 to a date certain of december 20th with The following Conditions as we determine them I guess yeah, we'll we'll develop those Editions in the text we'll develop those conditions during the discussion of the motion Have a second second Discussion This would be a good time to probably catalog comments it sounds like we are Based on the use permit for all intents and purposes we are reduced to the discussion of improvements to the design of a steeple versus a monopiner another location on the property so Scott I'll start with you and We can just maybe try to make sure that we hit the high points and make sure that we incorporate everything that The good comments that came forward I'd say that based on the fact that the site plan is locked in I'll let other people make design comments Eric No comments Sabra I think in general we all wanted to see it made with better materials taller narrower and And I'll leave it to others to define architectural terms Kevin I'm the maybe the lone guy thinking that the shorter height is better but definitely the smaller footprint and more attention to authentic materials At least to the the 30-foot height ish realm and above that it could be really well whenever it needs to be I got summarized as it drew a couple thoughts so this is a vague comment, but And I said it in my comments, but The design of this church steeple needs to be of superior design And I think what we mean by that is it's an all-encompassing comment That reflects board member Zuko's comments about Real materials to an acceptable height perhaps 30 feet a design of the church steeple that Reflects the character of the building that it's attached to the context that it's related to And so I'm open to it being A steel structure with stuff up high I'm open it to being a solid structure with Relief at the top like st. Eugene's it just needs to be a well-thought-out superior design to me right now This is a box that just got stuck on this on the side of a building and So we need to elevate The level of design More and before I get to you I've heard a couple of things maybe you can chime in on this too Drew you just talked about you just talked about shorter If if if necessary But one of the limitations that we think we have from an engineering standpoint is that added height gets us a smaller footprint And in in sort of playing a logic game It also got us a little further down the road toward what some of us discussed as a more As a more traditional steeple, right? So Trying to put together a quick Sort of a I guess these aren't conditions or these conditions that we're putting together here Their directions their directions I if I may just as I mentioned the use permit really does limit how much This uh footprint and height can be modified. So I would just encourage the board to Place these suggestions as encourage the design team to review these because We may well come back and say this was as far as we could go to Also conclude that the proposal that they come back with is still in compliance with the use permit So I think that being said I would say that the recommendation that I would have Is that we need to maintain the 54 foot height that's in the package Because I understand the 50 foot height to the centerline of the antennas is Kind of the make-or-break deal for you guys, which makes sense and that we explore potentially reducing the overall footprint of the steeple itself to To something that's a little bit more manageable in the massing with what it's adjacent to And I think that that can make sense with the way that your antennas are laid out It's just a matter of kind of coaxing it all to kind of cooperate. Is that right? I made an I've got a note here for the for the record that I'll send on this is encourage redesign of steeple with smaller footprint Desired to be as close to original eight foot by eight foot as possible Can I can I have one more comment Edward? Is it possible to reach out to the church and have one of their trustee a representative from the from their trustees? Provide us some input in regards to what their interest is. I'm not hearing any interest From from the lisi Yes, I can speak with the pastor And get his input from the church trustees, but we have worked really closely With the church throughout the process and so We would be more than happy to do that Warren I didn't forget you. That's all right. Go ahead go ahead All right. I appreciate it. I I'm gonna use the word Lightness of being is actually a spiritual word as well I've been concerned about the mass in general and you know comments from the public about it's it's it's so opaque so Strengthening Drew's kind comment about Massing I would I would really like to see more transparency. I'm thinking 50 percent Of this is not opaque. I just I'm throwing a number out, but there's sketches on the table here, whatever but but even having this Form have legs Where it's not a mass at the base and that it has skins going up but that Explore the lightness of being of this structure. Not that it's tubby and solid or or tough shed but that it's actually Empower yourself with the metal corners take it all the way up and think about banding that has birds It can fly through the banding So I know that's hard to type out. I'm sorry Michael for that, but But Okay, thanks I've got a second. I've got a second These aren't conditions. I hope you're probably taking notes bill. You're taking notes. I'm taking some notes as well We want to give you guys as much To go forward with as we can Encourage redesign to include materials authentic to the church at lower level of steeple And and and I those are building real those are real building materials living outside of the faux world Warren I think that overall you're encouraging Additional detail and potentially Open openness At various levels of the of the steeple Is there a sketch that goes with that for the applicant? I it's shameless. I threw some sketches. It's I want to say something if I was a member of the congregation the idea of come and be part of this There's less and less suspicion with with a massive pike like this If it's more open it actually it has a an inviting flavor to it. So um You know, I I think that's I think that's well said I'm shameless and I've thrown some things out or just in respecting staff knowing that we're at a point where it's locked in where it is And it's got to be there And the idea that a structural engineer that that details this and works with its wind Shear is it is it uh region c Kevin for wind shear Our work yeah, we're exposure c here Exposure b. Okay. I'm getting techie here, but Exposure b whatever opaque things you put up there. They're gonna have to overcome wind so that the Pike stays where it is in the wind but You you can use this integrity to your benefit. It could be a thrilling structure that way and it's very functional with uh Where those radio towers are when I talked about screen or perforation. I didn't want to get in the middle of of electromagnetic problems, but um I just I think the openness would be really thrilling And maybe overcome things so I the reason I I wanted to say as much as 50 as I'm I want to show intent that it could be beautiful if I said nothing and it came back with just 15 percolation. It's not going to cut it. It's got to it's got to go for it I have a third encouragement Encourage redesigned to include a variety of materials and details with some openings or changes of surface plane So um three three quick notes we can uh, we can Incorporate into the um motion with a friendly amendment Um I will say overall what I think we've tried to capture in the notes and in the conversation is Just an ambition to reach for a more designed Clote, you know a more designed Um steeple than what we had which I think we all felt was just a bit Plain and it's sort of baseline. It's sort of drawn where it could be um And I think that it's going to be very very important and I You know hear the public comment too. I just want to say myself as a chair I hear the public comment about because a lot of the material still says eight by eight Is still represented in eight foot by eight foot structure in the package So the the the historical analysis and or the environmental analysis still says eight by eight And I think that that representation that became 12 by 12 It it probably threw this conversation into a very different light So I'd really encourage you to see about how you can bring that footprint down Those numbers seem small bringing something in but you know anyone who builds or anyone who designs knows that you Reduce the the radius the circumference the dimension of something this way visually especially with something tall It it loses weight real quick and I think it would Be really a good step forward. So I've got the three Encouragements, I guess we'll call them. They're not really conditions, but That we can add by friendly amendment Sabra I move those three conditions as a friendly amendment And to the motion maker Well, I accept the friendly amendment the second except Any other discussion before we go to a vote on the motion? Patty Breyer Goldschlag I Kincaid I Weigel I Zuko I Hedgepath I And birch Yes Great. Thank you very much. See you again before Christmas. Thank you Moving on to we we covered board member reports. We covered department reports item nine One more note from Mr. Rose one quick announcement. I failed to mention the department reports. So we do have Changes afoot with the city council and so therefore that could then have an impact to our boards and commissions So the protocol is that you all serve until or unless you're replaced So I would just encourage you to do so if any changes come about Great. Thank you and with that we are adjourned