Historic Preservation Commission

Transcription

1 Historic Preservation Commission Worksession / Hearing Minutes of September 24, 2012 Commission Members Present Staff Members Present Amy Pence-Brown, Chairman, Barbara Dawson, Liz Edrich, David Ruby, Stephanie Clarkson and Carl Harmon-Vellotti Matthew Halitsky, Rob Lockward (Legal) and Nicki Heckenlively Worksession Window Discussion CHAIRMAN PENCE-BROWN: This is a follow-up to our worksession last month addressing the use of Anderson 100 vinyl windows as an appropriate window. We had a presentation two months ago by Derek Hurd of the North End Neighborhood Association (NENA) regarding windows and we ve all seen the map. It was a great amount of work and a great resource for us and others. He wrote up some great points and most of us have been here for at least one of the discussions about these windows and whether or not they are serving their purpose as inappropriate. MATT HALITSKY: That s correct. CHAIRMAN PENCE-BROWN: I was hoping more of us would be here tonight because we postponed the discussion last time because there were only five of us present. This time there is six with three gone. COMMISSIONER CLARKSON: We should talk about it and maybe we don t need to make a decision, but we should at least have the discussion. This way everyone s feelings are out on the table so collectively everyone can get their word in. Vinyl windows should not be allowed. We have been asking people to take them out when they ve retroactively asked for permission to have them. We re having a hard time coming to a conclusion on how to detail them. Personally I do not feel they are historic material. It is a fabricated material and it is something that is not proven to be life-long material. The windows fail and I don t feel they are appropriate to be in our historic homes. CHAIRMAN PENCE-BROWN: We have had this discussion a million times in the past four years since I ve been on this commission and this is a good time to have it because our guidelines are being revised and we re in the process of adopting those. As a result this is probably why we ve discussed this so many times. To clarify, you re saying no vinyl windows on new construction, old or additions?

2 Page 2 of 34 COMMISSIONER CLARKSON: Definitely not old. I prefer not to see them at all. If we re putting vinyl siding on a new house then I don t see why you couldn t put a vinyl window in, but if we re not allowing vinyl siding then we shouldn t be allowing vinyl windows. COMMISSIONER DAWSON: The major issue we run into with vinyl windows is the application, how they are installed and the fact they don t have the depth of character that a wood or metal framed window would have. Having said this, we also have to look at sometimes I m ignorant to whether side slider windows are available in any material other than vinyl. In some applications like for a basement you ve got to have side slider to meet egress issues. A double hung or a single hung isn t going to get you out of the house and the fire. Do we know? COMMISSIONER RUBY: There are a lot of other ways to skin the cat. COMMISSIONER DAWSON: Available in something other than vinyl? COMMISSIONER RUBY: Yes. I m trying to look at it from both sides. From someone that sits over here and then someone who has to come here and present. I m not necessarily going to go into whether I agree with having them or not, but we should make it clear. This is one of the biggest frustrations people have. Do we or don t we? I hate to have a few of the bad seeds ruin it for everybody, but it seems like we ve gotten into more arguments and more frustrating cases where people have taken advantage of us in some respects. You can have them on this façade, but not that one and if it is only visible here. It would be a lot clearer. It would tick a lot of people off probably because there are some people who bring up a foul argument about the cost. Unfortunately a lot of this isn t quite as true as some of the salesman make it seem in the case where wood windows are a good product. They are a little more money that s for sure, but they re good and they re going to last. The vinyl products are pushed by salesmen who know nothing about windows until they pick up the booklet from the manufacturer, if then. They don t care and are meeting a quota. We use them in commercial work all the time and unfortunately it is a fact of life, but for a historic district if we want to preserve quality this is the way to do it. I have had clients who resist metal clad like you wouldn t believe because of the cost. If you detail it well and do some homework about what you choose almost in every case they come back and say, Oh my god, thank goodness you talked us into that. You can t copy the level of detail in a metal clad window with vinyl. COMMISSIONER CLARKSON: There is a reason why those wood windows have lasted until now and for over 50 years. Vinyl windows fail within five or ten years. It is not historic material and it doesn t have any business COMMISSIONER RUBY: You could counter some of the concerns people have by education and on our part doing a little research on either a class or clinic and how to fix some of these. There s got to be people out there that help people do the weights when they come loose. It can be done. COMMISSIONER DAWSON: It was on This Old House last weekend.

3 Page 3 of 34 COMMISSIONER RUBY: It s not that hard and the good thing about it is if someone has patience they can figure it out. With vinyl you really can t. It is a material that is going to break and will get brittle. COMMISSIONER EDRICH: One of the problems we run into in our guidelines and we talk about windows extensively, there was a quote in the window presentation about windows being an essential part of the buildings and is an architectural feature and a character defining feature. This somehow gets lost. The more we can emphasize windows have become secondary to the process of restoring homes. We need to make sure people understand you cannot restore a historic home without windows being one of the top three characteristics of importance. We cannot say, These are the three approved vinyl window installers who actually install properly and are not lying to you. Since we cannot do this it is safest to make a blanket statement, but we need to really make sure we have emphasized in our guidelines how important windows are to the entire preservation process and that they are not second rate. CHAIRMAN PENCE-BROWN: We ve done this pretty well in our updated guideline process in talking about the importance of windows. MATT HALITSKY: We did try to tackle this a little bit better in the updated guidelines, but it is worth revisiting and shortening up a little bit more because it is definitely appropriate. COMMISSIONER CLARKSON: It is mentioned quite a bit in the sustainable guidelines as well. CHAIRMAN PENCE-BROWN: I agree and it sounds like quite possibly the five Commissioners present are pretty much in agreement saying no vinyl windows. MATT HALITSKY: Would you draw a distinction between an addition on a contributing structure and an addition on a non-contributing structure versus new construction on a vacant lot? CHAIRMAN PENCE-BROWN: I wouldn t except it does seem, based on our current guidelines and the way we ve been offering recently, we do take into consideration the type of windows in existence. If there are already vinyl windows on the entire house we COMMISSIONER RUBY: We do, but for me this is one of the areas where we get bogged down. COMMISSIONER CLARKSON: Right. CHAIRMAN PENCE-BROWN: Right. COMMISSIONER RUBY: If we step back and say the goal is to push our historic district further for more quality we shouldn t care whether it is facing the alley, which a lot of people move there because those alleys are cool. Okay, you can put your ugly windows on the back then? I say this with the caveat that it would simplify this whole ridiculous argument of where we can and where we can t. If you re replacing them they ve got to be this. This way through the years we will increase the quality and you get rid of the salesmen trying to rip people off.

4 Page 4 of 34 COMMISSIONER DAWSON: We do treat new construction different from existing construction. Vis-a-vis metal roofs. We ve got to look at the windows in the same way we look at the materials on new construction. COMMISSIONER EDRICH: That s realistic and I agree with what Commissioners Ruby and Dawson have said. We need to address old construction and new construction the same. If it is an addition on an older home it needs to match the character. From personal experience it is no fun to have a house with a mish-mosh of windows. COMMISSIONER RUBY: If someone comes in here and they re set on a contemporary look they re not going to do vinyl anyway. If you re doing a standing seam metal roof because you love the clean lines of it you re not going to throw vinyl windows in or at least you better not and you shouldn t. You can get clean looking metal clad. It doesn t have to be more ornate. It is still quality and we re pushing quality and the real materials. COMMISSIONER CLARKSON: To reinforce this we typically don t allow new construction which doesn t look like it fits in and isn t respectful of the surrounding houses. I don t know why we would let this one material differ because it is something a salesman has sold someone. CHAIRMAN PENCE-BROWN: I believe we are in agreement and we got some decisions made. However, how do we and should we just do it? MATT HALITSKY: This was advertised on the worksession agenda and we should open it to public comment. If not, maybe make a motion. CHAIRMAN PENCE-BROWN: Before I do this, we are making a motion for this to be in our revised guidelines. This can t be in effect tonight or can it? MATT HALITSKY: You can make the decision that after review and after seeing how composite windows have been installed for the last year or two and after approving projects with vinyl windows and seeing how they ve been installed and how they look the Commission has now found these two materials are inappropriate for renovations of historic structures on both contributing and non-contributing structures. This way it doesn t close the door on any new product the Commission may want to take a look at in the future by saying wood, metal clad wood and fiberglass and that s it. You re making the statement that vinyl is inappropriate and wood composite is not. CHAIRMAN PENCE-BROWN: There is no problem because we have a quorum and there is no reason to push it back for more Commissioners. PUBLIC TESTIMONY DEREK HURD (NENA): I appreciate this discussion and your dislike of vinyl windows and the proposed motion forthcoming. I hope it includes new construction as well for the reasons mentioned and discussed. Wood windows are a quality material and vinyl windows are not and if we have this exception in new construction not only is it confusing for people, but then we have new homes where they are replacing the vinyl windows in five, ten or seven years. I m

5 Page 5 of 34 hopeful it can be an all-encompassing kind of thing in the North End specifically, which I m representing. Like Commissioner Ruby was saying, the level of quality is going up and up and up. He made an important point regarding the alleys being an important part of our neighborhood and this is why a lot of us live there because we have the access to our garages in the back. It is a street front, but there is a lot of stuff going on in the alleys too. COMMISSIONER CLARKSON: People building accessory dwelling units. DEREK HURD: We don t have the quality up front and lesser in the back so I appreciate the Commission taking the time and maybe one last time to talk about this. PUBLIC PORTION CLOSED COMMISSIONER RUBY: I heard the word fiberglass come up and I don t know if we can address this specifically, but in my mind fiberglass isn t a whole lot different from what I ve seen. MATT HALITSKY: For as long as I have been with the City, we re talking six/seven years, fiberglass has always been an alternative to wood and clad wood because they are available with exterior muntins. If you feel otherwise, then now is a good time to discuss this. Fiberglass was approved as an alternative mainly due to cost many years ago. COMMISSIONER CLARKSON: Who manufacturers fiberglass windows? COMMISSIONER RUBY: The reason I bring it up is because I ve had a few projects where it has been tossed around. It is always in the comparable vinyl and fiberglass and then everything else. I m not going to claim to be an expert, but in my mind they are down here where vinyl is. My worry is there is going to be more of it because you re seeing some failures with vinyl. It s not something we couldn t address if we do start seeing a lot more of it. It is not that prevalent, but I have seen more and more of it in the last couple of years especially in more single-family homes. I thought I d bring it up because I hadn t heard a lot of mention of fiberglass yet so I wanted to see if anyone else had any strong opinions. COMMISSIONER DAWSON: Again, it revolves around what it looks like when it s in and the ability of the fiberglass to mimic the wood and the metal windows is much greater than the ability of vinyl. You just don t see it much. MATT HALITSKY: We actually don t see the fiberglass very often at all, but it is there as an alternative right now. It is up to the Commission whether you want to take a look at this now or maybe take a look at fiberglass as a material later if it becomes an issue. COMMISSIONER RUBY: I m not well versed enough to make this outlawed at this point. COMMISSIONER CLARKSON: I don t know enough about it to not have it. On the other hand maybe we should see how only wood goes for a while. Is this not going to be full enough of options?

6 Page 6 of 34 COMMISSIONER DAWSON: Wood or metal clad? CHAIRMAN PENCE-BROWN: Metal clad wood? COMMISSIONER CLARKSON: Yes. COMMISSIONER RUBY: What does it mean if someone does a completely modern home in that neighborhood how would it fit in and say they want to use aluminum windows? COMMISSIONER DAWSON: There are some old metal windows in some of the historic houses which are the old crank out. COMMISSIONER RUBY: More like the steel? COMMISSIONER DAWSON: Yes, the steel ones. God bless them if they can find good windows that we hear about. COMMISSIONER RUBY: You can find them. COMMISSIONER CLARKSON: Maybe we should leave the fiberglass for now and maybe have a worksession to discuss further or see if we can find out a little bit more about them. I d like to see an application. COMMISSIONER RUBY: Ray Westmoreland with Wood Windows, Inc. either reps or has a fiberglass product. CHAIRMAN PENCE-BROWN: Let s not promote it. COMMISSIONER RUBY: It is worthwhile to learn a little more about it because I have a feeling if we take this off the plate then people will be looking for something else. They just won t do what we hope they would do easily not if there is a cheaper alternative they ll try it. COMMISSIONER CLARKSON MOVED TO REVISE THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION GUIDELINES TO NOT ALLOW VINYL WINDOWS IN THE HISTORIC DISTRICTS ON ANY PORTION OF THE BUILDING BE IT NEW, OLD, FRONT OR REAR. MATT HALITSKY: Are you revising the guidelines or are you changing your stance on your interpretation of the current guidelines based on how the windows have been installed over this last year or year and a half trial period? CHAIRMAN PENCE-BROWN: I would say because our guidelines don t address materials and this is a stance we have taken. MATT HALITSKY: Changing the guidelines will require several public hearings.

7 Page 7 of 34 CHAIRMAN PENCE-BROWN: Commissioner Clarkson is fine. I think she can, as the motion maker, if she wants to and because it hasn t been seconded, strike the motion. Is this correct? ROB LOCKWARD: Indicated yes. COMMISSIONER CLARKSON AMENDED THE MOTION THAT THE COMMISSION S STANCE ON VINYL WINDOWS IS THEY ARE NOT APPROPRIATE IN THE HISTORIC DISTRICTS ON ANY PORTION OF THE BUILDING AFTER SEEING HOW THEY HAVE BEEN EXECUTED AND INSTALLED IN THE PAST FEW YEARS. ROB LOCKWARD: Is this pursuant to your current guidelines? COMMISSIONER CLARKSON: Yes. COMMISSIONER CLARKSON MOVED FROM HENCE FORTH THE COMMISSION SHALL NOT APPROVE VINYL WINDOWS. COMMISSIONER DAWSON SECONDED THE MOTION. ROLL CALL VOTE 6:0. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. MATT HALITSKY: Did you want a separate motion on wood composite windows or is the Commission holding off on this decision? CHAIRMAN PENCE-BROWN: Wood composite as in fiberglass? MATT HALITSKY: The Anderson 100 Series which is a wood composite window and resembles the vinyl window. CHAIRMAN PENCE-BROWN: We failed to include in the first motion to not allow wood composite windows which is in general referring to the Anderson windows. COMMISSIONER CLARKSON MOVED THE COMMISSION DOES NOT ACCEPT ANDERSON 100 OR ANY WOOD COMPOSITE WINDOWS IN HISTORIC GUIDELINES. COMMISSIONER DAWSON SECONDED THE MOTION. MATT HALITSKY: I might suggest some reasoning into the motion as to why they are no longer appropriate or the Commission deems them inappropriate. COMMISSIONER CLARKSON AMENDED THE MOTION TO INCLUDE THE APPLICATION OF THE ANDERSON 100 AND WOOD COMPOSITE WINDOWS HAVE NOT BEEN APPROPRIATE FOR THE HISTORIC CONTEXT. COMMISSIONER DAWSON SECONDED THE MOTION. ROLL CALL VOTE 6:0. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

8 Page 8 of 34 HEARING DRH / Peter and Kimberly Henderson Location: 2117 N. 8th Street Demolition of a non-contributing structure in an R-1CH (Single Family Residential with Historic overlay) zone. Lot is to be combined with lot to the north which is not within a historic district. Applicant present and in agreement with the terms and conditions contained in the staff report. NO PUBLIC TESTIMONY. DRH / Amanda and Jeff Schaus Location: 1413 N. 5th Street Demolish a non-contributing single-family dwelling and construct a partial two-story, singlefamily residence in an R-1CH (Single Family Residential with Historic overlay) zone. Applicant present and in agreement with the terms and conditions contained in the staff report. NO PUBLIC TESTIMONY. COMMISSIONER DAWSON MOVED TO APPROVE DRH AND DRH ON CONSENT. COMMISSIONER CLARKSON SECONDED THE MOTION. ROLL CALL VOTE 6:0. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. DRH / Eric Breon Location: 700 Cunningham Place Appeal of a staff level approval for co-location of a wireless communication facility in an R- 2HD (Combined Residential with Historic Design Review overlay) zone. MATT HALITSKY: These are photos of the existing array. You can see the ground equipment below as well. This is a close up of the existing antennas. Here we see the ground equipment with existing landscaping. The landscaping does seem a little sparse. These are elevations of the proposal with the additional antennas. This is the layout and this is a close up of the new ground equipment. There will not be any increase in height as a result of the new antennas. Staff issued the Certificate of Appropriateness with two site specific conditions of approval. a. The new antennas shall be painted to blend with the building. b. Additional landscaping is required to screen the new ground equipment. A landscaping plan shall be submitted for review and approval by staff at time of building permit submittal.

9 Page 9 of 34 However, the appellant is concerned about excessive noise from the existing ground equipment and requests a masonry wall to enclose the ground equipment and help reduce the nuisance noise. This request does seem reasonable and staff recommends the Commission approve the application with the following conditions. The two conditions I ve read which were on the original Certificate of Appropriateness as well as two additional. c. The mechanical equipment shall meet the required five foot setback or a variance be granted by the Planning & Zoning Commission. d. A six-foot masonry wall painted to match the existing building shall enclose the ground equipment and revised plans shall be submitted to staff for review and approval prior to application for the permit. COMMISSIONER DAWSON: There is apparently new construction adjacent to the existing building? MATT HALITSKY: We did issue a staff level Certificate of Appropriateness for a residential property along this street. I believe it adjacent or two houses down from the second property. This did receive approval in the office and it is a non-contributing structure. APPLICANT TESTIMONY CHAIRMAN PENCE-BROWN: This is additional information (appellant handout) and we will include this as Exhibit A. Site visits Commissioners Harmon-Vellotti, Edrich, Pence-Brown, Dawson, Ruby and Clarkson visited the site prior to the hearing. ERIC BREON (Appellant): I have no concerns about site visits. Shown in the upper left is a view from the street and the view from the right is the view from my property looking at the site where one of the shrubs is dead and missing. The existing site was installed in March It took those of us in the neighborhood as a bit of surprise. We probably all received those blue postcards at the time, but we didn t expect anything that looked like this as we were in a historic district. It was a little shocking when it first appeared. Since then it has been a continual nuisance in the neighborhood. First, as you see on the photo up on the screen or on the prior photo they have extended their array outside the 12 x 18 pad. It comes forward about two more feet now so it is within three feet of where this street ends and where their site starts now. This is outside of the initial permit. It makes the landscaping look even worse with the equipment rack right in the middle of it. They ve failed to maintain the landscape barrier and this is the nicest it has ever looked. The shrubs die, they replace them and then the shrubs die and they replace them it is an ongoing cycle. Nothing will grow there. It is on the northern exposure of a seven-story building. Arborvitae will not work there. There is a lot of noise which seems to increase over the years especially in hot weather. Those put off a lot of noise and it is non-stop. It is like having a truck parked outside your house idling non-stop. The next page is a little bit on the setbacks. I don t know much about planning and zoning, but my understanding is

10 Page 10 of 34 generally in the North End it is a 20 foot setback against street side. This is a street side thing and currently the cement pad has a five foot setback against the street and where they ve exceeded the pad with the added equipment is three feet from the street. I d love to see a sidewalk come through here with proper landscaping. This is equivalent to my front yard so I find that it was initially generous that a five foot setback from the street side was permitted for this seven foot tall structure. I m even more concerned with a five foot setback being permitted which they have now exceeded by three feet so it is only two feet from the street. Initial approval was contingent upon them maintaining the setbacks. This is obviously not maintaining the setbacks. Not even the ones initially agreed to. I d also like to point out this is a very industrial looking site. This is a neighborhood where, as just discussed, vinyl windows aren t appropriate. This in no way makes sense to me to have a facility that looks like this in a historic district. On the next page I have the map from AT&T s site plan. If you look at this here it looks like they put this facility in the woods at the back of this big building. All this detail of all the homes on Fort Street, but then in the trees here in the back is this little spot on the back of their building. They ve omitted our street and all of our homes which to me seems a little misleading and deceptive. If this was the real scenario I wouldn t have any complaint, but this has nothing to do with the real scenario. The next slide is from the Ada County Assessor s site which shows what it actually looks like where you can see the neighboring houses surrounding the array and the street. I outlined in blue where the existing platform is. It is right up against the property line. I believe they did a survey initially to make sure it was and then when it was extended it is roughly two feet from the street. It is kind of the gateway from North 7 th Street to Memorial Park. If we go to my front yard I can t put a garage in my front yard and you d never let me put a garage in my front yard. I d argue this is far uglier than any garage I ve ever seen in the North End and there are some ugly ones. I would like to address the landscaping a little more. One of the initial conditions was a four foot landscape barrier. As you can see the equipment they ve added exceeds the landscaping. They ve also done a poor job of keeping it in good condition. It is impossible to have an evergreen landscaping barrier on the north side of a seven-story building with several trees over top. There is no direct sunlight there and a very limited number of evergreens will grow in extremely shady conditions like this. I don t think the concept of a landscape barrier works for this site. The next slide shows why I care. On the left is what the view from my porch used to look like out to Memorial Park next to the building. The view on the right is what it currently looks like. This is not the kind of view anyone should have in a historic district. Personally I feel views like this should exist in commercial districts out by the highway, but this is the North End Historic District and I find it ridiculous it has looked like this the past six years. The next slide goes into the noise. Per the Boise City Zoning Code for it to be a co-location with minimal impact and go through the approval process, Any such installation must be found not to create the potential for adverse noise from generators or other accessory equipment. This equipment is noisy non-stop. It seems to get even louder when it is hot. It is always loud. I measured it with an iphone ap so I m not sure how accurate it is, but it was at 92 decibels right at the equipment and 64 decibels on my property so it is pretty loud. One of my concerns is if we are to increase this facility I m assuming the noise would also increase as part of this. The next slide is about potential options. Initially when I filed the appeal my request was they add a masonry wall around it. Since then I ve spoken with Boise City Housing Authority, the owners of 700 Cunningham. We discussed the feasibility of relocating the equipment to the roof. In my mind this would be the optimal solution. I don t mind the array, don t mind that it s there, I don t mind the stuff on the side of the building, but the ground equipment looks horrible. From the Boise City Housing Authority s perspective

11 Page 11 of 34 there is no reason why this equipment can t be relocated to the roof of the facility. This personally would be my first choice. Noise wouldn t be an issue, the easement wouldn t be an issue and the lack of a landscaping barrier wouldn t be an issue. If we could accomplish this, this would be my primary goal. My secondary goal, if this is not feasible for some reason, would be to put a masonry wall around it. The masonry wall would look a lot more fitting and at least it would match the 1960 s exterior of this specific building as opposed to what it currently looks like. It would also help a lot with the noise. On the downside some noise would still bounce up to the second stories around us and it would still block off the entrance to the park. There still wouldn t be room for a sidewalk, but it would be a lot better than it currently is. Relocating it to a different side of the building where it doesn t face residential uses would be an option. Like over by the maintenance office which would potentially be an option. I d rather not do this because then it is just facing the park instead of facing my house. Finally, removing it. I wouldn t have any complaints about that of course. First as a recommendation I d like to request any future permits such as the expansion they are currently doing at least be made contingent upon it either being moved to the roof if feasible or being surrounded by a masonry wall so the increase and adverse impact would be offset. I would also like to ask and I m not sure if this is the forum, but as they are not meeting the conditions of their initial permit their initial permit was reliant on not creating adverse noise, not violating the setbacks and maintaining a landscape barrier. As these three things have been continually and pretty blatantly broken over the past six years I d also ask, in whatever forum would be the appropriate one, this permit be revoked and this site be removed unless it is relocated to the roof or surrounded by a wall regardless of whether they proceed with this expansion. COMMISSIONER RUBY: You mentioned this protruding to the street two and three feet. Is this on the left side? ERIC BREON: Where the street actually goes. A separate project I want to take on is the street dumps into the gravel at the end of the street right there. It looks kind of ugly. It is both my property and that property. My goal is to have a curb and sidewalk coming around there to clean it up at the end and wrap the curb and sidewalk into Memorial Park. Right now most of the gravel you see almost all of it is on what is officially N. 7 th Street. North 7 th Street ends about two feet from the equipment rack. COMMISSIONER RUBY: Straight into it? ERIC BREON: Yes. This is coming straight towards it if the street were to continue another five or six feet. COMMISSIONER DAWSON: Decibels don t mean anything to me. It is like megabytes and things I don t understand them. Can you give me an example of what 92 decibels is like? ERIC BREON: 92 decibels if you re around it all day you should have hearing protection. 64 decibels, which is how loud it is on my porch is equivalent to having a central air unit sitting on my porch for comparison.

12 Page 12 of 34 COMMISSIONER RUBY: You touched on something and I want to make sure I understand exactly what you meant. When you say masonry wall I m assuming you mean a masonry wall that matches the building? ERIC BREON: Yes. Or a complimentary wall something that would look good with the building. It might be hard to match the 1970 s brick. CHAIRMAN PENCE-BROWN: Has the owner of the building been talked to? ERIC BREON: The building is owned by Boise City Housing Authority. I spoke with their maintenance manager and they are fairly neutral on this topic. They lease the site to AT&T and my understanding is they ve been a little disappointed at AT&T s upkeep of this. They are neutral on this topic and feel it is fine. They weren t sure if it was feasible from AT&T s perspective, but from their perspective it is feasible to relocate the equipment to the roof. Their understanding is there is other cellular equipment from other companies on the roof and they didn t see why this wouldn t be possible, but they couldn t speak to AT&T s perspective on this. CHAIRMAN PENCE-BROWN: Was AT&T notified on this? MATT HALITSKY: Yes. CHAIRMAN PENCE-BROWN: Is AT&T here? (Member in audience indicated yes.) MATT HALITSKY: I want to add with the potential relocation to the roof of the building I am fairly confident the existing building already exceeds the height limit in this zone. If this were to happen a new Certificate of Appropriateness would be required for you to review how they screen this equipment. They would have to pursue a height exception which would go through the Planning & Zoning process. ERIC BREON: One point to add to this is if it were located away from the edge of the building it would then be completely invisible as it is a seven-story building and it is hard to get a vantage point where you can see any equipment on the roof unless it is right at the very edge of the roof. ROB LOCKWARD (Legal Counsel): I need to point out this is the appellant, but the applicant, AT&T, has a right currently under the existing Certificate of Occupancy (COA) to have this facility there. To require them to move the facility to the roof or any other location would grossly exceed what has been requested. If there is a problem with the setbacks and if the appellant feels there has been a violation of the existing Certificate of Appropriateness then it would be a code enforcement action and possibly an administrative revocation of the COA. I believe the Commission would be overstepping their authority to completely and retroactively change an existing Certificate of Appropriateness. CHAIRMAN PENCE-BROWN: You have not filed a code enforcement violation? ERIC BREON: I have not.

13 Page 13 of 34 CHAIRMAN PENCE-BROWN: Staff has recommended Site Specific Conditions of Approval a. and b. Is this correct? MATT HALITSKY: No. There were two Site Specific Conditions of Approval on the Certificate of Appropriateness which I issued, but based on this hearing and the appeal application we received I recommended two additional conditions located on Page 2 of the staff report. There are four total. CHAIRMAN PENCE-BROWN: a. and b. on Page 2? MATT HALITSKY: On Page 1 and then c. and d. on Page 2. CHAIRMAN PENCE-BROWN: a. The new antennas shall be painted to blend with the building, b. Additional landscaping is required to screen the new ground equipment. A landscaping plan shall be submitted for review and approval by staff at time of building permit submittal. c. Mechanical equipment shall meet the required five-foot setback and nonmechanical equipment shall meet the setback as well or a variance shall be required by the Planning & Zoning Commission. d. A six-foot masonry wall to match the existing building shall be constructed to enclose the ground equipment. Revised plans shall be submitted for review and approval by staff at the time of building permit submittal. The appellant agrees with these? ERIC BREON: Yes. I would prefer the roof installation. CHAIRMAN PENCE-BROWN: Per our legal advice this is not something in our purview, but you could file for a code violation to possibly deal with that. ROB LOCKWARD (Legal Counsel): If it violates the existing Certificate of Appropriateness he should contact the City Zoning Enforcement office and they will set up an investigation, exam exactly what the existing Certificate of Appropriateness states and if there is a problem with setbacks, landscaping requirement or excessive noise contained with the Certificate of Appropriateness then those can be addressed and they can also address if there are any independent code violations. ERIC BREON: If it is not possible to require AT&T to move it to the roof would this be an option for them to meet compliance? I m not sure how this process works, but at least it gives them an option because it might be more feasible to move this to the roof than to establish a masonry wall. COMMISSIONER CLARKSON: The new equipment for the application that we re looking at which was received in August has not been installed? MATT HALITSKY: No. The applicant does not have all the approvals they need to install the equipment. ROB LOCKWARD (Legal Counsel): Because this is in the nature of appeal the applicant should have an opportunity to address this since it is their property interest.

14 Page 14 of 34 APPLICANT TESTIMONY CHAIRMAN PENCE-BROWN: The handout from the applicant will be marked Exhibit B. ALEXIS HAMILL (AT&T Representative): This is an existing wireless communication facility. It is located at the building as a co-location as opposed to being on a pole or something in order to stay with the Historic Commission s need to make these with all WCS wood. As we go through this I ll point out some things. Some of which you know in terms of the code. Do you have a copy of the appeal? In the appeal the code listed was I m going to use because this is the wireless communications facility code and I think was an error. If you see this code come up in the presentation I think it was typo in the appeal. It is a co-location and the code we ll look at is We ll talk about decibel levels as well. In this presentation whenever you hear me talk about decibel levels what we re use is the dba Standard. This is a common standard for decibel levels for the human ear. The reason this is important is you can have a very high decibel level and if it was a very high frequency you wouldn t be able to hear it. This is a standard sound engineers use to come up with something that means something to us. The Leq is a study which basically eliminates spikes such as a car door slamming, a dog barking and these types of things. When we look at these numbers later on in the presentation know these two things are in effect on the decibel levels. On the description of the site and previous approvals you ve done a very job of showing what is there so we ll work through those quickly. This is located in a historic district and a preferred type of site to align with the goals of historic preservation back when it was first approved in The initial zoning was given and then put before the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC). A Certificate of Appropriateness was issued by the HPC to guide the layout and construction of the site in December of 2005 and I believe it was constructed in There are multiple wireless communication facility codes. Code is site development standards. The very first line this code, The following shall apply to applications for non-co-location wireless communication facilities in all zone districts. Site development standards shall not apply to wireless communication facilities located on buildings. The code referenced in the appeal is not a code applicable to this site because it is a co-location. The code that is applicable is and it is applicable to all wireless communication facilities. In the grounds for the appeal these are the four listed on the appeal. We ll go through them one by one, but these are taken out of the application for appeal itself. 1. Ground equipment does not meet the setback requirements for As per slide three this code does not apply to this particular communications facility. The proposed new equipment we are looking at putting here will not have any additional encroachment. I ll show pictures at the end of the presentation of the proposed equipment. 2. Applicant has still not met landscaping requirements for the prior install. I went out to the site and it is kind of a mess. There are things that need to be done for us to get back there. We have pictures of the initial install and those requirements were met. It looks like a couple of the Arborvitae have died and as was pointed out this may not be the best option for landscaping. This is definitely something to look at in this new approval and what might work better than the Arborvitae and what might live in this environment. When they go out to the site they do replace things when they notice they

15 Page 15 of 34 are dying, but it seems this has been an ongoing issue of landscaping not surviving there. These are a couple of slides to show what we re looking at. The slide on your left is the side you can see from the public property. You can see the stump at the bottom. There are actually two missing. One would be right in the middle of two Arborvitae one to the right near the building. The initial approval said three to five Arborvitae on center. There are just over four so we re pretty close. They are not quite five feet apart if they were all there. That gap is fairly larger than the interval. On the right is looking towards the construction. If we go out with more landscaping, which we ll talk about doing to cover up the equipment rack, there would be a couple more Arborvitae or whatever we agree is an appropriate landscape material. This picture does show when we looked at the setback issue to see if we were in compliance there looks to be plenty of space here. We did find the monument on the Boise City property, but we could not find the monument property line. It is somewhere in that pile. I ll refer to the expert and assume he knows the property line. We couldn t find it so I won t speak to that because I don t have the appropriate information and we couldn t get that done. 3. The ground equipment is not blended to the environment. Again, this particular code doesn t apply to this site. However, the landscaping on this site where it is complete does a pretty good job of covering it. We ll go through some sound differences on the two sides, one with the full coverage and one without. One of the options might be to put some more landscaping in there so it will blend more. Initially these were thought to become big and expand and be a solid wall. They are doing well here so this might be part of it. 4. Equipment is already 92 decibels at the site and 64 decibels at the neighbors. We did have a sound study done and I will submit a copy of that. CHAIRMAN PENCE-BROWN: We ll mark this noise study from AT&T as Exhibit C. ALEXIS HAMILL: This noise study was done by Tower Com Technologies out of Star, Idaho. They came out with an engineer as well as a sound engineer. You ll see point one; this is the corner of the appellant s property where the little pile of debris was. They did the study over four hours and took an average. We did it in the heat of the day hoping to get as many of those fans on as we could. It was 51.0 dba at the corner of this property and is the side with the least amount of landscaping currently. If you move over to point two, 49.5 is decreased by two dba and is the same outlet from the equipment and same distance from the equipment and has a decreased dba primarily because of the landscaping. Landscaping does work to decrease decibel levels. If it was a complete solid landscaping it would do a better job. Point five is actually in the middle of the equipment with all the fans on. Those fans are basically air conditioning units to cool the equipment. COMMISSIONER CLARKSON: Will the future proposed equipment increase those decibel levels? ALEXIS HAMILL: It is not an accumulative effect when you re talking about decibels so as long as we re not exceeding the highest decibel level there you re not going to add say you have 50 from one and 50 from another this makes100. This is not the way it works. As long as

16 Page 16 of 34 we re not over the 70.3 in the middle of the equipment it is not going to sound louder outside of the igloo. The proposed equipment has a significantly less decibel level regardless, but it won t add to the decibel level outside. Talking about our proposed equipment AT & T is looking to add one panel antenna receptor. There are three sectors on this site for a total of three panel antennas. They will be painted the same way as the existing two and the same color as the building. It will have three more lines coming down the side of the building painted the same way and running through the existing conduit. In terms of on the building you ll see one more antenna preceptor painted the same way. This is all the equipment on the building. In terms of the ground equipment proposed if you see the blocks in the upper right hand corner of the layout to the left of this is the cabinet they are talking about putting in. This will be the existing equipment fitting inside the concrete pad and not encroaching further out into the space. There is a gap there for this equipment cabinet right now. In the picture on the right or the real picture it is to the left of the coax rack. This is where the proposed equipment will be built and again not increasing the height so there is no difference here. COMMISSIONER DAWSON: I can t understand exactly what is there already and where you re adding something. ALEXIS HAMILL: If you look at the diagram this is the new LT cabinet. It does not exist right now. COMMISSIONER DAWSON: Just the one cabinet? ALEXIS HAMILL: Yes, just this one cabinet. It, when you re looking at it, will be in here. COMMISSIONER CLARKSON: What we see to the very right is the equipment attached to the side of the building? ALEXIS HAMILL: On this? COMMISSIONER CLARKSON: No, on the diagram straight above your head to the right. Is this the equipment attached to the building? ALEXIS HAMILL: That is this box right here. COMMISSIONER CLARKSON: In this portion I read that as a wall. This is typically what a wall looks like in a plan section. What is the box which is sort of hatched and more solid? ALEXIS HAMILL: This is more of a boundary. There is nothing there but landscaping. This all sits on a concrete pad, but other than this, there is not a wall or fence or anything like that on this site. COMMISSIONER RUBY: Can you address one of the prior comments about the equipment which extends beyond which was pointed out to be the piece that looks like it is coming through the bush?

17 Page 17 of 34 ALEXIS HAMILL: That is a rack. Again, we were unable to get a good distance to know whether this is within the setbacks. This is approved equipment so in terms of getting to five feet without the property line available was difficult. This is a coax rack and coax is what runs the signal down and into our equipment so it has to have a sweep to it or you lose your signal if you crimp it along the edges. The coax comes down the building on this particular site all the way to the ground and runs around the concrete pad and then it goes up and into the equipment. This is a rack to help it keep its bend to how it needs to be. Again, I can definitely see a reason and a need to do some additional landscaping on the front to enclose this. COMMISSIONER RUBY: I thought the appeal mentioned this was added subsequent to the original. Do you know if this is the case? ALEXIS HAMILL: That s a tricky question. It is not part of the proposed equipment so without going back through and looking exactly at the plans that were in place and approved it is part of the Universal Mobile Telecommunications System (UMTS) which I know was approved to go on at that equipment rack. We would have to go back through and look at it. I know the five foot setback is part of that approval and we would want to look at that. I know they were saying mechanical equipment as well. It s not really mechanical it is just a rack helping the coax around and there are no machines in there. COMMISSIONER DAWSON: Your latest survey was not able to determine whether you are five feet off or not? ALEXIS HAMILL: We were unable to find the marker on the one corner where the pile of debris was to get a line across. We did find the marker on the actual property the site is on. Like he said, the gravel comes in off the street so there is not a definite lot line. If you go off the Ada County website it looks like we re within our setbacks. Again, I am assuming he knows where the lot line is and has it measured out. We would need a survey done to get a good answer. I did talk to the sound engineer about doing something like a masonry wall. The concern with this is it will deflect the sound straight up. It is the Housing Authority so people are living in the upper stories. He thought and as you saw where the sound study is the landscape is a good buffer for sound. If we can get the landscaping do a good job of masking the ground equipment it is probably the best all the way around. There are no other masonry walls on this street or in this neighborhood. You just don t see them so this is a concern. This would be a decision for the Commission to make as to whether you want that there or we want to work with the landscaping to get a good plan in place of things which will live and do the job they expected this to do in the original approval. COMMISSIONER EDRICH: Aesthetically it is done with very poor effort. Such a large corporation must not really communicate from top to bottom on every department. The people going out to check the facilities aren t necessarily aware of the requirements. They are just replacing a dead tree. It makes me nervous to think about having the assurance of, Oh, we re going to do a better job at our landscaping now. How do we make sure this is a realistic approach to being a permanent buffer for this neighborhood? ALEXIS HAMILL: This is my professional opinion, but when AT & T gets an approval they are required to meet the conditions. In this case if they are not then the neighborhood needs to

18 Page 18 of 34 send them a letter and see if they fix it, but if they wanted to just get enforcement that is definitely an option. There is nothing against this. The concern is, like you said, when you re dealing with a bigger company do the approvals from the top get to the contractor going out to build the site? We hope so, but not all the time. In this respect this appeal is a great thing because it is making us look at the site and really get into it. It is obvious the landscaping needs some work regardless and is on the agenda based on the approval given with the plan submitted and that it be something that actually does do what it was designed to do which this is not doing. COMMISSIONER CLARKSON: How do we deal with this issue of some of the conditions in the appeal not being something the applicant needs to be held to as far this facility being exempt from the code referenced in the appeal? ROB LOCKWARD (Legal Counsel): Are you referring to it qualifying under Title 11 Chapter 18? COMMISSIONER CLARKSON: Yes. ROB LOCKWARD (Legal Counsel): I believe this is the general standard for wireless facilities and other types of communication facilities that do have modified setbacks and other modifying requirements for the placement of such facilities and is the applicable code exception to apply as you re considering whether or not this addition to the existing wireless facility equipment is appropriate. Certainly if staff wants they should jump in on this as well. COMMISSIONER CLARKSON: My question was more about the presentation heard from the applicant when she stated the code is something this particular wireless facility is not slide four in the applicant s presentation discusses this. MATT HALITSKY: The applicant is correct in that Section which is the Site Development Standards do not apply to a co-location which this is. However, you could use those standards as a guide to determine whether the development is congruous with the neighborhood which is the finding the Commission makes. Those development standards would include setbacks, separation from other wireless facilities, height, screening and landscaping, color and placement, lighting and these sorts of things. ALEXIS HAMILL: One thing to point out and I hate to say it over and over again, but this is an existing facility with an approval already in place. The application AT&T submitted was truly for the additional cabinet and the three panel antennas. COMMISSIONER RUBY: Do you happen to know if the company who did the decibel testing was the company that installed this? ALEXIS HAMILL: I don t know that for certain, but I don t believe so. One is an engineering company and typically for construction we ll use a construction company. I could find this information out such as who the contractor was.