Board of Zoning Appeals

1 2 REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS 3 City Council Chambers 4 300 Park Avenue 5 Falls Church, Virginia 22046 6 October 15, 2015 7 7:30 p.m. 8 9 1. CALL TO ORDER 10 VICE CHAIR KRASNER: It's 7:30 here so I'm going to call the 11 October 15, 2015, meeting of the City of Falls Church Board of Zoning 12 Appeals to order. 13 Mr. Boyle, roll call. 14 15 2. ROLL CALL 16 MR. BOYLE: Mr. Williamson, is not present. 17 Mr. Krasner. 18 MR. KRASNER: Here. 19 MR. BOYLE: Mr. Calabrese, is not present. 20 Mr. Howell. 21 MR. HOWELL: Here. 22 MR. BOYLE: And Mr. Jones 23 MR. JONES: Here. 24 25 3. PETITIONS 26 VICE CHAIR KRASNER: Next order of business, any Petitions? 27 Anyone here to speak on anything that's not on the agenda tonight? 28 Hearing none, we'll then move on to New Business. 29 We're going to hear the cases in the order that they're 30 listed on the agenda tonight. 31 I'll also say, as you can see, we are short. We have a 32 quorum. We are a Board of five, we have three members present, so I 33 want to inform everybody that in order to have a positive result you 34 need three affirmative votes. 35 So knowing that, you have the option, I will tell you, at 36 any point in time either before your hearing or during your hearing 37 you wish to continue to a later meeting where we might have more 38 members, a full contingent, you have a right to do that at any time 39 up until the time we vote. Just so you're aware you have that 40 option. 41 With that, I'm going to call the first case. 42 43 4. NEW BUSINESS: 44 a. Variance application V1576-15 by Greg and Catherine 45 Annalisa Aldana, owners and applicants to allow a front yard setback 46 of 36.5 feet instead of 50 feet as required by the front yard 47 averaging provisions of Sec. 48-1102(c) on premises known as 609 48 Knollwood Drive, RPC #52-603-016 of the Falls Church Real Property 49 Records, zoned R-1A Low Density Residential. 50 51 VICE CHAIR KRASNER: V1576-15, Greg and Catherine Annalisa 52 Aldana, at the property at 609 Knollwood Drive. 53 What I'll do also, anyone wishing to speak on this case, 54 please stand and raise your right hand. 55 (Witnesses sworn.) 56 VICE CHAIR KRASNER: The way we'll handle each case is 57 we'll have Mr. Boyle, staff, provide a summary of the case and the 58 applicant will get a chance to provide any additional support or 59 presentations on the case. We'll then open it for public comment, at 60 which point applicant has time to rebut afterwards and then there 61 will be deliberation. 62 With that, first for the record, could you identify 63 yourself, name and address. 64 MR. ALDANA: Greg Aldana, 609 Knollwood Drive, 65 Falls Church, Virginia. 66 VICE CHAIR KRASNER: Mr. Boyle, could you give us a staff 67 presentation on this application. 68 MR. BOYLE: Yes, sir. Thank you. 69 You should have in your packets a very complete submission 70 package provided by the applicants that includes a summary of what 71 they're hoping to do, what they're asking for, plats and surveys 72 showing the proposed construction as well as the relationship of the 73 abutting residences in that neighborhood and letters of support from 74 neighbors that they were able to secure. 75 I think I'll defer to the applicant for their presentation 76 but I wanted to point out that this is the first front yard setback 77 variance of this particular type that the Board has seen and so I 78 wanted to explain a little bit about on how this has come to pass.  79 This street sees a situation where virtually all of the 80 houses are set a great distance back beyond what the Code minimum is. 81 In that neighborhood the standard is 30 feet and I think most of the 82 houses are running in excess of 50. 83 When the applicants spoke with us about what they were 84 hoping to do in the way of new construction, the plans they were 85 considering and the presence of the tree necessitated that the new 86 structure be pushed forward. And their front yard setback is 87 determined by an average of the houses on either side but no more 88 than 50 feet. So you're seeing some unusual numbers in 89 what they're asking for and that's because the setback is determined 90 rather than hard and fast 30 feet, it's an average of the houses in 91 that neighborhood. 92 So with that, I'll defer to the applicants and their 93 presentation. 94 MR. ALDANA: Thank you. 95 Basically what we're asking for is we've lived in Falls 96 Church City for about 5 years now and obviously we love this area and 97 want to raise our family here. And we'd like to build a new home 98 here. We love our street, we love the area. 99 When we started looking at different builders and what type 100 of home we wanted to build, we wanted to build something that would 101 fit in with the look and feel of the neighborhood, we love the 102 Virginia Forest subdivision area of Falls Church City, we love all 103 the trees and the shade and we didn't really want to build anything 104 that would disrupt that. 105 So we're trying to build a Craftsman-style house that kind 106 of fits in with the look and feel of many of the new homes that are 107 being built in our area. We're keeping the same width that our 108 current home is. 109 But we really want to save this beautiful tree in our back 110 yard. It's about 100 years old. It's a fairly healthy tree that we 111 had examined by the City arborist and a private arborist as well. 112 But in order to not build or dig any closer to the tree and 113 disrupt the root structure, we need to push our home forward about 13 114 feet, 13 and a half feet closer than the 50 foot setback that's 115 required by the average setbacks. It's still about 6 and a half feet 116 behind the minimum which is 30 feet that's required by the City. 117 Most of the homes on the street are older homes so I think we can 118 anticipate as these homes are probably torn down over many, many 119 years and maybe the setbacks might change in the area. But we 120 really want to keep the look and feel of the neighborhood. 121 We have spoken with all of our neighbors on our street and 122 the surrounding streets. We've had overwhelming support. We've not 123 run into anyone who's opposed to our concept of moving the setback to 124 about 36.5 feet and saving that tree. 125 Particularly our neighbors on either side of us, one of 126 those neighbors is present here tonight and very supportive of this, 127 of what we're attempting to do. The neighbors across the street, 128 around the corner here, so we really have full, 100 percent support 129 from our neighbors, even some of the neighbors who were not able to 130 submit letters in time for our application are actively supporting 131 this and what we're trying to do. 132 I don't know if our builder, Stanley Martin -- 133 MR. SCHNITZER: Michael Schnitzer, president of Stanley 134 Martin custom homes. 135 I think Greg hit most of the topics. I would say just 136 generally speaking, if you look at the street, you'll notice there's 137 a lot of on street parking so with the new home, and it is modest at 138 44 wide, and it's about 5 and a half feet below the maximum zoning 139 height so it's not going to overwhelm the neighborhood. 140 But being able to have a two car garage with a double wide 141 driveway, allows for four cars to have off street parking and not one 142 of these driveways where it's single loaded where even if you could 143 park two cars in tandem, typically one car parks on the street 144 because the husband is trying to get out, the wife's behind him, so 145 we think that's important from a safety perspective. 146 I think Greg hit the nail on the head. We really tried to 147 have the fenestration and the elements fit into the overall feel of 148 the neighborhood and certainly porches are big. 149 The other thing I would say and this is probably kind of 150 ancillary, is we also take pride in building so as you probably know, 151 are you familiar with home energy scores and HERS ratings, things of 152 those nature? So average home, maybe 120, 130, older home. Our 153 homes on average, this was about 800 homes last year, averaged about 154 56 on the HERS score. So our carbon footprint is relatively small. 155 VICE CHAIR KRASNER: This largely was precipitated by the 156 presence of a mature tree in the back yard? It seems like that was 157 the main driver in your request to site the home closer than what 158 would normally be permitted? 159 MR. ALDANA: Uh-huh. 160 VICE CHAIR KRASNER: And your application doesn't get into 161 the details related to that and you provided some materials from your 162 arborist. Could you elaborate on that. 163 MR. ALDANA: Yes. The tree has been estimated to be a 100 164 year old Poplar. It's a pretty significant size tree. 165 There's an entire grove of poplar trees in the 166 neighborhood, on our property and the adjacent properties, and we've 167 had it inspected on an annual basis to make sure that it's healthy, 168 and everyone we've had come out said it's very healthy and it's 169 actually a very important tree to the surrounding trees. It provides 170 shade to the neighboring properties as well and it actually protects 171 some of the other large trees in the neighborhood that if we were to 172 remove this tree, request to remove it, it can negatively impact a 173 lot of the other trees in the area. And we definitely don't want to 174 disturb the area and we don't want to do anything that would cause 175 the whole look and feel of the neighborhood to change. Because 176 people that move on the street and neighboring streets really like 177 the look and feel of that Virginia Forest area. 178 So we didn't want to do anything that would negatively 179 impact that. 180 VICE CHAIR KRASNER: Your arborist confirmed that where it 181 is located by the house at the required setback, it could injure the 182 tree root? 183 MR. SCHNITZER: Yeah. So I'm sorry. The arborist's name 184 is Ed Milhous. The City's very familiar with him. Ed's consulted 185 with the City and when sometimes we're between an urban forestry 186 person, Ed steps in and acts on the City's behalf. He's a well 187 respected arborist. And Ed's opinion is the tree is magnificent, if 188 you read his summary. 189 And we work very close with Ed Milhous and our engineer to 190 kind of pressure test, how far back can we push it. Can the engineer 191 push it back a little bit and we've got to have an overdig, right, we 192 got to do some positive grading away from the house and by Code, 193 that's another whole story there. 194 So we pushed it as far back as we humanly could while 195 making sure that at the highest level that we're going to save the 196 tree. So, we spent quite a bit of due diligence making sure we got 197 this right. 198 We also then went to the City's arborist, the current Mrs. 199 Reich I believe, and she wrote a letter in support and really would 200 like to save the tree. That's the beauty of Falls Church City, 201 right, beautiful trees, things of that nature. 202 VICE CHAIR KRASNER: So the house when it's built now, how 203 far will that be from the critical root zone? You're staying out of 204 the critical root zone? 205 MR. SCHNITZER: Yeah. So, A, we have to stay out of the 206 critical root zone and, B, we have to -- we will have some overdig 207 which is already accounted for in the distance in separation from the 208 tree and the house and the positive 5 percent grade away from the 209 house. 210 So we are, once we get there, it's all just kind of 211 handwork, to make sure the swales are moving water around the house 212 to the street. So we really are doing very little to that entire 213 tree canopy. 214 MR. ALDANA: If you read some of the details in the letter 215 from the arborist, we have a stone patio behind our current home and 216 basically they said that no digging could take place beyond that 217 current stone patio, where that is. That is kind of where they drew 218 the line of demarcation and that's -- there will be some distance 219 between where the new home ends and where that no dig zone starts 220 that would allow us to not affect the root structure of the tree. 221 VICE CHAIR KRASNER: How deep is the house as proposed? 222 MR. SCHNITZER: It's nominally 50 feet deep. 223 VICE CHAIR KRASNER: What's your current house today? 224 MR. SCHNITZER: It's about 20 -- 24 if you include the 225 portion with the patio, it's probably more like a 30 foot footprint 226 with the house edged by about 34 or 35 feet. 227 VICE CHAIR KRASNER: So you're building over the entire 228 footprint of the current house and then obviously going forward and 229 back just a bit for that curve. 230 MR. SCHNITZER: I mean in theory, I may be incorrect. 231 Obviously John would know. But if the maximum you can place a house 232 is no greater than 50 feet, the established line is actually beyond 233 where we could even put the house. 234 So if you look at other streets in Falls Church City, we've 235 built several, certainly each street has its own unique kind of feel, 236 but there are many houses that are nominally 33, 35, 36 feet from the 237 street, so it's in keeping with the macro approach to the City. 238 We thought the biggest thing that we could do is get 239 overwhelming community outreach. So if the neighbors who are the 240 ones that are going to be affected are all in support, we figure we 241 had a pretty good case that the Board would say, you know, at least 242 judge this favorably. 243 MR. ALDANA: We tried to select a modest footprint of a new 244 home. We've seen many homes around Falls Church that are extremely 245 deep, 70 feet deep, some of these bigger lots. We purposefully went 246 out looking for something that's a little more modest and no more 247 than 50 feet deep, which is a pretty average and reasonable size for 248 a current new home. 249 VICE CHAIR KRASNER: What's the square footage of the new 250 house? 251 MR. SCHNITZER: On two levels, about 23 -- 252 MR. ALDANA: The current home or the new home? 253 MR. SCHNITZER: No, the new home. About 20 -- 254 MR. ALDANA: 34, 35. 255 MR. SCHNITZER: Are you including the -- 256 Mr. ALDANA: No. The finished two floors above grade are 257 3498 and I believe the basement is probably another 700 square feet. 258 VICE CHAIR KRASNER: One more question. The oversized 259 detached garage that you have, that's going or it's staying? 260 MR. ALDANA: No, it's going. 261 VICE CHAIR KRASNER: And all the asphalt that now leads 262 to that garage? 263 MR. ALDANA: That's going. We're replacing the side. 264 VICE CHAIR KRASNER: You'll be removing that curb cut? 265 MR. ALDANA: Yes. 266 VICE CHAIR KRASNER: And replacing it with a new curb cut? 267 MR. ALDANA: Yes. 268 MR. SCHNITZER: I believe I can find this information for 269 you but I would suspect that the overall post-impervious is going to 270 be less than pre-impervious. 271 MR. HOWELL: Just a couple of questions. First of all, 272 congratulations on the presentation. It's a very comprehensive story 273 and it made it very easy to understand what you're proposing, why 274 you're proposing it, the fact that the City arborist and your own 275 arborist were so supportive of the idea of taking these steps to 276 preserve the tree, very clearly explained. 277 And then the letters from all the neighbors were obviously 278 very persuasive too because everybody who could conceivably be 279 interested is taking an actively positive line to what you're 280 proposing to do which is all very encouraging. 281 Just on the question of the driveway. Looking at the 282 drawing of the new house, you have a double garage, right, on the 283 right side of the house? 284 MR. ALDANA: Correct. 285 MR. SCHNITZER: Correct. 286 MR. HOWELL: Can you explain for me on the design plan, the 287 proposed driveway, how wide is that and how does that relate to the 288 double garage? Is it a double? 289 MR. SCHNITZER: No, it's actually 16 wide. So if you look 290 at, let's see if we have a bigger -- if you look at the overall width 291 of the garage, it's either 21 or 22 feet. If you look at the green 292 shaded area, you'll see it's punched in. 293 MR. HOWELL: The green shaded area where? 294 MR. SCHNITZER: Can I just check? 295 MR. HOWELL: Yes. 296 MR. ALDANA: It might be on the second drawing. There's 297 several drawings. 298 MR. SCHNITZER: So that's nominally 16 feet. 299 MR. HOWELL: 16 wide. The entrance to the garage is about 300 20 feet wide, right? 301 MR. SCHNITZER: Yeah, yeah, exactly. 302 MR. HOWELL: And 16 feet is two car widths, two cars can 303 park next to each other on 16 feet? 304 MR. SCHNITZER: Right. 305 MR. HOWELL: And if I understood your previous answer to my 306 colleague, the existing driveway and the separate garage on the left 307 and the current situation, is all going to be completely taken up, 308 it's going to be grass? 309 MR. ALDANA: Yes, grass. 310 MR. SCHNITZER: And it clearly states it on the site plan. 311 It will say "to be removed." I don't know if you see that, it says 312 one story. 313 MR. HOWELL: Yes. Oh, it says so. Okay. 314 MR. ALDANA: So everywhere the existing driveway is and the 315 existing disconnected garage, that would be grass. 316 MR. HOWELL: Thank you. 317 VICE CHAIR KRASNER: I'll open the public hearing to 318 members of the public. Anyone who wishes to speak on this matter, 319 would you come forward. 320 Anyone? 321 Hearing no one, I'll close the public portion of the 322 hearing. 323 Any other questions? If not, we'll deliberate on the 324 matter. 325 I think that the -- actually just to confirm for the 326 record, you did submit multiple statements of support from your 327 neighbors just to confirm. 328 MR. ALDANA: Yes, yes. 329 VICE CHAIR KRASNER: Out of that list, does that include 330 neighbors on either side? 331 MR. ALDANA: Yes. One of those neighbors is present here 332 tonight. 333 VICE CHAIR KRASNER: As well as directly across the street? 334 MR. ALDANA: Yes. There's one home that's directly across 335 the street that's on the corner of Anne. It's an older woman who 336 doesn't leave the house much. We're not able to get in touch with 337 her. 338 VICE CHAIR KRASNER: I was just going through the address 339 that were there. Both sides, either side. So both sides on either 340 side as well as across the street. 341 MR. ALDANA: Yes, yes. 342 MR. SCHNITZER: Multiple. So both adjacent houses and then 343 houses beyond are all in support, including across the street. 344 MR. ALDANA: Correct. 345 MR. SCHNITZER: There was one lady, the older lady, there 346 was another house that caught on fire, we would submit that they're 347 in a little bit of kind of emotional turmoil. 348 MR. ALDANA: They e-mailed us their support and said they 349 would drop a letter off but obviously they haven't. But they did 350 give us their support. 351 VICE CHAIR KRASNER: I'll give my, as we deliberate here, I 352 think overall, I mean, in some ways when I first looked at it I had 353 some pause because it looks like the first house on this block that's 354 going to be built this close to the street. The other homes on the 355 street, including the one that looks like it's been significantly 356 remodeled, was able to stay within the required setback using the lot 357 averaging. 358 However, again, I think the extenuating factor here is the 359 presence of a mature tree. So, the fact our City arborist as well as 360 the applicant's private arborist have submitted materials for the 361 record indicating that by siting the house as has been proposed, it 362 greatly improves the chance that this tree will survive the 363 construction. 364 It is a large tree. I think it's shown at between, 365 depending on what plan you're looking at, 48 inches and 51 inches in 366 height, which is a pretty significant tree, and certainly preserving 367 a tree of that nature there's some benefit from that and the fact 368 that the existing house was built relatively close to that tree, 369 granted that tree was probably smaller when that house was built, but 370 that house was built that way, and again, one more question. When 371 did you buy this property? 372 MR. ALDANA: We bought this in July of 2011. The previous 373 owner had been there since 1969. 374 VICE CHAIR KRASNER: And that tree likely predated that as 375 well. 376 The conditions that you found yourself on the property were 377 not of your own making as far as I can tell. The tree was there. 378 So I think trying to balance out that issue of changing the 379 character to some degree but preserving the tree, it's a balancing 380 act. I think the positive support of the neighbors goes a long way 381 for me personally in trying to make that balancing, make that 382 decision. 383 So I think I'm inclined to support it. Given the tradeoff 384 of losing that tree, I think allowing some relaxation of the standard 385 I think is warranted here. 386 MR. HOWELL: I move to grant the Variance Application 387 V1576-15 by Greg and Catherine Annalisa Aldana, owners and 388 applicants, to allow a front yard setback of 36.5 feet instead of 50 389 feet as required by the front yard averaging provisions of Section 390 48-1102(c) on premises known as 609 Knollwood Drive, RPC #52-603-016, 391 of the Falls Church real property records, zoned R-1A, low density 392 residential. 393 VICE CHAIR KRASNER: Do I have a second? 394 MR. JONES: Second it. 395 VICE CHAIR KRASNER: Any discussion? 396 All those in favor of granting the variance as stated in 397 the motion -- actually before we vote, just for condition purposes, 398 I'd like to condition it on, again the specs by the City arborist, 399 the final block grading plan, to determine that the house would stay 400 within limits of the existing house and patio which is detailed in 401 the arborist's letter that's included in the package. Conditioned on 402 that, as well as what's shown on the variance plat submitted as part 403 of the application. 404 MR. BOYLE: Yes, sir. 405 VICE CHAIR KRASNER: All those in favor of the motion to 406 approve the Variance, say "aye." 407 (A chorus of "ayes") 408 VICE CHAIR KRASNER: Opposed? 409 (No response.) 410 VICE CHAIR KRASNER: Motion carries. 411 MR. ALDANA: Thank you for your time. 412 413 B. Special Use Permit application U1572-15 by Site Link 414 Wireless, LLC, to allow installation of an antenna on the rooftop of 415 the Falls Plaza shopping center, on premises known as 1230 W. Broad 416 Street, RPC #52-219-011 of the Falls Church Real Property Records, 417 zoned B-1 (Limited Business) said property owned by Federal Realty. 418 419 VICE CHAIR KRASNER: Okay. The next case we have tonight 420 is Special Use Permit Application U1572-15 by Site Link Wireless LLC, 421 to allow the installation of an antenna on the rooftop of Falls Plaza 422 Shopping Center, located at 1230 West Broad Street, RPC number 423 51-219-011, of the Falls Church Real Property records, zoned B-1, 424 Limited Business, said property owned by Federal Realty. 425 MS. ARNOLD: Hello. I'm Julie. 426 VICE CHAIR KRASNER: I'll swear anyone who's going to speak 427 tonight, please stand and raise your right hand. 428 (Witness sworn.) 429 VICE CHAIR KRASNER: And if you can identify yourself for 430 the record. 431 MS. ARNOLD: Hi. My name is Julie. I'm with Site Link 432 Wireless and I'm representing Verizon Wireless. 433 VICE CHAIR KRASNER: Okay. Before the applicant gets into 434 their presentation, Mr. Boyle, is there any background? I thought it 435 might be helpful if you could provide us with some background since 436 this is not a typical application that we hear very often. And also 437 as far as the criteria for a Special Use Permit so the Board is aware 438 of the differences for standards for a Special Use Permit as opposed 439 to a Variance. 440 MR. BOYLE: Yes, Mr. Chair. 441 As you noted, this matter is before the Board for a Special 442 Use Permit for installation of wireless equipment. And you should 443 have in your packet a recommendation from the Planning Commission 444 with Special Use Permits that come to the Board of Zoning Appeals. 445 The Planning Commission first hears the cases and makes its finding 446 on a recommendation to this Board. 447 So you should have in your packet the recommendation from 448 the Planning Commission who heard this on September 21st. 449 In addition to that is staff report from the planner 450 assigned to that; you have a staff report from myself; and a summary 451 of the property and a fairly detailed depiction of the equipment, 452 with some, I guess you'd call them eye level photos depicting what 453 the equipment would look like on the building. 454 For some background, Special Use Permits with some 455 exception come to the Board of Zoning Appeals after recommendation 456 from the Planning Commission for approval. The standard is different 457 than the Variance which will still be an interesting discussion based 458 on the communications with the City Attorney. 459 But as far as Special Use Permits, these are uses that have 460 been deemed by the Code to be allowed after consideration of any 461 negative impacts that they might have if approved. And the Code 462 provides that if the use would cause some negative impacts on either 463 the site itself or the abutting property owners, or would be contrary 464 to the intent of the Code, and then the Board finds that those 465 impacts can be mitigated through the setting of conditions, then it 466 says the Board may set those conditions and approve based on those 467 conditions. 468 So, in this particular case with a wireless company, this 469 is the first one in my time with Falls Church, I've been here 13 470 years, that one of these cases has come to the Board. I'm not aware 471 of one with my predecessor. There may have been. But his career 472 definitely spanned before the invention of cell phones. He was here 473 for some time. 474 And the reason for that is, is the practice of staff 475 throughout the years is that when one of these application comes in 476 and equipment was already present on the building, we've treated it 477 as a simple building permit, electrical permit. And the majority of 478 the tall buildings in town were long ago chosen as sites for all 479 sorts of communication equipment, microwave dishes and satellite 480 dishes, and cell phone equipment, basic radio, relay towers. 481 I was quite surprised to see not just one application but 482 two applications for equipment of this type come in at the same time 483 on buildings that have no equipment whatsoever on them. So very 484 unusual. And it caused some internal discussion with staff as to 485 whether this Code adequately address what this equipment does and 486 what its impacts on the abutting property owners are. 487 In discussion with staff, it was clear that this Ordinance 488 originated from an era when the City saw 30 and 50 foot tall ham 489 radio towers going up in back yards. The first satellite dishes that 490 were able to be purchased at a residence were up to 6 feet in 491 diameter and some folks were placing those in the front yard, 492 wherever they could get a clear view of the sky. 493 So an Ordinance was needed to control what was seen as a 494 blight or an eyesore in the neighborhood. So provisions were put in 495 place to make them a Special Use Permit, restrict their size and 496 their diameter and the placement, both on tall buildings and in 497 residential neighborhoods. 498 In looking at the language of the Code, I think I called 499 that out in my staff report, I have doubts as to whether any of this 500 Code language really addresses the type of equipment that the 501 applicants are proposing. 502 However, it was clear that the Code wanted a public 503 discussion of these items, so our practice is that when an 504 application of this type comes in on an location where the public 505 discussion has not occurred, then we're going to send it to the 506 Planning Commission and then the BZA, and give all of the property 507 owners that are impacted an opportunity to speak and state their 508 concerns, if they have any, or their support for these applicants. 509 So, that's the background on how this matter comes before 510 you tonight. If the Board wishes to, what we've done with past 511 Special Use Permits, if the Board wishes to entertain an approval 512 with conditions, it's definitely been the history of this Board to 513 state those in their motion. That's where it departs from Variances. 514 We set a condition on the Variance tonight which I think is 515 appropriate. But generally a Variance motion will state how they 516 satisfied the conditions of a Variance. 517 With a Special Use Permit, if there is a severe impact that 518 the Board in its discussion feel cannot be mitigated, then obviously 519 you have the authority to deny. If there's concerns the Board has 520 that can be mitigated through the setting of conditions, then a 521 motion for approval on a Special Use Permit is not unusual to contain 522 multiple conditions that go into the approval that then staff carries 523 forward. 524 That in a nutshell is the difference between the Variance 525 threshold and a Special Use Permit threshold. 526 Having said that, turning the Board's attention to the 527 report from Planning and the Planning Commission, the Planning 528 Commission met on September 21st and heard this case. And ultimately 529 they voted to recommend to the Board of Zoning Appeals that the 530 Special Use Permit U1572-15 for 1230 West Broad Street be approved 531 with the following condition: And that is that the rooftop antenna 532 be screened appropriately to mitigate any potential visual impact to 533 its surrounding. 534 And with that, I think I'll defer to the applicant's 535 presentation and any questions the Board may have. 536 MR. HOWELL: I want to ask a question for clarification. 537 There's an item for New Business and we've looked at Item A and now 538 we're discussing Item C. I'm wondering what happened to Item B. I 539 don't have any notes about it at all. 540 MR. BOYLE: Let's see what you have. Mine looks different. 541 They're almost identical. 542 MR. HOWELL: But the address on this is 444 West Broad 543 Street. 544 VICE CHAIR KRASNER: We're on the one at 1230 West Broad. 545 MR. HOWELL: I don't have any documentation for that at 546 all. 547 MR. BOYLE: I'll give you the record, if you'll give it 548 back to me. 549 MR. HOWELL: Thank you. 550 MR. BOYLE: Maybe that's a good opportunity to point out 551 the Item on the Agenda that's been struck. 552 MR. HOWELL: I see that but there's no further 553 documentation related to that one that I have. 554 MR. BOYLE: There should be supporting information in the 555 record that I gave you. 556 MR. HOWELL: I have this document that refers to the Item. 557 This will be fine. 558 MR. BOYLE: Did the other Board members receive it? 559 VICE CHAIR KRASNER: I received it. 560 MR. HOWELL: I never received this one. 561 MR. BOYLE: Would you like to take a recess and review the 562 materials? Or continue the item? 563 MR. HOWELL: I think that would be helpful, Mr. Chairman, 564 for five minutes. 565 VICE CHAIR KRASNER: I suppose we can do that. 566 MS. ARNOLD: I have another set. 567 MR. HOWELL: You have another set. 568 MS. ARNOLD: Yes. 569 It's actually a very simple installation. It's a new 570 technology from Verizon. It's called Small Cell. It's one antenna. 571 The antenna is 24 inches tall by 12. And the way we have it on top 572 of the Giant Grocery store is that it's in a stealth chimney so it's 573 hidden and the chimney matches the facade of the existing grocery 574 store. 575 The other equipment is a radio, couple of radios on a 576 platform but they're set back behind a parapet wall so they will not 577 be visible from the ground. 578 MR. HOWELL: That's the one at 444. 579 MS. ARNOLD: This is at 1230 West Broad Street. 580 MR. HOWELL: So both of the things you just mentioned are 581 at 1230, right? 582 MS. ARNOLD: Correct. 583 MR. HOWELL: And one of them is a picture, I can see a 584 thing that looks like a chimney. 585 MS. ARNOLD: Right. So the antenna is hidden within that 586 chimney. And the antenna itself is only 24 inches. 587 MR. HOWELL: There's one of them, correct? 588 MS. ARNOLD: Yes, just one. 589 VICE CHAIR KRASNER: So the question obviously, I think Mr. 590 Boyle cleared this up, even though your plans say CVS in the front, 591 it's not. 592 MS. ARNOLD: No, we targeted a bunch of areas near CVS. 593 VICE CHAIR KRASNER: What part of that building is this? 594 You reference a retail store that it's above the center. Is it above 595 the Giant or is closer to -- 596 MS. ARNOLD: It's above the Giant. I actually have an 597 aerial view of it which might be helpful. This is the aerial view. 598 MR. HOWELL: This is the Falls Church Giant. 599 MS. ARNOLD: Right. And it's kind of over on this section. 600 The other is that large split parapet wall. So you won't be able to 601 see any of our equipment which is set back. You'll just see the 602 chimney. 603 MR. HOWELL: There's nothing on CVS which is across the 604 street. 605 MS. ARNOLD: No. Really, the purpose of this antenna is to 606 provide better cell phone service and also data use. And it's really 607 a new type of installation for Verizon and we're targeting a lot of 608 shopping centers in heavily populated areas instead of doing a large 609 tower site. It helps offset. 610 VICE CHAIR KRASNER: What geographic area would an antenna 611 of this relatively low height cover? 612 MS. ARNOLD: It's about a mile radius. It's very small. 613 Maybe less than that. 614 VICE CHAIR KRASNER: The total height, the issue really is 615 the height above the top of the roof line is what? 616 MS. ARNOLD: So it's about six feet above the roof line. 617 But there's also the parapet wall which is about two and a half feet 618 above that. 619 VICE CHAIR KRASNER: I'm looking here at Sheet C-3, the 620 sheet that has an elevation on it. 621 MS. ARNOLD: I believe so. 622 VICE CHAIR KRASNER: So that one is showing the top 623 existing roof pitch at 31 feet six inches. 624 MS. ARNOLD: Right. 625 VICE CHAIR KRASNER: And then the top of the antenna at 38. 626 MS. ARNOLD: Right. 627 VICE CHAIR KRASNER: So about six and a half feet above the 628 existing roof line. 629 MS. ARNOLD: Right. It's also set back ten feet. 630 VICE CHAIR KRASNER: So about ten feet from the front of 631 the building? 632 MS. ARNOLD: Yes. 633 MR. HOWELL: Can I ask a question about the purpose of this 634 antenna. 635 MS. ARNOLD: Yes. 636 MR. HOWELL: Just want to know what it's for. 637 MS. ARNOLD: It's for cell phone service. And also your 638 Internet. Now that everybody has data phones, the IPhone that people 639 are using their Internet, it's really causing a lot of issues with 640 the existing sites. So it's going to help offset that, especially in 641 a heavily populated area, with the shopping center. 642 MR. HOWELL: So it's a telephone tower which has a, like 643 you said, I think a quarter of a mile radius. 644 MS. ARNOLD: Yeah. 645 VICE CHAIR KRASNER: And it's going to be concealed within 646 a faux brick kind of a -- 647 MS. ARNOLD: Yeah. I have a sample of it. So this is the 648 kind of material. 649 It's set far back enough that it blends in and we have a 650 design company that comes in and matches the exact brick. 651 VICE CHAIR KRASNER: Design and match the brick, I think 652 that was raised by the Planning Commission as well. 653 MS. ARNOLD: Yeah, that was suggested by the Planning 654 Commission. 655 VICE CHAIR KRASNER: So similar brick to the facade of the 656 center. 657 And there's also, again, just to get this on the record, 658 there's also some related equipment that's going to be up there as 659 well. Could you describe that. 660 MS. ARNOLD: Yes. What it is, it's an H-frame platform and 661 it has radios attached to it. It's about four feet tall. It will 662 not be visible from the ground because it's behind the parapet wall. 663 It's definitely called out on the drawings. 664 VICE CHAIR KRASNER: Again, that C-3 drawing, it looks like 665 it's extending above the roof line a little bit. 666 MS. ARNOLD: It is but it's set back. And then there's the 667 parapet wall too so it's -- 668 VICE CHAIR KRASNER: So you won't see it. 669 MS. ARNOLD: Yeah. If you look at the photo sims, you 670 won't be able to see it from the ground. Unless you're above the 671 shopping center. 672 VICE CHAIR KRASNER: From the rear, this site backs up to 673 the apartments that are off of Birch and those apartments I believe 674 are at least two stories, maybe three stories, and I wanted to get a 675 sense of again, your testimony on whether visibility is from those 676 apartments. 677 MS. ARNOLD: Well, I'd say that our total square foot 678 installation is 87 square feet. This building rooftop is 83,000 679 square feet. So what we're putting on there is a lot smaller than 680 what's already existing on the rooftop. It's also towards the 681 parapet wall so I don't think it would cause any kind of issues for 682 the apartments. 683 VICE CHAIR KRASNER: Do you know approximately how many 684 feet away from the nearest apartment the antenna is? 685 MS. ARNOLD: I don't but I could definitely give you that 686 measurement. 687 VICE CHAIR KRASNER: There might be some separation but I'd 688 like to know. 689 MS. ARNOLD: Right. Maybe the second page of the drawings 690 might show. Because I don't have them in front of me. 691 So, here's this building. Here's the closest apartment. 692 And then here's some mileage down here. 693 MR. HOWELL: Where is your installation on the roof? 694 MS. ARNOLD: Ours is right here. There's the apartments. 695 And then down at the bottom -- 696 VICE CHAIR KRASNER: Is there a parapet wall on the rear? 697 MS. ARNOLD: No. This is a flat roof. 698 VICE CHAIR KRASNER: That just raises the issue that 699 perhaps -- 700 MS. ARNOLD: The antenna will be concealed completely 701 around. So it's from the antenna up, from the apartments' view, it 702 would be a brick chimney. 703 VICE CHAIR KRASNER: Right. 704 Any other questions for the applicant? 705 MR. HOWELL: No more questions. Thanks. 706 VICE CHAIR KRASNER: At this point I'll open it up to the 707 public. Anyone who wishes to speak on this application, please step 708 forward. 709 Seeing no -- I see one. 710 Please come to the podium. Before you testify, please 711 state your name and address for the record. 712 MS. BERARD: My name is Diana Berard. I live at 7734 713 Virginia Lane, Falls Church, Virginia. I live in the County but I 714 own a condo, these are not apartments behind. 715 VICE CHAIR KRASNER: Condos, I know that. I apologize. 716 MS. BERARD: And I was actually president of the Board last 717 year and so I do feel like I have a duty to query whether or not 718 there will be any impact on the cell phone usage by other than 719 Verizon users in that area. I do not know enough about -- I did not 720 come to the first meeting. 721 All I know is that we have had problems finding anybody to 722 give us any kind of, whether it's cell phone, we have Cox is the only 723 one that we have been able to get into that area. As well as putting 724 dishes out for any kind of transmission and Wifi. 725 Even with Cox, if you're inside the building, they're very 726 well-made buildings, you do not get reception and I'm concerned about 727 an interference with reception for the people that are in those 728 units. That is my main concern. 729 MS. ARNOLD: Yeah, we can address that. 730 VICE CHAIR KRASNER: Will this in any way interfere with 731 transmission to other carriers? 732 MS. ARNOLD: No. So each carrier, you know, the main 733 carriers are Verizon, AT&T, Sprint, TMobile, they're kind of all on 734 their own frequencies and they don't interfere with each other. 735 So if you had Verizon service, it would increase your 736 Verizon service. But if you have another service, it won't affect it 737 at all. 738 MS. BERARD: Right. 739 MS. ARNOLD: And that's kind of how the tower sites are 740 made. The towers are made to have every carrier on the tower at the 741 same time. This is a rooftop but the way the technology is, they can 742 all run together. 743 MS. BERARD: I just know from experience that I have AT&T 744 on my cell phone and I could not get any phone service already. 745 MS. ARNOLD: Yeah, and if that's the problem that's kind of 746 why we're building out this site and the network in Falls Church is 747 very difficult because of all the residential area to get good 748 service. 749 MS. BERARD: Are there any plans for putting up Fios? 750 MS. ARNOLD: Well, I know that AT&T -- I know that Verizon 751 is kind of the lead in the carriers for this new technology and I 752 have a feeling that AT&T and Sprint are going to be following. 753 VICE CHAIR KRASNER: This is for cell phone service. 754 MS. ARNOLD: Right. 755 MS. BERARD: This is strictly for cell phone. 756 VICE CHAIR KRASNER: Not for Fios. 757 MS. ARNOLD: Yeah. 758 MS. BERARD: It's not an issue and I wasn't here for the 759 first meeting so I understand it's not that big and it's going to 760 protect it so it's not going to fly off the building. 761 MS. ARNOLD: No. Absolutely not. 762 MS. BERARD: Because one of the buildings, the building 763 that is referred to as building number three is right behind the 764 Giant. 765 MS. ARNOLD: Where we have the equipment is very close to 766 the front, the facade of the building. We do a structural analysis 767 to make sure that our installation won't affect the building and that 768 our installation is safe. We do wind load studies as well. So 769 there's really not a concern. 770 As I mentioned before, the antenna itself is 24 inches. 771 It's tiny. 772 MS. BERARD: Okay. That's great. I just wanted to get 773 some more information. Thank you. 774 VICE CHAIR KRASNER: Anyone else want to speak on this 775 matter? 776 Seeing nobody, I'll close the public portion of this 777 hearing. 778 Deliberation time. 779 Any further questions for applicant or staff? 780 (No response.) 781 VICE CHAIR KRASNER: My comments, my take on this is that 782 as Mr. Boyle said, we don't hear very many of these. I guess the 783 City doesn't actually have any cell phone towers, although I could be 784 wrong about that. We do have a lot of building-mounted antenna. 785 MR. BOYLE: I don't think we have any ground based. Maybe 786 on the water towers. 787 VICE CHAIR KRASNER: Right. I know there are some 788 building-mounted but on the side, not on the roof, and I guess that's 789 what made this a little bit different is that it was on the roof. 790 And I know our Ordinance was written pre-cell phone 791 technology but it does seem to differentiate between taller 792 structures and shorter structures and for whatever reason, shorter 793 structures have a slightly stricter height limit. This one, it's a 794 bit in excess of what normally would be called for in the Ordinance 795 for a single story structure. 796 However with that said, again, I think the fact that it's 797 going to be concealed with a masonry-like material that will match 798 the facade of the center, the fact that it's located closer to the 799 front of the center which is further away from the apartments, the 800 simulation seems to show that it's a relatively unobtrusive 801 installation, especially compared to a tower. 802 I would say if the issue is moving in this direction and I 803 would say in some way it's probably a good thing in the sense that it 804 is less obtrusive. I guess you need more but they're lower to the 805 ground and they're not as visible from long distances away and 806 they're easy to conceal. Don't have to put on fake branches and call 807 it a tree. 808 MS. ARNOLD: Right. 809 VICE CHAIR KRASNER: So with that said, I think again, 810 given the relative limited nature of the impact here, looking at the 811 criteria for the Special Permit, it seems that it would not adversely 812 affect the welfare of the neighborhood or be detrimental to the 813 area. I think with the conditions recommended by the Planning 814 Commission to conceal it as is shown, it seems that it could work. 815 Any other comments? 816 (No response.) 817 VICE CHAIR KRASNER: Then do I have a motion? 818 MR. HOWELL: Yes, I move. 819 Before I do so I'd like to clarify just one small point 820 procedurally. This says Site Link Wireless and everything else says 821 Verizon. Who are we granting this application to or who am I 822 proposing that we're granting the application to? Is it to Site Link 823 Wireless or Verizon? 824 MS. ARNOLD: It would be Verizon. My company is Site Link 825 Wireless but I'm representing Verizon. I'm not sure why it says Site 826 Link. I think for the Planning Commission it had Verizon. 827 VICE CHAIR KRASNER: Who was the applicant on the -- who 828 filed? And how was it advertised? 829 MR. BOYLE: Special Use Permit by Site Link Wireless, LLC, 830 to allow installation of an antenna. So Verizon is not mentioned in 831 the advertisement. 832 VICE CHAIR KRASNER: Is that a problem from a legal 833 standpoint? 834 MR. BOYLE: No. 835 Would you characterize your company as an agent of Verizon? 836 MS. ARNOLD: Yes. 837 MR. BOYLE: Would Verizon sue you if you got an approval of 838 this? 839 MS. ARNOLD: No. 840 MR. BOYLE: And acting on their behalf? 841 MS. ARNOLD: No. 842 MR. BOYLE: The materials do go back and forth and mention 843 both but this would be similar to what we see with the sign 844 application where you have a signed contractor come in. Or tonight 845 with Stanley Martin Homes and their subcontractors. 846 So I'd view this as an agent. 847 VICE CHAIR KRASNER: As long as it's consistent. As long 848 as it was advertised as Site Link, we issue it to Site Link. As long 849 as we don't condition it, it's restricted to the applicant only, I 850 don't think we typically do. I think it says agent, I think it's 851 fine. 852 MR. HOWELL: Could we mention Verizon in the motion that we 853 make? Do we say Site Link Wireless, installation by Verizon? 854 VICE CHAIR KRASNER: No, not unless it was filed and 855 advertised that way. I don't believe we can do that. I think we 856 have to issue it as it was issued, as was applied for. 857 MR. HOWELL: I move therefore that we grant the Special Use 858 Application U1572-15 by Site Link Wireless LLC, to allow installation 859 of an antenna on the rooftop of the Falls Plaza Shopping Center on 860 premises known as 1230 West Broad Street, RPC number 51-219-011, on 861 the Falls Church real property record, zoned B-1, limited business, 862 said property owned by Federal Realty. 863 MR. JONES: Second it. 864 VICE CHAIR KRASNER: Seconded. 865 Any discussion? 866 For discussion purposes as far as conditions go, I think 867 obviously we should condition it to be consistent with the Planning 868 Commission's recommendation, we adopt their recommendation to require 869 the concealment and the stealth technology as depicted by the faux 870 brick facade to match the existing masonry facade at the center and 871 that the installation will be consistent with the submitted materials 872 for the Special Permit. 873 I think that covers it. 874 So do you accept that amendment to the motion? 875 MR. HOWELL: I do. 876 VICE CHAIR KRASNER: So we have a motion, we have a second, 877 we have conditions; all those in favor of the motion, say "aye". 878 (A chorus of "ayes.") 879 VICE CHAIR KRASNER: Those opposed? 880 No one in opposition. Motion carries by unanimous vote and 881 the Special Permit is approved. 882 MS. ARNOLD: Thank you. 883 884 c. Special Use Permit application U1575-15 by Verizon 885 Wireless, Inc, to allow installation of an antenna on the rooftop of 886 the Spectrum mixed-use building, on premises known as 444 W. Broad 887 Street, RPC #51-133-100 of the Falls Church Real Property Records, 888 zoned B-1 (Limited Business) said property owned by 444 Spectrum LLC. 889 890 VICE CHAIR KRASNER: Next case is Special Use Permit 891 application U1575-15 by Verizon Wireless Incorporated to allow the 892 installation of an antenna on a rooftop on the Spectrum, mixed use 893 building, on the premises known as 444 West Broad Street, RPC number 894 51-133-100, of the Falls Church real property records, zoned B-1, 895 limited business, said property owned by 444 Spectrum LLC. 896 Just like in the previous case, anyone who is going to 897 testify tonight on this matter, would you please rise and raise your 898 right hand. 899 (Witnesses sworn.) 900 VICE CHAIR KRASNER: State your names for the record. 901 MS. THEMAK: My name is Tracy Themak. I'm with Donahue 902 and Stearns. We are zoning counsel for Verizon Wireless, and the 903 address is 117 Oronoco Street, Alexandria, Virginia, 22314. 904 VICE CHAIR KRASNER: Thank you. 905 Before we get to the applicant's presentation, Mr. Boyle, 906 staff, any presentation from staff? 907 MR. BOYLE: I'd like to reiterate the explanation and 908 background I provided for the first Special Use permit. The same 909 applies. There are some physical differences in the sites. Most 910 obvious is the height of this building. 911 But for some background, this matter was also heard by the 912 Planning Commission on the 21st of September and you should have the 913 recommendation of Planning Commission in your packet. 914 And did everyone receive their materials? 915 That evening the Planning Commission voted to recommend to 916 the Board of Zoning Appeals that Special Use Permit U1575-15 at 444 917 West Broad be approved with the following condition: That the 918 rooftop antennas are screened with materials that mimic the existing 919 rooftop screening materials appropriately to mitigate any potential 920 visual impact to its surrounding. 921 In my staff report to the Board, I called out the same 922 questions I had or struggle I had that this Code adequately addresses 923 this equipment. But for the same reasons the other one was brought, 924 decided that the public discussion process of the Planning Commission 925 and this Board would give it a proper airing with the public and 926 locate anyone who might object or be impacted which gets us back to 927 the Board's mission with considering Special Use Permits. 928 In this case as with the other, we mailed out notices to 929 abutting property owners and because this is a large, mixed use 930 building, everyone in that building was notified. 931 I'm aware of two comments, one was in support and one was 932 also a question of whether this would be bringing Fios to the 933 building. But we heard no objections before this evening that I can 934 present to the Board. 935 So with that, again reminding the Board of what it can 936 consider with Special Use Permits, if there's a negative impact that 937 cannot be mitigated, the Board obviously can deny; if there's 938 negative impacts that can be mitigated, you can condition this 939 extensively to try to address those negative impacts. 940 And with that, I'll defer to the applicant and their 941 presentation. 942 MS. THEMAK: I believe you all received, I think you have 943 in your packets or you should, photo sims of the painted-to-match 944 antennas which is really what we want to focus on. 945 We actually met with Mr. Boyle today, myself and Mr. 946 Donnelly, he's with FEE, which is the site acquisition specialist for 947 Verizon Wireless, the ones that go out and find these sites and a 948 willing landlord. 949 In looking at what would minimize visual impact for this 950 particular installation, we looked at the painted-to-match antennas. 951 I think there's a rooftop installation, I think this is 200 Little 952 Falls, right over here, and this is similar but those are not painted 953 to match. Those are also raised on what we term a mini-monocle on 954 the top of this roof. 955 What we wee trying to get here is something to keep these 956 as close in color to the existing parapet wall that is on the rooftop 957 and not increase visibility. 958 So in considering the options for mitigating visual impact, 959 we went back to Mr. Boyle, because this is actually what the Planning 960 Commission saw. And in looking at the stealth screening option, 961 which would be an RF-friendly material that would increase the 962 overall height of the parapets at the three sector, the array 963 locations, that actually increased the visual impact from a distance 964 and we ran into some pretty significant structural and loading 965 problems for the rooftop install which is a major concern when we're 966 doing these types of installs. 967 We want to work with our landlord and not create anything 968 that might jeopardize the structural integrity of the roof. 969 I know Mr. Boyle has been on several of these rooftops, and 970 there will be a central equipment location on pavers that is located, 971 you'll see it in the leasing exhibit, that will work in conjunction 972 with all three of the arrays here. 973 So, really, we wanted to make sure that we had staff 974 support in that it was something that they could support in terms of 975 the visual impact and also that the building could handle. And we 976 believe the painted-to-match antenna array really achieves that to 977 the best degree of balancing both of those considerations. 978 So, I know you've seen it. Staff's done a comprehensive 979 review of it and we're here mainly to answer specific questions you 980 might have about it. 981 VICE CHAIR KRASNER: I have a few questions. Correct me if 982 I'm wrong: Currently on the roof of this building -- well, first of 983 all, this building is how many stories? Is it five stories? 984 MS. THEMAK: I think so. I think we're at 86 feet overall 985 height for this. 986 VICE CHAIR KRASNER: Seven stories. 987 MR. BOYLE: Seven. 988 VICE CHAIR KRASNER: Seven story building.  989 And is there currently an elevator penthouse? Is there 990 something up on top there now? 991 MS. THEMAK: There are. The existing penthouse parapets 992 are there. 993 VICE CHAIR KRASNER: Parapets. There's not like there is 994 an elevator penthouse or some other -- 995 MR. BOYLE: There is. On the aerial photo there's a 996 rooftop structure for the tops of the elevators. 997 MS. THEMAK: I think it's Exhibit 2. 998 VICE CHAIR KRASNER: I'm trying to get a sense. Okay. 999 This helps. 1000 So what I'm looking at, I guess it's Sheet Number PS02, 1001 which shows existing alpha sector existing. 1002 So the structure that is already there today, that's a 1003 parapet wall that's surrounding the area and the equipment. 1004 MS. THEMAK: Exactly. 1005 VICE CHAIR KRASNER: So what you're proposing looks like, 1006 and I'm looking at the proposed view, and I see what looks like four 1007 antennas. 1008 MS. THEMAK: In three different locations on this rooftop. 1009 VICE CHAIR KRASNER: Okay. Then on the front though, I 1010 look at -- I see. 1011 Just to confirm for the record, so PS02, PS03, that's 1012 located on Park, looks like we're looking towards the west on Park. 1013 MR. BOYLE: Yes. 1014 VICE CHAIR KRASNER: Before and after shots. 1015 MS. THEMAK: Yes, that's correct. 1016 VICE CHAIR KRASNER: That's looking towards the west on 1017 Park, it looks like from those townhouses across the street. And the 1018 next shot, now we're on Broad. That's in the front I guess. 1019 MR. BOYLE: That would be at the eastern corner on Broad. 1020 VICE CHAIR KRASNER: And the next one -- I'm trying to get 1021 a sense of, obviously, you're on the roof. I'm trying to get a sense 1022 of, you know, is what's on the roof today, what's the height of that? 1023 What's the height of the existing rooftop equipment and how much 1024 taller, if at all, are these antennas? 1025 MS. THEMAK: If you refer to the elevation. We do have 1026 that and I'm not sure exactly how -- I guess we're not showing the 1027 top of that corner segment at Park and Broad. But I believe we are 1028 -- we are at roughly -- I think it's -- it's about three feet, ten 1029 inches is what the antennas extend above the existing highest roof 1030 line there. 1031 VICE CHAIR KRASNER: Three feet ten inches above the 1032 existing highest element. 1033 MS. THEMAK: I think that's what we're -- if you look at 1034 Exhibit B, I think that that's what -- again, the goal was to use the 1035 highest structure so we don't have to put additional screened walls 1036 or faux facades up there. And I think we required about a 90 foot 1037 right of center here for propagation but that puts us about three 1038 feet ten inches above the highest point on the roof. 1039 VICE CHAIR KRASNER: Mr. Boyle, when we measured a roof 1040 line of this flat building, are we going from the mechanical 1041 equipment? How's the Ordinance, even though it was written pre-cell 1042 technology, talks about height above roof line, on a flat building 1043 like this, is that roof line above the highest bulwark or are we 1044 talking the highest parapet wall or structure on top of the roof? 1045 MR. BOYLE: Height of a building in feet is defined in the 1046 Code as the vertical distance measured from average grade to the 1047 highest point of the coping of a flat roof, deck line of a mansard, 1048 or the mean height level between eaves, hip, and gambrel. So it 1049 doesn't take into consideration a parapet wall. 1050 So in layman's terms, we call it the top of the usable 1051 space to the interior space, whatever covers the usable space. So we 1052 would not include the parapet wall or the equipment on top. 1053 VICE CHAIR KRASNER: Is there a detail on this set of plans 1054 separate from the other that shows the -- are they going to be 1055 concealed, are they going to be painted? 1056 MS. THEMAK: They'll be painted to match the color of the 1057 existing parapet wall. 1058 VICE CHAIR KRASNER: It will match the color of the wall. 1059 Okay. 1060 And again, I'm just going through these plans in detail but 1061 on the rooftop plan, 02, I'm trying to get a sense of where these 1062 installations are on the building. So there's four installation 1063 areas? 1064 MS. THEMAK: There's four including the equipment, yes. 1065 There will be three arrays with the four antennas in each place and 1066 we've located them where we do have the existing parapet and then the 1067 equipment is indicated sort of in the middle sector there. All of 1068 the equipment will be there on a 10 by 25 foot area. 1069 VICE CHAIR KRASNER: Were the locations on the roof, were 1070 they chosen because of better cell coverage? 1071 MS. THEMAK: Absolutely. When we put these up on a 1072 rooftop, the signal needs to be able to get past both the edge of the 1073 roof and be high enough to clear that but of course we want to have 1074 it set back as much as we can to mitigate visual impact. 1075 Our RF engineers came up with a balance where we could have 1076 the height required and we could clear both the existing microwave 1077 dishes that are on this rooftop and we need a one foot separation 1078 from the tip of our antennas to where they begin, as well as clearing 1079 the roof edge which is really the most important. Otherwise we could 1080 push it back even further. 1081 And there's spacing on the -- this is a rather large 1082 rooftop. Their spacing allows the three different arrays to face a 1083 different direction so that Verizon's propagation gets the maximum 1084 service possible. 1085 VICE CHAIR KRASNER: I asked this also on the last 1086 application, this will be my last question. As far as the coverage 1087 area, you're a much taller building here. The last application you 1088 were on a short building, you were talking one mile. What's the 1089 coverage area here? 1090 MR. BRAND: About two and a half miles. 1091 MS. THEMAK: Clearly we're not a macro-tower, we're not a 1092 150 foot tower which gives you the best but is also the ugliest. And 1093 we're not a small cell which goes on the facades like Julie spoke 1094 about previously. So this is somewhere in the middle but it does 1095 give us, fills a gap in coverage, about two and a half miles. 1096 MR. HOWELL: It's a very comprehensive presentation and 1097 very helpful. 1098 What is this thing that's up there at the moment that 1099 you're going to put the faux antenna next to? 1100 MS. THEMAK: I think it's simply just a parapet that covers 1101 the existing HVAC. 1102 MR. HOWELL: Oh, it's the HVAC. 1103 MS. THEMAK: I believe. Is that correct? 1104 MR. BRAND: On the roof, there are two major -- the roof is 1105 divided in two sections. One is where we have tables, chairs, 1106 everything else where the residents can go out. 1107 VICE CHAIR KRASNER: I'm sorry. Could you identify 1108 yourself for the record. 1109 MR. BRAND: Norman Brand, president of Spectrum Condo 1110 Association. 1111 The roof has two segments. One of the things you see 1112 coming out on the pictures of the roof is the elevator that takes you 1113 up, okay. As you go out there's an area where we put tables, chairs, 1114 where people can sit and they can talk. The rest is fenced off and 1115 has all the equipment. The single largest is the HVAC, the boiler 1116 rooms. I mean it is very big. I mean, compared to what's being put 1117 up there, being proposed, it's just massive. 1118 I've learned too much from leaks about taking tours of the 1119 boiler room. That part is not accessible to residents, at least 1120 they're not supposed to be. It's for people who work on the HVACs 1121 and the other things. We don't want residents over on that part 1122 fooling or possibly damaging any equipment. Those are the major 1123 structures that you see. 1124 MR. HOWELL: I'll ask a question then. These proposals 1125 from Verizon for installing these new antennas, are they going to 1126 have any impact on the use of that area by people who want to go sit 1127 in the chairs as being described? 1128 MS. THEMAK: No. For all of these applications, Verizon 1129 Wireless is required to be in compliance with all of the FCC 1130 standards for maximum permissible exposure they'll allow and they're 1131 required to demonstrate that. 1132 MR. HOWELL: Good. Thank you. 1133 MR. JONES: I just have one question. Could you expand on 1134 how this type of antenna was selected, the 13, 14 foot tall ones 1135 versus something let's say ten foot. Could you just expand on why 1136 this particular antenna was selected versus a shorter antenna. 1137 MS. THEMAK: I think these antennas are at 8 feet, if I'm 1138 correct. 96 inches. These are pretty standard for a rooftop install. 1139 Again, when you're installing on the facade of a building like the 1140 previous application, they're significantly smaller but you're not 1141 getting as much coverage. 1142 Typically when Verizon goes to a rooftop they look at the 1143 available height and what we're going to be installing on and we look 1144 to get a balance between an antenna that will give us the greatest 1145 propagation without overwhelming the structure on which we're 1146 mounting on and this was the size that we could achieve here. 1147 1148 MR. JONES: Thank you. 1149 VICE CHAIR KRASNER: Just one more question and the answer 1150 to this may be we don't know yet. Are there any plans, and we're all 1151 familiar with Verizon as a carrier and we're all familiar with the 1152 idea of co-locations. Does the condominium association have any 1153 plans to co-locate additional carriers up on the roof at this time? 1154 MS. THEMAK: I don't know that. 1155 MR. BRAND: I don't know. 1156 MS. THEMAK: That's beyond my knowledge at this point right 1157 now. 1158 VICE CHAIR KRASNER: Just wanted to ask that. 1159 MS. THEMAK: Hopefully we're using all the parapet space so 1160 nobody can get up there after us. That's the goal. 1161 VICE CHAIR KRASNER: Any other questions of the staff or 1162 the applicant? 1163 Okay. I'll open it up to the public at this time. Anyone 1164 from the public who is here and wishes to speak on this case, now's 1165 your chance. 1166 Seeing and hearing nobody, I'll close the public portion of 1167 the hearing. 1168 I would say, and I'm moving towards the deliberations here, 1169 it is interesting according to Mr. Boyle, after not hearing these 1170 types of applications for many years, we now have two on the same 1171 night, different parts of town, different buildings. Same idea. 1172 Seems to be the history is moving in this direction of smaller sites, 1173 lower sites, which I think there is some benefit to that. 1174 Again, I think the concealment is key, having it blend in 1175 as much as possible and that technology is improving in the industry 1176 to conceal these types of antennas when they're mounted on or above 1177 buildings and that's very important. 1178 I will say I asked the question about co-location only 1179 because with a few antennas I believe it's easy to have those blend 1180 into the view of the building, that kind of equipment. You begin to 1181 have three, four, five carriers with multiple equipment and support 1182 equipment, it can begin to get very cluttered on top, and the idea 1183 of concealment, complete concealment becoming more crucial. 1184 We're not at that point here and that's why I was wondering 1185 the import of more than just what's before us but I just wanted to 1186 state that issue that some antennas may be okay but if you start 1187 having multiple antennas on all the rooftops in town, my view on it 1188 could change. But given what's presented before me 1189 tonight, I think that any impacts on the surrounding area are 1190 mitigated by the concealment. There are townhouses across the 1191 street, although ironically because those are pretty close and 1192 they're a lot shorter, I don't think those folks will have too much 1193 of a view, not much different than what they see now, folks on Park 1194 and Pennsylvania there. So that's a plus. 1195 And so for those reasons again, I think that given the 1196 recommendation of the Planning Commission to support it, conditioned 1197 on concealing it by using matching paint on the parapet wall, in my 1198 opinion it seems like the criteria for granting Special Permits has 1199 been met in this case. 1200 MR. HOWELL: I'd like to just make a comment that we noted 1201 that the Planning Commission recommended to the Board that the 1202 Special Use Permit be granted and that it include the condition that 1203 the rooftop antenna be screened appropriately to mitigate any 1204 potential visual impact to the surrounding area. So I think we would 1205 annex that condition to the motion proposed. 1206 I can move. 1207 VICE CHAIR KRASNER: Make a motion. 1208 MR. HOWELL: So I move that we approve the Special Use 1209 Permit application U1575-15 by Verizon Wireless Inc., to allow 1210 installation of an antenna on the rooftop of the Spectrum Mixed Use 1211 building on premises known as 444 West Broad Street, RPC number 1212 51-133-100 of the Falls Church real property records, zoned B-1, 1213 limited business, said property owned by 444 Spectrum LLC, with the 1214 condition specified by the Planning Commission that the rooftop 1215 antennas are screened appropriately to mitigate any potential visual 1216 impact of the surroundings. 1217 MR. JONES: Seconded. 1218 VICE CHAIR KRASNER: Motion is seconded and I believe in 1219 discussion it was just indicated that we would add a condition 1220 consistent with the Planning Commission recommendation to conceal -- 1221 sorry, to mask or soften the appearance of the antennas by making 1222 their facades consistent with the facade, the existing parapet wall. 1223 So with that, any other discussion? 1224 (No response.) 1225 VICE CHAIR KRASNER: All those in favor of the motion, 1226 indicate by saying "aye". 1227 (A chorus of "ayes") 1228 VICE CHAIR KRASNER: Those opposed? 1229 That motion carries by all members present and voting. 1230 Application is approved as stated. 1231 MS. THEMAK: Thank you all. 1232 VICE CHAIR KRASNER: Mr. Boyle, just a quick question. 1233 There were originally two other items that were scheduled. Do we 1234 need to make any announcements regarding those or maybe just for the 1235 record I'll announce that they were. 1236 Do you have a new date for those yet? 1237 MR. BOYLE: We don't and I think we should get it into the 1238 record that they were pulled because they're continued by the 1239 Planning Commission. That was after one of the advertisements went 1240 out. 1241 VICE CHAIR KRASNER: I'll ask for the record then that 1242 anyone who was here or was listening regarding Variance Application 1243 V1573-15 and V1574-15 both by Tim Lewis for Variances related to the 1244 property at 421 West Broad Street, those items are both being 1245 deferred to a date to be determined based on the opening resolution 1246 at the Planning Commission. 1247 MR. BOYLE: Right. As with Special Use Permits, Planning 1248 Commission makes a recommendation on Commercial Property Variances to 1249 this Board and they requested more material, more detail from the 1250 applicant at their hearing and so they deferred their decision, did 1251 not make a recommendation so we pulled it from this agenda after one 1252 advertisement. 1253 1254 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1255 Approval of minutes from the July 16, 2015, BZA meeting 1256 1257 VICE CHAIR KRASNER: Okay. The next item is approval of the 1258 minutes from July 16, 2015. 1259 I'll ask a particular question of Mr. Boyle. Mr. Jones, of 1260 course, was not here then, he was not a member of the Board yet. So 1261 the only ones that can vote on the minutes are Mr. Howell and myself. 1262 Are the two of us sufficient to approve the minutes or do we need to 1263 table this until we have a full Board? 1264 MR. BOYLE: I think we have to table it. 1265 VICE CHAIR KRASNER: Okay. That's what I thought. So we'll 1266 defer the approval of the minutes to the next meeting. 1267 1268 6. OTHER BUSINESS: 1269 VICE CHAIR KRASNER: Other Business, I think we should 1270 formally welcome Mr. Jones to the Board. We're glad to have him. I 1271 did get to meet Mr. Jones briefly a few months ago, whenever that 1272 was, and I believe you're an attorney by background, your day job? 1273 MR. JONES: Day job is an attorney. 1274 VICE CHAIR KRASNER: That's great because we could 1275 definitely use more -- we have one other attorney on the Board. 1276 Darcy is an attorney, isn't he? No. David is. Darcy is not an 1277 attorney, sorry. 1278 MR. BOYLE: Dave Calabrese is. 1279 Welcome. 1280 Motion to determine whether Darcy is an attorney, direct 1281 staff -- 1282 VICE CHAIR KRASNER: David definitely is, so we will have two. 1283 One can keep the other one honest, citing case law and whatever it 1284 is that you lawyers do. 1285 Anyway, welcome, Roy. Glad to have you on board. 1286 MR. JONES: Thank you very much. 1287 VICE CHAIR KRASNER: Just having a full Board will be -- 1288 MR. HOWELL: -- pleasant. 1289 VICE CHAIR KRASNER: -- will be helpful, if nothing else. 1290 1291 VICE CHAIR KRASNER: Any other comments or Other Business? 1292 (No response.) 1293 1294 7. OLD BUSINESS 1295 VICE CHAIR KRASNER: No Old Business. 1296 1297 8. ADJOURNMENT 1298 VICE CHAIR KRASNER: Can I get a motion to adjourn? 1299 MR. HOWELL: So move. 1300 VICE CHAIR KRASNER: Second? 1301 MR. JONES: Second. 1302 VICE CHAIR KRASNER: All those in favor to adjourn this 1303 meeting? 1304 (A chorus of "ayes.") 1305 VICE CHAIR KRASNER: Opposed? 1306 (No response.) 1307 VICE CHAIR KRASNER: This meeting is adjourned as of 8:54 1308 p.m.