HomeMy Public PortalAbout2011.03.21 Business Meeting Minutes
LEESBURG BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW
BUSINESS MEETING MINUTES
Monday, 21 March 2011
Town Hall, 25 West Market Street
Council Chamber
MEMBERS PRESENT: Dieter Meyer, Chair; Jim Sisley, Vice Chair; Richard Koochagian,
Parliamentarian; Teresa Minchew; Tracy Coffing; Edward Kiley; Mary Harper,
Planning Commission Representative; Marty Martinez, Town Council
Representative
MEMBERS ABSENT: Paul Reimers
STAFF: Annie McDonald, Preservation Planner; Barbara Notar, Deputy Town Attorney
Call to Order and Roll Call
Mr. Meyer called the meeting to order at 7:00pm, noted attendance and determined that a quorum was
present.
Approval of Minutes
Jim Sisley moved to approve the February 7, 2011 meeting minutes; Richard Koochagian seconded the
motion, and it passed unanimously 4-0-3(Minchew and Coffing abstain, Reimers absent).
Jim Sisley moved to defer the February 23, 2011 meeting minutes until they are completed. Teresa
Minchew seconded the motion, and it passed unanimously 6-0-1 (Reimers absent)
BAR Member Disclosure
Teresa Minchew recused herself from involvement in the presentation and subsequent discussion for the
Courthouse Square project, since her husband’s law firm is involved in representation of the applicant.
Dieter Meyer disclosed that he serves on the DIA Board of Directors along with Al Hanson who is present
for the presentation on Courthouse Square, but believes that he can participate in an unbiased manner.
Consent Agenda
Mr. Meyer said there are no cases proposed for the consent agenda this evening.
Presentation
Overview of the Courthouse Square Project by Landmark Realty
Mr. Bob White of Landmark Realty provided some background on the project, stating that he’s been
involved since April 2008. He pointed out the site was 1.7 acres, including the Loudoun Times Mirror
Building with one to two warehouse additions on the rear of the building. He said that here is a
completely new ownership structure dating to June of 2010 that includes about 15 different partners
including the Arundel family. Since that time, they have launched the design phase and doing due
diligence. He introduced Geoff Lewis from DBI Architects to discuss the design. Mr. Lewis provided a
context analysis for the project, discussing the existing architecture within the area. He explained that the
project site is fairly complex and drops a story from the Market Street side to the Loudoun Street side. He
said that there are different contextual issues depending on what side of the building one is on. He stated
that Leesburg has basically three categories of buildings—commercial forms, residential forms, and
institutional forms—and added that there are different characteristics among each. He indicated that they
BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW
BUSINESS MEETING MINUTES
21 March 2011 Page 2 of 5
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING · POST OFFICE BOX 88 · 25 WEST MARKET STREET · LEESBURG, VIRGINIA 20178
telephone 703.771.2765 · facsimile 703.771.2724 · www.leesburgva.gov/planning
looked at how additions are typically done for commercial buildings and said that they don’t usually relate
to the building to which they are attached. He said that the setbacks are typically narrow to nonexistent.
He did explain that the Leesburg Town Hall and a couple other buildings have deeper setback. He
pointed out the building orientation and spacing, with typically little space between commercial buildings
in the downtown. He explained that there is subtle layering in the facades and that some of the buildings
have porches, particularly the commercial buildings that were formerly residential. He referred to the fact
that the design guidelines recommend breaking up a large form so that it fits in with the neighboring
buildings and referred to the geometry of a small-town streetscape. He said that the Courthouse complex
includes institutional forms and that the proposed project has the monumental elevation facing the
Courthouse. He explained that the gap and rhythm is on the Loudoun Street side and they are looking at
how to relate to those and provide a new project that fits in with that rhythm and spacing along the street.
He said that in addition to have a through-block building, they are completing the edge of the quadrangle
in the historic core. He stressed that there are dense commercial buildings along King Street, with gaps
between the buildings on Loudoun and Market Streets. He said that there are views between the
buildings to the inside of the site that they are very much aware of. They are creating an internal building
that is contextually appropriate to the surrounding site as well as getting a building with a fair amount of
density to it with three levels of parking and two levels of office above. The main entrance is off of
Loudoun Street. They’ve created a space with a pedestrian or public courtyard that leads to the entrance,
which is deeper in. Mr. Lewis then gave an overview of the floor plans, emphasizing that the main
vehicular entrance is off of Church Street and that there is a pedestrian and vehicular alley along the
north side of the structure. He explained that there is an addition above the rear portion of the Loudoun
Times Mirror building, with a pedestrian connection to the new construction. The main part of the new
structure is set back from Loudoun Street roughly 90 feet and roughly 165 feet from Market Street.
Referring to the slides, he then explained the building sections and perspective views. He explained that
the eave line of the building on Loudoun Street is 40 feet high. He said that the 45-foot cornice line is
emphasized on the Church Street elevation, with the upper two stories stepped back slightly. He said
that the Church Street side of the building would feature a 9-foot brick sidewalk. He said that the façade
facing Church Street is very monumental, but in keeping with the face of the building toward Market
Street and the Courthouse. Regarding the Market Street views, he said that there are big institutional
buildings and the Post Office and the Loudoun Times Mirror Building. He demonstrated the views
between the buildings and said that the openings in the parking garage will be covered with ornamental
grillwork. He said that the project defines the space like the building on the north side of the Courthouse
does. He said that the south side of the project includes a courtyard garden for restaurants and retail that
would be accessible from Loudoun Street. He said that there is a little eating area behind the Cajun
Experience. He then showed sections including the blocks on either side to show how their building fits
in. In describing the Market Street side, he said that things are dense on the corner then start to break up
a bit. He said that they are not adding to or taking away from anything on the Market Street side, but only
providing a backdrop building. He said that they are accentuating the 45-foot cornice line along Church
Street and then stepping back the office plates back 6 to 8 feet behind the lower part of the façade. He
then proceeded to an overview of the site plan. He explained that there is 105,000 square feet of
rentable space with 315 parking spaces.
Mr. Meyer thanked the architect for the presentation and explained that it was intended as a preview for
things to come. He stated that Preservation Planner Annie McDonald would provide an explanation of
what was to come and what was expected of the BAR.
Ms. McDonald stated that the proposed structure is taller than the 45-foot height limit permitted in the B-1
Zoning District. The Zoning Ordinance does not allow the building to be constructed as designed. The
structure requires an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance permitting an increased height in certain
portions of the B-1 District. She explained that before any applications are filed, the issue of the height
must first be addressed. She said that staff will be conducting a presentation at the April 4th work session
on what the Planning & Zoning Department has studied thus far on where increased height might be
appropriate. She stated that it was important to keep the two projects separate. The BAR will be
reviewing the height amendment at the work session on April 4th, but it was necessary for the BAR to first
BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW
BUSINESS MEETING MINUTES
21 March 2011 Page 3 of 5
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING · POST OFFICE BOX 88 · 25 WEST MARKET STREET · LEESBURG, VIRGINIA 20178
telephone 703.771.2765 · facsimile 703.771.2724 · www.leesburgva.gov/planning
see what was driving the height amendment. She added that there will be a special exception application
filed since it includes a structured parking garage. She said that the BAR would be issuing referral
comments on the special exception and then would see it as a formal application for a COA. She
explained that, with a project of this size, it is necessary for the BAR to have more time rather than less to
review it. She handed out hard copies of the presentation material for the BAR’s consideration and asked
if the BAR had any questions. No questions were raised by the BAR members, and Mr. Meyer explained
that it was probably due to the fact that the board was seeing it for the first time.
He then opened the public hearing for TLHP 2011-0007. Ms. McDonald said the applicant was not
present. At this point Mr. Meyer stated that they would defer the hearing and continue with discussion.
Mr. White thanked the BAR and said that they appreciated the opportunity to address the BAR.
Administrative Agenda
TLSE 2010-0009, Leesburg Toyota Referral Discussion. Ms. McDonald explained that this was the
second submission of the Special Exception application for the Leesburg Toyota building at the
intersection of East Market Street and Cardinal Park Drive. She explained that the existing structure will
be demolished and replaced with new construction and an addition will be built on the back of the second
building. She provided a few images of the current conditions on site as well as an overview of the site
plan and elevations of the new building facing East Market Street. She stated that her comments were
primarily focused on the building facing East Market Street since the addition did not too greatly impact
the character of the existing structure at the back of the property. She emphasized that the new
building’s visibility from East Market Street warranted a higher degree of consideration. She
demonstrated the lack of changes in the architectural plans between the first and second submissions,
noting that the structure was not significantly altered in the second submission plans. Ms. McDonald
went on to reference the four buildings that comprise the 2007-2008 submission for the Leesburg Auto
Park, where Lowe’s is now planned to be located. She also referenced the BAR-approved Suzuki
dealership at 610 East Market Street. She explained that they were shown to demonstrate how
corporate, auto-oriented design could be compliant with the H-2 Corridor Design Guidelines while still
being distinct and different. She said that her comments that were provided to the BAR in the packet
were substantially the same as those provided to the applicant in response to the first submission. She
said that many aspects of the site design do comply with the design guidelines. She said that the aspects
of the building that should be better addressed are the consistency in treatment on all four sides of the
building, since all four sides are visible from the right-of-way. She said that, although the BAR doesn’t
comment on details at this stage, they are important to the building’s compliance with the guidelines.
Since details are not part of the BAR’s review at this point, the board should not comment on them.
Tonight we are looking for comments on the broader aspect of the project.
Jim Sisley asked what the Planning Commission comments were on the building’s siting. He saw no
problem with the architectural plans. Ms. Harper confirmed that the Planning Commission had not yet
seen the project, to which Mr. Sisley responded by asking why the BAR was looking at the project now.
Ms. McDonald replied that the BAR issues referral comments on legislative applications, with the
comments then incorporated into the documentation supplied to the Planning Commission. Mr. Meyer
explained that there have been issues in the past where the BAR had comments on the siting but the site
design was already set. He went on to say that they should put the showroom in the front part of the
building.
Tracy Coffing agreed with the points raised by staff.
Richard Koochagian concurred, as did Teresa Minchew, Edward Kiley and Mr. Meyer.
Mr. Meyer explained that the BAR was pretty much unanimous on this application and that the staff report
was right on.
BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW
BUSINESS MEETING MINUTES
21 March 2011 Page 4 of 5
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING · POST OFFICE BOX 88 · 25 WEST MARKET STREET · LEESBURG, VIRGINIA 20178
telephone 703.771.2765 · facsimile 703.771.2724 · www.leesburgva.gov/planning
Ms. McDonald said the comments will be provided to Irish Grandfield who has taken over as the project
manager on this.
Mr. Meyer addressed the applicant stating that the BAR was in concurrence with staff comments. He told
them if they had concerns with the comments, they could bring this back before the BAR and explain how
the project complies with the design guidelines. He said that if the applicant disagrees with any of the
points raised by staff or the BAR, they should go back and provide further justification. He explained that
the BAR is open to being convinced, but it has to be within the context of the design guidelines.
Andrew Painter, of Walsh Colucci, spoke on behalf of the applicant and said that this was his second time
before the BAR, with the first time being as a representative for Landmark Realty’s application for the
Leesburg Auto Park.
Reconsideration of the BAR’s 2010 Annual Report. Ms. McDonald explained that the BAR’s 2010
Annual Report was produced with the understanding that it would be incorporated into a larger combined
annual report for the whole Planning & Zoning department. She said that the administrative approval
statistics had been left out of the section for the BAR to be included with the information for the
department. It has been determined, however, that the department will not be producing an annual report
this year, necessitating revisions to the BAR’s report before it is presented to the Town Council.
Mr. Kiley moved to amend the Annual Report, by incorporating the administrative approval guidelines into
the document. The motion was seconded by Tracy Coffing.
The motion passed 6-0-1 (Reimers absent)
April 4, 2011 Worksession. Ms. McDonald said they would be previewing the B-1 height amendment,
which is why the Courthouse Square project was introduced this evening.
Staff Approvals. Ms. McDonald said she gave a staff approval for the in kind replacement of a non-
historic metal door at the Loudoun Times Mirror building. She said that there are a couple that have been
submitted that she has not been able to attend to.
Discussion of award worthy projects: Ms. McDonald passed around information on 302 N. King Street
which was a complete rehabilitation of the three bay wide one story brick structure that is now used as a
cemetery chapel for St. John’s Catholic Church. She explained that it has been completed and she has
provided the interior photographs as well. She said that it was a complete rehabilitation.
Teresa Minchew reminded the BAR of the discussion at the February 23rd meeting about the possibility of
nominating the Birkby House renovation.
For the record Teresa Minchew stated that her husband also represented Leesburg Toyota indirectly
through a previous application and recused herself from discussion on the Leesburg Toyota application.
Other Business: Dieter Meyer asked if the BAR wanted to take a position on the recent reduction in force
since these might affect their ability to review cases. He sees this as a negative and would hope there
would be reconsideration prior to the final move. Tracy Coffing agreed that there is not much their
comments would do for this case. Richard Koochagian agreed with Tracy, but feels that the BAR has an
advisory role, so if they don’t go by what they think, they may regret it in the long run. Teresa Minchew
said that their collective voices probably will not be heard at this time. It should be put on the record that
these jobs have been cut and the effect this has on their work now. Of course the cuts will have negative
impact on what they are supposed to do with regard to the BAR. Mary Harper said the Planning
Commission is very concerned. She explained that the loss of the Comprehensive Planner has been
tough, and right now will need to be evaluated. After further discussion, it was decided that any
comments on the reduction in force would be made as individuals, not as BAR members.
BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW
BUSINESS MEETING MINUTES
21 March 2011 Page 5 of 5
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING · POST OFFICE BOX 88 · 25 WEST MARKET STREET · LEESBURG, VIRGINIA 20178
telephone 703.771.2765 · facsimile 703.771.2724 · www.leesburgva.gov/planning
Public Hearing Agenda
1. Mr. Meyer opened the public hearing for TLHP 2011-0007, 116 East Market Street. Ms. McDonald
said this was originally designed as a 2.5 story house, the property was sold and tweaked to be a
commercial building. It is across the street from the government center. This was approved by the
BAR in June of 2008 with 4 conditions.
Mr. Sisley asked where the front yard was? Ms. McDonald explained that the building faces East
Market Street and is located on a smaller lot that was carved out of the larger lot on which the historic
house sits facing Edwards Ferry Road. Ms. McDonald explained that the building was compliant with
all setbacks.
Mr. Meyer commented that this was essentially a re-approval, and asked if there were any further
comments. Since there were none, Teresa Minchew moved that based on the facts that the building
is generally consistent with the old and historic district design guidelines for new construction as
demonstrated in the staff report, the building and business signage have yet to be determined; details
on the north elevation and closure and grease trap need to be finalized, and details on the building
mount dividing needs to be finalized, she moved that the Board of Architectural Review approve
TLHP 2011-0007, as submitted with the following conditions: All signage will be administratively
approved by staff; details on the north elevation and enclosure and grease trap will be
administratively approved by staff; all lighting fixtures will be administratively approved by staff prior to
installation on the building; any mechanical equipment will be located on the east side of the building
and equipment will be located on the east side of the building behind the fencing; and a final set of
construction elevations will be submitted to staff for the file. Seconded by Mr. Koochagian. Carried
6-0-1 (Reimers absent)
Continued discussion
The only other item left to discuss is the Dodona Manor fence. Barbara Notar suggested that this not
happen since the case is still in the appeal process.
Adjournment: The meeting adjourned at 8:21pm.
NEXT REGULAR BUSINESS MEETING:
Monday, April 18, 2011 at 7pm
Town Hall Council Chamber
25 West Market Street
Leesburg, VA
Dieter Meyer, Chair
Linda DeFranco, Acting Clerk of the BAR