HomeMy Public PortalAbout2014 08 04 BAR Work Session Minutes�� p " L E F T
r R u l l ����P
L E E S B U R G B O A R D O F A R C H I T E C T U R A L R E V I E W
W O R K S E S S I O N M I N U T E S
M o n d a y , 0 4 A u g u s t 2 0 1 4
T o w n H a l l , 2 5 W e s t M a r k e t S t r e e t
T o w n C o u n c i l C h a m b e r
M E M B E R S P R E S E N T : C h a i r m a n E d w a r d K i l e y , V i c e C h a i r m a n P a u l R e i m e r s , P a r l i a m e n t a r i a n D a l e
G o o d s o n a n d D i e t e r M e y e r
M E M B E R S A B S E N T : R i c h a r d K o o c h a g i a n , M a r k M a l l o y , T e r e s a M i n c h e w , P l a n n i n g C o m m i s s i o n
R e p r e s e n t a t i v e D o r i s K i d d e r a n d C o u n c i l R e p r e s e n t a t i v e T o m D u n n
S T A F F : D i r e c t o r o f P l a n n i n g & Z o n i n g S u s a n B e r r y H i l l , P r e s e r v a t i o n P l a n n e r T o m
S c o f i e l d a n d P l a n n i n g & Z o n i n g A s s i s t a n t D e b o r a h P a r r y
C a l l t o O r d e r a n d R o l l C a l l
C h a i r m a n K i l e y c a l l e d t h e m e e t i n g t o o r d e r a t 7 : 0 0 p m , n o t e d a t t e n d a n c e a n d d e t e r m i n e d t h a t a q u o r u m
w a s p r e s e n t .
A d o p t i o n o f M e e t i n g A g e n d a
B A R M e m b e r D i s c l o s u r e :
V i c e C h a i r m a n R e i m e r s r e c u s e d h i m s e l f f r o m T L H P - 2 0 1 4 - 0 0 5 3 , 2 0 9 C o r n w a l l S t r e e t N W
M r . M e y e r r e c u s e d h i m s e l f f r o m T L H P - 2 0 1 4 - 0 0 3 9 , 1 1 0 S o u t h S t r e e t S E
P u b l i c H e a r i n g s o n C o n t i n u e d C a s e s i n t h e H - 1 O v e r l a y D i s t r i c t :
a . T L H P - 2 0 1 4 - 0 0 5 3 , 2 0 9 C o r n w a l l S t r e e t N W
P r o j e c t : R e m o v a l o f e x i s t i n g g a r a g e , c o n s t r u c t i o n o f r e a r a d d i t i o n a n d f r o n t p o r c h
C h a i r m a n K i l e y n o t e d t h e p u b l i c h e a r i n g f o r t h i s a p p l i c a t i o n h a s c l o s e d .
M r . S c o f i e l d s t a t e d t h e a p p l i c a n t h a s p r o v i d e d r e v i s e d d r a w i n g s i n d i c a t i n g t h e o r i g i n a l p o r t i o n s o f
t h e s t r u c t u r e a n d t h e l a t e r a d d i t i o n s . H e s t a t e d r e v i s e d d r a w i n g s w e r e s u b m i t t e d t o s h o w t h e
p r o p o s e d n e w g a r a g e c o n s t r u c t i o n w i t h a g a b l e r o o f w i t h s h e d d o r m e r a s o p p o s e d t o t h e p r e v i o u s l y
s h o w n p y r a m i d a l r o o f . H e s t a t e d t h e p y r a m i d a l r o o f h a d a s m a l l e r p r o f i l e f r o m t h e f r o n t e l e v a t i o n
a n d t h e n e w r o o f d e s i g n c o n t r i b u t e s t o t h e a d d i t i v e m a s s i n g o f t h i s o v e r a l l s t r u c t u r e . H e s t a t e d
a n o t h e r p o i n t o f c o n c e r n f o r t h e B o a r d a t t h e l a s t m e e t i n g w a s t h e p l a n n e d a d d i t i o n o f a f r o n t p o r c h
t o t h e c o n t r i b u t i n g p o r t i o n o f t h e b u i l d i n g ; h o w e v e r , n o c h a n g e s h a v e b e e n s u b m i t t e d . F u r t h e r , h e
r e c o m m e n d e d d e n i a l f o r t h e p r o p o s a l t o a d d a f r o n t p o r c h t o t h e s t r u c t u r e a n d r e c o m m e n d e d
a p p r o v a l f o r t h e o t h e r p r o j e c t e l e m e n t s , w i t h t h e f o l l o w i n g c o n d i t i o n s :
1 . T h e p r o j e c t a r c h i t e c t s h a l l d e m o n s t r a t e t o t h e s a t i s f a c t i o n o f t h e B A R a n d t h e P r e s e r v a t i o n
P l a n n e r t h a t a l l n e w a d d i t i o n s a r e d e s i g n e d i n s u c h a m a n n e r t h a t i f t h e a d d i t i o n s a r e t o b e
r e m o v e d i n t h e f u t u r e , t h e e s s e n t i a l f o r m a n d i n t e g r i t y o f t h e c o n t r i b u t i n g ( 1 9 5 0 ) p o r t i o n o f t h e
b u i l d i n g w i l l r e m a i n u n i m p a i r e d .
BOARD OFARCHITECTURAL REVIEW
WORK SESSION MINUTES
August 04, 2014
Page 2 of 6
The window located on the north side of the new attached garage shall not be installed so as to
minimize the appearance of this rear addition from the street.
The projecting watertable on the new attached garage shall be eliminated so as to minimize the
appearance of the rear addition from the street.
The applicants, Stephen and Julie Chapin were present along with their architect Tom Gilbride.
Mr. Gilbride stated the watertable, on the rear side, was installed to carry the elevation line around
to the front side; however, it can be removed if that is the Board's desire. He stated the applicants
would like to retain the proposed window on the north side of the garage to preserve the character.
He stated the currently designed garage was pulled back behind the house an additional four feet to
address massing concerns. He stated no changes were proposed to the front porch. He stated the
former Black Cat Inn structure which previously stood on this property was similar in design to the
existing structure; however, the inn featured a front portico entrance, while the existing structure
incorporated a pediment entrance. He stated the addition of a front porch to this structure would
allow the owners to renovate the home to meet their needs while respecting the Colonial Revival
style of the structure. He noted the design guidelines used by the Board are not codes and are
therefore intended to be applied on a case by case basis since each building has its own unique
attributes. Further, he stated the front porch will enclose the existing pediment allowing a future
home owner to remove the porch if desired while not damaging the historic resource.
There was discussion regarding structures in the Historic District which have been altered on the
front fagade over time, including the Lightfoot building and the Glenfiddich House.
Chairman Kiley asked if the applicant has concerns with the conditions staff recommended for the
proposal with the exception of the front porch.
Mr. Gilbride stated the applicant would like to keep the garage window. He stated he would prefer
to keep the watertable on the garage as proposed, but would be willing to drop it down as it turns
the corner from the rear fagade.
Chairman Kiley stated he is opposed to the front porch on the front elevation. He stated the Black
Cat Inn building no longer exists and no precedent was set for a porch on this contributing structure.
Mr. Meyer stated a case has been made in that significant buildings within the district have been
altered in similar ways. He stated the guidelines are not codes and allow for us to evaluate projects
on a case by case basis. He stated in this particular case, these particular circumstances and the
composition of the proposed porch he could find approvable. He stated his only concern is the
"hipping" of the ends on the proposed porch.
Mr. Goodson stated he has no concerns with the garage as proposed; however, he does not find any
support within the guidelines to approve the proposed front porch addition to the historic structure.
Chairman Kiley noted there are only three members of the Board able to consider the application
this evening and asked if the applicants would be open to continuing discussion to the August
meeting when the remaining members of the Board would be available to review the application.
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING • 25 WEST MARKET STREET • LEESBURG, VIRGINIA 20176
Telephone 703.771.2765 • Fax 703.771.2724 • www.leesburgva.gov /planning
BOARD OFARCHITECTURAL REVIEW
WORK SESSION MINUTES
August 04, 2014
Page 3 of 6
Mr. Gilbride stated work needs to begin on this project; however, the applicants would be open to
deferring only the porch discussion if a vote could be held tonight on the remaining elements of the
application.
Mr. Meyer reminded the applicants that if they decide to move forward with a vote on the entire
application, that the right to appeal the Board's decision is available.
Mr. Meyer moved to approve TLHP -2014 -0053, proposals 2 -6 as submitted and that proposal 1
regarding the addition of a front porch will be continued to the September 15, 2014 BAR meeting.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Goodson and was approved by a 3 -0 -1 -3 (Reimers abstained.
Malloy, Minchew and Koochagian absent).
b. TLHP- 2014 -0039, 110 South Street SE (Market Station)
Project Description: Replacement of wood decking with composite decking material
Chairman Kiley noted the public hearing for this application has closed.
Mr. Scofield provided a brief outline of the existing deck conditions at Market Station. He stated it
was helpful to have the site visit at Jiffy Lube Live and to view the proposed decking material in
person. He stated his recommendation has changed slightly in this case in that he now feels if the
Board moves forward with the proposal that replacement should include all of the decking material
at Market Station, with the exception of any wood decking immediately associated with a
contributing historic resource. Further, he stated his recommendation of approval with the
following conditions:
1. Existing wood decking that is located in areas immediately associated with contributing historic
resources shall remain wood decking. A diagram showing these areas shall be provided by the
applicant.
2. In areas where decking is replaced, treaders shall be properly installed on stairs and steps so
that board ends are covered to ensure an appropriate appearance.
3. All entrance thresholds, building baseboards, planters and trim on column bases shall remain a
wood material.
4. The premium, multicolor Trex material, of which the sample has been provided by the applicant,
shall be used as the replacement decking material only in areas where the deck is not
immediately associated with a contributing historic resource. Once the material has been
replaced, the applicant shall provide a report to the BAR accompanied by photographs showing
the newly installed decking material along with a summary of any issues and problems
encountered during installation.
5. The existing larger areas of deck shall be divided up into smaller sections with a change in
direction for the deck boards in each section. A diagram of the proposed layout shall be
submitted to the BAR for final approval.
6. All ends of the composite deck boards shall be painted to match the existing base color of the
Trex material including any material cut during installation.
The applicant, Jake Wyatt was present.
Mr. Goodson stated he was able to attend the site visit and found the material to look better in
person than in the photographs that were presented. He expressed concern that a pattern was
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING • 25 WEST MARKET STREET • LEESBURG, VIRGINIA 20176
Telephone 703.771.2765 • Fax 703.771.2724 • www.leesburgva.gov /planning
BOARD OFARCHITECTURAL REVIEW
WORK SESSION MINUTES
August 04, 2014 Page 4 of 6
visible in the color variation when looking at a large expanse of the product; however, he felt that
would be mitigated by the proposed directional changes in the boards and by the proposed method
and the face screws used to install the boards. He stated given that market station is an
assemblage of historic structures and the decking area is non - contributing, he would be comfortable
with approving a non - traditional deck material.
Chairman Kiley stated Market Station is a manufactured place where old and new buildings are
blended together; therefore he can support the proposed use of this material.
Vice Chairman Reimers stated he is in concurrence with staff's recommendation; however, he would
support allowing staff to work with the applicant on the directional pattern for the decking boards
rather than having the layout return to the Board for approval.
Vice Chairman Reimers moved that TLHP- 2014 -0039 be approved based on the conditions provided
by staff with the following finding and condition stated below:
1. The BAR has determined that the Market Station complex at 110 South Street is a late 20th
century assemblage of a variety of contributing and noncontributing historic buildings moved to
the site from other locations adaptively reused for commercial retail and office use. The historic
buildings are all connected by a modern, noncontributing deck structure.
2. The diagram for the proposed layout shall be submitted to staff for final approval.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Goodson and approved by a 3 -0 -1 -3 vote (Meyer abstained.
Malloy, Minchew and Koochagian absent).
Presentation and Discussion
a. Loudoun County Court House Expansion
Mr. Scofield stated the court house design team requested that this informational item be added to
the agenda so that preliminary feedback could be provided as to their proposed designs. He stated the
staff report provided in the packet addressed staff's comments based on an earlier meeting with the
design team and has been updated to include comments based on the information prepared for
tonight's meeting.
Melissa Tello, Loudoun County project manager. She stated the County has been working very
cooperatively with the Town staff regarding all eventual approvals for this application. She stated it was
very important to the project team to make this initial presentation to the Board and noted a Certificate
of Appropriateness would be filed for approval later this year. Further, she stated she looks forward to
the Board's comments regarding the proposal.
Marlene Shade, Dewberry project manager, introduced Jim Beight and Michelle Cho. She stated the
first component of the proposed project is a new district courthouse on the Church Street lot across
from the existing courts complex. She stated the proposal also includes the construction of a garage on
the Pennington log and improvements to the Semones lot. She stated an underground tunnel will be
constructed to connect the court complex and will be used by court staff and for the transportation of
detainees. She stated the Valley Bank building will be repurposed as the law library with no proposed
exterior changes. Further, she stated four houses owned by Loudoun County along Edwards Ferry Road
would need to be removed.
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING • 25 WEST MARKET STREET • LEESBURG, VIRGINIA 20176
Telephone 703.771.2765 • Fax 703.771.2724 • www.leesburgva.gov /planning
BOARD OFARCHITECTURAL REVIEW
WORK SESSION MINUTES
August 04, 2014 Page 5 of 6
Ms. Shade stated the project team met with the County court house staff to determine their needs out
to 2025. She stated in designing the structure, the team looked to the historic district and the existing
courts complex for inspiration. She outlined the preferred design option and stated that none of the
proposed designs can be constructed without removal of the four houses along Edwards Ferry Road.
She stated the houses do not have original windows or doors and all have had additions added
overtime. She stated a Phase 1 analysis has been completed and Phase 2 is underway. She stated an
archeological study will also be conducted. She stated there is hope that the utility lines can be placed
underground and some element of the existing court house complex fencing will be integrated into the
site. Further, she stated the project team has met with court staff, judges and town staff and held two
public meetings. Further, she presented three design options.
Chairman Kiley stated he is aware that the planned garage is outside of the historic district boundary
and asked the proposed height of the garage.
Ms. Shade stated the height is approximately 30 feet. She stated one level of the garage will be
embedded in the ground given the significant slope of the site.
Chairman Kiley verified the accessible parking spaces would be moved to the Semones parking lot and
will be fully ADA compliant.
Ms. Shade stated there will also be accessible parking in the garage and a few accessible parking spaces
in the new court house building for staff and judges.
Mr. Reimers verified the parking garage will not require the removal of homes on North Street.
Mr. Meyer asked what is planned for the area along Edwards Ferry Road where the four contributing
structures are proposed for demolition.
Ms. Shade stated she is just beginning work on the landscape plan; however, this area is currently
planned for terraced plantings and landscaping. She the set design for the interior of the proposed
building dictates the size. She stated there is a significant grade change from the area of the proposed
building and the existing houses which require the installation of a storm water management tank under
the site of one of the houses.
Mr. Meyer stated he has been working on a project across the street from this site where a historic
structure will be restored and new construction built around it. He asked if it would be possible to save
some of the houses if the later additions were removed.
Ms. Shade stated this process started with a design charrette and seven initial designs were presented
to the County. She stated the building took many shapes initially but the functioning of the courts is so
hampered by some of the configurations that they had to be left behind. She stated they were unable
to find a solution which allowed for the Edwards Ferry Road structures to stay.
Mr. Meyer suggested perhaps the facades of the structures could be saved. He stated he understands
practical considerations of storm water management and site circulation; however, solid justification
will need to be provided in order for the Board to approve the total demolition of all four contributing
structures.
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING • 25 WEST MARKET STREET • LEESBURG, VIRGINIA 20176
Telephone 703.771.2765 • Fax 703.771.2724 • www.leesburgva.gov /planning
BOARD OFARCHITECTURAL REVIEW
WORK SESSION MINUTES
August 04, 2014
Page 6 of 6
Mr. Goodson stated the front of the western most building at 106 Edwards Ferry Road is very shallow
and perhaps could be partially saved.
There was further discussion regarding the proposed demolition.
Mr. Beight stated he understands the Board's concern and will work towards providing significant
evidence to support the proposal when the application is submitted.
Mr. Meyer asked why the design team has stated option 1 as their preferred design scheme.
Ms. Shade sated it was thought that option 1 provides the ability to establish a relationship with the
existing site while becoming a background structure allowing the historic structures to stand out.
Mr. Meyer stated he agrees with the sentiment of a background building; however, he does not get that
feeling from the design in option 1. He stated the original courthouse expansion did a good job in terms
of contemporary interpretations of traditional architecture.
Chairman Kiley and Vice Chairman Reimers expressed a preference for option 5
Mr. Goodson stated a preference for option 5 with some elements of option 3.
Mr. Meyer stated he would pull elements from option 5 and option 3. Further, he encouraged the
project team to reach out to the surrounding neighborhood as it relates to the parking garage and
change in traffic on Harrison Street.
Chairman Kiley verified the applicant hopes to submit their application this fall. He stated it was helpful
to the board and applicant with the Court House Square application to hold several meetings dedicated
to the project and suggested that may be helpful in this case as well.
Old Business
a. Amending the Bylaws regarding work session format
Discussion of this item was moved to the next meeting.
New Business
None
Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 8:52 pm.
Edward Kiley, Chair
Deborah Parry, Planning & Zoning Assistant
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING • 25 WEST MARKET STREET • LEESBURG, VIRGINIA 20176
Telephone 703.771.2765 • Fax 703.771.2724 • www.leesburgva.gov /planning