Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout2014 10 20 BAR Meetingo � LEESBURG BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BUSINESS MEETING MINUTES Monday, 20 October, 2014 Town Hall, 25 West Market Street Council Chamber MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Edward Kiley, Parliamentarian Dale Goodson, Richard Koochagian, Mark Malloy Teresa Minchew, Dieter Meyer and Planning Commission Representative Lyndsay Welsh Chamblin MEMBERS ABSENT: Vice Chairman Paul Reimers and Council Representative Tom Dunn STAFF: Preservation Planner Tom Scofield and Planning & Zoning Assistant Deborah Parry Call to Order and Roll Call Chairman Kiley called the meeting to order at 7:00pm, noted attendance and determined that a quorum was present. Adoption of the Meeting Agenda On a motion by Ms. Minchew seconded by Mr. Koochagian, the meeting agenda was adopted by a 6 -0 -1 vote (Reimers absent). Approval of Meeting Minutes a. August 4, 2014 BAR Work Session Mr. Malloy, Mr. Koochagian and Ms. Minchew noted they were not present for the August 4th work session. On a motion by Mr. Meyer, seconded by Mr. Goodson, the minutes were approved by a 3 -0 -1 -3 vote (Reimers absent; Koochagian, Malloy and Minchew abstaining). b. August 18, 2014 BAR Meeting Ms. Minchew and Mr. Goodson noted they were not present for the August 18th meeting. On a motion by Mr. Meyer, seconded by Mr. Koochagian, the minutes were approved by a 4 -0 -1 -2 vote (Reimers absent; Goodson and Minchew recused). BAR Member Disclosures: Mr. Meyer noted he has a pending contract with a tenant at 109 S King Street whom may be affected by the signage for the property and therefore recused himself from case TLHP- 2014 -0079. Public Comment and Presentations None Consent Agenda a. TLHP- 2014 -0091, 107 Cornwall Street NW Project: Installation of patio and miscellaneous lighting, construction of new screened porch and hood over east side entrance. On a motion by Mr. Meyer, seconded by Mr. Malloy, the consent agenda was approved by a 6 -0 -1 vote (Reimers absent). Petitioners There were no petitioners. BOARD OFARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BUSINESS MEETING MINUTES 20 October, 2014 Continued Cases in the H -1 Overlay District a. TLHP- 2014 -0071, 306 West Market Street Project: Replace siding and install hood over rear entrance Chairman Kiley noted the applicant was not present. Page 2 of 12 It was the consensus of the Board to move this item to the end of the agenda. The Board returned to this item at the end of its agenda noting that the applicant had not yet arrived. Mr. Meyer moved to defer case TLHP- 2014 -0071 to the November 17, 2014 meeting. The motion was seconded by Ms. Minchew and approved by a 5 -0 -2 vote (Reimers and Goodson absent) b. TLHP- 2014 -0079, 109 South King Street Project Description: Amend the comprehensive sign plan Chairman Kiley opened the public hearing at 7:04pm. Mr. Scofield stated this application is a request to amend the comprehensive sign plan for the property at 109 South King Street. He stated the proposed amendment would allow the hanging of additional signs on the two existing brackets. He outlined the existing sign plan and the location of allowable signs. Further, he recommended approval with the following conditions: 1. The comprehensive sign plan for 109 South King Street shall not be terminated as requested by the applicant because it provides opportunity for the installation of signs at this property that would not otherwise ben consistent with the Old & Historic District Sign Guidelines and Section 15 of the Zoning Ordinance. 2. Generally, the following sign requirements shall be in effect: a. A maximum of one (1) sign per tenant. b. Each business may be also featured on the allowed directory signs for the building if provided by the property owner or manager. c. A maximum of one (1) sign identifying the building /property name which may include the address. 3. Specifically, for the projecting sign position as identified as "A" in the comprehensive sign plan: a. A maximum of three (3) signs total allowed in this position. b. The maximum dimension allowed per sign shall be changed to 24 "x24 ". c. Language shall be added that states "Minimum clearance to the sidewalk of 7'6" must be maintained ". d. A reference to the specific page containing the illustration and rules within the comprehensive sign plan shall be added. 4. Specifically, for the projecting sign position identified as "B" in the comprehensive sign plan: a. A maximum of two (2) signs total allowed in this position. b. The maximum dimension allowed per sign shall be changed to 36 "x24 ". c. Language shall be added that states "Minimum clearance to the sidewalk of 7'6" must be maintained ". d. A reference to the specific page containing the illustration and rules within the comprehensive sign plan shall be added. 5. Specifically, for the projecting sign position identified as "F" in the comprehensive sign plan: a. The sign bracket shall only be used by tenants whose primary access is in the basement entrance. b. A maximum of two (2) signs total allowed in this position. c. The maximum dimension allowed per sign shall be changed to 24 "x24 ". d. Language shall be added that states "Minimum clearance to the sidewalk of 7'6" must be maintained. 6. All other provisions of the comprehensive sign plan for 109 South King Street shall remain in effect. The applicant, Michael McLister, stated he purchased the property in 2013. He stated the amendment is needed because of the growing number of professional businesses located in the 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 BUSINESS MEETING MINUTES 20 October, 2014 Page 3 of 12 building. He stated he originally asked to terminate the sign plan; however, staff recommended that the sign plan be kept in place and amended to fit the current needs of the building. Additionally, he stated that he has a number of sign applications on hold pending the Board's decision. Mr. Koochagian referenced the sign plan language regarding the allowance for a sign to identify the name of the building and address. He stated it is his understanding that the Board cannot indicate content of signs and asked if the language stating, "... may include address" is appropriate. Mr. Scofield stated the sign guidelines address how addresses are to be displayed on buildings, so the language regarding the address on the business sign was simply to add a clarification. Ms. Minchew stated staff's recommended conditions allow for each tenant to have a sign separate from the directory sign and asked if there should be a ceiling added to identify how many tenants may have the extra sign. Mr. McLister stated the proposed comprehensive sign plan includes a maximum number of signs allowed on each bracket and would only allow for one sign for each of the seven tenants in the building. Ms. Minchew expressed concern that there could be a scenario where the office space is divided further and more than seven tenants could be in the building. Mr. Malloy verified the applicant is in agreement with staff's recommended conditions. There were no petitioners and the public hearing was closed at 7:17pm. There was further discussion as to whether a maximum number of signs should be clarified in the sign plan in the event that the space is divided and more tenants are leased space. Mr. Malloy moved to approve TLHP- 2014 -0079 with conditions as outlined by staff. The motion was seconded by Ms. Minchew and approved by a 5 -0 -1 -1 vote (Reimers absent and Meyer recused). Public Hearings on New Cases in the H -1 Overlay District a. TLHP- 2014 -0090, 234 Cornwall Street NW Project: Erect a prefabricated, detached garage and extend gravel driveway Chairman Kiley opened the public hearing at 7:19pm. Mr. Scofield outlined the request to erect a new, prefabricated 24'x36' detached garage towards the rear, northwest corner of the land parcel and to extend the gravel driveway to provide vehicular access the new garage. He stated he applicant is working with a company and provided some literature from the company as well as some rough drawings showing the approximate details of the proposed structure. He outlined several concerns with proposed orientation of the building, appearance and placement of the garage doors, style of entrance door, window muntins, T -111 material and lack of boxed eaves with fascia and soffit. He stated he recommends approval with the following conditions: 1. The placement of the outbuilding shall meet all setbacks as required by the Zoning Ordinance — two (2) feet from side and rear lot lines for accessory structures. 2. The proposed prefabricated, frame outbuilding will be constructed on a concrete slab with a 4- inch reveal. 3. Boxed eves with fascia and soffit shall be constructed as seen on the photograph of the standard, prefabricated outbuilding entitled `Two -story Double -wide Garage' as provided by the manufacturer. 4. The garage doors shall match the `Homestead -style Garage Door with Barn Hinges' with or without windows, as provided by the manufacturer. 5. A solid door with panels or lights shall be used. 6. Plastic grids or internal muntins shall not be used on the windows. 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 BUSINESS MEETING MINUTES 20 October, 2014 Page 4 of 12 7. No false shutters shall be used on the outbuilding. 8. Gutters and downspouts shall be installed on the building as indicated on the applicant's submittal. 9. The width of the extended portion of the gravel driveway shall be no wider than the existing driveway. The applicant, Lawrence Craun, stated he is in agreement with staff's conditions Mr. Goodson asked if dimension drawings and cut sheets for windows and doors have been provided. Mr. Scofield stated the building is prefabricated and should be similar in appearance to the photograph provided. He stated drawings with dimensions were not provided to staff. Mr. Goodson verified the proposed gutter style will match the primary house structure on the property Mr. Koochagian verified there will be no shutters installed on the building and the building will be a solid cream color without the darker water table shown in the photograph. Mr. Koochagian asked staff to clarify which elements from the photograph will be included in the proposed structure. Mr. Scofield stated the boxed eves and rake will be as shown in the photograph. He stated staff has recommended that the garage doors and entrance door shown in the photograph be installed rather than the proposed doors. Mr. Koochagian asked if the soffit would be done in T -111 as shown in the photograph. Mr. Scofield stated the applicant is unsure of the material for the soffit; however, it would be unusual for the soffit to be T -111. He suggested adding a condition to the approval to indicate that the soffit will not be T -111. Mr. Meyer stated he would be willing to approve the "pork chop" eave style given that it is common in newer structure; however, he would not want to be on record as encouraging that eave style. Ms. Minchew expressed concern with the lack of details and dimensions on the drawings provided. She suggested that additional information regarding the measurements and details be procured from the builder. She verified the structure is proposed to be 19 feet tall and placed on a 4 inch concrete slab. She stated there has been extensive discussion previously regarding the use of T -111 and ensuring it is only used in circumstances where there is limited visibility. Further, she stated a final plan showing the exact location of the building should be submitted to staff along with material specifications for the various elements including windows. There was further discussion regarding previous discussions related to the use of T -111 in the Historic District and the consideration given with regards to visibility when using the material. Mr. Scofield stated in the proposed location the shed would have limited visibility and therefore he did not recommend use of an alternate material. Further, he stated there are other sheds on the property which are made with T -111. Ms. Minchew verified staff has no record of Board approval for the other sheds on the property. There were no petitioners and the public hearing was closed at 7:44pm. There was further discussion regarding the use of T -111 and the lack of detailed information, including drawings with dimensions, material specifications and site plan. Ms. Minchew asked that staff research previous cases where T -111 has been approved in the Historic District. Further, she asked that staff inform the Board as to whether a structure of this size 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 BUSINESS MEETING MINUTES 20 October, 2014 Page 5 of 12 with T -111 has been constructed within the Historic District so that the Board members may view the structure prior to further discussion of this case. Mr. Malloy expressed concern that this two -story structure may have more prominence on the site than is thought and suggested that the applicant consider the use of board and batten in lieu of T -111. Mr. Koochagian moved to continue TLHP- 2014 -0090 to such time as the applicant is able to provide the necessary documentation requested by the Board. The motion was seconded by Ms. Minchew and approved by a 6 -0 -1 vote (Reimers absent). b. TLHP- 2014 -0087, 116 E Market Street Project: Relocate HVAC units, enlarge balcony and modify doorways Chairman Kiley opened the public hearing at 7:58 pm. Mr. Scofield stated this construction project was previously approved in case TLHP- 2013 -0117. He stated there were several items in the original approval to be submitted to staff for review; however, when staff visited the site, several items were noted which were not in compliance with the Board approval and /or the construction documents. He outlined the proposal to relocate the HVAC units to the rear, enlarge the balcony to accommodate restaurant tables and chairs, lengthen the balcony, install a double -leave door at the primary entrance, install a double -leaf sliding door on the balcony, adjust dimensions of the sidelights on the primary entrance to accommodate the new door and install gutters and downspouts. Further, he recommended approval of the application with the following condition: 1. The internal muntins on the installed sidelights for the first floor and balcony entrances shall be removed. The applicant, Sokol Alija, stated he has no objection to the condition suggested by staff Ms. Minchew verified the installed windows are simulated divided light and do not have snap -in muntins. She asked if the six - over -six window configuration was previously approved by the Board Mr. Scofield stated the Board had approved a two - over -two window configuration for the building; however, staff attempted to address as many of the inconsistencies as possible with this project and the six - over -six window configuration was addressed at that time with an administrative approval. Ms. Minchew asked if staff had also approved the new location of the grease exhaust pan and hood. Mr. Scofield stated the earlier approval on this project allowed for staff to review the location of these items and the alternate location was administratively approved. Mr. Meyer noted that the current location of the exhaust pan and hood on the rear of this property is very visible from Edwards Ferry Road and asked why it was deemed that these items did not need to be screened when it was deemed that these items as located on a structure on Harrison Street should be screened. Mr. Scofield stated this structure has all four sides exposed to the right -of -way and there is no place to locate these items where they would not be seen. He stated it was his assessment that in its current location it is only visible to one public roadway as opposed to its previously approved roof location where it was visible on two public roadways. There were no petitioners and the public hearing was closed at 8:14pm. Mr. Koochagian verified staff is recommending that the muntins be removed from the sidelights on the front and balcony doors while the corner transom muntins above the front entry are not suggested for removal. He asked if the style of the front entrance handrail is consistent with what was approved by the Board. 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 BUSINESS MEETING MINUTES 20 October, 2014 Page 6 of 12 Mr. Scofield stated the handrail is consistent with the construction drawings; however, he is uncertain of the style which was approved by the Board. Mr. Meyer moved to approve TLHP- 2014 -0087 with condition of approval as outlined by staff. The motion was seconded by Ms. Minchew and approved by a 6 -0 -1 vote (Reimers absent). c. TLHP- 2014 -0085, 12 Ayr Street SW Project: Expand non - historic rear addition; install front porch windows and lighting Chairman Kiley opened the public hearing at 8:17pm Mr. Scofield outlined the proposal to expand the non - historic rear addition of this structure by adding 5 feet to the north side, constructing a second floor and enclosing the deck area. He stated additional proposals include installation of two new four - over -four double -hung sash windows with shutters on the enclosed sections of the front porch and installation of two new light fixtures at the front entrance. He stated the primary resource is a contributing structure in the National Register and Local Historic Districts. He stated the original circa 1910 structure has been substantially altered including the replacement of siding, replacement of windows and enclosure of the front porch. He outlined several concerns with the proposal including the roofline, wall -plane massing, window proportions and configurations, door configuration on the left side and door position on the right side. He stated additional information is needed regarding materials, and the appearance of the proposed light fixtures, entrance steps /railings, window detail and eaves. Further he recommended approval with the following conditions: 1. The roof ridge of the new addition shall align with the ridge of the existing roof and the rooflines shall be secondary to those of the existing structure. 2. On the `Left Side Elevation' (north side), a break in the wall plane shall be provided between the one -story and two -story sections of the new addition by stepping back the one -story section at least four (4) inches. 3. On the `Left Side Elevation' (north side), the roof overhang of the new addition shall be shortened so as not to extend on to the original portion of the house. 4. The fenestration on the `Left Side Elevation' (north side) of the expanded non - historic addition shall be reconfigured to be compatible with adjacent historic buildings. 5. On the `Left Side Elevation' (north side) the door on the one -story section shall be positioned further away from the corner, if possible. 6. On the `Back Side Elevation' (east side) the trimwork (fascia /corner board) on the southeast corner shall be changed to match the remainder of the new addition. 7. On the `Front Side Elevation' (west side) the new entrance door with window above that faces the street, shall be changed to closer match in appearance the style and type of traditional residential doors and windows found in the neighborhood and historic district. 8. The six "floating" windows above the west entrance door and above the casement windows on the sought and east elevations of the expanded non - historic addition shall be repositioned and resized to function as transoms to closer resemble traditional buildings in the neighborhood. 9. The single -light fixed windows and single -light casement windows shall be changed to true divided or simulated divided light configurations with external mullions. 10. On the `Right Side Elevation' (south side) and the `Back Side Elevation' (east side) the dimensions of the three second floor windows shall be adjusted to reflect more vertical proportions. 11. Information on the appearance and materials for proposed railings and steps at the new entrances shall be provided by the applicant. 12. All new windows shall be installed with a depth of reveal of at least three inches in from the exterior wall surface and a window sill at least three inches in height projecting at least two inches out from the exterior wall surface. 13. New window and door surrounds shall be at least three inches in width, shall project out from the wall even with or further than the siding, and shall not be installed on top of any siding. 14. The two new windows proposed for the enclosed sections of the front porch are not appropriate in appearance, are not consistent with the design guidelines, and shall not be installed. 15. Additional information on the appearance and position of the two new light fixtures on the front porch shall be provided for approval prior to installation. 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 BUSINESS MEETING MINUTES 20 October, 2014 Page 7 of 12 16. No other exterior alterations to the circa 1910 (original) portion of the house or circa 1950 addition are proposed in this Certificate of Appropriateness application. No alterations shall be made to these sections of the house without further review and approval by the Board of Architectural Review. 17. Final construction documents shall be provided to the Preservation Planner for review prior to the application of a building permit. Any discrepancies between the plans and drawings submitted for this Certificate of Appropriateness application and final construction documents may require additional review and approval by the Board of Architectural Review. The owner, Veronica Pastor and architect Bill Sutton were present. Mr. Sutton stated he has no issue with staff condition 1 and submitted drawings to show how the roof ridge aligns. Mr. Sutton stated he is looking for guidance from the Board regarding staff's conditions regarding the side and rear elevations, such as condition 2, as the sides have limited visibility from the public right of way. He stated he has no concerns with condition 3. In addressing condition 4, Mr. Sutton stated the windows on the lower floor of the left side of the building are dictated by the floor plan. He stated this area of the home will be a kitchen and storage area towards the rear. He stated the placement of the windows is to aid in the function of the home. Ms. Pastor stated two of the windows on this elevation are existing. Mr. Sutton addressed condition 5 stating the proposed door is at the extreme end of the kitchen counter. He stated this is an extension of a door that is existing and moving the door would alter the functionality of the kitchen. Mr. Sutton stated he has no issues with staff condition 6. Mr. Sutton addressed conditions 7 and 8 stating the owner is seeking to open up the home to more light by installing the glass door on the expansion to continue the theme of the windows and transoms on all three sides of the proposed addition. He stated this area set back from the street and is screened by a fence and tree. In addressing condition 9, Mr. Sutton stated there are no existing divided lite windows on the home and therefore the proposed new windows are single pane as well. Mr. Sutton addressed condition 10 by stating the windows as proposed for the second story on the south and east elevations are for a master bedroom addition and are placed to meet ingress /egress requirements. Further, he noted the windows will not be visible from the public right -of -way. Further, he stated there are no issues with condition 11. Mr. Sutton addressed condition 12 stating the existing windows are standard set into the frame wall and asked if the existing condition is acceptable for the new windows to be installed. Mr. Scofield stated the condition addresses the guidelines in that the existing windows are not original and have not been installed in a manner that would meet the design guidelines. Mr. Meyer asked how the depth of revel mentioned by staff could be achieved in a frame structure. Mr. Scofield stated his intention is to provide for articulation by having depth as opposed to having the windows in the same plane as the wall. Chairman Kiley verified the existing windows in the structure have a minimal reveal and minimal sill; however, staff is suggesting something that would more closely relate to what is found in the neighborhood as stated in the design guidelines. Mr. Meyer verified the applicant is intending to install the windows in the common manner. Mr. Koochagian stated in looking at the cut sheets provided, it does appear that the casement windows could be in the same plane as the wall as staff has pointed out. 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 BUSINESS MEETING MINUTES 20 October, 2014 Page 10 of 12 Mr. Sutton stated in looking at condition 13 he has a concern with staff's recommendation in that it is the desire of the owner to be consistent with the existing fenestration in the existing structure. He stated the plan is to set the windows and doors with trim that is in keeping with the existing trim. Mr. Sutton addressed condition 14 stating it was his idea to insert the windows into the porch which was enclosed in the 1960's. He stated it was thought the addition of the windows to the non - historic enclosed porch would give a more street friendly feel to the structure. Ms. Pastor stated this structure has evolved in many ways since its beginning as a warehouse. She stated in pursing the alterations to the front of the home she was looking to restore the light that would have been there with the front porch; however, it is not possible to reinstall the front porch because it would require relocation of the electric panel. She stated she has great respect for the historic character of the house and the street. Mr. Sutton stated he has no concerns with conditions 15 -17. Chairman Kiley confirmed the applicant has no concerns with conditions 1, 3, 6, 11 and 15 -17. Mr. Malloy verified the windows and siding in the original structure and 1940 addition will not be altered. He asked if the applicant would consider using the thicker, high profile, Hardie Plank siding for the new addition with a smooth finish to better match the existing siding. Mr. Sutton stated he had not reached that level of detail with the owner yet. He reminded the Board that the structure is located mid -block with limited public view of the sides and no public view of the rear. Mr. Malloy suggested larger windows for the front of the structure may go further to bringing back the feel of the front porch. Further, he stated he would like for discussion of this item to be continued to a work session given the number of conditions recommended by staff. Ms. Pastor and Mr. Sutton stated the structure would not support larger windows given the location of closets, electrical equipment and insulation in that area of the house. Mr. Goodson verified the proposed windows on the front fagade are not centered because of closets located inside the home. The petitioners section opened at 9:13pm. Bob Brown, stated his home is across the street from this structure and he is in full support of the applicant's proposal. There were no further petitioners and the public hearing was closed at 9:15pm. There was further discussion regarding the need for additional information regarding the type of Hardi -Plank to be used on the new additions, roof configuration, the placement of the door on the north elevation, light fixtures and the need to see a casement window sample to understand the depth of reveal. It was the general consensus of the Board to continue discussion to a work session. Mr. Koochagian thanked the applicant for providing such detailed drawings to help in review of this complex proposal. Ms. Minchew moved to continue TLHP- 2014 -0085 to the next work session or such time as is acceptable to the applicant. The motion was seconded by Mr. Koochagian and approved by a 6 -0 -1 vote (Reimers absent). 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 BUSINESS MEETING MINUTES 20 October, 2014 d. TLHP- 2014 -0086, 101 North King Street Project: Construct hood on front entrance, side elevated walkway and new rear door Chairman Kiley opened the public hearing at 9:37pm. Page 10 of 12 Mr. Scofield outlined the three proposals (1) to construct a portico hood over the front entrance, (2) to replace an existing second floor window in the rear of the original building with a single -hung 6 -panel door and (3) to construct thirty -four linear feet of elevated walkway along the south side of the rear ell from the new entrance door to the existing stairway on the west end. He stated this structure is historic and contributing to the National Register and locally designated Old and Historic District. He expressed concern with proposal 1 stating the dimensions, configuration and architectural details of the proposed portico hood do not match the appearance of the former porch structure and therefore is not consistent with the design guidelines. Regarding proposal 2, he expressed concern with the proposed destruction of some historic material in the original section of the building by removing the window and installing a door. He also expressed concern with proposal 3 regarding the visual impact of the proposed walkway and the attachment of a new secondary structure to the building. Further, he recommended that discussion of this item be continued to a work session to provide opportunity for the applicant to make changes to the application and provide the following additional information: Provide a sketch of the existing and proposed floor plans showing prospective tenant layouts and means of access to each unit. Investigate the existing, enclosed frame porch on the south side of the rear ell to determine condition of the structure, condition of materials and document any hidden architectural features. Submit additional information regarding: a. Detailed appearance and reversibility of the new second floor entrance door; b. Assessment of window sashes to be removed and preservation strategy, if needed; and c. Means of fastening or attaching the elevated walkway to historic portions of the building. The applicant, Michael McLister, stated he is in agreement with staff's recommendation that discussion of this application be continued to a work session when his contractor, Vice Chairman Reimers, is in attendance. He stated he would like that discussion to include the proposed front portico. He stated the previously existing porch cannot be reinstalled because of setback regulations; however, he would like to have some visual enhancement to the front fagade to bring the feel back to the historic look of the structure. He stated his reason for requesting the door and walkway on the side of the building is to meet renter demand for an entrance leading directly into their space. He noted the stairway in the original portion of the structure which leads to the second floor is very awkward and difficult to navigate. He stated the placement of the walkway and entrance on the Cornwall Street side was recommended by the Fire Marshall's office. Further, he stated he would be willing to preserve the window proposed for removal. Mr. Meyer verified the applicant would like to totally restore the original front porch on the structure if permitted. He noted previous cases where the BAR has been granted certain latitude and asked that staff investigate whether there is any way that the restoration of the front porch could be approved. There was further discussion regarding the front porch and options available to the applicant. Ms. Minchew stated she would be interested in seeing any further ideas or options considered for access to the second floor office space. There were no petitioners. It was the consensus of the Board to hold the public hearing open. Mr. Malloy moved to continue TLHP- 2014 -0086 to the November 3rd work session. The motion was seconded by Ms. Minchew and approved by a 6 -0 -1 vote (Reimers absent) Chairman Kiley asked that the applicant provide the information requested by staff prior to the November 3rd work session. Mr. Goodson left the meeting at 10:04pm. 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 BUSINESS MEETING MINUTES 20 October, 2014 New Cases in the H -2 Overlay District a. TLHP- 2014 -0089, Village at Leesburg Project: Amend proffered design guidelines Chairman Kiley opened the public hearing at 10:04pm. Page 10 of 12 Mr. Scofield outlined the following proposals to modify the Design Guide for Village at Leesburg: 1. Changes to the tree pit design to include tree pit guards and associated pavers. 2. Adding sculptural features and changes to the hardscape /landscape improvements in the median at the east and west ends of Village Market Boulevard. 3. Changes to the overall plan for the plaza area at Village Market Square including removal of a portion of the traffic island, installation of removable bollards for traffic control, and a new paver design for the street. 4. Introduction of ornamental tree lighting in select locations. 5. Installation of an interactive water fountain on the north side of Village Market Square. 6. Alterations to the existing water fountain and plaza on the south side of Village Market Square. 7. Painting of murals on the walls of select buildings similar in appearance to historic advertising murals, but not promoting specific businesses or commercial establishments. Mr. Scofield stated he has minimal issues with the exception of the murals. He stated the Zoning Administrator has made the determination that murals are only allowed on the sides of public buildings, not private buildings, based on previous Zoning Ordinance amendments by Council. Further, he recommended approval with the following conditions: 1. A plan or map shall be added to the Design Guide for the Village at Leesburg that shows all locations where ornamental tree lighting will be installed. 2. The ornamental tree lighting and associated fixtures should be installed in a manner that does not harm or impede growth of trees and shrubs. Installation of the tree lights shall be coordinated with the Town's acting Urban Forester, Bill Ference, to ensure compliance with this condition. 3. The proposed murals on the sides of select buildings as shown on pages 29 -A through 29 -J of the amended design guidelines conflict with regulations and requirements outlined in the Zoning Ordinance and, therefore, is prohibited and cannot be approved. The applicants, Steve Cue and Emily Struck had no issue with staff's proposed conditions. Chairman Kiley verified the applicant understands the Zoning Administrator's determination related to the murals. Mr. Meyer stated he feels murals would add vibrancy to the development. He asked how the decision on murals had been made. Mr. Scofield stated the Council action was related to requests from other individuals to place murals on private buildings and concerns with the content of the murals. Mr. Meyer stated if the applicant feels strongly enough, perhaps a Zoning Ordinance text amendment could be proposed by the applicant for planned unit developments such as this. There were no petitioners and the public hearing was closed at 10:12pm. Mr. Koochagian concurred with Mr. Meyer's comments regarding the murals. Mr. Koochagian moved to approve TLHP- 2014 -0089 with conditions as outlined by staff. The motion was seconded by Mr. Meyer and approved by a 5 -0 -2 vote (Goodson and Reimers absent). b. TLHP- 2014 -0092, 847 E Market Street (Jerry's Ford) Project: Demolish existing building, construct new building and install signs Chairman Kiley opened the public hearing at 10:14pm. Mr. Scofield outlined this proposal for the phased demolition of an existing building and construction of a new automobile sales showroom and service facilitv associated with Jerrv's Ford. He noted 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 BUSINESS MEETING MINUTES 20 October, 2014 Page 11 of 12 architectural details for the proposed parking garage will be submitted as a separate application. He expressed concern that the east and west sides of the showroom as well as the service portion of the building do not reflect some of the same architectural features and details as the primary fagade. He suggested that the parapet/cornice line should be stepped to break up the massing of the front and side elevations of the showroom area and that pilasters be added to the sides and rear to break up the massing. He suggested that the main entrance portal be centered on the fagade and that the masonry foundation should be extended beneath the curtain glass walls on the east and west to break up the large spans of glass. He suggested that the proposed front entrance portal be constructed in a manner that would allow for it to be removed should the main product line of the dealership change. Further, he recommended approval with the following conditions: 1. The main entrance portal is a standardized architectural feature promoted by the Ford Corporation and shall be designed to be removed if the building use or featured automobile brand changes in the future. 2. Sixteen of the parking spaces, including handicap accessible parking, at the front of the building shall be specifically dedicated and marked for customer parking. 3. The proposed design shall be revised and resubmitted so that the entrance portal is centered on the fagade (north side) of the building. 4. The proposed design shall be revised and resubmitted so that the proposed parapet/cornice line is stepped to break up the massing of the front and sides of the showroom portion of the building. 5. The proposed design shall be revised and resubmitted so that the east and west sides of the auto showroom portion of the building reflect the same architectural features and details as the primary fagade. 6. The proposed design shall be revised and resubmitted so that some evenly spaced pilasters are added to the east, west, and rear (south) sides of the service section to break up the massing for this portion of the building. 7. The exterior surfaces of CMU block used in the construction of the building shall not be painted. 8. Information shall be provided by the applicant regarding the use of reflective or tinted glass to ensure compliance with the design guidelines. 9. A separate Certificate of Appropriateness application for the final design of the parking garage shall be submitted at a future date. The applicants, architect Pete Balo and owner Gary Cohen were present. Mr. Balo stated he has no issue with proposed conditions 1, 2, 7, 8 and 9. He clarified that the showroom glass will be clear; however, there is some upper panel glass proposed to be back painted gray to conceal steelwork. He stated conditions 3 and 4 were discussed as part of the special exception process during which time the applicant met with the former Preservation Planner and representatives from the Ford Motor Company to work with the H -2 guidelines in designing the front fagade. He stated the arrangement of the panels and the portal on the front fagade, slightly off center, is intentional and very important to the Ford Company. Regarding condition 5, he stated the darker tile on the side was a suggestion of the former Preservation Planner and he prefers that look as it delineates the showroom potion of the building from the other areas; however, the tile color could be changed to the lighter gray if the Board prefers. Regarding condition 6, he stated the lot is very narrow and the sides will have limited visibility for anyone entering the site. Mr. Cohen stated he has been working on this project for two years and worked very closely with Ford and the former Preservation Planner to design the building. He stated the Ford Company has asked for more metal details on the fagade and he informed them that those details would likely not be approved by the Board. Further, he asked that the Board approve the fagade as designed stating the existing facility is falling apart and the proposed design will be an enhancement for the Town. Ms. Minchew stated there is nothing in the application regarding the demolition of the existing structure and asked if that was due to the fact that the property is within the H -2 Corridor. Mr. Scofield stated it is not addressed because it is in the H -2 Corridor and the building is not 50 years or older. Ms. Minchew asked why staff feels condition 2 regarding the parking spaces is necessary. 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 BUSINESS MEETING MINUTES 20 October, 2014 Page 12 of 12 Mr. Scofield stated the site plan indicates the parking is for customers and or sales. He stated the design guidelines call for ease of access at primary facades and therefore he added the condition as a clarification to ensure that there would be room for sales vehicles and customer parking. Ms. Minchew stated she does not interpret the guidelines in that manner and therefore would be open to the applicant's preference. Mr. Cohen stated he would ensure there is plenty of parking for customers There were no petitioners and the public hearing was closed at 10:40pm. There was further discussion regarding general support for the structure as designed with proposed conditions 1, 7, 8 and 9. Further, there was discussion regarding minor concerns with the large expanse of wall on the sides of the building beyond the showroom portion. Mr. Koochagian asked if the applicant had considered a smaller water table or alternate design for the expanse of glass on the front fagade. Mr. Balo stated he had not considered a water table; however, he felt that with the glass stepping out a bit it would give a nice layered feel that would add to the dynamics of the structure. Mr. Meyer moved to approve TLHP- 2014 -0092 with the following conditions: 1. The main entrance portal is a standardized architectural feature promoted by the Ford Corporation and shall be designed to be removed if the building use or featured automobile brand changes in the future. 2. The exterior surfaces of CMU block used in the construction of the building shall not be painted. 3. Information shall be provided by the applicant regarding the use of reflective or tinted glass to ensure compliance with the design guidelines. 4. A separate Certificate of Appropriateness application for the final design of the parking garage shall be submitted at a future date. The motion was seconded by Mr. Malloy and approved by a 5 -0 -2 vote (Goodson and Reimers absent). Administrative Approvals a. TLHP- 2014 -0084, 525 Trimble PI SE (NW Federal Credit Union) —wall sign b. TLHP- 2014 -0093, 214 Loudoun Street SW — fence c. TLHP- 2014 -0094, 108 Loudoun Street SW — pavers d. TLHP- 2014 -0097, 212 S King Street (Picket Fence Reality) — wall and projecting signs e. TLHP- 2014 -0101, 430 S King Street — painting front door f. TLHP- 2014 -0103, 21 Wirt Street NW — driveway repair g. TLHP- 2014 -0106, 201 & 203 Loudoun Street SW — HVAC concrete pad Zoning Violation Cases There was no discussion of the zoning violation cases. Old Business: None New Business: None Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 10:50pm. Edward Kiley, Chair Deborah E. 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