Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout2014 11 17 BAR Meetingc � 3M LEESBURG BOARD OFARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BUSINESS MEETING MINUTES Monday, 17 November, 2014 Town Hall, 25 West Market Street Council Chamber MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Edward Kiley, Vice Chairman Reimers, Parliamentarian Dale Goodson, Richard Koochagian, Dieter Meyer, Teresa Minchew and Planning Commission Representative Lyndsay Welsh Chamblin MEMBERS ABSENT: Mark Malloy and Council Representative Tom Dunn STAFF: Preservation Planner Tom Scofield, Senior Planner Michael Watkins and Planning & Zoning Assistant Deborah Parry Call to Order and Roll Call Chairman Kiley called the meeting to order at 6:58pm, noted attendance and determined that a quorum was present. Adoption of the Meeting Agenda Mr. Kiley stated he would like to move cases TLHP- 2014 -0098 and TLHP- 2014 -0086 to the beginning of the agenda per the applicant's request. On a motion by Mr. Meyer, seconded by Vice Chairman Reimers, the meeting agenda was approved as amended by a 6 -0 -1 vote (Malloy absent). Approval of Meeting Minutes a. September 15, 2014 BAR Meeting Mr. Koochagian stated he would abstain from voting on the September 15t" minutes as he was unable to attend that meeting. On a motion by Mr. Meyer, seconded by Ms. Minchew, the minutes were approved as presented by a 5 -0 -1 -1 vote ( Koochagian abstained and Malloy absent). b. October 6, 2014 BAR Work Session On a motion by Mr. Meyer, seconded by Ms. Minchew, the minutes were approved as presented by a 6 -0 -1 vote (Malloy absent). BAR Member Disclosures: Vice Chairman Reimers stated he would abstain from cases TLHP- 2014 -0086 and TLHP- 2014 -0098 as he is the contractor for the project. Ms. Welsh Chamblin stated she would leave during discussion of TLHP- 2014 -0100 as the property is her residence. Public Comment and Presentations None Consent Agenda a. TLHP- 2014 -0098, 101 North King Street Project: Create Comprehensive Sign Plan Chairman Kiley verified the applicant, Michael McLister, did not have any concerns with staff's proposed conditions of approval. b. TLHP- 2014 -0102, 18 E Market Street (Loudoun County Court House) Project: Infill two basement window openings with brick BOARD OFARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BUSINESS MEETING MINUTES 17 November, 2014 Page 2 of 13 Chairman Kiley verified the applicant, John Hillis, did not have any concerns with staff's proposed conditions of approval. Chairman Kiley asked if there were any petitioners for either case. There were none. Mr. Meyer proposed a motion to approve the consent agenda as presented. The motion was seconded by Ms. Minchew and approved by a 5 -0 -1 -1 vote (Reimers recused and Malloy absent). Petitioners There were no petitioners. Continued & Deferred Cases in the H -1 Overlay District a. TLHP- 2014 -0086, 101 North King Street Project: Construct elevated walkway and new rear entrance Mr. Kiley stated the public hearing for this application has been closed. Mr. Scofield noted this application was continued from the November 3, 2014 work session where the applicant was provided conceptual approval and asked to return to this meeting to provide additional details. He provided an overview of the proposals to replace an existing, second floor window on the rear of the original 1806 portion of the building with a wood door and to construct thirty -four linear feet of elevated walkway along the south side of the rear ell from the new entrance door to the rear (west end). He stated the previous proposal to construct a hood over the front fagade has been withdrawn. He outlined the revised design and concerns with the proposal in relation to the Old and Historic District Guidelines regarding the removal of historic materials and the attachment of the proposed walkway to the buildings. Further, he recommended approval of the application with the following conditions: 1. The new second floor entrance on the 1806 section of the building shall use the width of the existing window opening. Work shall not result in modification or damage to the historic brickwork other than what is removed from directly beneath the window opening to the floor. 2. The new second floor entrance shall consist of a wood 6 -panel door and brick mold trim detail as provided and shown in the original Certificate of Appropriateness application. 3. Details regarding the locations and means of fastening or attaching the elevated walkway structure to historic portions of the building and evidence that the design of new construction is reversible in such a manner that if such additions or alterations were to be removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the building would be unimpaired shall be provided by the applicant. 4. Additional information regarding the elevated walkway including specifications for the deck, chamfered post tops and bases, top rail and second floor post caps shall be provided by the applicant prior to construction. 5. The existing outdoor staircase located at the west end of the rear ell shall be reconstructed to match the appearance of the new elevated walkway. Wood latticework installed between first floor posts of the elevated walkway shall be allowed in the two locations where currently placed. 6. The historic window sash and associated frame and moldings that is to be removed for the new second floor entrance on the 1806 section of the building shall be marked, documenting date of removal and window location; placed in protective wrap; and stored in the building. 7. The paint colors to be used for new construction shall be reviewed and approved by the BAR. Vice Chairman Reimers, contractor for the applicant, stated the applicant is in agreement with staff's conditions. He stated the applicant would like the Board's input on alternative design one versus two as well as paint colors. He stated he prefers the horizontal concept versus the vertical one. Further, he stated the proposed second floor door will be dark green. Mr. Goodson asked if the applicant intends to reinstall the lattice under the existing rear door. Vice Chairman Reimers stated the lattice is used to screen the trash cans. 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 17 November, 2014 Page 3 of 13 Mr. Koochagian asked the dimensions of the porch and wood structure supporting the decking. Vice Chairman Reimers stated the structure support is 2x8 and the height is approximately 8 feet. He stated the structure would be 10 feet in height at the entrance to the proposed second floor door. Mr. Koochagian verified the porch surface to be painted cedar. He asked staff if the previous drawings submitted by the applicant would be stamped as "not approved ". Mr. Scofield stated final elevations will be submitted based on the Board's choice of the final design. Vice Chairman Reimers stated all previous drawings are withdrawn. Mr. Koochagian verified the fence railings will be cedar. Mr. Meyer asked if the preferred color scheme is white. Vice Chairman Reimers stated the applicant is open to suggestions. The applicant, Michael McLister stated staff had mentioned the possibility of a tri -color paint scheme for the walkway and he would like to explore that option. Mr. Meyer stated the final paint scheme could be submitted to staff for approval. Mr. Koochagian verified the applicant intends to use metal joist hangers for the walkway. He stated in previous approvals we have required that applicants cover that type of material. Vice Chairman Reimers stated the joist hangers could be covered in wood. Ms. Minchew asked what the tri -color paint scheme would look like. Mr. Scofield stated the board below the deck and rails would be the majority body color of the building with a hunter green handrail and white to enhance detail. Mr. Goodson verified in that scheme the painted deck surface would be done in a classic gray. There were no petitioners and the public hearing was closed at 7:24pm. Ms. Minchew stated she agrees the staff's assessment and is glad to hear that the applicant is amenable to the suggested conditions of approval. She stated she could support a tri -color approach for the deck; however, she would not want the detailing done in green. She stated she would like to have some detail of the paint scheme included in the motion with specifics to be worked out with staff. Mr. Meyer stated he prefers the deck design option with the vertical baluster design. He stated the joist hangers would only be visible from under the deck and painting them should mitigate any visibility concerns. Mr. Koochagian expressed support for the vertical baluster design. He stated he would prefer to see the walkway painted white with perhaps a different color for the decking as an ornate paint scheme may cause it to become more of an object on the structure versus a separate structure. He stated he is concerned that that the joist hangers under the deck will be visible from the street and suggested that they be covered as has been done in other applications. Mr. Goodson stated he prefers the vertical design for the walkway railings. He expressed concern that an elaborate paint scheme will make the walkway stand out. Vice Chairman Reimers stated the applicant would be willing to agree to a paint scheme of gun metal gray for the deck surface with the remainder of the deck white and a hunter green door. 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 17 November, 2014 Mr. Goodson echoed Mr. Koochagian's concern regarding visibility of the joist hangers. Vice Chairman Reimers stated he would agree to not having joist hangers. Chairman Kiley also expressed support for the vertical baluster design. Page 4 of 13 Mr. Koochagian moved to approve TLHP- 2014 -0086 with the conditions as outlined by staff in addition to the following: 1. Any use of mechanical fasteners will be made not visible from the public right -of -way through means other than painting. Mr. Meyer offered a friendly amendment to add that the paint scheme for the walkway will be gray for the deck floor and white for the other walkway elements as suggested by Vice Chairman Reimers. He stated the applicant can work with staff on an alternate paint scheme if so desired or return to the Board for review if staff is not comfortable approving a proposed alternate paint scheme. The friendly amendment was accepted by Mr. Koochagian and the motion was seconded by Mr. Goodson. Mr. McLister stated he is still interested in pursuing the possibility of recreating at least a portion of the porch which previously existed on this structure to improve the overall aesthetics and restore the prominence of this historic structure. He stated he is conducting research at Thomas Balch Library to look at other similar front entrances within the Historic District and plans to petition the Town Council to allow construction. The application was approved by a 5 -0 -1 -1 (Reimers recused and Malloy absent). b. TLHP- 2014 -0071, 306 W Market Street Project: Replace siding on rear addition and construct hood over rear entrance Chairman Kiley opened the public hearing at 7:35pm Mr. Scofield stated this public hearing was deferred from the October 20th meeting at the applicant's request. He outlined the proposal to replace the deteriorated Masonite siding with smooth faced cement fiber siding on the noncontributing, one and two -story portions of the shed - roofed, frame addition located on the rear of the dwelling and to construct a projecting hood over the rear entrance located on the west side of the existing noncontributing frame rear addition. He stated the proposal to expand the existing, one -story portion of the frame rear addition was been removed from the application. He commented on concerns with the proposal which conflict with the guidelines and ensuring the siding is trimmed in a traditional manner. Further, he recommended approval of the application with the following conditions: 1. A cross section drawing of the proposed cement fiberboard lap siding and drawings or illustrations of the new trim, including location, material, type, profile and dimensions, shall be provided. 2. The applicant shall add corner boards and fascia boards as part of the new siding installation to achieve the following guideline, "cement fiber board... should be applied in a method that conveys the appearance of the district's historic wood siding." 3. The trim including fascia boards, corner boards and window /door surrounds should not be installed on top of the new siding. 4. A minimum exposure of the slab or foundation equal to the height of the rear entrance shall be maintained when the new siding is installed on the one -story portion of the rear addition. Based on information provided by the applicant, new siding shall be installed on the foundation of the two -story portion of the rear addition in a manner that seals and protects the sill beam and other structural members, not leaving these features exposed to the weather. 5. The hood over the rear entrance shall be constructed of wood painted white; shall have a shed roof covered with standing seam metal; and shall be of the same appearance as shown in the photo for Exhibit H of this staff report including dimensions, placement over the doorway and architectural trim detail. 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 17 November, 2014 Page 5 of 13 The applicant, Eric von Schilgen, stated he would like to run the siding to the ground on the east and west side. He stated he is amenable to the conditions of approval as proposed by staff. He provided a drawing to show the proposed door hood stating the proposal is similar to other hoods found within the Historic District. He stated the trim around the windows and doors would be done in the same wood style. He stated he would like the corner board to match the color of the siding versus the color of the white trim. Mr. Goodson asked if the applicant intends to keep the brick mold around the window and door. He stated the drawings show the brick mold replaced with flat board. Mr. von Schilgen stated the drawings are accurate. Mr. Goodson verified the applicant intends to keep the window sashes and muntins white. Mr. Koochagian stated some of the photos appear to show deterioration of the windows and asked if they may need to be replaced. Mr. von Schilgen confirmed some of the windows have deteriorated and he will bring forward a separate application for their replacement. Further, he stated at that time he will request a two -over- two window configuration to match the remainder of the home. There were no petitioners and the public hearing was closed at 7:57pm. Ms. Minchew moved to approve TLHP- 2014 -0071 with the conditions as proposed by staff and subject to the drawing submitted this evening. The motion was seconded by Vice Chairman Reimers and approved by a 6 -0 -1 vote (Malloy absent). c. TLHP- 2014 -0032, 202B Harrison Street (MacDowell Brew Kitchen) Project: Install kitchen ventilation unit Chairman Kiley noted the public hearing for this application had been closed. Mr. Scofield outlined the application to install a kitchen ventilation unit at this address. He stated on October 6t ", the applicant agreed to a 60 day period to submit revised drawings and meet with Loudoun County Building Inspection staff. He stated met on site with the applicant and county inspection staff at which time it was determined that the curb box is optional as long as a distance is maintained the highest roof point, which would allow the vent hood to be lowered. He stated at that time he was also able to determine that the inspection platform is required and it has since been reinstalled. He further summarized his findings from the site visit and recommended approval with the following conditions: 1. The curb box shall be removed to diminish the height and profile of the kitchen ventilation unit while maintaining dimensions required by the building code. 2. Using the shorter walls shown in Alternative `C', extend the 3- walled structure on both ends enough to construct a gable roof at least one roof pan /panel in width. 3. If one of the screening alternatives is approved by the BAR, a final drawing of the screen shall be provided to the Preservation Planner for review prior to construction of the structure. Any discrepancies between the BAR approval and the final drawing may require additional review and approval by the Board of Architectural Review. The applicant, Gordon MacDowell, stated he would prefer the screen as shown in the most recent drawing he provided without the gable ends. He sated he would remove the curb box, lower the fan and paint before installing the screen. Mr. Koochagian verified the structure needs to be at least 42 inches before the curb box becomes optional. He asked if the screen can be at the height of the vent structure. Mr. Scofield stated at least 18" of clearance is required around the structure. He stated the fan on top hinges forward so the screen needs to low enough to allow the fan to open. 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 17 November, 2014 Page 6 of 13 Ms. Minchew clarified the building codes have changed and that is why the platform structure is required at this location, but not at others. Ms. Welsh Chamblin verified the structure can be painted once the curb box is removed. Mr. Goodson verified the screen would be painted black to match the roof of the building. There were no petitioners. Ms. Minchew expressed her appreciation for the applicant's willingness to work with staff to find a good solution. She stated she could support the screening shown in alternative C as proposed by the applicant. It was the consensus of the Board that alterative C as proposed by the applicant is preferable. Mr. Koochagian expressed concern that additional information is needed regarding the material to be used for the screen as well as dimensions. He stated he would like this information to be presented to the Board for approval. Mr. Goodson agreed that additional documentation is needed and stated he would support having the information reviewed by staff. Mr. Koochagian stated cut sheets are required of every applicant and given the complexity of this issue, he would like to have that information in place prior to the vote. Vice Chairman Reimers moved to approve TLHP- 2014 -0032 subject to the design shown in alternative C with dimensions and project information to be submitted to staff for review. The motion was seconded by Mr. Meyer. Vice Chairman Reimers clarified that a condition should be added to require that the curb box be removed and the height of the structure lowered. Mr. Koochagian expressed concern with voting on this application without the proper documentation in place. Mr. Meyer stated he feels that adequate documentation has been provided as the Board has previously approved applications with gable end louvers similar to this with the same documentation. The motion was approved by a 4 -2 -1 vote ( Koochagian and Minchew opposed; Malloy absent). Public Hearings on New Cases in the H -1 Overlay District a. TLHP- 2014 -0100, 430 South King Street Project: Construct new addition; expand side porch; change materials for walkway and front porch; install new roof Chairman Kiley opened the public hearing at 8:28pm. Mr. Scofield outlined the proposal to construct a second story addition on top of the existing single story portion of the contributing house on the south side, extend the existing shed roof porch on the north side of the house, resurface the existing concrete sidewalk and porch with brick on the front of the house, replace the existing metal roof with a new black, standing seam metal roof with snow guards and install new ogee gutters with rectangular downspouts. Mr. Scofield outlined several concerns with the proposal with respect to the Old and Historic District Guidelines including impact of the addition on the historic portions of the structure as well as the use of brick pavers on the existing front porch. Further, Mr. Scofield recommended approval of the application with the following conditions: 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 17 November, 2014 Page 7 of 13 1. Additional information should be provided by the applicant that demonstrates that the proposed second floor addition on the south side complies with the following guideline: "Design additions in such a manner that if such additions were to be removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the building would be unimpaired." 2. A piece of trimwork or a flat- mounted board shall be used to demark the separation between the existing single -story section of the house and the new second -floor addition. 3. The applicant shall provide a drawing detail that shows how the fiber cement siding of the proposed second floor addition will transition to the existing vinyl siding found on the first floor beneath it. Vinyl siding may remain on the existing portions of the building, but shall not be replaced or reinstalled, if removed. 4. A smooth - faced, ungrained fiber cement lap board siding shall be used on the proposed second floor addition. 5. A detailed drawing of the proposed eaves on the proposed second floor addition shall be provided by the applicant. 6. The muntins on the new windows shall be external on the window sash and either simulated or true divided lite. 7. Brick is not an appropriate material for porch floor surfaces and shall not be installed on the front porch of the dwelling. However, brick may be used on the front sidewalk. 8. Information shall be provided by the applicant that shows the specific locations on the building where the new gutters and downspouts shall be installed. The applicant, Christopher Chamblin, provided several sample materials. He addressed each of the conditions as follows: Regarding Condition 1, he stated the area addressed by this condition is proposed for additional closet space. He stated the existing windows to be removed with be wrapped and stored on site; however, they are not proposing to add widows in this location. Mr. Chamblin stated he has no concerns with Condition 2. Regarding Condition, 3, he stated he does not have a drawing showing how the fiber cement siding will transition into the existing vinyl siding; however, he stated he would ensure that this transition is addressed appropriately. Mr. Chamblin stated he has no concerns with Condition 4. Further, he provided a detailed drawing of the eves and downspouts to address Conditions 5 and 8. Regarding Condition 6, he stated the windows will be simulated divided lite with external muntins. Regarding Condition 7, he stated he was surprised to see that staff considers brick not appropriate for the porch floor as there are three other homes in his general area which have brick porches. He stated he would prefer to use the brick material on the porch as it gives a better appearance than the existing concrete and flows into the brick walkway. Mr. Goodson stated the proposed ogee style gutters are not original to the house and asked if the applicant would be amenable to using half -round gutters. Mr. Chamblin stated he would be fine to use whichever style is acceptable. Mr. Goodson verified the applicant does not intend to finish the exposed cinderblock foundation. Further, he verified the applicant intends to use fiber cement siding on the addition, but not the first floor portion of the house below and verified a vertical board will be installed to transition the two materials. Further, he asked why staff feels the proposed brick for the front porch is not appropriate. Mr. Scofield stated the front porch was likely wood originally and the use of brick on the porch floor would only expand the non - conformity. Mr. Goodson asked what staff is basing their finding on regarding the original material of the porch. 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 17 November, 2014 Page 8 of 13 Mr. Scofield stated he would be surprised if the original porch material was concrete given the age of construction. Mr. Koochagian asked if the applicant had considered replacing the vinyl siding of the first floor of the structure under the proposed addition. Mr. Chamblin stated he would be willing to consider replacing the vinyl at that location with the cement fiber board. Mr. Koochagian stated his only concern was whether the addition was contributing and may have wood siding under the vinyl and asked the age of the addition. Mr. Scofield stated it is his opinion that the addition is not contributing although he does not know the exact year of construction. Mr. Koochagian suggested that the applicant have their contractor look behind the existing vinyl siding to ensure there is no historic relevance. Mr. Koochagian asked the dimension of the metal roof pan. Mr. Chamblin stated he does not have those dimensions available. Mr. Koochagian stated it would be helpful to have the pan width for the record. He verified the applicant plans to remove the cast iron waste pipe which bumps out on the porch. He asked if the basement window will be covered by the extended side porch. Mr. Chamblin house has a dirt cellar and he does propose to remove the window. Mr. Koochagian verified the applicant intends to use the same workmanship and detailing existing on the side porch when it is extended. Mr. Meyer verified the applicant would like to replace the vinyl siding on the lower part of the addition with the cement fiber board proposed for the second floor. The petitioners section opened at 8:50pm. Peter Garvey stated he is a neighbor of Mr. Chamblin and he fully supports the proposal which he believes will enhance the streetscape. Deborah Welsh stated that this property has been owned by her parents for a number of years and will now be occupied by her daughter and her husband. She stated the family hopes this home will be an asset to the Town and will enhance the South King Street streetscape. She stated she was surprised by staff's condition regarding the proposed brick front porch stating she hopes the Board will approve the proposal. Further, she stated the addition in question was constructed by her father when he purchased the house between 40 and 50 years ago. Mr. Goodson asked if Ms. Welsh had knowledge as to when the vinyl siding as added to the building. Judge Welsh stated the vinyl siding was added before the Town enacted guidelines against the use of that siding material in the Historic District. Chairman Kiley confirmed that Judge Welsh is not certain of whether any historic fabric may exist under the vinyl siding. There were no additional petitioners and the public hearing was closed at 8:54pm. Ms. Minchew expressed support for the applicant's decision to replace the vinyl siding on the addition with cement fiberboard to match the proposed second floor addition. She stated she appreciates 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 17 November, 2014 Page 9 of 13 staff's concern regarding the use of brick on the front porch and the fact that there are other brick porches in the area does not mean that they were formally approved. She stated she does not believe that adding brick to the front porch would make it less appropriate; however, she would like to see a sample of the brick material. Mr. Scofield stated the applicant had indicated the brick would match the Town's brick in the sidewalks. Ms. Minchew encouraged the applicant to consider a painted or parged finish for the exposed concrete block on the side porch. Vice Chairman Reimers stated he finds the use of brick to be approvable and feel that this will be a better project with the fiber cement siding on the entire addition. Mr. Meyer stated his support for the proposed brick porch and the use of fiber cement siding on the entire addition. Further, he expressed support for staff conditions 4 and 6. Mr. Koochagian stated he does not find the brick to be inappropriate and verified the applicant intends to place the brick pavers on top of the existing concrete porch. He asked how the wood columns and rails will be modified. Mr. Chamblin stated the columns would be raised. Mr. Koochagian asked that a condition be added to stipulate that the bases and tops of the columns be kept. Mr. Meyer stated the trim around the door and windows may also need to be altered. Mr. Scofield stated he just received information that there is a gap at the base of the columns which would allow adequate room for a brick to be fitted in. Mr. Koochagian suggested perhaps the concrete could be painted to minimize the additional impact to the columns and structure. He stated he does not have an issue with the use of brick on the porch; however, there are additional details which need to be addressed. He verified the front door shown on the plans is the existing front door in place. Further, he concurred with earlier comments regarding painting or parging the cement block to preserve it and suggested adding a gutter on the side porch. Mr. Goodson concurred with earlier comments regarding the siding and porch. He stated while in the process of construction, the applicant may wish to look under the vinyl siding on the original portion of the house to see what historic siding may exist there. He stated the brick is an appropriate detail; however, there are a number of details that will need to be addressed regarding getting the brick into place. Mr. Meyer moved to approve TLHP- 2014 -0100 in accordance with the drawings and additional information provided this evening along with the following conditions: 1. A smooth - faced, ungrained fiber cement lap board siding shall be used on the proposed second floor addition. 2. The muntins on the new windows shall be external on the window sash and either simulated or true divided lite. 3. When the applicant is ready to move forward with installation of the brick pavers for the front porch, it is strongly encouraged that they meet with staff and their contractor on site to ensure a clear understanding of the porch elements which need to be preserved. Mr. Koochagian offered a friendly amendment to clarify that the Board would not support the removal of replacement of historic materials with different materials. He stated there has not been any case made that there is deterioration of porch materials and therefore when the brick is installed the Board would expect that all historic materials be added back in. 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 17 November, 2014 Page 10 of 13 Mr. Meyer accepted the friendly amendment. Further he added an additional condition to state that the vinyl siding will be removed from the lower portion of the addition and the entire addition will be covered in smooth finish fiber cement siding. Mr. Koochagian offered a friendly amendment to clarify that the Board would accept a parginig or finishing on the side porch foundation. Mr. Meyer stated that was not part of the application and asked the applicant if they would like to add a finish to the cement block. Mr. Chamblin asked if this would be a condition of approval or simply a suggestion for how to preserve the property. Mr. Meyer added a condition to state that at the applicant's option, cement parging may be added to the exposed cement foundation wall. Further, at the applicant's option, a gutter may be installed on the side porch to match the gutters on the main house. Mr. Goodson offered a friendly amendment to state that the gutter style may be either K -style or half - round. The friendly amendment was accepted by Mr. Meyer. The motion was seconded by Vice Chairman Reimers and approved by a 6 -0 -1 vote (Malloy absent). b. TLHP- 2014 -0108, 204 South Street SE and 203 Royal Street SE (MacDowell Brew Kitchen) Project: Install masonry walls, picket fence, plantings and lighting Chairman Kiley opened the public hearing at 9:09pm. Chairman Kiley clarified staff recommends continuance of this application and the applicant is agreeable to that recommendation. Mr. Scofield clarified the application was missing several details when it was submitted. He stated the details were later submitted; however, there was not adequate time provided for staff to provide an analysis of the application. Chairman Kiley asked if there were any petitioners, there were none. There was further discussion regarding continuance of the application. The applicant, Gordon MacDowell stated he would be agreeable to continuance of the application to December 15t" Mr. Meyer moved to continue TLHP- 2014 -0108 to the December 15, 2015 regular meeting. The motion was seconded by Mr. Koochagian. Ms. Welsh Chamblin verified the Planning Commission's discussion of several of these items will be included in the staff report. The motion was approved by a 6 -0 -1 vote (Malloy absent). c. TLHP- 2014 -0110, 25 W Market Street (Mervin Jackson Park) Project: Construct wall and piers; install signs, site furniture and planting beds Chairman Kiley opened the public hearing at 9:13pm. Mr. Scofield stated the Leesburg Town Council recently designated the open green space adjacent to the parking garage on Loudoun Street SW as Mervin Jackson Park. He stated Bill Ference from 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 17 November, 2014 Page 11 of 13 Department of Parks and Recreation has submitted an application for improvements within this designated space. He outlined the proposals as follows: 1. Construct two (2) stone piers along the street sidewalk east of the log cabin 2. Construct a low, dry -laid stone retaining wall in the courtyard west of the parking garage 3. Erect two (2) wrought iron decorative panels (one to include a 30 "x60" park sign 4. Install site furniture 5. Modify existing planting beds Mr. Scofield outlined the proposed site plan and applicable sections of the Old and Historic District Guidelines as they pertain to the application. Further, he recommended approval with the following conditions: 1. The BAR shall select one of the two proposed bench alternatives shown on the development plan. 2. The planter indicated on the Phase 1 Development Plan shall be located a distance far enough away from the east wall of the log cabin so as to facilitate easy access for maintenance and cleaning and not trap moisture between the planter and log cabin. 3. A smaller species of shade tree shall be selected for the proposed tree closest to the northeast corner of the log cabin to avoid future problems such as creating a permanent shaded condition on this corner of the cabin and other possible hazards associated with tree limbs and roots. 4. The English Ivy growing in the Children's Garden shall be removed immediately so as not to cause further damage to the chinking on the log cabin. The applicant, Bill Ference, stated the proposed conditions are all acceptable. Mr. Koochagian clarified the dry stack wall towards the rose garden appears to be a different construction than the one facing Loudoun Street or the piers. Mr. Ference stated the wall is only 12- inches to 18- inches high to accommodate a grade change and will not be very visible once the plantings are on the top and in front are grown. Vice Chairman Reimers asked if there is a high level of confidence that the stone can be matched. Mr. Ference stated he has found stone that is very close. He stated it will only be largely visible on the piers. He stated he was considering reducing the number of piers from two to one. He stated a single pier on the East side only may be adequate. Ms. Welsh Chamblin asked if Mr. Ference had a preference of the two bench alternatives. Mr. Ference stated the Victorian style bench was found at a salvage yard in Pennsylvania. He stated staff has conflicting views as to whether to go with the stylized bench or a standard bench. Ms. Welsh Chamblin verified Mr. Scofield has no preference of the two alternatives. Mr. Koochagian asked if the tables proposed for the park will match the existing rod iron tables in the rose garden. Mr. Ference stated the manufacture of those tables is no longer in business; however, he will attempt to find something close to that style. There were no petitioners and the public hearing was closed at 9:27pm. Mr. Goodson stated he finds the standard bench to be adequate; although he has no problem with either choice. He concurred with Mr. Ference's comment that one stone pier would be adequate. Mr. Koochagian stated he would prefer continuity in the street furniture, especially in light of the various elements to be incorporated. Further, he stated he would prefer one pier as discussed. 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 17 November, 2014 Page 12 of 13 Mr. Meyer stated he prefers the more stylized bench design stating there is nothing wrong with variety in these items. He expressed his preference for one pier stating that two piers could be approvable as well. Vice Chairman Reimers concurred with Mr. Meyer's comments. Ms. Minchew stated she does not have a concern with the proposal to construct only one pier. She stated she too has no issue with variety in the bench types; however, the more stylized bench may be too ornate forth is location. Ms. Welsh Chamblin stated she prefers the ornate bench Chairman Kiley suggested that staff purchase the ornate bench and perhaps place it at the Thomas Balch Library if it is determined that a standard bench is preferred for this location. Further, he stated he could support the construction of only the eastern pier. Mr. Reimers moved to approve TLHP- 2014 -0110 with staff's conditions and further with the option for construction of one or two piers and either bench as submitted. The motion was seconded by Ms. Minchew and approved by a 6 -0 -1 vote (Malloy absent) New Cases in the H -2 Overlay District None Referrals & Presentations a. TLZM- 2013 -0001, TLSE- 2013 -0002, TLSE- 2013 -0003, TLSE- 2013 -0004 and TLSE- 2014 -0014 Briefing on Leegate Rezoning and Special Exceptions Senior Planner Michael Watkins provided an overview of the Leegate proposal. He stated the comments expressed by the Board will be made part of the staff report for Planning Commission and Town Council. He stated the property is located at the southwest corner of Battlefield Parkway and East Market Street. He outlined the areas of the property proposed for mixed use and residential stating the applicant proposes 443,800 square feet of office, 186,200 square feet of retail and a 130,000 square foot hotel. He stated within the residential area, the applicant proposes 173 townhouses, 160 two - over -twos and 143 multi - family units. He sated the applicant is working on design guidelines for the project, similar to what was approved for Village at Leesburg. Further, he stated there will be a mix of structured and surface parking. Ms. Minchew reminded everyone that the Board's focus is any impact on East Market Street. Vice Chairman Reimers stated he would like additional information regarding the landscaping to ensure it is not too hard. Mr. Meyer verified the applicant is Stanly Martin Homes. He stated it is difficult to provide comments based on a short presentation. Further, he asked if this is all the Board will look at until the design guidelines come along. Mr. Watkins stated this project represents a significant change in land use as it is currently planned for regional office. He stated the Town Plan does speak to secondary residential. He stated land use is the driver of this application and that needs to be answered first before getting into other issues. He stated the site design and building architecture has not been finalized as of yet and he anticipates a potential concept plan amendment once tenants are identified. He stated the development of design guidelines is a good initial step. Mr. Meyer asked if there is adequate demand for 480,000 square feet of office space. Mr. Watkins stated staff has questioned that as well. 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 17 November, 2014 Page 13 of 13 Mr. Koochagian concurred with Mr. Meyer's comments regarding the difficulty in rendering thoughtful comments without the opportunity to examine the application. Ms. Welsh Chamblin verified this application will not require an applicant initiated Town Plan amendment. Ms. Minchew stated in previous instances the Board has been provided with a staff report from the Preservation Planner along with the referral presentation. She stated she would need more information prior to providing thoughtful comments. Mr. Watkins stated with the land use component as the driver for this application and not knowing how far this application would advance in the process, Mr. Scofield was not asked to provide in -depth analysis. He stated in cases where there are large applications such as this, the Board has the option of asking staff to analyze the application and bring it back before the Board. Ms. Minchew stated the goal is to prevent concrete decisions before the Board can review the site design. Vice Chairman Reimers stated he is more concerned with site design than architecture. Administrative Approvals a. TLHP- 2014 -0109, 11 N King Street (Ladies Waiting at Lightfoot) — sign Zoning Violation Cases Old Business a. Proposed amendments to BAR Bylaws Chairman Kiley suggested this item be continued until legal counsel is present. New Business: Ms. Minchew noted alterations have been made to the balustrade at Laurel Brigade Inn and asked that staff look into the issue. Mr. Meyer suggested scheduling a meeting near the beginning of the new year to go through the design guidelines for review. He stated there are items in the guidelines which should be considered or tweaked. Mr. Scofield stated there are currently no items proposed for the December work session. It was the consensus of the Board to cancel the December work session. Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 10:02pm. 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