Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout2017_05_15 BAR Meeting MinutesLEESBURG BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BUSINESS MEETING MINUTES Monday, May 15, 2017 Town Hall, 25 West Market Street Council Chamber MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Paul Reimers, Vice Chairman Dale Goodson, Richard Koochagian, Teresa Minchew, Jack Roberts, and Doug Skinner MEMBERS ABSENT: Ned Kiley STAFF: Preservation Planner Tom Scofield, and Planning & Zoning Assistant Deborah Parry Call to Order and Roll Call Chairman Reimers 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 Vice Chairman Goodson, seconded by Mr. Skinner, the meeting agenda was adopted by a 6-0-1 vote (NK absent). Approval of Meeting Minutes a. December 19, 2016 BAR Business Meeting Minutes On a motion by Mr. Koochagian, seconded by Vice Chairman Goodson, the minutes of December 19, 2016 were approved by a 4-0-2-1 vote (Roberts and Skinner abstained; Kiley absent). b. January 18, 2017 BAR Business Meeting Minutes On a motion by Vice Chairman Goodson, seconded by Mr. Koochagian, the minutes of January 18, 2017 were approved by a 5-0-1-1 vote (Roberts abstained; Kiley absent). c. February 22, 2017 BAR Business Meeting Minutes On a motion by Vice Chairman Goodson, seconded by Mr. Skinner, the minutes of February 22, 2017 were approved, by a 6-0-1 vote (Kiley absent). BAR Member Disclosures: None Public Comment and Presentations None Consent Agenda None Petitioners There were no petitioners. Continued & Deferred Cases in the H-1 Overlay District None Public Hearings on New Cases in the H-1 Overlay District a. TLHP-2017-0029, 234 Loudoun Street SW Project: Replace Windows Chairman Reimers opened the public hearing at 7:03pm. BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BUSINESS MEETING MINUTES May 15, 2017 Page 2 of 16 Mr. Scofield stated the building at 234 Loudoun Street SW was constructed in 1997 and is considered a non-contributing resource. He stated the applicant proposes to replace 26 wood windows in the structure with vinyl windows of a similar appearance. He stated there are 9 two -over -two double hung sash windows with simulated divided lights on the front, south elevation which the applicant proposes to replace. He stated on the east elevation there are 3 one -over -one double hung sash windows and 1 single light casement window that are proposed to be replaced. He stated on the rear, north elevation, there are 7 one -over -one double hung sash windows proposed for replacement as well as 2 two -over -two double hung sash windows with simulated divided lights flanking the rear entrance door which the applicant would like to replace with one -over -one windows. He stated there are 3 one - over -one double hung sash windows on the west elevation that the applicant proposes to replace as well as 1 two -over -two double hung sash window to be replaced with a one -over -one double hung sash window. Mr. Scofield stated the applicant has proposed Thompson Creek vinyl windows as the replacements and, as this is an alternative material, the Board must determine that the proposed windows are appropriate in appearance. He stated the applicant has provided information to demonstrate that the existing windows are deteriorating and losing weathertight integrity. He stated the applicant has indicated that the simulated divided light option will be used in the manufacture of the two -over -two replacement windows, to include a spacer bar between the window panes, which meets the intent of the guidelines. He stated the applicant has indicated that the proposed windows will have thinner frames than the existing windows and should provide a sample window sash to convey the appearance of the proposed replacement window. He stated his finding that the proposal to replace 3 two -over -two windows on the sides and rear of the structure with one -over -one windows, will not negatively impact the building's appearance given the number of currently installed one -over -one windows. He stated the applicant has indicated that the proposed color for the replacement windows will be a close match to the existing windows. Further, he stated no information has been provided regarding the depth of reveal, or replacement of the existing window surrounds and sills. Mr. Scofield stated he finds the request to replace the 26 windows to be justified; however, there has been no information provided to date as to whether or not the appearance of the proposed vinyl replacement windows is consistent with the architecture of the building and the Old & Historic District Guidelines. Further, he stated his recommendation of approval for the application if the applicant can provide adequate information to the satisfaction of the Board that the vinyl window material and thinner window frames as manufactured by Thompson Creek will result in an appropriate appearance. The applicant, Paul Rock, stated he provided a sample of the window frame to staff previously. He stated the representative from Thompson Creek told him that the replacement windows would have some parts that were thinner than the existing wood windows; however, the windows overall would have a greater depth because of the insulation. Further, he stated he does not believe there is a significant visual difference with the proposed replacement windows. Chairman Reimers stated he built this house and verified that the windows were manufactured by Barber & Ross and that replacement parts are not available. Further, he stated the Board has not previously approved the use of vinyl windows on homes in the Old & Historic District. Mr. Scofield stated he was unable to find any record of a window sample for this application. Mr. Rock stated he understands the concern with vinyl windows as they can look shiny and fake; however, the representative from Thompson Creek mentioned that they have started putting an effect on the outside exposed areas to give more of a semi -gloss, natural appearance. There was discussion regarding the need for the Board to view a sample window before a decision could be reached. Chairman Reimers verified that Mr. Rock would be willing to continue this hearing to the next work session if necessary. He noted that aluminum clad windows are generally preferable to vinyl window which tend to have a molded appearance and lack the sharp corners and edges seen in wood DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING • 25 WEST MARKET STREET • LEESBURG, VIRGINIA 20176 Telephone 703.771.2765 • Fax 703.771.2724 • www.leesburgva.gov/planning BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BUSINESS MEETING MINUTES May 15, 2017 Page 3 of 16 windows. Further, he stated the Board has previously approved aluminum clad windows on non- contributing structures in the historic district. Mr. Koochagian asked for clarification as to which windows on the structure are proposed to change from a two -over -two configuration to a one -over -one configuration. Mr. Rock stated there are 2 two -over -two windows flanking the door on the rear of the house that he would like to change to one -over -one to provide consistency with the other windows on that elevation. Further, he stated there is also a two -over -two window on the west elevation that he would like to replace with a one -over -one window for the same reason. Ms. Minchew asked if Mr. Rock had considered a material other than vinyl, given that the Old & Historic District Design Guidelines discourage the use of non-traditional materials. Mr. Rock stated he did not consider other options because he knew this was not a historic home and had thought that perhaps the windows would be acceptable. He stated that he was not aware that vinyl windows had never been approved for any structure in the historic district. Ms. Minchew suggested that Mr. Rock consider exploring other window options to bring before the Board, in addition to the sample for the Thompson Creek window. Chairman Reimers asked if there will be a change to the existing window trim. Mr. Rock stated the representatives from Thompson Creek indicated that they would make the exterior trim match the existing conditions as close as possible; however, it will depend on how their windows fit in the openings. He stated the trim is five -quarter by four and anything smaller than that would leave exposed siding, which he will avoid. Chairman Reimers stated proper trim is important with vinyl and aluminum windows as their frames are very thin. Mr. Rock stated his goal is to preserve the existing appearance of the house to the extent possible. Mr. Roberts noted the earlier statement that the proposed windows are thinner than the existing windows and asked if the applicant had a comparison of the window dimensions. Mr. Rock stated he does not have the exact dimensions; however, he was told the window frame itself is approximately one -quarter inch thinner on the Thompson Creek windows, which means there would be more glass surface area than what is seen with the existing windows. Mr. Roberts verified the Board historically has not approved the use of vinyl windows for either contributing or non-contributing structures in the historic district. Ms. Minchew stated the Board has never been presented with a vinyl window sample that gave a traditional appearance. Chairman Reimers stated aluminum clad windows have been approved in the historic district; however, applicants have been required to apply window trim around them. Mr. Skinner noted the importance of having window trim details provided by the applicant. Ms. Minchew stated it would be helpful to know the address of any home in the historic district that may have these windows installed so that the Board can view the full affect. Mr. Koochagian stated he has no concern with replacement of the windows; however, he is concerned with the window dimensions as vinyl windows are typically wider and deeper and it is important to understand whether the additional width will protrude from the exterior or be absorbed into the interior. Further, he stated the importance of ensuring the vinyl material can be painted. DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING • 25 WEST MARKET STREET • LEESBURG, VIRGINIA 20176 Telephone 703.771.2765 • Fax 703.771.2724 • www.leesburgva.gov/planning BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BUSINESS MEETING MINUTES May 15,2017 Page 4 of 16 Mr. Skinner proposed a motion to continue TLHP-2017-0029, 234 Loudoun Street SW to the June 5, 2017 work session. The motion was seconded by Mr. Koochagian and approved by a 6-0-1 vote (Kiley absent). b. TLHP-2017-0013, 106 Harrison Street SE Project: Exterior alterations to install ATM Chairman Reimers opened the public hearing at 7:30pm. Mr. Scofield stated the masonry commercial building at 106 Harrison Street SE was constructed in 2012 and is a non-contributing resource in the Old & Historic District. He outlined the proposal to remove a first floor window on the facade of the building to install an ATM for a new financial services tenant, construct a masonry ramp for the ATM to meet accessibility requirements, and install new awnings over the first floor windows on the facade. He stated the placement, type, and color of the proposed awnings are consistent with the guidelines and appropriate in appearance. He stated the placement of the proposed ramp in the right-of-way has been approved by Town Council and is of an appearance that is consistent with the Old & Historic District Design Guidelines. Further, He stated it is arguable that extending the window opening and replacing the window sashes with a flush metal panel to accommodate installation of an ATM on the facade is not consistent with the guidelines and offered several alternatives to mitigate the impact to the building; including placing the ATM and deposit box on the south side of the building; maintaining the window opening size and upper sash while applying a panel that covers the lower opening allowing the ATM to penetrate the brick rowlock sill; or fabricating the metal infill panel in such a manner that provides adequate articulation and detail similar to a window. Mr. Scofield recommended approval of the application with the proposed condition that consideration shall be given to locating the ATM and night depository on the south side of the building to lessen the impact on the primary facade. He stated if the applicant successfully demonstrates that locating the ATM and night depository on the south side of the building is not feasible then the following additional conditions should be considered: 1. The current size of the window opening be maintained and the brick rowlock sill be retained in place except where penetrated by the installed ATM machine. 2. The metal infill panel be installed at the same depth of reveal as the window. 3. The metal infill panel be fabricated with an applied, raised frame white in color that equals the width of the window jamb, sash stiles and rails with the two recessed panels painted a darker, neutral color. The applicant, Dieter Meyer, and MVB Financial Services Representative, Byron Shultz, were present. Mr. Meyer stated relocation of the ATM to the south elevation is impractical as a level area would have to be created, which would require the installation of retaining walls along the sidewalk. He stated there is also a 14 inch thick foundation wall with steel reinforcing on this elevation which the applicant would be required to cut into. He stated the placement of the ATM on the front elevation cannot be raised to fit within the existing window opening because of the critical dimension involved in the height of the receipt printer for accessibility requirements. Further, he stated the current proposal is to remove the window, rowlock sill and brick below to the stone sill to allow for placement of the ATM with a recessed metal panel painted buff or bronze to match the recess of the existing window and the addition of wood trim painted to match the window trim to allow for additional articulation. Mr. Meyer commented on the proposed metal panel for the ATM, stating another option would be to have a Hardie panel with either Hardie or Versatex trim to give the appearance of a wood infill panel. He stated the proposed ramp will follow grade and the handrail is required for accessibility to help define where the ramp is located. Further, he stated the awning is intended to provide cover over the ATM and night deposit box. Mr. Roberts stated he struggled with identifying the appropriate guidelines for this case as to whether it would fall under modifications to an existing construction or if it is better interpreted as new DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING • 25 WEST MARKET STREET • LEESBURG, VIRGINIA 20176 Telephone 703.771.2765 • Fax 703.771.2724 • www.leesburgva.gov/planning BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BUSINESS MEETING MINUTES May 15,2017 Page 5 of 16 construction. He stated in that regard the section on existing construction discusses the need to retain original or historic windows and asked how that would be applied in a case such as this. Mr. Scofield stated there is greater flexibility in this case as the structure is non-contributing. He stated as this is a more modern building, it would not be difficult to recreate the window and reverse conditions later if another use occupies the space in the future. Mr. Meyer stated his intent is to ensure that the modification is easily reversible. Mr. Roberts stated he interpreted this as new construction and there was not much guidance provided in that regard under those standards. He stated there are certainly some mitigating circumstances in this case and he finds that the installation of the awnings mitigates some of the impact to the building. He stated there is an existing utility pole in front of the window which also obscures the view. Further, he stated moving the ATM to the south elevation would be impractical. Mr. Skinner asked Mr. Meyer to clarify the proposed appearance of the infill panel and whether it could give the appearance of a faux window. Mr. Meyer stated he does not believe that a faux window appearance would be the right approach, rather it is preferred to keep the modification to the building as simple as possible by allowing the panel to disappear. He stated recessing the panel as staff recommended is acceptable and adding the trim would give a little more detail and a finished appearance. Mr. Skinner confirmed the railing is not required at the landing. Further, he asked whether there would be signage on the awnings. Mr. Schultz stated the owner of the building, Kevin Ash, has provided guidance as to the signs and he does not believe that there will be lettering on the awnings. He stated there will be a traditional style sign to identify the business. Vice Chairman Goodson asked if there would be an option to locate the ATM in the vestibule. Mr. Meyer stated there are steps to enter the vestibule and the ADA access to the building is located on the rear elevation. Vice Chairman Goodson asked if this would be an ATM or remote teller machine. Mr. Schultz stated an ATM is proposed; however, it will have the ability to convert to a remote teller machine in the future. Ms. Minchew asked if detailed drawings were provided to show how the awnings will be applied as well as the appearance of the lighting. Mr. Meyer stated a sloped awning with a free swinging valance will be installed. He stated there were side and front views provided to show the placement on the building. Ms. Minchew verified staff finds the proposed placement of the awnings to be at an appropriate height for the window trim. Mr. Meyer stated final selection of the lighting hadn't been made at the time of application; however, the proposal is for full cut-off fixtures to be installed under the awning to direct light over the ATM and night deposit box as a security measure. Ms. Minchew asked if the night deposit box has to be located directly adjacent to the ATM or if it could be moved around the corner if the Board were to determine that such placement would be less visually distracting. DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING • 25 WEST MARKET STREET • LEESBURG, VIRGINIA 20176 Telephone 703.771.2765 • Fax 703.771.2724 • www.leesburgva.gov/planning BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BUSINESS MEETING MINUTES May 15, 2017 Page 6 of 16 Mr. Schultz discussed stated there is a secure room in the building at the location of the ATM and night deposit box. He stated an additional secure space on the side of the building would impact the already small footprint of the space. Mr. Koochagian asked if there had been options explored to place the ATM on the north elevation. Mr. Meyer stated there are accessibility concerns with the finished grade on the north elevation. Mr. Koochagian asked if a detached unit in the parking lot would be feasible. Mr. Schultz stated there are no accommodations in the lease for a remote unit in the parking lot. There were no petitioners and the public hearing was closed at 8:00pm. Vice Chairman Goodson asked if the infill could be bricked in versus use of a metal or Hardie panel. Mr. Meyer stated he does not believe that the use of brick would be a problem; however, he was originally looking to metal or Hardie panels to create an easily reversible condition. Ms. Minchew stated the guidance in the Old & Historic District Design Guidelines comes into play with the acknowledgement that this was a new construction project in the Old & Historic District approved in compliance with the design guidelines and therefore care should be taken before approving alterations. She expressed concern with approval of this proposal as it could set a precedent for similar alterations on the facades of other buildings in the district. Mr. Koochagian concurred with Ms. Minchew, noting that if this application came before the Board as a new construction project there would be a great deal of discussion and effort to find a solution to accommodate the ATM on a less prominent elevation. He stated his finding that the ATM is a piece of equipment, similar to HVAC equipment, and with that view the guidelines state that appurtenances should be located on the side or rear of a building and screened with appropriate plantings or fencing. Further, he expressed concern with placement of the ATM on the main building facade. Mr. Meyer stated all available options were considered; however, this is the only viable location. He stated this varies from standard building or HVAC equipment in that there are accessibility compliance constraints at play. Mr. Koochagian stated he understands the need to meet access requirements. He expressed concern with the proposal to have the awning span two windows, noting that on this type of construction awnings would typically be placed over individual windows. Further, he stated having individual awnings may also lessen the visual impact of the ATM on the facade. Ms. Minchew concurred with Mr. Koochagian's comments regarding the awnings. Mr. Meyer stated the larger awning is meant to also cover the night deposit box. Further, he stated even though some of the elements are traditional in character, this a contemporary building. Ms. Minchew suggested that the placement of a door in place of the window and the creation of an interior vestibule for the ATM would be a much more approvable proposal. Mr. Schultz stated there are interior constraints that would not allow the necessary space for such a proposal. There was further discussion regarding other potential locations for the ATM and deposit box. Chairman Reimers stated this is not similar to HVAC or other building equipment as you are considering daily access by the public versus occasional maintenance access. DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING • 25 WEST MARKET STREET • LEESBURG, VIRGINIA 20176 Telephone 703.771.2765 • Fax 703.771.2724 • www.leesburgva.gov/planning BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BUSINESS MEETING MINUTES May 15, 2017 Page 7 of 16 Vice Chairman Goodson suggested reducing the awning to the size of the window opening to only cover the ATM machine. Mr. Meyer stated having a single small awning may be more visually distracting There was further discussion regarding infill options for the window opening around the ATM machine, including a small, secure window sash, trim and brick or Hardie board to give the appearance of a door. Mr. Koochagian verified the handrail will match the existing handrail on the building. Ms. Minchew asked if staff has a sense of whether accessibility requirements would allow for a railing that is more in keeping with the design guidelines. Mr. Scofield stated there are creative solutions that could be explored; however, he believes that there is a very narrow framework in which to achieve compliance. Mr. Meyer stated he would be happy to explore available options if needed. Mr. Roberts proposed a motion to approve TLHP-2017-0013, 106 Harrison Street SE, subject to the drawing provided this evening and a condition that the opening for the ATM to be filled in with brick. The motion was seconded by Mr. Skinner. Vice Chairman Goodson proposed a friendly amendment to clarify that the brick will match the building and will be recessed to mimic the existing window. Mr. Meyer stated it was expressed earlier in the meeting that a 1-inch depth of reveal for the brick would be sufficient. Vice Chairman Goodson stated he would be comfortable with having that detail submitted to staff for approval. Ms. Minchew suggested a friendly amendment to state that revised drawings will be provided to staff for approval. The friendly amendments were accepted by Mr. Roberts and the motion was approved by a 4-2-1 vote (Koochagian and Minchew opposed; Kiley absent). c. TLHP-2017-0030, 1 Loudoun Street SW Project: Install 3rd sign for Delirium Cafe Chairman Reimers opened the public hearing at 8:35pm. Mr. Scofield stated Delirium Cafe is currently occupying both 101 South King Street and 1 Loudoun Street SW and seeking approval for a 3rd sign. He stated the Zoning Ordinance gives staff authority to approve up to 2 signs per business as long as design guidelines and criteria are met. He stated the proposed sign would be hung on an existing bracket used by a former tenant. He stated the other two signs include a wall sign located over the entrance at the corner of Loudoun Street SW and South King Street and the other is a bracket sign on the east elevation of the building along South King Street. He stated the proposed sign will match the appearance of the sign on South King Street and falls under the 6 square foot size limit. Mr. Skinner stated there is another sign located on the fence in the rear. Mr. Scofield stated that is a permitted temporary sign which will have to come down after 40 days. He stated there is also a sign on the door frame which is under 2 square feet in size and exempt from sign regulations. He stated the smaller sign does obscure an architectural feature in that it extends DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING • 25 WEST MARKET STREET • LEESBURG, VIRGINIA 20176 Telephone 703.771.2765 • Fax 703.771.2724 • www.leesburgva.gov/planning BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BUSINESS MEETING MINUTES May 15,2017 Page 8 of 16 beyond the pilaster edges and therefore the applicant has been asked to replace it with an appropriately sized sign. Chairman Reimers verified the proposed sign would be the only bracket sign for this business on Loudoun Street SW. Mr. Koochagian verified staff has also contacted the property owner regarding the need to move the wall sign above the entrance door down to the stucco as opposed to its current location on the window sill. Further, he asked the proposed material of the sign, noting the edges on the existing signs are not finished. Mr. Scofield stated the signs for this business are constructed with MDO, which is a popular sign material in the historic district. He stated the edges for the Delirium Cafe signs are not finished and suggested that a condition could be added to the approval requiring that the sign edges be finished. Ms. Minchew proposed a motion to approve TLHP-2017-0030, 1 Loudoun Street SW, as submitted with the requirement that all of the MDO signs on the property will have their edges painted to match. Mr. Koochagian proposed a friendly amendment to require that the wall sign above the main entrance be moved down off of the window sill. The friendly amendment was accepted by Ms. Minchew. The motion was seconded by Mr. Koochagian and approved by a 6-0-1 vote (Kiley absent). Continued in the H-2 Corridor Overlay District None New Cases in the H-2 Corridor Overlay District None Cases Not Requiring a Public Hearing a. General Concept Plan — Verizon Small Cell Deployment - Downtown Mr. Scofield stated recently cell service providers have started going into areas of higher density where there are festivals and other activities planned to place small cell antennas with the goal of boosting service during high use periods. He stated the Zoning Ordinance was amended last year to address this trend in technology and this is the first such application to come before the Board. He stated this proposal is for the installation of small cell antennas and associated infrastructure for Verizon Wireless in eight locations within the Old and Historic District and 11 locations overall throughout the Town. Mr. Scofield stated the installation includes small canister style antennas placed on top of utility poles with associated infrastructure mounted within a box placed 8 feet above ground on the pole. He stated there were use standards included in the Zoning Ordinance amendment which requires Board review and approval for small cell deployments in the H-1 and H-2 overlay districts. He stated there is also a standard included in the Ordinance stating that "efforts shall be made by the applicant to utilize cell camouflage technologies and techniques on each small cell node and all pertinent ground mounted, pole mounted and/or roof mounted equipment in order to minimize or eliminate potential visual impacts on surrounding properties. Further, he outlined the 11 proposed locations for these installations throughout the Town noting that there is a great deal of research and analysis that goes into the placement of these antennas and that the relocation of one antenna effects the entire system. Mr. Scofield outlined the locations as follows: L-1 — 207 West Market Street L-2 — Corner of Liberty and Royal Streets SW L-3 — Across from the Town Hall Parking Garage exit on L-4 — 222 South King Street DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING • 25 WEST MARKET STREET • LEESBURG, VIRGINIA 20176 Telephone 703.771.2765 • Fax 703.771.2724 • www.leesburgva.gov/planning BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BUSINESS MEETING MINUTES May 15, 2017 Page 9 of 16 L-5 —1 East Market Street on the roof of the Sona Bank building, to be constructed as an architectural feature. Staff from the Department of Public Works were approached regarding the opportunity to place the antenna for this location on the pedestrian crossing signal and chose not to accommodate that proposal. L-6 — a smaller pole on East Market Street L-7 — Corner of Loudoun and Church Streets SE, this pole is proposed to be removed when the Courthouse Square construction begins. L-8 — Located in front of 106 Harrison Street SE Mr. Scofield outlined the review process for General Concept Plan Review applications. He stated based on the submitted application, the Old & Historic District Design Guidelines and use standards set forth in the Zoning Ordinance, he finds that endorsement of this project by the Board is not recommended at this time and additional information should be provided by the applicant to address the following: 1. Is it possible to utilize poles that are placed towards the rear of properties? 2. Has placement on the roof of the Loudoun County Administration Building considered? 3. Utility pole at Node L-1 is taller; mounted antennae is not in pedestrian line -of -sight and above adjacent architecture; sidewalk is narrow; plant materials ae in close proximity. Location and placement may be satisfactory. 4• Utility pole at Node L-2 is shorter; mounted antennae is in pedestrian line -of -sight and at same height as adjacent architecture; no sidewalk or plant material in vicinity. Location may be satisfactory — placement is not satisfactory. 5. Utility pole at Node L-3 (verify pole location) is taller; mounted antennae is not in pedestrian line - of -sight and is above adjacent architecture; sidewalk is standard width; no plant materials in vicinity; wayfinding sign is also mounted on pole. Location is satisfactory — placement should be above wayfinding sign. 6. Utility pole at Node L-4 is proposed for removal in order to construct South Street extension as part of the South King Street redevelopment project. New location may be required. 7. Proposed roof structure on building at Node L-5 creates a substantial visual impact and is not consistent with O&HD design guidelines. Location and placement are not satisfactory. 8. Utility pole at Node L-6 (verify pole location) is shorter; mounted antennae is not in pedestrian line -of -sight and is above adjacent architecture; no sidewalk or plant materials in vicinity. Location and placement may be satisfactory. 9. Utility pole at Node L-7 (verify location) is proposed for removal with Courthouse Square project. New location may be required. 10. Utility pole at Node L-8 is taller (verify location); mounted antennae is not in pedestrian line -of - sight and is above adjacent architecture; sidewalk is standard width; no plant materials in vicinity. Location and placement may be satisfactory. Mr. Roberts asked why staff in the Department of Public Works did not want to use traffic light infrastructure to house an antenna. Mr. Scofield stated Public Work staff were concerned that installation of an antenna would delay replacement of a crossing signal if it were to be hit by a car. The applicants, Joshua Schakola and Ginger Beaudoin of Mastec Network Solutions, were present. Mr. Schakola stated Mastec Network Solutions is a contractor for Verizon Wireless, working to assist in the expansion of the networks. He stated the goal of these deployments is to bring this new technology into smaller communities that experience high levels of network traffic congestion. He stated the proposed locations are on existing Dominion Power utility poles that would be replaced with taller structures that could support the weight of the equipment. He stated the one exception in this deployment is the L5 node at Market and King Streets where his engineers have worked to provide a simulation of staff's recommended parapet wall option; however, the option has not been reviewed by the radio frequency engineers to determine whether the proposal would achieve the goal of boosting frequency going north and south on King Street. DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING • 25 WEST MARKET STREET • LEESBURG, VIRGINIA 20176 Telephone 703.771.2765 • Fax 703.771.2724 • www.leesburgva.gov/planning BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BUSINESS MEETING MINUTES May 15, 2017 Page 10 of 16 Mr. Skinner verified that the purpose of this deployment is to increase data reliability relative to cell phone use. Mr. Schakola stated there are other proposed locations outside of the historic district that are also under consideration. He stated there have been questions regarding the color and right now the proposal is a brown cylindrical enclosure for the antenna at the top of the utility pole; however, other colors could also be used if desired. Mr. Roberts stated the proposed structure on the roof of the bank building is not a viable option under the design guidelines, noting it would destroy the visual of the roofline on this building at the most prominent intersection in Town. He stated he is less concerned with the equipment proposed for the utility poles except that there does seem to be some uncertainty as to how long some of the poles will remain in their locations. Mr. Skinner verified the poles at the selected locations will be replaced with new, taller poles. He asked if the enclosure for the equipment mounted on the side of the poles will be painted. Mr. Schakola stated the mounting frame can be painted; however, the equipment that sits on the mounts cannot. Mr. Skinner concurred with Mr. Roberts' comments regarding the proposed location of Node L-5 and asked whether options may exist to install this antenna in a less visible location. Mr. Schakola stated a key factor in the successful transmission of radio signals is line -of -sight. Ms. Beaudoin stated that particular location needs to be able to see up and down King Street and the further the antenna is set back from the parapet the taller it will need to be. Mr. Skinner asked if there are other available options. Ms. Beaudoin stated other options explored included the traffic signals and walk signals; however, those options were not considered viable based on feedback from the Department of Public Works & Capital Projects. She stated staff was concerned that location of their wires along with the antenna wires down the center of the poles may cause issues resulting in malfunction of the signal devices. Mr. Skinner asked if the applicant was aware of future plans to remove poles at some selected sites. Mr. Schakola stated he was aware of the potential need to relocate some equipment in the future and is prepared to address that need when the time comes. Mr. Skinner asked if alternate locations had been considered such as poles in back alleys. Ms. Beaudoin stated she did look at use of poles in less conspicuous locations; however, those locations do not allow for the antennas to see over the buildings and down to the street level. Mr. Skinner asked if the canister appearance of the antenna on top of the poles was the only available option. Ms. Beaudoin stated the pole top mounts have been reviewed and vetted by Dominion Power's engineering department and comply with their guidelines. Vice Chairman Goodson noted the substantial size of the equipment located further down the pole and asked how that could be masked. Ms. Beaudoin stated the equipment is consistent is size with equipment already installed on the poles, noting there is flexibility in painting the outer enclosure. DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING • 25 WEST MARKET STREET • LEESBURG, VIRGINIA 20176 Telephone 703.771.2765 • Fax 703.771.2724 • www.leesburgva.gov/planning BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BUSINESS MEETING MINUTES May15, 2017 Page 11 of 16 Vice Chairman Goodson stated the addition of this equipment on the side of the pole, along with the antenna on top, creates a substantial mass and asked what can be done to reduce the visual impact. Ms. Beaudoin stated the equipment to be installed at eight feet on the poles cannot be condensed in size any further than what is proposed. Vice Chairman Goodson noted this equipment will block architectural features and is located in the line -of -sight. He asked if there are other ways in which to mask the equipment. Ms. Beaudoin stated the ordinance prohibits the ability to ground -mount any equipment in the historic district. She stated there is a distance limit as to how far the equipment can be placed from the antenna and minimum separation distance from the powerlines which is dictated by Dominion Power. Vice Chairman Goodson stated the visual impact of the equipment on the side of the pole is in some ways greater than the canister on top of the pole. He asked if the number of antennas could be reduced by centrally locating larger antennas in a higher location. Ms. Beaudoin stated small cell technology works because it is low power and because of it being low power, it has to be closer to the ground. Vice Chairman Goodson asked if location of larger equipment at the Town Hall or Loudoun County Government Center would provide a way to reduce the number of node installations. Ms. Beaudoin stated her team has thoroughly reviewed the area and made their recommendations based on the least obtrusive options available. She stated there is not much flexibility in where the Nodes can be located to create the necessary network. Vice Chairman Goodson asked what type of equipment is being installed on cell towers in the area. Mr. Schakola stated those are macro sites whereas these are micro sites. He stated you have macro sites that provide the overall coverage and the micro sites enhance coverage in areas where usage is higher. Ms. Beaudoin stated it is also important to note that if you go taller and increase power on the micro sites then they begin to interfere with the success of the macro sites. Vice Chairman Goodson asked if the creation of one macro site in the downtown to be placed on one of the parking garages would provide a viable option. Ms. Beaudoin stated the macro sites are already established and the micro sites are used to fill in where the macro sites cannot handle the traffic. Mr. Koochagian asked if an option may exist which would require more sites with a smaller visible footprint. Mr. Schakola stated the proposed installation is the smallest equipment available. Ms. Minchew asked how many other wireless companies can request similar installations in town. Mr. Scofield stated there are currently three major providers. Ms. Minchew verified there is no language in place that would allow the Town to say yes to one provider and no to another. She stated this presents a significant concern and requires a global plan as to how these requests will be handled. She asked what will happen with the utility poles are removed or need to be relocated. Mr. Schakola stated Verizon will be leasing space on the poles owned by Dominion Power. DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING • 25 WEST MARKET STREET • LEESBURG, VIRGINIA 20176 Telephone 703.771.2765 • Fax 703.771.2724 • www.leesburgva.gov/planning BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BUSINESS MEETING MINUTES May 15, 2017 Page 12 of 16 Ms. Minchew asked for additional information regarding the earlier comment that the Zoning Ordinance prohibits the ability to place equipment at the ground level. Mr. Scofield stated there is extensive language included in the ordinance related to ground mounted equipment throughout Leesburg. Ms. Minchew asked if the regulation can be revisited as it seems the alternative to placing the equipment at eye -level is of greater concern. Vice Chairman Goodson asked if there is an option to place the equipment below ground. Mr. Schakola stated the equipment cannot be placed below ground. He stated Dominion Power has set the requirement that the equipment must be placed 8 feet above ground. He stated during the review process for the Zoning Ordinance amendment, the Planning Commission was very adamant that there should be no ground mounted equipment in the historic district. Ms. Minchew asked if there are locations in the Northern Virginia area where these poles have been placed so that the Board could visit. Ms. Schakola stated there are a number of these poles installed along Great Falls Road, Georgetown Pike, and Old Dominion Drive. Ms. Minchew asked if these poles have been installed in a downtown setting. Ms. Beaudoin stated there are a number of these poles being deployed in Fairfax County; however, there are currently none installed with this particular design. Ms. Minchew asked that the applicant provide staff with a list of places where the Board could view these poles in person, especially if there are poles located in a similar setting. Chairman Reimers expressed concern with the possibility of multiple wireless carriers placing these in multiple locations throughout the downtown. Ms. Beaudoin stated another concern with installation of ground mounted equipment in the historic district was the narrow sidewalk widths. Ms. Minchew asked that a staff report be provided before the next Board discussion to provide background information and the parameters in which the Board has to work. Mr. Koochagian asked why the structure on the roof at Market and King Streets is so large. Mr. Schakola stated the enclosure has to be a certain height to clear the parapet and the signal has to travel down both ends of King Street. Mr. Koochagian discussed the importance of having the ability to visit a location where these poles are currently installed. He expressed concern the size and visual impact of the canister and pole mounted equipment. Further, he asked for additional information regarding the more ornamental installation examples included in Mr. Scofield's presentation. Mr. Scofield stated when researching information for the Zoning Ordinance Amendment, Zoning Administrator Chris Murphy found those images that were used in other communities. Mr. Koochagian asked if there are other forms that the proposed equipment could fit in or other options that would be more appropriate for the historic district. He stated he finds it hard to believe that this proposal represents the best option available based on today's technology. Mr. Schakola stated the photos in staff's presentation were decorative light poles such as what are found along King Street in the downtown. He stated installation can be done in these poles; however, DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING • 25 WEST MARKET STREET • LEESBURG, VIRGINIA 20176 Telephone 703.771.2765 • Fax 703.771.2724 • www.leesburgva.gov/planning BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BUSINESS MEETING MINUTES May15, 2017 Page 13 of 16 equipment will still have to be mounted to the side, which is not shown in the image provided because it was a different type of installation. Mr. Koochagian asked if it is possible to put an enclosure around the equipment that is installed on the side of the pole to reduce the visual clutter and provide a more refined finish. Mr. Schakola stated the equipment can be placed in a mesh screening, which allows the heat generating radio heads to breathe. Ms. Beaudoin stated the radio heads are located on either side of the box and the equipment is in the middle. She stated the entire box, with the exception of the radio heads, can be painted and a lighter cream color mesh can be installed over the radio heads. She stated her company has worked very hard with Dominion Power to shrink all of the equipment to the extent possible. Ms. Minchew verified the Zoning Ordinance text amendment related to these installations was approved by the Town Council in 2016. Vice Chairman Goodson stated the Board's review of these installations within the Old & Historic District was included in the approved language. Mr. Scofield confirmed that a Certificate of Appropriateness approval from the Board is required for these installations. Ms. Minchew asked if the Board has the authority to override the language in the ordinance which prohibits mounting the equipment on the ground. She stated it would be preferred to have the flexibility of a wider base at the pole to accommodate the equipment, depending on the location. Further, she asked what the Town needs to do to address the proliferation of these installations beyond this one application. Vice Chairman Goodson asked how these installations have been addressed in other historic towns. Mr. Schakola stated this exact installation is new and while it is being done all over the country, this area is a test market for this new technology. He stated Leesburg was the first town in Northern Virginia to approve a Zoning Ordinance Amendment addressing these deployments. He stated his company is currently exploring franchise agreements in order to use utility poles in Old Town Alexandria which may not necessarily require review by the City Council. Further, he stated the Virginia State Senate recently passed legislation which would allow these installations on utility structures everywhere. Ms. Minchew verified that legislation would not take control away from the jurisdictions relative to the appearance of these installations. Ms. Beaudoin stated she and Mr. Schakola will work to find examples of similar installations in other historic areas, noting installations have been done in Colonial Williamsburg and on the University of Virginia campus in Charlottesville, Virginia. Mr. Roberts asked if there is a minimum and maximum height for placement of the canisters on the top of the poles. Ms. Beaudoin stated the canisters are typically placed at a height between 25 and 50 feet. Mr. Roberts asked if the top of the Town garage had been considered as a potential location for Node L-3. He noted there may be structures, other than utility poles, that may minimize the visual impact and asked if Town or County staff had been contacted. Ms. Beaudoin stated she had contacted Loudoun County regarding the potential use of their parking garage; however, they were not willing to entertain a proposal at that time as they were uncertain as to what future plans may be for the structure. DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING • 25 WEST MARKET STREET • LEESBURG, VIRGINIA 20176 Telephone 703.771.2765 • Fax 703.771.2724 • www.leesburgva.gov/planning BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BUSINESS MEETING MINUTES May 15,2017 Page 14 of 16 Mr. Roberts asked if a similar response was given to use of the County Government Center building. He stated it seems that there may be structures in Town that could provide a better option than utility poles. Ms. Beaudoin noted the need to have the equipment located as close to the roadway as possible. She stated to place the equipment on buildings there would need to be agreements with the property owners. Further, she stated the utility poles are found to be more effective in terms of the success of the network. Vice Chairman Goodson verified the goal of this briefing was to introduce the concept to the Board with the acknowledgement that action would not be taken at this meeting. He noted the need to consider more creative solutions for deployment in historic districts as it would be preferable to hide a small apparatus on the facade of a historic building versus the current proposal. Mr. Scofield stated as this is a General Concept Plan, there is no critical action date and the applicant can return to continue the discussion when they are prepared to do so. There was further discussion regarding factors in determining the node locations to address current and future needs. There was also discussion regarding the need to have a better understanding of the approved Zoning Ordinance Amendment as well as the discussions and decisions made in reviewing that legislation. Mr. Schakola noted the examples provided by staff showed a Distributed Antenna System (DAS) installation which has offsite equipment in a hub location, which is not effective and will not address the needs for this installation. Mr. Roberts verified the proposed installation is called a Cloud Radio Area Network (CRAN). He asked if the Zoning Ordinance Amendment was based on a DAS system versus the proposed CRAN. Mr. Scofield stated the proposed CRAN installation is a type of small cell deployment, which is the basis for the approved Zoning Ordinance Amendment. He stated Mr. Murphy felt it was very important that Leesburg was one of the first communities to have these regulations in place to set standards for these installations, which some communities do not have. Ms. Beaudoin stated Mr. Murphy worked with Mr. Schakola and herself in addition to other jurisdictions and the Leesburg Technology and Communications Committee in the development of the ordinance amendment. Mr. Scofield stated in addition to Board review of these installations in the historic district, the Town also has use standards in place that companies have to meet for installations throughout the Town, including the required use of camouflage techniques. There was further discussion regarding the need for clarity as to the Board's authority in review of these applications. Further, it was suggested that additional, creative solutions should be considered for the installation, particularly for the corner of Market and King Streets. Mr. Koochagian asked if location of the antenna behind the faux parapet on the recent Loudoun County Courthouse addition on King Street would be a viable option. Ms. Beaudoin stated the radio signals can only travel through certain types of material. Chairman Reimers reiterated the need to see any possible examples of similar installations in a historic district setting. Mr. Schakola provided several photographs of architectural features installed on buildings that were made with radio frequency friendly material to hide antenna installations, including buildings in Washington, DC and Old Town Alexandria. He stated these types of installations could be DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING • 25 WEST MARKET STREET • LEESBURG, VIRGINIA 20176 Telephone 703.771.2765 • Fax 703.771.2724 • www.leesburgva.gov/planning BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BUSINESS MEETING MINUTES May 15, 2017 Page 15 of 16 considered for the building at Market and King Streets; however, there are limited solutions for the pole locations as the ordinance does not allow for the erection of new structures. Mr. Scofield stated he will work with staff to verify what prohibitions are included in the ordinance. Mr. Schakola stated replacement structures are permitted and while a new light pole could be constructed at the corner of Market and King Streets to house the node equipment, it would not resemble the other light poles in the historic district. Vice Chairman Goodson stated there has been discussion in recent years regarding the replacement of the decorative light poles along King Street and perhaps there is the opportunity to acquire poles for the project that could accommodate these installations. Ms. Beaudoin cautioned that while these light pole structures are attractive, the base has a very large diameter to house the equipment, which could cause issues considering the narrow sidewalk width in parts of the historic district. Mr. Koochagian suggested that staff reach out the National Parks Service or the Department of Historic Resources to determine if they have provided guidance pertaining to these installations. Mr. Schakola stated the Federal Communications Commission has also addressed these installations in historic areas as well. Ms. Minchew stated the Board wants to work with the applicant to find a viable solution; however, it is important to know what the process would be if the Board and the applicant cannot find a solution that works for both parties. Vice Chairman Goodson discussed the need to have a clear plan in place to address these installations and the potential for future applications. Ms. Beaudoin noted that the installations do become self-limiting at some point as Dominion Power is very selective as to which poles the allow for this use. Further, she stated site selection is also important for the success of the network and to avoid a large number of these nodes as close proximity to other installations will cause the signals to cancel each other out. Mr. Koochagian stated it would be helpful to have a basic presentation at the next meeting to educate the Board on these types of installations, similar to what was provided to other entities within the Town during the ordinance amendment process. Administrative Approvals a. TLHP-2017-0031, 1 Loudoun Street SW -fence (Delirium Cafe) b. TLHP-2017-0032, 212-A Loudoun Street SE - replacement projecting sign (Cultured Cafe) c. TLHP-2017-0034, 15 Loudoun Street SE - paint color change for front door d. TLHP-2017-0035, 14 Loudoun Street SE - paint color change for front door (Captain Catoctin) e. TLHP-2017-0034, 217 Cornwall Street NW - replacing driveway f. TLHP-2017-0039, 229 West Market Street - replacement of two storm doors g. TLHP-2017-0040, 7 West Market Street - paint color change for front door h. TLHP-2017-0041, 207 North Street NE - retaining wall Old Business: Mr. Scofield stated staff plans to provide information relative to outreach opportunities for the Board at the next work session. Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 10:28 p.m. DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING • 25 WEST MARKET STREET • LEESBURG, VIRGINIA 20176 Telephone 703.771.2765 • Fax 703.771.2724 • www,leesburgva.gov/planning BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BUSINESS MEETING MINUTES May 15, 2017 Paul Reimers/ hairthan --Deborah Parry, Planning & Zoning Asigant Page 16 of 16 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING • 25 WEST MARKET STREET • LEESBURG, VIRGINIA 20176 Telephone 703.771.2765 • Fax 703.771.2724 • www.leesburgva.gov/planning