Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout02 19 2020 BAR Meeting Minutes LEESBURG BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BUSINESS MEETING MINUTES Wednesday, February 19, 2020 Town Hall, 25 West Market Street Council Chamber MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Teresa Minchew, Vice Chair Dale Goodson, Parliamentarian Stacy Skinner, Richard Koochagian (participating remotely), Tom O’Neil, Julie Pastor, Planning Commission Liaison Gigi Robinson and Town Council Liaison Marty Martinez MEMBERS ABSENT: Paul Reimers STAFF: Director of Planning & Zoning Susan Berry Hill and Planning and Zoning Analyst Deborah Parry Call to Order and Roll Call Chairman Minchew: Good evening all and welcome to the Wednesday, February 19th, 2020, business meeting of the Leesburg Board of Architectural Review. We will begin with the call to order and then number two on our agenda is roll call and acknowledgment of quorum. Before we do that or as part of that, we need to go through some procedural steps here to allow a member to participate remotely. Remote Participation Motion Chairman Minchew: I will read the script that we need to go through. Pursuant to the Town's remote electronic participation policy, Commissioner Koochagian has notified me as the Chair that he is unable to attend the meeting due to travel for business. Arrangements have been made for his voice to be heard by everybody. Commissioner Koochagian is participating from Atlanta, Georgia. I will need a vote from the Board Members present to approve or deny that. Is there a motion to approve? Vice Chair Goodson: Move to allow Richard Koochagian to call in. Ms. Skinner: Second. Chairman Minchew: All in favor? BAR Members: Aye. Chairman Minchew: All opposed? Motion passes. Mr. Koochagian will be participating remotely. With that let's go to-- we have a quorum. We already had a quorum, but we have a quorum and a remote participant. The motion was approved by a 5-0-1-1 vote (Koochagian recused and Reimers absent). Adoption of the Meeting Agenda Chairman Minchew: Now we'll go to adoption of the meeting agenda. Is there a motion to adopt the meeting agenda as proposed? Vice Chair Goodson: So moved. Ms. Skinner: Second. Chairman Minchew: All in favor? Participants: Aye. Chairman Minchew: Opposed? Richard, we're counting you in there. I guess we won't count him. BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BUSINESS MEETING MINUTES February 19, 2020 Page 2 of 44 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING · 25 WEST MARKET STREET · LEESBURG, VIRGINIA 20176 Telephone 703.771.2765 · Fax 703.771.2724 · www.leesburgva.gov/planning Vice Chair Goodson: Mr. Koochagian, can you hear us? Chairman Minchew: All right. We'll work that out. Moving on to item four on our agenda, approval of meeting minutes. We have three sets of minutes and I think at least one of them, not all were present. We'll take them separately. Mr. Koochagian: Hey, Debi. Ms. Parry: Hi, we lost you there for a second. Mr. Koochagian: Yes. I'm back. Chairman Minchew: Mr. Koochagian, may we count you in approving the adoption of the meeting agenda. Mr. Koochagian: Yes. The motion was approved by a 6-0-1 vote (Reimers absent). Chairman Minchew: Thank you. Approval of Meeting Minutes Chairman Minchew: All right. We are now on 4a, approval of meeting minutes, October 7th, 2019. Are there any edits or comments or suggestions? If not, may we have a motion? a. October 7, 2019 – Work Session Vice Chair Goodson: Approve as submitted. Ms. Skinner: Second. Chairman Minchew: All in favor? BAR Members: Aye. Chairman Minchew: All opposed? All right, motion passes. The motion was approved by a 6-0-1 vote (Reimers absent). b. October 23, 2019 –Business Meeting Chairman Minchew: 4b, meeting minutes of October 23rd, 2019 business meeting. Any edits or comments? Motion to motion. Vice Chair Goodson: Motion to approve as submitted. Ms. Skinner: Second. Chairman Minchew: Thank you. All in favor? BAR Members: Aye. Chairman Minchew: Opposed? Right, thank you, motion passes. The motion was approved by a 6-0-1 vote (Reimers absent). c. October 28, 2019 – Special Work Session Chairman Minchew: Finally, 4c, approval of meeting minutes for October 28th, 2019, special meeting. Any edits or comments? May I have motion? BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BUSINESS MEETING MINUTES February 19, 2020 Page 3 of 44 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING · 25 WEST MARKET STREET · LEESBURG, VIRGINIA 20176 Telephone 703.771.2765 · Fax 703.771.2724 · www.leesburgva.gov/planning Vice Chair Goodson: Motion to approve as submitted. Mr. O’Neil: I'll second. Chairman Minchew: Okay, second by Tom. All in favor? BAR Members: Aye. Chairman Minchew: Opposed? Motion passes. Thank you. The motion was approved by a 6-0-1 vote (Reimers absent) BAR Member Disclosures Chairman Minchew: Next on our agenda is the portion where any member of the BAR who wishes to disclose anything about a case or recuse will state that and I will start off by stating that I will continue to recuse myself from BAR case TLHP-2019-0137, 9 East Market Street due to my husband's law firm's involvement with the applicants. Mr. Goodson will run the meeting during that application. Mr. O’Neil: I need to recuse myself from TLHP-2020-0012, 7 Royal Street SE because I'm the architect on that project. Chairman Minchew: All right, thank you. Vice Chair Goodson: I will disclose I had a phone conversation with the applicant for 9 East Market Street, Church and Market TLHP-2019-0137. Just a brief conversation regarding clarification of our last meeting. Chairman Minchew: All right, thank you. Anybody else? All right. Public Comment and Presentations Chairman Minchew: Item 6 on our agenda is public comment. This is an opportunity for any of you in the audience who would like to speak about anything that is BAR purview that is not on our agenda tonight. If there's something else you wanted to address now is your moment. I don't see anybody. Consent Agenda Chairman Minchew: We'll move on to item 7. Cases for approval by consent. These are cases proposed for approval as submitted with whatever conditions staff has put on them. If anybody in the audience would like these cases discussed, all you need to do is say so and we will put them back in the regular order of business. Is there anybody who would like either of these cases TLHP-2020-0006 or TLHP-2020- 0011 put back in the regular course of business? No, all right, then is there a motion from the Board? a. TLHP-2020-0006, East Market Street Project: H-2 Small Cell Installation b. TLHP-2020-0011, Davis Avenue SW Project: H-2 Small Cell Installation Vice Chair Goodson: Move to approve our consent agenda TLHP-2020-006 and 0011 installations of small cell antennas and equipment. Chairman Minchew: That's great. Is there a second? Ms. Pastor: Second. Chairman Minchew: All in favor? BAR Members: Aye. BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BUSINESS MEETING MINUTES February 19, 2020 Page 4 of 44 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING · 25 WEST MARKET STREET · LEESBURG, VIRGINIA 20176 Telephone 703.771.2765 · Fax 703.771.2724 · www.leesburgva.gov/planning Chairman Minchew: All opposed? All right, motion passes. The consent agenda was approved by a 6-0-1 vote (Reimers absent). Public Hearings on New Cases in the H-1 Overlay District a. TLHP-2020-0009, 302 Loudoun Street SW Project: New Deck Construction Chairman Minchew opened the public hearing at 7:07pm. Chairman Minchew: All right, that brings us to section 8 on our agenda which is new cases in the H- 1 overlay or Old and Historic District and we will begin with TLHP-2020-0009, 302 Loudoun Street, SW. Ms. Berry Hill: Okay, thank you Madam Chair and members of the BAR. This first case is 302, Loudoun Street and this is for a deck application. This property is located in the Westgreen neighborhood of the Historic District. It is a non-contributing structure that was built around 1980. Westgreen subdivision is all non-contributing in terms of their structures in that neighborhood. It's located at the corner of Loudoun and West Loudoun Street. The proposal proposes to remove the existing deck and construct a new larger deck in its place in the rear yard. The proposed deck is wood, stained, and it has a pergola feature in the corner of the deck. Here's an illustrative of the proposed deck. Generally, it's consistent with the Guidelines but we must admit that the Guidelines are very limited in terms of addressing decks. However, the pergola feature is more of a suburban feature and contemporary and it's not common on historic structures, but it is found on many different homes within the Westgreen subdivision. The applicant is proposing not to have a lattice around the foundation of the deck. Staff is recommended that the lattice would help to screen the structural members under the deck and make it appear more porch-like, which is something that the Guidelines do note that these types of structures should be more porch-like. W ith that, staff is recommending approval of this but recommending that the BAR consider the proposal; talk about the lattice foundation as well as the pergola and whether the BAR feels that that is acceptable. With that, I will answer any questions if I can. Chairman Minchew: Thank you. Is the applicant present? If you'd like to come forward and state your name for the record and if there's anything you'd like to add to what staff has already said, please go forth ahead. Jennifer Beckley, applicant: Jennifer Beckley. Thomas Beckley, applicant: Thomas Beckley. Chairman Minchew: Anything you'd like to add to what staff's said? Mr. Beckley: No, I don't. Ms. Beckley: No, that was a perfect presentation and respectfully our neighborhood, and with the Town as it's growing so much more hip with the nightlife, our neighbors are doing a lot of evening gatherings and the decks are becoming a lot more important. W e're seeing as our neighborhood is getting younger, as the millennials are coming in and buying, we've had two recent home sales, we're noticing that the outdoor life with the people walking by is becoming more important. I did take a few snapshots of Loudoun Street. This is just two doors up. Our neighbors do already have what we're looking to do and this is just two doors up making a left. They already have the pergola. We're not doing anything that's not already there and we're just asking to improve what we have. We have a hedge on Loudoun Street, so you wouldn't really see our part. You would just see the top portion of our pergola as you're walking down Loudoun Street. The lattice is not an issue. We'll do the lattice. What we have seen in our neighborhood is we have a lot of little critters coming over from Cook's farm in that area. My husband, Tom , will tell you what they do is they make a nice big circle and live underneath. Mr. Beckley: Through the lattice. BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BUSINESS MEETING MINUTES February 19, 2020 Page 5 of 44 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING · 25 WEST MARKET STREET · LEESBURG, VIRGINIA 20176 Telephone 703.771.2765 · Fax 703.771.2724 · www.leesburgva.gov/planning Ms. Beckley: Through the lattice, so we were thinking without putting the lattice, they would have an automatic escape route. First, there's trapping them in there in the lattice. Most of the neighbors that have the lattice all have big holes in their lattice. We were thinking about-- however, if you would prefer that, we'll do whatever is necessary to make the project go forward. Thank you. Chairman Minchew: Thank you. All right. What we do next is we make a round up here for questions for clarification. Then I will ask if anybody in the audience wants to address the application then we'll come back to the BAR for comments. Julie, I'll start with you. Any questions for staff or the applicants. Ms. Pastor: They answered my questions, so I'm good. Chairman Minchew: Okay. Tom ? Mr. O’Neil: No questions. Chairman Minchew: Dale? Vice Chair Goodson: Don't get off that easy. A couple of questions. How high off the ground are you going to be? Mr. Beckley: Roughly 18-20 inches in that whole part. Vice Chair Goodson: From the surface of the deck? Mr. Beckley: Correct. Vice Chair Goodson: After roughly a foot, a foot and a half, you're underneath the actual framing and then the structure of the deck. You're- Mr. Beckley: You're looking maybe 10 inches [crosstalk] Vice Chair Goodson: Yes. Okay. The railing I didn't see details of the railing. How are you going to do the railing on the deck? Mr. Beckley: It's the inch and a half square post with flat handrail around the top. Vice Chair Goodson: Okay. Sort of a traditional deck rail. Mr. Beckley: Correct. Vice Chair Goodson: Okay. Thank you. Chairman Minchew: Thank you, Ms. Skinner? Ms. Skinner: Actually those were my questions. Chairman Minchew: Ms. Robinson? Mr. Martinez? Any questions? No? I guess I just wanted to confirm the materials are all wood. Mr. Beckley: Yes. Chairman Minchew: This is more to understand what you're doing, there was a reference in the material sheet to Trex Stair System. Mr. Beckley: No. It's all pressure-treated and going to be stained. The decking. Chairman Minchew: In your material sheet, it says Trex Riser Kit? LED Riser Kit, is that something else? BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BUSINESS MEETING MINUTES February 19, 2020 Page 6 of 44 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING · 25 WEST MARKET STREET · LEESBURG, VIRGINIA 20176 Telephone 703.771.2765 · Fax 703.771.2724 · www.leesburgva.gov/planning Mr. Beckley: That's the Riser. That is going to be Trex. It's going to be white [crosstalk] not the treads themselves but the riser like those where you—like right here when the step comes out, this part right here will be white. Ms. Beckley: The little stair treads. Chairman Minchew: Right. The risers- Ms. Beckley: We don't have to. We can make those wood as well. Chairman Minchew: You would be okay with making that wood? Ms. Beckley: Absolutely. Chairman Minchew: All right. Ms. Pastor: What is the tread? Mr. Beckley: The only thing that is going to be around where they cover the 2x12 is going to be white. They use the PVC for that. Chairman Minchew: I'm sorry. Where is the PVC going to be? Mr. Beckley: The deck, the 2x12 that supports the deck. The outer edge. They going to wrap that with the PVC. Chairman Minchew: Okay. That's not really all wood, is it? All right. Is that something you're committed to as well? Having the PVC there? Mr. Beckley: I haven't committed to anything. Chairman Minchew: Okay. Let's see. I think I had the railing. We understand a traditional railing with the square picket is a flat top and traditionally the spindles meet the bottom railing. The traditional manner. Not in the- Mr. Beckley: Correct. Chairman Minchew: Would you be able to get a cut sheet of that to staff after we approve this just something that shows what you're planning to do? That would be great, if we get there. I think those are all my questions. Thank you for reminding me to talk to Richard. Richard, do you have any questions? Mr. Koochagian: No questions. Chairman Minchew: All right. Thank you. Hold that up and remind me next time. This is the first tim e we've had remote participation. Mr. O’Neil: Second night I missed him when he did it before. Chairman Minchew: Okay. I must have missed that one too. Mr. Beckley: Sounds like a voice from the Lord. Chairman Minchew: I know, but you listen. All right. Is there anybody in the audience who would care to speak to this application? No? All right. We'll go to the Board comment then and any discussion. Julie? BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BUSINESS MEETING MINUTES February 19, 2020 Page 7 of 44 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING · 25 WEST MARKET STREET · LEESBURG, VIRGINIA 20176 Telephone 703.771.2765 · Fax 703.771.2724 · www.leesburgva.gov/planning Ms. Pastor: I would prefer the lattice. I feel that's more appropriate and I do not have an issue with the pergola. I appreciate your questions about the materials. I think it would be best if they were wood as presented in the- Mr. Beckley: What about the lattice? Most of the lattices, the PVC lattice, do you want- Chairman Minchew: Actually you've just reminded me of another question and I forgot it because I didn't write it down. It was for staff and that is how many of the pergolas and latticework in Westgreen has actually come through the BAR process and been approved? I don't know that that's a question staff can answer immediately, but my 20 something years on the Board I don't recall any of it ever coming through, so there's a good chance that it hasn't come through, meaning it might not be an approved product that your neighbors have used. Just something to think about. Ms. Pastor: Based on the pictures it looks like some of them are wood and some of them aren't wood. Mr. Beckley: They're all wood. The other two that we just sent pictures of are wood. Ms. Pastor: I think wood is more appropriate even though the critters might- Ms. Beckley: We've lived there 15 years and the decks have been there for 15 years. The neighbors know that. Ms. Pastor: Yes. I'm sure. Chairman Minchew: All right. Tom any questions or- Mr. O’Neil: Comments. Chairman Minchew: Comments. I'm sorry. Mr. O’Neil: Just I think that PVC should be replaced with real wood material. For both the risers and the deck band, I don't have an issue with the pergola, there's plenty of examples in your neighborhood. The lattice, I'm going along with the staff. I don't know given the height above the ground whether I think it does a whole lot of good or not but if it is used, there are wood lattice products out there. Cedar and some other ones. Chairman Minchew: Thank you. Mr. Koochagian? Mr. Koochagian: Yes. I have no problem with the pergola. I would agree all materials ought to be wood. The concern that I have with the lattice, which I do believe is more appropriate looking at the rendering, it looks like the structural members are in-set fairly far underneath and so I'd be curious to what the lattice would be affixed to? Would it be in between the structural members or one solid band of lattice? Chairman Minchew: Do you understand the question? Ms. Pastor: Where is it going to be attached? Vice Chair Goodson: I think I know where he's going with it. I think you've got one picture of your existing deck where the lattice is just attached. Basically, is the band board running down? That typically, traditionally isn't what we want to see. It would actually be in-set behind the framing material. I'll take a little bit differing opinion than the others have mentioned. I think because you're basically less than a foot off the ground from the framing, I don't see a need for a lattice on this because you really do want to in-set the lattice back into the framing or behind the framing a little bit. Once you're there, there is pretty much nothing you can see. It might actually help facilitate keeping the critters out or cleaning the stuff out afterwards. In my view, I don't really think aesthetically it brings anything to the table. BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BUSINESS MEETING MINUTES February 19, 2020 Page 8 of 44 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING · 25 WEST MARKET STREET · LEESBURG, VIRGINIA 20176 Telephone 703.771.2765 · Fax 703.771.2724 · www.leesburgva.gov/planning Chairman Minchew: Mr. Koochagian, did you have anything else? Mr. Koochagian: No. I'm leaning towards what the Dale just indicated. The way the posts are underneath I think by the time you apply lattice in between those posts, it going to be set back too far and you won't even see it. Vice Chair Goodson: It's not worth of maintenance issues. Mr. Koochagian: Right. Chairman Minchew: Okay. Thank you. Dale, anything else? Vice Chair Goodson: I did. I'm fine with everything. I agree with the comments about the wood banding material instead of the PVC. The railings treatment, just to clarify, what I'm envisioning is basically more porch type railing as opposed to contemporary deck railing. With a top rail like you'd see more on a deck. With that clarification, I'm fine with everything. Chairman Minchew: Thank you. Ms. Skinner? Ms. Skinner: I'm good. Chairman Minchew: Any comments down at that end? Mr. Martinez? No? Thank you for undertaking this. I actually walk by there all the time and it is very difficult to see your property from the sidewalk because it drops. So for that reason, I can support the pergola because it'd be very difficult to see, I think from the public right-of-way. I'm not approving it-- I'm not suggesting we approve it because other people have it, because I don't know that I would approve all the others and I don't know that they have been approved. They may have been but I don't know that. The reason I'm finding it approvable is because its impact from the public right-of-way is very minimal. Similarly, the lattice will be completely invisible from the public right-of-way if we were to ask you to do it and on top of that, the way we would want it installed would probably also include banding on it and I just think that would take up all the lattice. You'd end up with three inches of lattice. So, I am supporting, not requiring you, in this particular case, to put the lattice on. If it were a more significant height, I think we would probably require it because the effort would be to make it look less like a contemporary deck and more like a porch. Mr. Beckley: Maintenance-wise, I don't know how would you ever get underneath them to replace it if you had to? Chairman Minchew: There are lots of ways the panels can be made where they come off like all the old houses that you see that have them, the panels can come off. Sometimes they build in a little gate. There's plenty of ways to do it but we're not asking you in your case to do it because-- at least it sounds like we're not. Doing my straw count in my head here. So long as you are proposing all the materials to be wood, I am in favor of approving your application. Unless there's more discussion, do we have a motion? Ms. Pastor: I move that Certificate of Appropriateness application TLHP-2020-0009 be approved, based on the information provided by Thomas Beckley received January 16, 2020, including the photos, specs, and product information, subject to the following findings and conditions: 1. The proposed structure is a non-contributing structure in the Old & Historic District, having been constructed circa 1980, and the proposed pergola would not be visible from the right-of-way. 2. All components will be wood. And that’s it. Chairman Minchew: Is there— Ms. Skinner: The lattice? BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BUSINESS MEETING MINUTES February 19, 2020 Page 9 of 44 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING · 25 WEST MARKET STREET · LEESBURG, VIRGINIA 20176 Telephone 703.771.2765 · Fax 703.771.2724 · www.leesburgva.gov/planning Vice Chair Goodson: Friendly amendment to mention no lattice trim is required [crosstalk]. Ms. Pastor: They weren't proposing it so I didn't- Vice Chair Goodson: You are correct. Ms. Pastor: All components would be wood. Mr. O’Neil: I'll second. Chairman Minchew: Thank you. Any discussion? No? All in favor? BAR Members: Aye. Chairman Minchew: All opposed? Motion passes. Thank you. The motion, as amended, was approved by a 6-0-1 vote (Reimers absent). Vice Chair Goodson: Thank you. Ms. Beckley: Thank you very much. Chairman Minchew: You should be getting a letter from staff with all the details but it's pretty straight-forward. b. TLHP-2020-0013, 26 North King Street Project: Demolition and reconstruction of side porch and exhaust fan installation Chairman Minchew opened the public hearing at 7:24pm. Chairman Minchew: All right. Moving on to case 8b TLHP-2020-0013, 26 North King Street, demolition and reconstruction of side porch and exhaust fan installation. Ms. Berry Hill: This application is located at 26 North King Street. Those of you that are familiar, this used to be the old Kelly insurance Building and the proposal is to amend a previously approved COA to eliminate the chimney and install new exhaust vents on the rear elevation. It's also to rebuild the existing porch which the applicant would like to remove to facilitate work on the property. Then they would replace it, replacing all structurally impaired materials with in-kind materials. This is an elevation of what was previously approved including the chimney. This elevation shows what the applicant is proposing in the rear without the chimney. The guidelines for new mechanical equipment say that they should be located on the side or rear and out of view from the public right-of-way and to consolidate on one elevation if possible. The application meets both of those Guidelines. The exhaust fans are going to be located or are proposed to be located on the rear of the non-contributing edition. As such, staff finds that the exhaust fan proposal is consistent with the Guidelines. The repair and replacement of in-kind materials for the porch is supported by the Guidelines. If the applicant plans to fully dismantle the porch in order to accommodate other construction, staff recommends that a detailed condition be included with your motion tonight to address this. With that staff has recommended approval subject to the location of the exhaust fans that are consistent with the Guidelines for mechanical equipment will not be visible from the right-of-way. Secondly, the existing porch may be dismantled and rebuilt in-kind. Individual, structural materials, members, and decorative elements shall be numbered, notated, and measured and such elements of the porch will be retained when possible. Individual elements which are beyond repair shall be replaced in-kind to match the existing trim dimensions and material as documented during dismantling. Lastly, the Preservation Planner will be notified prior to dismantling and prior to reconstruction. With that, that is the application. BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BUSINESS MEETING MINUTES February 19, 2020 Page 10 of 44 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING · 25 WEST MARKET STREET · LEESBURG, VIRGINIA 20176 Telephone 703.771.2765 · Fax 703.771.2724 · www.leesburgva.gov/planning Chairman Minchew: Thank you. Is the applicant present? Come on forward and state your name and please add to what staff has shared with us as you see fit. Jeff Mitchell, architect: Sure. My name's Jeff Mitchell, and I'm the architect. Bill Turnure, applicant: Bill Turnure from Turnure Architecture. Chairman Minchew: Thank you. Anything you'd like to add to staff's report? Mr. Turnure: The reasoning for the exhaust fan installation change is that once we got into mechanical equipment, mechanical engineer decisions, they required that we were going to have to have a ladder and a railing around the cap of the chimney for cleaning. For an alternative, we've gone to these exhaust fans which will be approximately 7 ½ feet above grade. They're aluminum and they will be painted to match the siding. The porch, there are a number of deteriorated floorboards which we want to replace. We will strip all the paint off the existing members and then repaint everything after it's been sanded and put it back in place. The in-kind or like-kind materials, we would like to expose the floor joists of the porch and determine what shape that they're in. If they're rotten, we would like to replace those and take out the dirt, and replace with a four-inch bed of gravel and some 6 mil polyethylene, and put in pressure- treated floor joist as opposed to whatever they have underneath there if they're in bad shape, we would like to do that as well. I guess we're going to put on a metal roof an aluminum painted metal roof to replace the asphalt shingle roof, we would like to do that as well. I think that's about it. We have some rafters that are in bad shape. We're going to replace those and they'll be painted as to match. Chairman Minchew: Okay. Let me just be the first one to ask the clarifying questions here this time. The proposal is to remove the chimney we approved last time, right? Mr. Turnure: Correct. Chairman Minchew: Add in the two exhaust fans, painted to match, at 7 ½ feet. Then to repair or remove. It sounds like really leaning towards removing and reinstalling though, right? It's not- Mr. Turnure: Correct. We will do exactly what you're requiring us to do as far as numbering and noting all members [crosstalk]. Chairman Minchew: So remove and install then perhaps do some work on the joists and underneath. You are proposing to replace the asphalt shingle roof with a metal roof. Do we have that cut sheet in here? Did I just missed it or-? Mr. Turnure: I did not have a cut sheet for that. It's just Galvalume standing seam-- But I have some- - a little detailed for the standing seam. I thought I had it detailed in there for the standing seam. Chairman Minchew: Okay. Mr. Turnure If not— Chairman Minchew: All right. We can get to that. I just want to make sure we know what we're asking for here. All right. Do you have a sense of how old that particular part of the building is the porch part? Mr. Turnure: I do not. I do not. I believe it is an addition. There is a crawl space under the existing historic building and there is an access door underneath the deck. We're hoping to expose that and we would like to pour slab in the historic building, in the basement, in the crawl space to keep it dry and that would be a much easier way of accessing the crawl space as opposed to through the crawl space ventilators. BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BUSINESS MEETING MINUTES February 19, 2020 Page 11 of 44 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING · 25 WEST MARKET STREET · LEESBURG, VIRGINIA 20176 Telephone 703.771.2765 · Fax 703.771.2724 · www.leesburgva.gov/planning Chairman Minchew: Right. That result in the change on the exterior that we would see? Mr. Turnure: I'm sorry? Chairman Minchew: Accessing the crawl space, are you opening up a new door, a new crawl? Mr. Turnure: No, but while it's exposed. Chairman Minchew: While it's exposed-- I got it. All right. Mr. Turnure: While it's exposed then we could be able to actually get some concrete in there. Chairman Minchew: Okay. All right. Sorry, Julie. I had to get there, but do you have any questions or clarifications? Tom? Ms. Pastor: No, I don't have any questions. Mr. O’Neil: My only question is just to confirm. You're talking about this side porch on the front building? Mr. Turnure: That's correct. That's correct. Correct. Mr. O’Neil: Okay. That was it. Chairman Minchew: Richard? Mr. Koochagian: Yes. The shingle roofing is just on the porch that you want to replace? Mr. Turnure: Correct. Mr. Koochagian: Okay. With the porch, the only thing you're really replacing is the substructure of the decking and the decking itself. You'll be reusing the posts and roofing and gutters and whatnot? Mr. Turnure: Yes, sir. Correct. Mr. Koochagian: Okay. That's the only question I had. Thank you. Chairman Minchew: Thank you. Dale? Vice Chair Goodson: Okay. I'm going to jump to something a little bit different. The two exhaust fans on the back of the building, I'm not sure if this is necessarily directly a BAR issue, but I think it needs to be asked because I think it will be an issue regardless for you. Susan, I might-- this might be best directed at staff. I accept staff analysis that it's-- because of the location, the mechanical equipment isn't visible from the right-of-way, it's approvable from the BAR perspective. However, you are-- will have mechanical equipment in close proximity to a property line, neighboring buildings, do we expect issues with those neighbors on having commercial exhaust equipment next door? Is there a zoning, perhaps, issue with that? Ms. Berry Hill: I don't believe so. I can check the Zoning Ordinance to verify. Perhaps we should ask the applicant what noise impacts do you expect with what the particulars you have? Mr. Turnure: I don't know about the noise. I know when we went through zoning for the chimney that it could not go within 10 feet of the property line in the rear. We're 13-something feet from the property line. This would be well outside that 10 feet. I don't believe that fans going to make any more noise than any of the condenser units that are in the back of the building as well. Vice Chair Goodson: All right. I thought you were a little bit closer. Thank you for that. That's the point of clarifying questions. BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BUSINESS MEETING MINUTES February 19, 2020 Page 12 of 44 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING · 25 WEST MARKET STREET · LEESBURG, VIRGINIA 20176 Telephone 703.771.2765 · Fax 703.771.2724 · www.leesburgva.gov/planning Mr. Turnure: Yes. Vice Chair Goodson: The roof, the standing seam would be on the new part of the building, the back where you're making all these alterations? Mr. Turnure: No, it would just be for the porch. Just for that side porch. Vice Chair Goodson: Okay. That porch is currently standing seam, isn't it? Mr. Turnure: No, it's asphalt. It's asphalt shingle. Vice Chair Goodson: Okay. That's what threw me when Richard asked, I thought I was looking at the pictures, I thought you could see the seams. Well, you don't have a good picture of it. I thought I could see some seams going in there. That's fine. Mr. Turnure: It needs to be replaced anyway. Vice Chair Goodson: That's it for questions. Chairman Minchew: Ms. Skinner? Ms. Skinner: I don't have any questions. Chairman Minchew: Ms. Robinson? Gigi? Ms. Robinson: No. Chairman Minchew: Mr. Martinez. Vice Mayor Martinez: Yeah, this is an eating establishment? Mr. Turnure: Yes. Vice Mayor Martinez: Okay. Your hours, do you know-- is there a way you have the hours set up? Mr. Mitchell: The hours are 9:00 to 3:00, Vice Mayor Martinez: 9:00 to 3:00 Mr. Mitchell: No dinner served there. Strictly coffee and that sort of thing. Vice Mayor Martinez: Okay. My concern also was the noise level of the fans. Have you done any measurements on what kind of noise they're going to generate? Mr. Turnure: I have not. I have not. If I could get that information, I don't know. Vice Mayor Martinez: It might help us to pacify some neighbors or other people that might be concerned with the noise level of those fans because having cooked, as a short-order cook way back when, those fans can get pretty noisy. Mr. Turnure: I know what you're saying. But I actually went to buy a few in the meantime. The newer ones are much quieter than the older ones. I understand what you're saying. Vice Mayor Martinez: That's just- Mr. Turnure: Yes, sir. I understand. BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BUSINESS MEETING MINUTES February 19, 2020 Page 13 of 44 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING · 25 WEST MARKET STREET · LEESBURG, VIRGINIA 20176 Telephone 703.771.2765 · Fax 703.771.2724 · www.leesburgva.gov/planning Vice Mayor Martinez: Okay. Then this is just a nip, but we have nothing to do with symmetry, do we? Chairman Minchew: Actually, we generally have a lot to do with symmetry. Vice Mayor Martinez: I'm looking at the location of the fans and I noticed they’re not very symmetric and I don't know what- Chairman Minchew: That is a worthy thing to bring up. That's okay to bring that up. Vice Mayor Martinez: That's all my questions. Thank you. Chairman Minchew: Thank you. Mr. Turnure: The reasoning for where the-- the locations where they are is they have to be a certain distance apart. Based on the layout for the equipment inside the restaurant, there's actually two large hoods, obviously, we had two fans, there’s two large hoods. That's where the equipment fits. It has to be along that back wall, obviously. That's just where the equipment fits. I mean, we might shift it a little bit here and there, but to get them equally on either side of the-- that double window is not possible. Mr. Mitchell: There's also structural beam that runs from east to west and we had to avoid the structural beam as well. Mr. Turnure: That's correct. Chairman Minchew: Okay. Mr. Mitchell: I have a question, a point of information. Chairman Minchew: Sure. Mr. Mitchell: The historic building is asphalt shingle, is it the type of thing we can ask tonight to have a proposal to put the metal roofing on the historic building or would that be a thing we have to come back later for? Chairman Minchew: Usually, we would ask you to come back. Lauren is not here. I think it might be a bit much to ask, except that it's something we likely-- it would be unlikely we would decline because it's unlikely that that building originally had asphalt shingles. Do you know Debi, is it? Ms. Parry: My only concern would be that that was not advertised as being part of the application. Chairman Minchew: Thank you. I think we'd have to have you bring another application back for that. Vice Chair Goodson: I think we don't have any spec sheets, any information on it. It is a traditional roof that we would do and we could specify traditional pan width, traditional roll seam. We could sort of lay that all out there. Chairman Minchew: Yes. There wouldn't be an application to track in the future. I think- Vice Chair Goodson: Staff makes a good point about not being advertised. Just for reference, yes, it is likely something, I can't imagine having too much resistance on. Mr. Turnure: I think we're not going to be in a position to do any roofing until we get a lot of the demo work done and then we rebuild and porch and so forth. Coming back next month with the particulars of the roofing and so forth then we can get that cleared up. BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BUSINESS MEETING MINUTES February 19, 2020 Page 14 of 44 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING · 25 WEST MARKET STREET · LEESBURG, VIRGINIA 20176 Telephone 703.771.2765 · Fax 703.771.2724 · www.leesburgva.gov/planning Chairman Minchew: It's the kind of thing that if you do come back with all the particulars of the cut sheet, the pan width, the material, the color, all that, it stands a really good chance of, dare I say, getting on a consent calendar. All right. Let's see. I don't think I had any other questions other than what I asked earlier. Is there anybody in the audience that would like to address this application? Questions or comments? No? We’ve got a lot of people out there. All right then, we'll go back to discussion and from the Board. Julie. Ms. Pastor: Yes. I'm supportive of the changes. I do think that the exhaust fans are not standalone, they're attached to the building and they will be shielded, as I-- the way I'm looking at the cut sheet here, so that they're not going to be visible really-- and they're at the rear of the structure. I'm comfortable with that. Chairman Minchew: Thank you. Tom ? Mr. O’Neil: I'm fine with the fans too. There is a note on the cut sheets here that they’re 14.2 sones, but I don't know how that relates to an air conditioning unit in terms of how loud it is but the information is readily available on it, for what it's worth. I think the porch, the way it's described by staff, is fine to be dismantled and the deteriorated pieces replaced as necessary. In general, I'm fine with it. I guess I have one question based on the last discussion about the metal roof, you are asking for the metal roof on the porch this time just not the whole building? I would just ask that an actual product cut sheet be submitted to staff and approved before the work is done. It sounds like what you're describing would be acceptable, but we want to see what it looks like. That's all. Mr. Turnure: Sure. Chairman Minchew: Thank you. Mr. Koochagian? Mr. Koochagian: I don't have a problem with the modification or the fixing of the porch as long as the posts and structure are remaining. Redoing the roof on the porch with rolled edge standing seam metal roof with no mechanical edges or bridges or whatnot is fine. I do have issues with the exhaust fans. We do also need to consider the neighborhood and the fabric of the neighborhood and that the back of that structure backs up to other residential uses. So, it would be my opinion that the air conditioning or mechanical units being at 7 ½ foot high, is my understanding, are an issue. They should be screened somehow from other properties. We have dealt with things on the rear of properties in the context of the H-1 that do address the neighborhood and the fabric. I do have great concerns about those fan units. While the units do say 14.2 sones, the question is, being 13 feet away from the property line, you're touching, at least, I think, three, possibly four other residential units. I'd like to hear what other members have to say, but I do have concerns about that. Chairman Minchew: Thank you. Mr. Goodson. Vice Chair Goodson: I'll agree with Richard's comments on the porch. I don't have an issue with that and any framing material that needs to be dealt with, that's fine. Replacement, in-kind, pressure- treated material would be appropriate material for that. My only concern with the exhaust fans is similar to Richard's. I'm not sure how you would go about screening it. I think the exhaust fans, as these things are designed, painted, I think they're probably the least obtrusive way of putting them on the building. I do believe that it meets the texture of our Guidelines in that it's out of public view, it is to the back of the building. All those criteria are met. I do have the same concern over, is this going to be a problem? Should we try to deal with it upfront? I think you've got the potential impact from the neighbors on how to deal with it. While I do find the exhaust hoods themselves on the building as proposed, that part of it is approvable. I have some concerns of how you're dealing with the shielding to the neighbors. The noise and/or odor impact to the neighborhood. That I'm still split on. Chairman Minchew: Ms. Skinner? Ms. Skinner: I agree with Richard and Dale on everything and including the hoods. I think it is going to be definitely an impact to the neighbors that are to the rear of that building. Somewhere within the, BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BUSINESS MEETING MINUTES February 19, 2020 Page 15 of 44 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING · 25 WEST MARKET STREET · LEESBURG, VIRGINIA 20176 Telephone 703.771.2765 · Fax 703.771.2724 · www.leesburgva.gov/planning I guess it was on the blueprints here. Just out of curiosity, these two vents systems, are they required? Mr. Turnure: Yes. Ms. Skinner: Who is requiring them? Mr. Turnure: The Health Department. Ms. Skinner: I'm sorry? Mr. Turnure: The Health Department. Ms. Skinner: Okay. I'm just curious. The only thing that you have is a griddle, right? There was no, or there is a fryer. Never mind. I see it. Mr. Turnure I believe they have a fryer. Ms. Skinner: Yes, that answers that question right there. My concerns are the same as Dale and Richard, especially with the ventilation. I just don't think it meets the fabric of the community-- the downtown. Mr. Koochagian: Just two other things to note, just for a point of reference. 14 sones equates to 66 decibels. I don't recall off the top of my head what the Town's noise ordinance is but that's something that ought to be looked into and again, not really part of our jurisdiction. The other question, and I think the other issue is that given the location, particularly of the left exhaust unit, or excuse me, the right one as you're looking at the rear elevation. I would believe you're going to have issues trying to keep clean the window area and whatnot. I guess my question is, how do you keep that clean with the exhaust blowing right on to that window, realizing that the window itself is blacked out in the back, but again, from the outside, it's going to be a maintenance issue? Mr. Turnure: Well, the exhaust fans are going to have to be-- the filters are going to have to be cleaned periodically, so the windows can obviously be cleaned at the same time. Ms. Skinner: Richard? Mr. Koochagian: Yes? Ms. Skinner: Did you say that the decibel level was 60? Mr. Koochagian: 66, 14 sones is 66. Ms. Skinner: 66, okay. That's the office noise or an inside of the car doing about 60 miles an hour, roughly. Ms. Pastor: It's not really in our purview and the Zoning Ordinance would have to be met. If there were issues relative to noise, they would have to be addressed. The other thing to note would be how close they are to the residences that are around it. They're not very close. As I understand these fans, again, I'm not a mechanical engineer or anything but the exhaust gets shot down. Correct? Mr. Turnure: You'd have to talk to the engineer. I don't want to speak on something I am not aware of. Ms. Pastor: I don't have as much an issue, and usually I'm pretty sensitive to these noise things, but I do think it is a commercial use in a residential area. That's an issue just in and of itself but I don't think that's something that we can really address through this. I don't think the appearance of those vents will be a problem, because they're not going to be visible from the street and they're shielded. BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BUSINESS MEETING MINUTES February 19, 2020 Page 16 of 44 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING · 25 WEST MARKET STREET · LEESBURG, VIRGINIA 20176 Telephone 703.771.2765 · Fax 703.771.2724 · www.leesburgva.gov/planning Vice Chair Goodson: I would point out, to agree with what Julie says, it’s the back of this property and in your package you've got the Loudoun County map and you can see the relationship to the actual residence buildings around it and there is nothing that backs directly to it. It is backing obviously to the other properties, but the residents are to the street and this is in their far of their backyards. There is that buffer area. Mr. Mitchell: There is a fence, if I may interject for a minute, there is a fence in the back of the property. I believe it's either a six or seven-foot fence. Mr. Turnure: It's a six-foot stockade fence. The elevation of the grade rises up in the back of the property so the top of that fence would actually be higher than that. Mr. O’Neil: I agree with Julie's assessment. Chairman Minchew: Stacy, did you have anything else? Ms. Skinner: No. Chairman Minchew: Gigi, comments? Mr. Martinez? Vice Mayor Martinez: No, I'm sorry. Chairman Minchew: That's okay. I'll start with the porch. I think that we have consensus that what you're proposing to do to renovate that porch is approvable as discussed. W e do need a cut sheet and it needs to specify all those details that you heard somebody say earlier, rolled edge, with the pans, no mechanical fasteners that needs to be a traditional-- you know. We need to have it, we need to have documentation for that and we need to know what we're approving, including what the pan width is. That can be, I think, probably appropriately given to staff after we leave here. As far as the fans, I am torn because-- just because it's not visible from the public right-of-way does not mean that we abdicate our responsibility for placement and that sort of thing. I don't think that the fans themselves will have a visual impact on the neighbors. Unfortunately, while I don't think it's wrong to bring it up so that we know you know that it might be an issue, I don't think we have any purview at all over the noise. I don't know Susan, will they have to get some permit for those fans from another department or not? Ms. Berry Hill: No, I don't think so. I just found in the ordinance that the requirement is it cannot exceed 65 dBA per continuous. [crosstalk] Chairman Minchew: To be under that. In any case, I don't think it's something we can weigh in on other than to-- public service, make sure you know what you're getting into just in case it's a problem. I do want to know if you can move them at all, particularly the one on the right. I don't think we would generally approve of something really sitting right on the framing of a window. That just does not seem to me approvable. Can that be move somewhat? Mr. Turnure: I will look into that and see if whether we can move that. I know the one on the left, there is a steel beam there that precludes us from moving it. I think I can move the other one a little bit over to the right. I'll look into that. Chairman Minchew: I think that would help us prevent- Vice Chair Goodson: From the drawing, that steel beam? Mr. Turnure: Correct. Vice Chair Goodson: Okay. Mr. Turnure: Correct. BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BUSINESS MEETING MINUTES February 19, 2020 Page 17 of 44 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING · 25 WEST MARKET STREET · LEESBURG, VIRGINIA 20176 Telephone 703.771.2765 · Fax 703.771.2724 · www.leesburgva.gov/planning Vice Chair Goodson: Yes. I think it's the other fan that's of concern. Chairman Minchew: Yes. If you're staring at the elevation it's the one on the right. So I guess it's what, the northern fan?. In any case, I would like to see that moved a bit. I don't think it's approvable sitting on a window frame. I think we're going to need- Mr. Turnure: I would get a look into that and see if we can move it and then we'll- Chairman Minchew: Okay. I think we're going to need to know that that is not going to sit right there. Otherwise, because it is a reversible change; it's a sided building, it's not a brick building or masonry building, it's reversible. If this goes back to different use then the siding can be replaced and it is not a permanent change. It doesn't have to be a permanent change to the building. I can support the fans as proposed with the slight modification in the right-hand positioning. I don't know what we do about that, if we want that to come back to us or if nobody is that concerned about it other than me and Richard and somebody else. Anyway, I would like to know what you all think about whether the positioning of that is something we could defer to staff or if you would like to see that back? Vice Chair Goodson: I will say without touching on it, well yes I will comment on the fan location. In consideration of a few things, the clarification of the distance to the property line, the clarification of the stockade fence in the back, the distance to the dwellings, I can essentially support these exhaust fans. I do think they meet our Guidelines in that regard. I would agree with moving the-- looking at the building from the outside, it's the right fan which I believe is the northernmost fan, if that can be moved farther to the north on that building to give some little bit of balance to that building or to that encroachment on that window. I do think it's appropriate to give staff the leeway of reviewing that with some guidance. If they come back and say, "No, it can't be moved," does it need to come back to us at that point? Chairman Minchew: I don't know what guidance we can give staff. If they come and say six inches, is that enough? I don't know. I don't know. Richard, do you have an opinion on that? I know you don't think- Mr. Koochagian: I think it ought to come back to us. Chairman Minchew: Yes. I think so too. I think it's a change that is awkward to ask staff to divine what we are thinking on, does that make sense, Susan? Ms. Berry Hill: Yes. Chairman Minchew: Okay. Mr. Turnure: Looking at the floor plan, we may be able to move the equipment, depending upon whether you're inside or outside. If you're inside, to move the whole length of that equipment, I can't tell you what the distance is, but it might be a foot. If we move that all to the left so the fan on the left would move a foot and the fan on the right would move a foot, at least, it gets a little bit more balanced. Vice Chair Goodson: Actually, that'd probably be an even better solution. That would provide the balance of those fans in relationship to that window. Mr. Turnure: I'll do my best I can to try to get it as close as possible to being symmetrical. Chairman Minchew: Okay. I think that can work. Do you all- Vice Chair Goodson: I could support a motion crafted to-- with the condition that everything is shifted to the north by approximately a foot for the better symmetry of those fans in relationship to the window. Ms. Pastor: If they can't move it, then they have to come back to us. BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BUSINESS MEETING MINUTES February 19, 2020 Page 18 of 44 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING · 25 WEST MARKET STREET · LEESBURG, VIRGINIA 20176 Telephone 703.771.2765 · Fax 703.771.2724 · www.leesburgva.gov/planning Chairman Minchew: Yes. That would be-- I think that would make sense. That gives staff some guidance on what we're looking for. All right. Did everybody- Mr. Koochagian: I do have a quick question on the porch. Chairman Minchew: Yes. Mr. Koochagian: The decking material, is that going to be wood tongue and groove that you're replacing? Mr. Turnure: Yes. Mr. Koochagian: That would not be-- would that be-- what type of wood do you plan on using there? Mr. Turnure: We are just going to replace with like-kind which probably it's going to be some sort of a pine. It would be nice to be able to maybe do some Douglas fir or something like that, a little bit more durable. Until we actually get in there and determine exactly what's there, I can't make that decision. We were just going to match what's there. Mr. Koochagian: Okay. You're not planning using pressure-treated or just-- you will be using tongue and groove? Mr. Turnure: That's correct and no pressure-treated. Mr. Koochagian: Okay. Got it. Chairman Minchew: Just to clarify. You're not even certain you're replacing all the flooring at this point? Mr. Turnure: No. No, just the deteriorated pieces. Chairman Minchew: So far, it's whatever needs to be replaced. Mr. Turnure: Correct. Mr. Mitchell: Then it will be painted. It's painted green and then, of course, the rafters are painted white. Mr. Koochagian: Right, okay. Chairman Minchew: Okay. Any other discussion? Anybody ready to make a motion? Vice Chair Goodson: Okay. I move to approve TLHP-2020-0013, 26 North King Street, alterations to previous COA. Based on the information provided by- Mr. Turnure: Turnure Architecture. Vice Chair Goodson: Thank you. Mr. Turnure: You're not the first one to bump over that one. Vice Chair Goodson: -- as revised through February 7, 2020 including associated drawings, specs, products, with the following conditions: 1. The location of the exhaust fans are found to be generally consistent with the Guidelines for mechanical equipment and will not be visible from the right-of-way with the provision that the fans will be shifted to the north approximately 1 foot for better symmetry in relation to the windows. If that can’t be accomplished, then it would need to come back to the BAR for further guidance. BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BUSINESS MEETING MINUTES February 19, 2020 Page 19 of 44 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING · 25 WEST MARKET STREET · LEESBURG, VIRGINIA 20176 Telephone 703.771.2765 · Fax 703.771.2724 · www.leesburgva.gov/planning 2. The existing porch may be dismantled and rebuilt in-kind. Individual structural members and decorative elements of the porch shall be numbered, notated, measured, and such elements of the porch will be retained when possible. Individual elements of the porch which are beyond repair shall be replaced in-kind to match the existing trim, dimensions, materials as documented during dismantling. The Preservation Planner will be notified prior to dismantling and the start of reconstruction. In short, you will remove and reinstall existing material as much as existing material allows. Where repairs to that existing material are necessary, it will be in-kind with the possible exception of the underlying framing which can be done with pressure treat material. 3. The roofing material for the porch will be a traditional standing seam with cut sheets provided to staff; with the pan dimensions traditional and appropriate for the building, traditional rolled edges, no mechanical fasteners. If there is not a cap on this roof, this runs into the side of the building, but if there were a cap it would have to be a rolled edge. Is there anything I'm missing? Chairman Minchew: I think you got it. Ms. Pastor: Second. Chairman Minchew: Any discussion? All in favor? BAR Members: Aye. Chairman Minchew: All opposed? Okay, motion passes unanimous. Thank you and good luck. [crosstalk]. Mr. Tenure: Thank you very much. Mr. Mitchell: Thank you. The motion was approved by a 6-0-1 vote (Reimers absent). c. TLHP-2020-0012, 7 Royal Street SE Project: Exterior Alterations Chairman Minchew opened the public hearing at 8:01pm. Chairman Minchew: All right. Okay, moving on to TLHP-2020-0012, which is BAR case 8c on our agenda, 7 Royal Street. Ms. Berry Hill: Okay, this application, as you can see, is located at 7Royal Street. Here's the map of that. The proposal seeks exterior alterations to the structure. The BAR approved in addition to the structure in 2018. The applicant is now requesting to repair existing wood siding behind existing vinyl siding, so to remove the vinyl siding. They are also proposing to replace a small area of existing vinyl siding with HardiePlank and this is in the rear edition. This is also in a location on the building where no wood exists beneath the vinyl. They propose to remove the vinyl shutters, and they propose to replace the existing door with a new door. There was also a change to the application, which was previously to relocate two existing windows. Now they're proposing the addition of a window to the second floor on the rear ell. We'll look at the elevations here. The wood siding restoration is supported by the Guidelines. The replacement of the vinyl siding with HardiePlank on the rear elevation is something for discussion with the BAR tonight. The staff has looked at this and found that HardiePlank is more consistent with the Guidelines than the current vinyl treatment and is better for the historic structure than the existing vinyl. The rear edition is largely concealed also by the approved addition. For those reasons, staff could support the inclusion of HardiePlank on the rear elevation. The applicant is encouraged to use wood siding instead, but staff could support the use of the HardiePlank. BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BUSINESS MEETING MINUTES February 19, 2020 Page 20 of 44 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING · 25 WEST MARKET STREET · LEESBURG, VIRGINIA 20176 Telephone 703.771.2765 · Fax 703.771.2724 · www.leesburgva.gov/planning The removal of the vinyl shutters is supported by the Guidelines. You can see on this elevation the top elevation shows the shutters while the one below it has them removed. You can also see the door that is proposed to change between the one on the top, which is a panel door, and the one below, which is a panel with glass panes above the paneling. Then the last change here is the window. The Board should provide direction as to the appropriateness of the proposed window addition on the rear. With that, staff recommends discussion of this application particularly to look at the issues of siding, the door, and the window on the rear elevation. We noted that the draft motion on-page on-- I think it's not page 17, but in your staff report, was incorrect. We apologize for that. We used the wrong staff report on that. Here's the corrected motion as it appears on this slide. That concludes my comments. Chairman Minchew: Thank you, Susan. Before you go, can you just help me understand, under “Proposal” on staff report, number 5 – “Relocate two Windows on the right side and add two windows to same elevation”. I don't think that was in the-- Did you mention that? Ms. Pastor: That's what was removed. Chairman Minchew: Okay. Ms. Pastor: You have the new packet in front of us. [crosstalk]. Chairman Minchew: There's new information submitted tonight that I've not looked at, not seen? Ms. Berry Hill: Right, there was some new information received today. Chairman Minchew: In that new information, it removes those windows? Okay. All right. We can take off number five there. All right. Vice Chair Goodson: To clarify number five, amends to add a window in the rear elevation. Correct? Ms. Berry Hill: Yes. Vice Chair Goodson: We're not relocating, we're adding window. Chairman Minchew: Adding window on rear. Got it. All right. The applicant come forward. State your name and add anything you care to. Mr. O’Neil: Okay, I'm Tom O’Neil, the architect on the project. Ms. Skipper: I'm Barbara Skipper, the owner of the building. Chairman Minchew: Thank you. Mr. O’Neil: I just want to further elaborate on the reason for the changes after getting the staff report and meeting with the owners again and discussing how we could reconfigure the two rooms that they want to make in that section of the building where we're going to add the windows and move the existing windows. We decided to jog the wall, keep the windows where they were, and on the first floor, there'll be shared interior glass to get some daylight to the room that does not have a window now. On the second floor, because of the first-floor section, the kitchen below stopping and the roof stops low enough, they gave us the opportunity to introduce another window on the rear elevation, a less prominent elevation from the public right-of-way. It was important to the owners to have the two offices up there. That's what drove having to add a window was to get light into the rear office. The front door, if you turn to—It’s a pretty clear illustration in the packet that shows the current front door is six feet one inches tall. So it's fairly low and there's BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BUSINESS MEETING MINUTES February 19, 2020 Page 21 of 44 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING · 25 WEST MARKET STREET · LEESBURG, VIRGINIA 20176 Telephone 703.771.2765 · Fax 703.771.2724 · www.leesburgva.gov/planning actually a storm door that's almost six foot six on the outside of the frame. That's essentially what we'd like to do with the new door. If you look at the lower picture, there's a heavy section of trim above the door that goes up to the transom. We'd like to replace inside that frame with a larger door so we can get something pretty close to a full-height door. No visitors to the building are going to have to stoop when they step through the front door. The windows, we would like to have just so the owners can see who's standing outside the front door, so that's why if we're going to change the door, we'd like to go to a door that has the two lights in it. We're trying to keep the overall shape of the two panels similar. It's just the upper third would be glass and the lower third would be solid, as opposed to the two solid panels that are in the existing door. I think that's essentially it, Barbara? Ms. Skippers: I think so, yes. Mr. O’Neil: We're here to answer questions. Chairman Minchew: Thank you. I'll just ask to clarify a few things before we go around. Can you help me understand exactly which door you're proposing? Because there's several that are highlighted. It sounds like you're proposing the two light over the two panel. On page 119 or it says 119. Mr. O’Neil: It’s the TL 232. Chairman Minchew: Okay. That's what you're proposing. Then since we're on the door, is it your sense that that is not an original door? The existing door, would it be your sense that it is not the original door for that building? Given the framing at the top? Mr. O’Neil: Yes, it's odd the way it's installed and it makes me think if it was original, they found it somewhere. Chairman Minchew: All right. We will go to questions. Vice Chair Goodson: TL, which one? Chairman Minchew: 203 TL. Ms. Pastor: TL 204. Chairman Minchew: There's another page. Member: Which one is it? Chairman Minchew: It's on page 119. Vice Chair Goodson: No wonder I couldn't find 232. Chairman Minchew: There's three different ones circled. Vice Chair Goodson: Got it. Vice Chair Goodson: Maybe they were all options, is what I'm thinking. Mr. O’Neil: I think the TL 204 is on the rear elevation. Vice Chair Goodson: Got it. Chairman Minchew: Okay. BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BUSINESS MEETING MINUTES February 19, 2020 Page 22 of 44 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING · 25 WEST MARKET STREET · LEESBURG, VIRGINIA 20176 Telephone 703.771.2765 · Fax 703.771.2724 · www.leesburgva.gov/planning Vice Chair Goodson: I just couldn't find 232 in there. Chairman Minchew: All right. Let's go to questions from the Board and I'm going to mix up. Stacy, I'll start with you this time. Ms. Skinner: I don’t have any questions right now. Chairman Minchew: Dale? Vice Chair Goodson: It was asked about the original door, if you felt it was original or perhaps they were just making something work. That was one of my questions. The other thing, just to clarify where HardiePlank would potentially go versus wood? Can you--? Mr. O’Neil: Yes, I’ll clarify that a little more. If we find good wood siding underneath that, it will remain wood siding. It’s just from the earlier review of the space. It appeared that some of the walls didn’t have siding, like the siding had been removed at some point and the vinyl just put over the top. If one of the vinyl comes off, there is wood there, like we know there is on other parts of the building, will keep using it. The reason we requested the HardiePlank is most of that rear elevation is new and has HardiePlank on it. If there's no wood siding there, we wanted to continue the HardiePlank like the rest of the addition has on it. Vice Chair Goodson: Got you. I have next to no concerns with rear elevation, sort of the side elevation. Looking at the left elevation, that forward old section, that's in vinyl, hopefully, that's got good wood under it. Chairman Minchew: Can we get that elevation up so everybody knows what we're talking about here? So we don't all ask the same question again, because I'm still want to be sure. Ms. Parry: That's all we have. Chairman Minchew: So it would be recessed version or the recessed part on the left? Ms. Parry: Lauren, did not put that in the PowerPoint. Mr. O’Neil: The right side of the elevation. Chairman Minchew: We don't have it. Vice Chair Goodson: This is the left elevation, that front section, currently vinyl, hopefully good wood underneath. Then for the right side elevation, is that entire elevation currently in vinyl? Mr. O’Neil: Well, that's one I was going to talk about. That lower one-story section in the back was not original to the house, and that may or may not have wood siding underneath it. That was the reason why in the new drawing, we show a corner board or separation board running down that's not there right now. The vinyl runs continuously across there. That was a joint in the old house. The front section, the two-story section, was original ell and then that one story section was added, and that's the area where on the rear it looks like there was no siding underneath the vinyl. We added that vertical board, and so we would bring the HardiePlank around if there was not wood siding underneath there. If there is, we'll just continue the wood back to the corner. When we get to the rear, if there's wood under there, we'll keep going with it. If there's not, that's where I was saying we'd like to match since we have HardiePlank everywhere else if there’s no siding under the vinyl we'd like to just go with HardiePlank. Vice Chair Goodson: Got you . For the board, I mean what we're talking about is the right elevation just— Chairman Minchew: The lean-to addition which is previously determined to be non-contributing. Is that what we're talking about, that you're proposing the HardiePlank there? [crosstalk]. BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BUSINESS MEETING MINUTES February 19, 2020 Page 23 of 44 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING · 25 WEST MARKET STREET · LEESBURG, VIRGINIA 20176 Telephone 703.771.2765 · Fax 703.771.2724 · www.leesburgva.gov/planning Mr. O’Neil: I don’t know if that's considered non-contributing. Chairman Minchew: I thought we had decided— Mr. O’Neil: That's not the original but I think it will would be contributing because of the siding. Vice Chair Goodson: It's currently all in vinyl. What the suspicion is, and I would tend to agree, is there's original wood siding under this side and probably no siding under that side. He's proposing a trim board, just do a separation and then HardiePlank on the little lean-to and hopefully enough wood to do the restoration of the wood under the front half. Mr. O’Neil: Yes, we know the front definitely has wood on it, because as usual, the downspouts have fallen off, and we can see the wood siding is rotted at the corners, but there is in other parts, it’s in pretty decent shape. The back section, that one-story section, we don’t know. Chairman Minchew: I understand the right elevations. That part I’m clear on. I just want to be-- because we talking about this I think we should continue talking about it until we are really sure we know what we're doing. That's the right side elevation. On the left elevation, on the front elevation, where are you suggesting you might need HardiePlank? Mr. O’Neil: Nowhere. Chairman Minchew: Nowhere. Nowhere on the front elevation and nowhere on the left, other than the new addition? Mr. O’Neil: Correct. Chairman Minchew: All right. I think we're all talking-- I just want to make sure we're all talking about the same thing. Any other questions? Vice Chair Goodson: No, comments. I’ll wait for comments. Chairman Minchew: Right. I was going this way, wasn't I? Richard? Vice Chair Goodson: Richard? Mr. Koochagian: The voice from above. Chairman Minchew: Yes. Vice Chair Goodson: Or below. Chairman Minchew: Carries such authority though. Mr. Koochagian: I’m going to go back to the right elevation because I’m still not clear on a couple of things. If I’m looking at the right elevation, the one-story kind of the shed roof appendage, that is or is not contributing? Mr. O’Neil: The one-story piece on the left side- Mr. Koochagian: If I'm looking at the right elevation. Mr. O’Neil: Yes, on the right elevation one-story piece, it's slightly— Mr. Koochagian: Yes, all the way to the right. Ms. Pastor: This little piece right here. BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BUSINESS MEETING MINUTES February 19, 2020 Page 24 of 44 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING · 25 WEST MARKET STREET · LEESBURG, VIRGINIA 20176 Telephone 703.771.2765 · Fax 703.771.2724 · www.leesburgva.gov/planning Mr. O’Neil: That is most likely contributing, in my opinion. It's not original to the house, but it is old. Chairman Minchew: Aging. Mr. O’Neil: Yes. Mr. Koochagian: We do not know how old is old? I guess that's the question for staff. Chairman Minchew: There's was a site visit to this building, was there or not? I think I missed it. Ms. Berry Hill: Was there a site? There was not a site visit. I don't know the age of the addition there. Chairman Minchew: I think we don’t know the answer to that, Richard. Mr. Koochagian: We don’t know the answer to that and it also sounds like we're not clear on the entirety of where there is wood or wood siding or not wood siding on that one-story appendage. Is that correct? Ms. Pastor: It has vinyl on it. Mr. O’Neil: That's correct. There was one section that made us think that there was not. When I was out there the other morning, the inside portion does look like there was some siding. Like I mentioned a few minutes ago, if there's decent wood siding underneath there, it will be done the same as the rest of the building when we take the vinyl off. We'll restore it. If there's nothing there, we thought it was reasonable to say we would continue to work HardiePlank across instead. Mr. Koochagian: Got it. Then if I go around to the rear elevation, is the intention on the, above one- story appendage, the gable and of the ell, that is part of the contributing structure. Is that intended to be HardiePlank or is that vinyl becoming wood siding or taking the vinyl off to expose the wood siding? Mr. O’Neil: That will be wood siding. We know that wood siding already and it will stay. Mr. Koochagian: Thank you. Then the other area I’m still not clear on are the windows. Going back to the right elevation, it looks like you're wanting to move or it’s previously approved, or I guess the previous elevation just had windows staying as is. Is that correct? Mr. O’Neil: Yes, that's correct. Mr. Koochagian: Now you're moving them and adding two more. Ms. Pastor: No. The new package, Richard. Vice Chair Goodson: A new plan that you don’t have available to you because— Ms. Parry: I did email the new drawings to you, Richard. Vice Chair Goodson: They have been emailed to email to you. Mr. Koochagian: Okay, hold on. Chairman Minchew: That's the problem when they get them right before the meeting there, we don’t get to see them. Mr. O’Neil: The reason we're requesting the second floor for the window on the rear elevation is because we're no longer making any changes on the right elevation. BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BUSINESS MEETING MINUTES February 19, 2020 Page 25 of 44 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING · 25 WEST MARKET STREET · LEESBURG, VIRGINIA 20176 Telephone 703.771.2765 · Fax 703.771.2724 · www.leesburgva.gov/planning Mr. Koochagian: The right elevation is going to look-- What you’re proposing for the right elevation is what currently labeled as previously approved right elevation? Vice Chair Goodson: Correct, no changes. Mr. Koochagian: In the package that I received. Ms. Pastor: With no shutters. Mr. O’Neil: Without the shutters, and without vinyl sidings. Otherwise correct. Mr. Koochagian: Got it. All right. Then it sounsd like you’re adding a window on the rear elevation and that's what is in the attachment I’m about to open up. Ms. Pastor: Right. Mr. Koochagian: Got it. Let me take a look at that. If someone else has any questions or comments, go ahead while I take a quick look and get myself straight. Chairman Minchew: All right, Julie? Ms. Pastor: No, my question was about the door, which was like about four questions ago so I’m all good. Chairman Minchew: My question about the door was mostly to get a handle on how likely that is to be a historic original door and I think I've answered my own question there. Yes, Richard. Nobody else seems to have any questions. Unless, Marty or Gigi. No? We're back to you. Mr. Koochagian: Okay. I am looking at the rear windows. You're looking to put a window in the gable end, the rear gable-end of the ell. My one concern is that it looks like you're putting the sill right where there would be flashing. I question the location or the proximity of the sill of that window to where the standing seam roof meets the wall of that ell. Is there a reason that you've located it in that exact place, or can it be-- the windows probably made shorter or moved up a little bit? Mr. O’Neil: That's actually the window trim. The flashing going behind that trim. I believe it's four and a half or five inches to the actual sill of the window. The flashing would have four and a half to five inches to run up behind the window trim. That'll be on the face of the wall before we get to the window sill. So there is space there. Mr. Koochagian: Okay. Those are the only questions I had. Chairman Minchew: Okay. Is there anybody in the audience that would care to speak to this application? Please come forward and state your name for the record and we'll let the applicant step aside for a minute. Ms. Suzanne Larkins: Hi, my name is Suzanne Larkins and I live at 3 Royal Street SE next to you. I can't say how appreciative we are that you're fixing the house up at long last. It looks like it's going to be wonderful. I just had a couple of concerns because I went around and looked. I know you guys are changing over to more synthetic products which is appreciative, but when I restored my house, I was only allowed to use true divided light and all German siding that I had to have milled and created a bit for. It's been really expensive for people in the past and you're switching over. I just ask that you're mindful of that when you're trying to balance all this that I'm spending $15,000 on windows and they might be spending $5,000. Just in general as you’re going through the plans. The one thing about the back elevations since, you haven't had a site, is this gable peak and the top addition is flush. So if you're doing German siding and then you're going to vinyl siding, I don't think that'll look good with just a piece of wood-trimmed down the side, whereas the other, the addition, there is angles. BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BUSINESS MEETING MINUTES February 19, 2020 Page 26 of 44 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING · 25 WEST MARKET STREET · LEESBURG, VIRGINIA 20176 Telephone 703.771.2765 · Fax 703.771.2724 · www.leesburgva.gov/planning There is 90-degree angles, there's bump-outs. I think that you can get away with adding the traditional siding with the other new siding that you already approved because your eye will be cut by the angle, whereas that's a straight line and I don't think it's going to look good. Same thing with the right side elevation. I don't think that that should be German siding because everything else on that elevation on the bump out is the German siding. Just having that one little piece, I think it'll look odd because again, it's flushed with a bathroom-- I mean, the right side of the building. So I ask that. Then I don't like the door. I don't think it's-- I think that's more of a mission-style door and there's tons of other beautiful doors. I'm sure they're probably within the same price point. One of them you actually had highlighted that I thought was much more appropriate. I don't think that that door would be historical that you have there. Maybe the transom was but based on the look of that, and everything else in Town, I don't. My house is built in 1900, maybe that door, and knowing the people who owned it didn't have a lot of money. I think they would have just used probably what they could find in the moment. I don't think that door is-- it doesn't look historical, but that's just my opinion. I think that there are so many other options where you had the larger plate glass, not the upper glass because that definitely is more mission style, where you have a big plate. If you go around and look like at his at 5 and mine at 3, we have the large with the divided panels on the bottom. I think that's much more appropriate. There's probably like six or seven when I was looking at the list that would fit in with that. I appreciate that you're not changing the windows on the side of the right elevation because they actually have zero clearance. Ron's yard picks up all the way up to their house. To add those, I think would have been inappropriate. I think you guys are doing a great job and we really appreciate it. That's all. Chairman Minchew: Thank you so much and thank you for taking the time to comment. Is there anybody else who would like to comment? No? Okay. All right. Now we will go to Board discussion and comment then. Just before I go around the dais, I want to make it clear that we do not generally approve synthetic materials on contributing resources. Sometimes, frequently, we will allow it on additions, but not on contributing resources. That's really what the crux of the question is here tonight on that portion that is not a new addition that has been requested to have HardiePlank used. Anyway. Mr. O’Neil: I'll just comment then-- Were fine putting wooden siding there on it if that's the case. Chairman Minchew: All right. Mr. Goodson, comments, thoughts? Vice Chair Goodson: All right. Let's see. I'll start off-- We'll just run down the list here. The restore and repair wood siding, absolutely couldn't support more removing vinyl siding and restoring original wood siding. That's absolutely great and very much supported by our Guidelines. Looking at the plans, you've got some good breaks in areas with the exception of that right elevation. That is where, when the vinyl siding comes off, the building's going to need to dictate to us a little bit how that is going back. I do very much appreciate the comments about breaking up wood siding to potentially HardiePlank in that back little ell portion because it is the flat plane. I tend to agree with that. However, if you pull all that vinyl off in there, that appears to have been an addition on to that building and you've got no siding, then I think it's letting the building tell us how it should be treated. In which case, I would do think it would be appropriate to put a piece of trim down. I just also think it would be appropriate to go back with wood siding on that little right-side lean-to on that side elevation for the consistency. It could be that the building will allow siding to be further down to the original siding and you might make one continuous plane, but I think that's something that the siding needs to come off and then the final treatment needs to be decided. That's something I think the Preservation Planner needs to come out when that siding is off. There needs to be a little bit of a discussion in how you go forward. It'll either be restore the wood siding underneath as is, restore the wood siding, trim board, wood siding or-- Well, those are the two options I see for that side. Hopefully, most of your wood siding's in good shape. As long as it's in reasonable shape, the repairs obviously need to be done with wood siding. When it gets to that back elevation, you've got the left side of the rear elevation is original. Same thing when the vinyl siding comes off, wood siding is appropriate to go back there. If there's no siding on the rear elevation, for example, then I might think it appropriate to put HardiePlank, consistent with the addition, on that façade but again, that vinyl siding needs to come off and the building needs to BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BUSINESS MEETING MINUTES February 19, 2020 Page 27 of 44 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING · 25 WEST MARKET STREET · LEESBURG, VIRGINIA 20176 Telephone 703.771.2765 · Fax 703.771.2724 · www.leesburgva.gov/planning tell us how to proceed. Let's see, on the left elevation, clearly, the front portion of that, restore the wood underneath. Wonderful. The cement fiber have been approved for the addition and it is certainly appropriate for the addition. Removal of the vinyl shutters, absolutely. I'll jump to 5, which is add the one window in the back. I do feel that that's an appropriate location for an additional window. I do not have concerns over its location, just up from the roof. I don't think that's inconstant with what you do find in the Old and Historic District. I do not have a concern with that. I'll jump back to the front door, that's the only one that I have a bit of pause for. Not I don’t think it's appropriate but a [chuckles] useable full height door and I absolutely do, but because it's on the front façade of a contributing resource, I don’t want to just cavalierly say, ‘Yes, let's go ahead and replace it.'' Somebody needs to look at that door. I think there needs to be, at minimum, a staff assessment of that front opening. My suspicion is, it's probably a full-size front opening and somebody probably, whether it was original or sometime over the life of the dwelling, crafted in that short door. In which case if that’s what it appears, I do think it's appropriate to do a traditional wood door in its place. I would condition that one on somebody needs to look at that one and minimally it needs to be staff. The Preservation Planner needs to look at that one. I think I hit all the items. Chairman Minchew: I think you did. Vice Chair Goodson: With that, did— Ms. Skinner: I actually agree with you. No, I agree with everything that you said. Chairman Minchew: Okay, Richard? Mr. Koochagian: I'll start with the door first. Given our Guidelines are pretty specific on what to do with historic doors, I agree we shouldn’t be replacing what’s there without a site visit. I think that's something the BAR needs to do just like we do with windows, both windows and doors are character- defining elements of a historic structure and it would be up to us. I do not leave it to staff to assess whether or not what's there can be removed, and then if so, how to remove that. I would not be supportive of replacing the door at this time, which the fact that we've not looked at it and we don’t have any information as to whether that door appears to be original, whether the transom was there, or not there. That's the first thing. The second item is the siding along that rear single-story element. I would submit that any exposed siding that encompasses that element on the rear should have wood siding and not HardiePlank. One of the things that we know is that vinyl siding would never have been approved, particularly on a contributing element of a building. What I would not want to do is then to back and then put HardiePlank on any part of that historic element, because then it becomes confusing as to is that part of the new addition or is that a contributing element or just kind of perpetuating the myth or the mystery. Again using our Guidelines, I think we need to replace in-kind what the material would have been there, given the fact we know vinyl siding was not the original material. As far as where we're on that right elevation, do we break up the siding bend with vertical elements, I would agree with Dale. I would want the siding is off, I would let the siding tell us how to address that. I could make an argument both ways to have it or not have it. It may very well be something that is decided once all that siding is off. I would say that the vertical element would not be a requirement but should be considered in what's found underneath the siding. Regarding the rear window, I do believe that it's proximity to the roof is problematic. I would like to see that raised up a little bit. Maybe the head height stays the same, make the window a little smaller, but I don’t believe where it is sitting really right on top of the metal siding, and yes, I know that's 4 inch trim piece or a 3.5 inch trim piece or whatever, but that is going to be a problem area and we have seen in other historic structures where that is the case, that those sills rot because of the splash-back off the roof. I think raising up would be a more reasonable treatment. I think that is all I have. Chairman Minchew: Right, Thank you. Julie? BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BUSINESS MEETING MINUTES February 19, 2020 Page 28 of 44 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING · 25 WEST MARKET STREET · LEESBURG, VIRGINIA 20176 Telephone 703.771.2765 · Fax 703.771.2724 · www.leesburgva.gov/planning Ms. Pastor: I am in general agreement with what the Vice Chairman has outlined as the issues. I would note that I think the applicant is willing to do the wood siding, but it should be noted that it is covered with vinyl right now. If they chose to leave the vinyl, we wouldn’t really be able to prevent that from happening. I think they're not interested in doing that so I think it would be best appropriate if it were all wood siding. I think the door is an issue; however, I’m comfortable that the staff could review that element and address an appropriate replacement for it. Chairman Minchew: Thank you. I’ll start with siding. I think it's really important that we keep anything that is contributing, that we don’t approve a contemporary treatment for anything that is contributing it without a really good reason. I would hate to see it left aluminum but I would rather see it left aluminum then have it covered with a synthetic material that would be permanent because then nobody will ever change it, and would never get changed back to wood, which it's is what it should be. I also think, and somebody else alluded to this, that having the HardiePlank on the addition is one of the ways we meet our standards of rehabilitation guidelines to differentiate from the historic part of the building. By using wood on that lean-to portion, you’re making it clear that that's the historic part of the building and not a new addition. So, I’m supportive of keeping any part of the old building in wood and only the 2018 addition, I guess that's the best way, as approved in the HardiePlank. Remove the existing vinyl shutters, I think that's great. I did want to clarify, is there any plan to replace the shutters though or just no shutters at this point? Alright, that's fine. If you ever do, you need to make sure they're sized properly and wood. As far as the door, I have serious doubts that that is the original door. I wish somebody had looked at that and documented it because then we could move forward. It is true if it is an original door, then we will not want to just willy-nilly say it can be replaced. I would suggest we approve, if there's the will here and I think there is, approve the proposal for removing the vinyl siding and replacing it with wood, and defer or continue the door until we can have a site visit. I don't think it's appropriate for staff because I don’t think we're giving her any guidance on what we want. I think we would have to do that. I would think there would time, while you're doing other work, for us to come by and take a look at the door and decide. If my suspicions are correct, that that is not an original door, then there's no reason to try to emulate the two single panels that go side by side, which is a very non-traditional door. There may be an argument for keeping that, if it's there you can keep it, but there's no reason to emulate it and I would encourage you to choose one of the other doors, as I guess Ms. Larkins mentioned, that might more properly reflect the age of the building. I think that has to happen after there's a site visit to see the door. Ms. Skipper: And the window? Chairman Minchew: The window. I think the idea of a window back there is fine. I think it meets all our Guidelines. I am uncertain whether it needs to be raised or not, I'll be honest. I have seen many porches in Town come right up to the window. I don't think it's a great idea. I don't know that it's in our purview to say because it may not function properly, that it's not approvable, is my catch there. I don't know. On the window, do we have anyone other than Richard who would require that be changed? I don't think so. Mr. O’Neil: Can I make a further comment on the front door? Chairman Minchew: Sure. Mr. O’Neil: There are some pretty clear photos that were in the packet. I've looked at it several times. I don't think a site visit would tell us whether it's original or not. It's very old. To me, it's almost the same as the one-story shed addition on the back. I think the front door is contributing but is it original? What's the difference? We're asking because of the height and the weird condition of the extra piece of trim that was added that it be replaced with a taller door. I'm fine with a single larger light. I like your point, Terri, that if we're going to replace it, it doesn't have to match what was there. I don't see the point. I don't think a site visit will tell us any more than these photographs already show us. Chairman Minchew: I'm sorry that it wasn't looked at a little bit harder by staff because I have a feeling it would be a very quick site visit to determine that the framing has been built out in that door space to allow for a smaller door. In other words, it wasn't the original size. It seems pretty clear, it's just not 100% clear. BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BUSINESS MEETING MINUTES February 19, 2020 Page 29 of 44 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING · 25 WEST MARKET STREET · LEESBURG, VIRGINIA 20176 Telephone 703.771.2765 · Fax 703.771.2724 · www.leesburgva.gov/planning Vice Chair Goodson: Well, for me, what seals it is the fact that our Guidelines speak very clearly. You're a contributing resource. You're absolutely the front façade and are our Guidelines shout the importance of doors and windows. That's why it's got to be looked at. I think my suspicion is basically an agreement with you. I think it's either going to be somewhat indeterminate, but I think there's probably going to be something that tells us that frame has been modified over time to give support to a replacement door. Again, doors and windows on a front contributing resource façade, I think we have to take a hard look at it. That's where I am on that. W e'll agree on the siding, the clarification point, wood in any of the old contributing portion and HardiePlank in the new 2018 addition, probably about 2018 addition is a good. Mr. O’Neil: We're in agreement with that. Chairman Minchew: All right. Is there any more discussion? Are we ready for a motion? Mr. Koochagian: Terri, there is one other thing, just regarding the window in the rear. What the applicant is asking us to do, and we're seemingly okay with, is putting a window in the contributing structure where there wasn't one. I do believe that one of the responsibilities we have, is to do no harm to the existing, the contributing structure. Again, because of the proximity of that window, and the fact that there's a higher likelihood of water infiltration because of that detail that would affect and could deteriorate the historic structure. That was in a new in the addition. I might comment on it, but I would not find it unapprovable. I do have an issue here because we are modifying the historic structure. Chairman Minchew: That's a good point. What would you see as a solution, Richard? Would it just needs to be slightly smaller or lifted up four inches or what are you thinking would be a solution? Mr. Koochagian: I think the window trim itself from the bottom of the trim ought to be raised up maybe one or two width depending on what the dimension of the siding is. Just raise the trim and the sill up because it is on a different elevation, we have not seen dimensions on that rear elevation, but maybe the window stays the same size, it's just raised up higher, or if it's important to keep the head height of that window opening, then that window becomes a little bit shorter than the other. Mr. O’Neil: I’ll just make a couple of points. Two things will happen unless the window is raised significantly. First, I'll start off by saying there is enough room for flashing as drawn. Second, if we raise it another couple of inches, we're either going to have a piece of trim that's taller than any other piece of trim on the house, or we're going to have trim and then a very small sliver of siding that will rot over time because it's going to be about two inches tall. I think we're making more of a maintenance issue unless it gets raised significantly. I think if you saw that, you'd start questioning the proportions of that window. Chairman Minchew: I don't think Richard was suggesting widening the trim, but I do think he was, correct me if I'm wrong, suggesting raising it, the width of at least one piece of siding. Is that correct? Mr. Koochagian: Right. Chairman Minchew: You're saying that would expose that piece of siding to deterioration. Mr. O’Neil: There's still issues with a lap siding, there's one piece that laps over the top. Chairman Minchew: I see the point, but I am not certain that it's something we can deny the application over. Vice Chair Goodson: I certainly appreciate the concern. However, I think that the treatment of the window, as submitted, is consistent with what you see around town and oldest and historic buildings. I got to say it's my house included. BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BUSINESS MEETING MINUTES February 19, 2020 Page 30 of 44 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING · 25 WEST MARKET STREET · LEESBURG, VIRGINIA 20176 Telephone 703.771.2765 · Fax 703.771.2724 · www.leesburgva.gov/planning Ms. Pastor: I would agree with that. Chairman Minchew: All right. Is somebody ready to make a motion? Ms. Larkins: May I add to that real quick. Chairman Minchew: I'm sorry. Would you like to come forward? Please come forward again, and identify yourself. If you could do it into the microphone. Ms. Larkin: I just wanted to make suggestion it as an alternative if it's possible. On my house, I have a peak that I-- there was a window in the attic that is rounded and square. I vaulted the ceiling so that that light came in. So, if the problem is light and you're worrying about the flashing and where it hits the roof, that may be an alternative that you put it in the peak and then vault the ceiling enough have-- it's just a suggestion, if they don't have a problem with it. If you want, I’m at 3 Royal and you can see on that front elevation, but the way that my house faces, the front elevation is on the side of the house. Chairman Minchew: Thank you. All right, does anybody ready to make a motion? Vice Chair Goodson: I will give it a go. Ms. Pastor: It's not in there, you have to read it from the screen. Vice Chair Goodson: That's where I was-- I move that TLHP-2020-0012. That's a continuation. I don't necessarily want a continuation. Chairman Minchew: Yeah, that's not a-- Vice Chair Goodson: Yes, I'm just going to have to wing this one. I moved the Certificate of Appropriateness application TLHP-2020-0012 be approved based on the information, the drawings provided at tonight's meeting and discussion for tonight's meeting with the following findings and conditions, the proposed structure-- Chairman Minchew: I would not use any of them. Vice Chair Goodson: No. Alright, I'm just going to go right into the conditions. 1. Restore and repair wood siding. I move for approval the removal of the existing vinyl siding and the restoration and repair of the wood siding under the original contributing resource portion of the property-- of the dwelling, which is essentially everything except for what we will identify as the 2018 addition - sorry for this clumsiness - which is the left elevation that is the 2018 addition. That will be in the HardiePlank, but the removal of the vinyl siding from the rest of the structure is approved with the restoration of the original wood siding. If possible, in where wood siding is missing, the wood siding of similar profile be used in its place. 2. The right side elevation, what's identified as the right side elevation in the drawings, the treatment of the back shed addition which appears to be a contributing later addition, that will either have the wood siding continued through that entire façade or, if appropriate, based on what's found after the removal of the vinyl siding, a wood trim board be applied to break the two-story structure from the one-story contributing in addition. 3. Approve the removal of existing vinyl shutters, no replacements are proposed at this time. 4. Approve the addition of a window of size and trim to match existing windows on the rear elevation which is, facing the building, the upper left-hand side as shown in the drawings. 5. The front door to be determined by a future site visit, the appropriateness of replacing the front door. That was a clumsy motion, but please correct if— Chairman Minchew: Is there a second? BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BUSINESS MEETING MINUTES February 19, 2020 Page 31 of 44 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING · 25 WEST MARKET STREET · LEESBURG, VIRGINIA 20176 Telephone 703.771.2765 · Fax 703.771.2724 · www.leesburgva.gov/planning Mr. Koochagian: Just a clarification, that the decision on the front door is continued until such a time that a site visit can be conducted and a final determination can be made of its historical appropriateness and/or subsequent decision on any replacement, if warranted. Vice Chair Goodson: Agreed. Chairman Minchew: Is there a second? Ms. Pastor: I'll second it. Chairman Minchew: Julie, thank you. Any further discussion? All in favor? BAR Members: Aye. Chairman Minchew: All opposed? All right. That's where we are. I'm sorry about having to put off the door but I don't think that should hold you up. The motion was approved by a 5-0-1-1 vote (O’Neil recused and Reimers absent). Ms. Skippers: Thank you for your time. I really appreciate it. Chairman Minchew: We’ll get that site visit scheduled. Thank you for what you're doing. Appreciate it. All right. That brings us to agenda item 10a TLHP-2020-001, first application of the year. There should be a door price. 980 Edward Ferry Road. New Cases in the H-2 Corridor Overlay District a. TLHP-2020-0001, 980 Edwards Ferry Road NE Project: Replacement of existing wall sign and refacing of monument sign Chairman Minchew opened the public hearing at 8:54pm. Chairman Minchew: Forget that site visit scheduled. Thank you for what you're doing. Appreciate it. All right. That brings us to agenda item 10A TLHP-2020-001, first application of the year. There should be a door price. 980 Edwards Ferry Road. Ms. Parry: Do I get the door prize or does the applicant get the prize? Chairman Minchew: I don’t know, that's a good question. Maybe there should be one for each of you. All right. Ms. Parry: We're talking about the existing IHOP location at the Shenandoah Square Shopping Center. Looking at the map here, you'll see that it's at the corner of Route 7 at Edwards Ferry Road-- I'm sorry about Route 15 at Edwards Ferry Road. Excuse me. The proposal is a replacement of an existing 41.5 square foot internally illuminated wall sign with a new 26.5 square foot wall sign featuring internally illuminated acrylic lettering and logo to be installed in the pediment over the main entrance. If you look at the photo, you'll see the existing sign there. This is the new sign going in the same location. The second proposal is refacing the existing internally lit monument sign. The property is not located within the H-1 or the H-2. There was a Comprehensive Sign Plan approved in the '90s for the shopping center, which indicated that signage only for the pad sites, would come to the BAR for review. The guideline, if you will, that you have to review of that signage is to be in keeping with the overall architectural expression of the shopping center. The replacement wall sign is smaller with a simplified design. The reface at the monument sign also features a more simplified design with a darker background, which is preferable. The "Open 24 Hour" sign that you see directly below the wall sign is shown for illustrative purposes only. It's exempt from review and permitting as a minor sign given that it is showing the hours of the business and it is two- square feet or smaller. BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BUSINESS MEETING MINUTES February 19, 2020 Page 32 of 44 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING · 25 WEST MARKET STREET · LEESBURG, VIRGINIA 20176 Telephone 703.771.2765 · Fax 703.771.2724 · www.leesburgva.gov/planning Staff finds the design, material, and placement at the signs to be in keeping with the architectural character of the building and architectural expression of the shopping center as required by the approved Comprehensive Sign Plan. Staff recommends approval of the application as submitted and a draft motion has been provided for your use. Chairman Minchew: Thank you. Will the applicant come forward, state your name for the record. If there's anything you'd like to add, please do so. Ken Lake: Well, my name is Ken Lake and I represent Arc Signs, the applicant. I don't have anything to add at this point. Chairman Minchew: All right. Thank you. This application is actually really straightforward. One of the reasons we didn't suggest it for consent was really partly because it's unusual. I don't know if any of you all have seen that it's unusual in that it was part of a Comprehensive Sign Plan. It's not really part of our usual purview. The other reason I wanted to come just to be discussed at least is the “24 Hour” sign. When we first talked about this, we were not aware that it would not be under our purview. I still think it's important to talk about it and ask staff. This is all directed towards staff. I understand that businesses are allowed a 24-- an open sign, a small “24-hour” time open sign. Is there no direction or any strictures that we can place on location because the proposed location is very unusual? It would not be approvable in my mind under our Guidelines, nor do I think it would be approvable under the stricture that compatible with the overall architectural expression of the shopping center. I think those “24-hour” signs are meant to be on a door or at eye level. I'm just curious where the line is actually drawn on location, not whether they can have it or not, but on location, or alternatively, or is there's something in the Zoning Ordinance or are there structures in place about location elsewhere? Ms. Berry Hill: Is there anything, Debi, in the sign plan that addresses that? Ms. Parry: There's nothing in the sign plan that addresses it. It was not included in the originally approved plan package for that building. The sign ordinance, Article 15 of the Zoning Ordinance defines a minor sign as showing the hours of operation and being under two-square feet. It does not get into any limitations as to location of that sign. Chairman Minchew I'm going to open it up to others before I say any more. I'm very concerned about the possibility of that being the location. I'll let others talk. If there are questions, or if you want to go right to comments, I think there's not that much to talk about here so we can do both. I will go to Dale. Vice Chair Goodson: Where do you plan on putting that 24-hour sign? Mr. Lake: To the best of my knowledge, that's exactly where they plan to put it. I'm new to this company and just picked up on this permit. Let me ask you, originally, wasn't there the idea that that 24-hour sign was going to be illuminated as well? Ms. Parry: It was going to be illuminated and it was going to be larger. In signs outside of the H-1, businesses are only allowed to have two signs, so if that sign was lit and it was larger, then it would no longer be a minor sign, and it would not be allowed. The only way that that could be allowed as determined by the Zoning Administrator was for it to be two square feet or smaller and not illuminated. Vice Chair Goodson: I understand that may be under a size limitation where it's not under our purview, whether it's allowable, but definitely placement-wise, I think it needs to be relatable to the entrance of the building. At minimum, I think that little “Open 24-hour” sign needs to be above or beside the doorway. I don't really have any other questions. Comment-wise, I don't have a problem BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BUSINESS MEETING MINUTES February 19, 2020 Page 33 of 44 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING · 25 WEST MARKET STREET · LEESBURG, VIRGINIA 20176 Telephone 703.771.2765 · Fax 703.771.2724 · www.leesburgva.gov/planning with the changes, there's no net impact in my mind, the changes of either the monument sign or the IHOP monument sign or the wall sign. In my view, I don't have a problem with the replacement of the siding with the Ipe wood. My only concerning is of the placement of that “24-hour” sign. Chairman Minchew: Just to be clear, we don't have any say I think about the siding anyway, it's just the sign. Vice Chair Goodson: Got you. Chairman Minchew: Just the sign. Stacy? Ms. Skinner: I agree the “24-hour” sign needs to go in relation to where the door is and not where it's being proposed, I think that that's inappropriate. I think closer to the door would be better. Chairman Minchew: Right. Richard? Mr. Koochagian: I agree the “24-hour” sign needs to go either centered on the door or actually to the left of the door on the stone face, but it should relate to the doorway, not just randomly placed in the gable. Chairman Minchew: Tom? Mr. O’Neil: I'd say centering in the “24-hour” sign over top of the front door just makes a lot of sense. Chairman Minchew: Julie? Ms. Pastor: I agree. I do think the other signs are an improvement. The wall signs are more [crosstalk]. Much simpler and much cleaner, that looks good too. Chairman Minchew: I would agree and I would encourage the motion to say that we're approving the replacement sign only on the condition that the “24-hour” sign is in a position that you have identified. Otherwise, I would not be approving any changes because I think it would be a net negative. Is there anybody in the audience that would like to speak to this? All right. Ms. Parry: Madam Chair, would it be appropriate to ask the applicant for his opinion on moving the “24-hour” sign? Chairman Minchew: Yes. Of course. Thank you, Debi, yes, it would. Mr. Lake: I believe that it would be entirely appropriate and we could get the client to approve that. I agree with you that it is somewhat conspicuous where it's at now. Just to be clear, centered directly above the door will be the way to go? Chairman Minchew: Or dropped closer to the [crosstalk]. Ms. Pastor: Or on the wall like Richard was saying right next to the door underneath the lantern in there. Vice Chair Goodson: I would suggest to the left side of that door and right below the light. Chairman Minchew: Light fixture. Vice Chair Goodson: Yes, would be an appropriate spot for it. Chairman Minchew: I think in this case it would be, I think the final positioning is something that staff could hopefully be willing to take on. I'm sorry, is there anyone in the audience that wanted to speak to this? Who would like to make a motion? BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BUSINESS MEETING MINUTES February 19, 2020 Page 34 of 44 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING · 25 WEST MARKET STREET · LEESBURG, VIRGINIA 20176 Telephone 703.771.2765 · Fax 703.771.2724 · www.leesburgva.gov/planning Vice Chair Goodson: I move THLP. Chairman Minchew: Excuse me, I forgot to ask our liaisons, Gigi and Marty, do either one of you have comment or questions? Vice Mayor Martinez? Vice Mayor Martinez: No. Vice Chair Goodson: I move THLP-2020-000, installation of new wall sign and refacing existing monument sign, be approved with the following condition: 1. The 24-hour open sign be moved, the location to be either centered above the doorway in the gable façade or to the left of the entry door in the area just below the existing wall light. Ms. Pastor: Second. Chairman Minchew: Any discussion? All in favor? BAR Members: Aye. Chairman Minchew: Any opposed? It's approved. Thank you so much. The motion was approved by a 6-0-1 vote (Reimers absent) Mr. Lake: Okay, thank you very much. Continued Cases in the H-1 Overlay District a. TLHP-2019-0137, 9 East Market Street (Church & Market) Project: New construction of a mixed-use development Chairman Minchew: All right, I am going to leave the room and turn it over to Mr. Goodson. Vice Chair Goodson: All right, this is a continuation of TLHP-2019-0137, 9 East Market Street, also known as Market. Ms. Pastor: Church and Market. Vice Chair Goodson: Church and Market, Thank you. Staff? Ms. Berry Hill: Okay. Here's the location of the Church and Market project between Market and Loudoun Street and adjacent to Church Street. It is a construction of a new, mixed-use development on currently what is a vacant parking lot. You can see the elevation of one of the façades here. When the BAR last looked at this, I think we're whittling down the outstanding issues to that which is tonight, which is windows, and the revised changes have addressed many of the BAR issues that were discussed in the previous three meetings. The applicant has provided the requested drawings and plans that you should have. The application remains consistent with the guidelines, and the BAR should confirm they’re comfort with the mix of windows as proposed in the submission materials. I think of issue tonight are windows that are on façades type K that's Maker's Alley, as well as the Loudoun Street and set back above the garage, façade type L, which is the West elevation and portions of façade Type O, the West elevation internal. The issue at hand is the type of window. I think the applicant is proposing Andersen 100 windows for those locations as opposed to the Marvin elevate windows, which would be the rest of the project. That I believe is the issue for you tonight and I think the applicant has some elevations that they want to show you. BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BUSINESS MEETING MINUTES February 19, 2020 Page 35 of 44 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING · 25 WEST MARKET STREET · LEESBURG, VIRGINIA 20176 Telephone 703.771.2765 · Fax 703.771.2724 · www.leesburgva.gov/planning Vice Chair Goodson: In addition to that, I believe the applicant is hoping for an approval this evening. We also had requested, and I believe we have, cut sheets on various materials that we want to take a look at. We also have a roof plan and measured drawings. Ms. Pastor: Yes, they're all in the packet. Vice Chair Goodson: All that we'll want to take a final stab at. If you would state your name for the record and anything you have to add. Alice Ens: Sure. My name is Alice Ens, I work for Torti Gallas Partners. Allie Dorman: I'm Allie Dorman from Torti Gallas Partners. Ms. Ens: John sends his regards and apologies for not being here tonight. I think there were a couple of just additional pieces I wanted to highlight that were changed. We did bring all the drawings that were in your package that clearly show where the differences of the windows are. We can go through that additionally if you want to talk and discuss that further. The other piece that was not mentioned is the standing seam metal roof and the rolled ridge. That was one of the big changes too in the submission of materials and cut sheets. That was one of the comments at the end of last session, as opposed to the ridge cap actually on the standing seam. Other than that the design has not changed at all. I wasn't actually going to bring up drawings unless there are things we want to talk about. I have the video again. I will say seeing that initial rendering just now that we came in with two months ago, it was the view in the staff report, and knowing what it is now, it has, I think, come a long way. I think it has been a good constructive process. If we want to look at the video one more time, since we don't have all our big boards and all our materials this time. The conclusion, we also have that here. Vice Chair Goodson: No problem. I suspect what we will want to do is go through the façades to clarify primary, secondary windows, that sort of thing. All right. Let's do a round of questions. Julie, do you want to start us off? Ms. Pastor: I believe they really did take to heart everything that we asked for. It is all in the package. I am okay with the two types of windows. I think they've really actually went completely the other way. We were talking about a larger portion of the Andersen 100 windows when we left last time and now we are majority Marvin Windows and I think we all should be happy about that. I think it's a great project and I believe they've addressed all of our comments. Vice Chair Goodson: Tom? Mr. O’Neil: I agree with Julie, particularly on the windows. I think it was a good solution to balance cost versus appearance. Although I'd be happy to have you give us a tour, give us a better idea of where they're actually happening, but I think it looks like from the drawings, the Andersen 100 Windows are set back wherever possible, so they're much less visible from the street where people would have the opportunity to see them. I appreciate that. I also agree with Julie, overall I think it's a great project. I do agree with you that it's improved over the last several months each time you've come in. I appreciate that. Vice Chair Goodson: Richard? Richard, are you there? Mr. Koochagian: Yes, sorry about that. A variety of questions. Regarding the roofing, I saw that you've added page 28, which is a detail on the rolled edges, but the page 27 still indicates the previous roofing type, which is the mechanically fastened roof pan, so I'm a little bit unclear on which takes precedent. Am I misunderstanding what the colonial seam cut sheet is still doing in there? Ms. Ens: W e've included the rolled ridge. We have been looking at a couple of different manufacturers to see if you could potentially have some of the pre-manufactured pieces for a more cost-effective solution with the rolled ridge and have not found anything that would do that yet. It is something we would want to explore further in terms of the actual standing seam, is there a more cost-effective way of doing it versus a completely custom hand-rolled standing seam metal roof. What BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BUSINESS MEETING MINUTES February 19, 2020 Page 36 of 44 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING · 25 WEST MARKET STREET · LEESBURG, VIRGINIA 20176 Telephone 703.771.2765 · Fax 703.771.2724 · www.leesburgva.gov/planning we thought was the biggest sticking point was really that ridge cap, so the detail here that you see on page-- It's titled standing seam metal roof ridge detail. Vice Chair Goodson: It's page 14. Mr. Koochagian: Page 14, turn to page 14. Ms. Ens: Page 14 is the intention for the design of that system . Does that answer your question? Mr. Koochagian: What I'm hearing you say is you haven't decided on the metal roofing. Ms. Ens: Yes. For the page 11, that will probably be removed. That system does not work with the page 14. Page 14 overrides page 11. Mr. Koochagian: Page 11 or page 13? Vice Chair Goodson: Page 14 overrides page 13. 13 out, page 14 in. Ms. Ens: Sorry, this is the old numbering. Page 13, yes. [crosstalk] In your packet, yes. I'm looking at the original. Mr. Koochagian: Page 13 needs to come out of the application. Vice Chair Goodson: Correct. Ms. Ens: Yes. Mr. Koochagian: My next question on materials relates to the-- Let's see what page is that. The one with the railings, page 28. I don't recall. Have we seen a sample of the railing material? Ms. Ens: I do not think we've brought a physical sample of this. We've included this cut sheet it has been in this submission since the beginning, but we did not bring a physical sample of this with all of our materials. That is correct. Mr. Koochagian: It looks like from the cut sheet that there is a gloss finish to these units, which are things that we've raised as issues in the past and so I do have a concern about that. Are these going to be painted or just installed in place and not finished? Ms. Ens: These are primarily white throughout most of the façades. In one location we will be painting them, I think there's the green on the green porches to match there. Mr. Koochagian: So they are paintable, though, correct? Ms. Ens: Yes. Mr. Koochagian: Looking at the roof plan, let me go over to that to make sure I'm clear on a couple of things, which thank you for that, by the way, very helpful. Ms. Ens: Sure. Mr. Koochagian: Looks like most of the HVAC units are just small packaging units. Is that correct? The roof units are not pretty large? Ms. Ens: That is correct. Right now you're seeing those condensers for each of the units. There are a few larger units on the roof as well for the office space and the more public space. I will say that this is an estimate at this phase in the design. Once we have our mechanical engineer on board, there could be some alterations to the final exact location. Right now, you're seeing a condensing unit for BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BUSINESS MEETING MINUTES February 19, 2020 Page 37 of 44 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING · 25 WEST MARKET STREET · LEESBURG, VIRGINIA 20176 Telephone 703.771.2765 · Fax 703.771.2724 · www.leesburgva.gov/planning each apartment building on that roof plan right now. In addition to a few more for the corridor spaces and then some larger units you can see for office. Mr. Koochagian: Got it. If I'm looking at the drawings, it looks like there are three larger units, two along the Church Street side, if you will, and then one over to the western side. How large are those? How tall do those get? Ms. Ens: You can see the inside elevation in the section on page 18. You can see those units in the section on the roof. Mr. Koochagian: Page 18, hold on a second. Ms. Pastor: 18 of the large prints, Richard. Mr. Koochagian: It looks like it's just a hair taller than the parapet wall. Ms. Ens: Yes, they're right there aligned with the parapet wall. Mr. Koochagian: That will be important. If they get any taller than that, we would want to see that back. Also going to the roof plan, the building, and I'm looking at the elevation on the roof plan, and it seems the building along Church Street towards Market Street, there is no AC units on the roof. Is that building served by what's on top of the bridge? Ms. Ens: Yes, they’re served by what’s on top of the bridge for easier access for maintenance right here. Mr. Koochagian: All HVAC units are housed on the roof, none are down below anywhere at grade? Ms. Ens: Yes, everything is up on the roof in this plan for the mechanical units. Mr. Koochagian: Let's see, sections. I didn't have any other questions. I think those were the only questions I had. Thank you. Vice Chair Goodson: Stacy? Ms. Skinner: I don't have any questions, but I do just want to say, thank you for listening to all of our suggestions and implementing them. I still don’t like those balconies, but that's okay. Vice Chair Goodson: Questions? Ms. Ens: Do you want me to walk you through the windows? Vice Chair Goodson: No. Actually, I think we're fairly clear on that as we've gone through. The primary window is the Marvin window? Ms. Ens: Marvin Elevate. Ms. Skinner: Just to make sure that I understand that's not the one that was kind of flush, right? Ms. Ens: Correct. Vice Chair Goodson: No, the Marvin Elevate, I think everybody agreed that that was a good window, an appropriate window. For anybody listening to us, the Church Street elevation, that all those windows are being shown as primary windows. The Maker's Alley, the majority of the windows are being shown as primary. The secondary windows are in the section that's set in, inset. Moving around to the west elevation which faces into that parking area. Again, the forward sections of the buildings are shown as primary windows. The recessed sections are shown as secondary. Loudoun Street, BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BUSINESS MEETING MINUTES February 19, 2020 Page 38 of 44 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING · 25 WEST MARKET STREET · LEESBURG, VIRGINIA 20176 Telephone 703.771.2765 · Fax 703.771.2724 · www.leesburgva.gov/planning again, same thing, the forward section of the façades are all primary, and it's just the recessed elements that are secondary. Does that sum it up? Good, we're in agreement on that. This one will fall a little bit into comments as much as questions. You are asking for the Andersen 100 series that we saw. I want to clarify that that is showing up on a recent project in Leesburg. That is not approved by the BAR. It's gotten into that project as a replacement window a staff approved replacement window of what was approved. I'm not sure that that would have been approvable, had it come to the BAR. As far as the secondary window, I am very much open to the idea in what you guys have proposed for primary and secondary windows. In fact, I appreciate how much you've included as primary windows. Secondary windows, I might even suggest leaving that open a bit, and that you could do what you guys need to do as far as finding a window that works for you and works for us knowing what our Guidelines are, and we could potentially approve a secondary window at a future date. I'm honestly just not sure how I feel about the Andersen 100 windows and I'd be curious as to what others have to say. Again, the fact that this Board has not approved that window, I don't believe we've set any precedent that we're required to accept that window. I very much agree with the primary, secondary and I think we can give the applicant flexibility to find a secondary window. They could come back and propose that Andersen window to us or they could propose something else. I'd like to give them that opening, that flexibility. That's the way I view that one. I think that's probably our biggest issue tonight. Going through the rest of the cut sheets, thank you, Richard, for clarifying the railings, that is paintable material with no exposed fasteners, you had brought that one up to me earlier. That was a good catch on that one. Does anybody have any other comments on the windows, specifically the secondary’s? Ms. Pastor: I agree with you 100%. I'm good with having a primary and a secondary window, but I can't see how that Andersen window is really approvable. Vice Chair Goodson: I'm not ready to call it not approvable considering the fact that how limited you did go on to your secondary windows. I think I'd like to leave it open if you can find perhaps a window that works a little bit better towards our Guidelines, and if it perhaps works better for you guys economically, that could be a win-win situation. Julie? Ms. Pastor: I'm concerned that we actually didn't see the other version of the Andersen window. What they brought us was not really the one that they had said was really more— Vice Chair Goodson: It didn’t have the included muntins, so it looked a lot flatter. Ms. Pastor: We really didn’t see it so in some respects, I wonder whether or not they would rather have an approval versus having to come back for another approval for additional windows. Vice Chair Goodson: Fair question, to the applicant. Again, on the secondary window, I think conceptually, everybody agrees the idea of having a secondary window, but are you looking to lock in that Andersen 100 or are you open to the idea of keeping that open for you? Blair White: Blair White, applicant. I guess the answer is it depends. It depends on whether or not you are going to give us the latitude to allow staff to make that determination or whether that means we have to come back to BAR with a specific window and ask for a new approval of that window based upon what the available products are at the time. Obviously, our preference would be to find a better window than the Andersen 100, that is as economical or perhaps better. We would, of course, also like not to have to come back and say, here's the window that we want. We know that there are some differing opinions about whether the Andersen 100 is good enough. If the market doesn't give us an opportunity to bring something better than we are potentially hang on what do we do with the secondary window? That’s it. Vice Chair Goodson: Well, that was my one comment. The majority of the Board may feel differently. Julie? BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BUSINESS MEETING MINUTES February 19, 2020 Page 39 of 44 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING · 25 WEST MARKET STREET · LEESBURG, VIRGINIA 20176 Telephone 703.771.2765 · Fax 703.771.2724 · www.leesburgva.gov/planning Ms. Pastor: I appreciate that there may be something more economical, and it might be best. I do feel that that is what staff did in the example that was given was that basically the window that was approved was not available and they had to go and find another window and staff approved that window. I think that's a perfectly legitimate approach to go with. I don't know, but I'm not everybody. Vice Chair Goodson: You would find that Andersen 100? Ms. Pastor: I would be okay the way it is, and then if they find a more economical window that staff be given that flexibility to approve it. Vice Chair Goodson: Okay. Tom? Mr. O’Neil: I agree with Julie again. I would just put it a slightly different way. The market’s always evolving, new products are coming out. If there's something, based on what you've heard from us, that is in the same price point of what the Andersen 100 gives you, I would strongly encourage you to go that route. Based on how you worked with us here, I feel comfortable that you would. As it is right now, I think the combination that you've done with the two windows puts me at ease with the Andersen 100. I would approve it right now. I would encourage you to keep looking though. Vice Chair Goodson: Richard? Mr. Koochagian: First, I would agree with the concept of having primary and secondary windows. I think that it makes sense to accommodate the project. That being said, our Guidelines do not in any way allow us the luxury of talking about price and budgets, or having that consideration in our decisions. What we look at is materials, workmanship and things that are complementary to the historic fabric of the Old & Historic District. The Marvin windows achieve that handily, that had been proposed as the primary windows. I do not believe that the Andersen windows that have been chosen solve that problem. That doesn't mean there aren't other products out there that can. We have over the years approved a variety of aluminum or other material clad windows that do have the proper or simulate the proper historic profiles of windows. I think by looking at the application of these Andersen 100’s that the current project downtown does show the issues as to why I would not find them approvable. I think that being able to come up with a secondary option is in the applicants-- that's their decision for them to make the best judgment possible for their project. I think we need to look at the window itself and say, is that something we would allow on any project within the Historic District. To myself, I just don't think the Andersen 100 rises to that level. It could be that if there's a better sample of that window, since we did not see the divided light sashes, they could bring that back to us or pose anything else. I myself do not find those windows approvable, not just for this applicant, but we also have to look at what other applicants want to use that window. I just don't think that's something we would have approved or would approve. Ms. Skinner: What he said, that was perfect. I think that having, like I said, the two different windows is great. I just think the Andersen window’s probably not one that I would see approvable. I don't have a problem doing a COA approval with you all coming back with that secondary window, but I would like to be able to see that and to help make that decision. This project’s too big and too prominent in our Historic District not to see that. We've gotten so far, I don't want to mess it up now. Vice Chair Goodson: I think where I fall is still where I fell at the opening of this. Again, thank you for having the primary windows so prevalent. That resolves a lot of it. That almost in a sense makes it a little more challenging to not want to give you the go-ahead on the Andersen 100 window, but I do have some misgivings on that window. I’d, in a sense, like to give you the opportunity that again, it may benefit you to find a window that better fits with what we're looking for and serves what you need as well. I think the primary-secondary structure is the way to go. The only question is an approval on that specific secondary window and that we can always just condition it to come back to us with some windows samples. Mr. White: Sure. I think what I would say about that is, based on what I'm hearing here, we would be okay with the primary and secondary condition, and then what would be great is when we see where BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BUSINESS MEETING MINUTES February 19, 2020 Page 40 of 44 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING · 25 WEST MARKET STREET · LEESBURG, VIRGINIA 20176 Telephone 703.771.2765 · Fax 703.771.2724 · www.leesburgva.gov/planning the market is at down the line and we find, hopefully a better window than the Andersen 100, who knows what the market will bear at that time, but maybe there's a window that is a good window for the entire project that is perhaps not even the Marvin window. It is a window that you like project- wide. Maybe across the board, when we average the two economic components, we end up at the same place and you all end up happy. If we can come back to you with the presumption of a primary and secondary concept with that understanding that we may come back with a new window altogether and ask you to consider approving it throughout the entirety. If it meets the Guidelines and is better than the Andersen 100, we can at least consider that, or maybe the ratio changes a little bit based on the fact that it's a better more expensive window and a secondary component, but it looks better and it is closer or at least you all feel collectively like it meets the Guidelines. Vice Chair Goodson: I might be hearing this wrong, but you'd still like to leave with the approval tonight of that Andersen 100 as a secondary. Mr. White: No, we’d be okay removing that Andersen 100, and going primary-secondary. I'm just giving you our expectation, because what we foresee is being able to use leverage with the contractors of, hey, we've got 450 windows that are going to be the Marvin and we've got 250 or 300 windows that are going to be a secondary. We would like to believe that we can do a good job of negotiating that window across the board. I just don't know exactly what that will be as we stand here today. If we can approve the concept, then we're happy to come back and show you whatever that window or two windows. Vice Chair Goodson: I think that concept, m y straw poll of reading of the Board, is probably that's a great idea. Right here tonight, you might get hung up with just that approval with the Andersen 100 for the secondary. But I agree, if the market will allow for different windows, it makes sense for both of us for you to come back with alternate materials, potentially for both primary and secondary. Mr. White: We're good with. Mr. Koochagian: Would it be at least at a minimum us approving for the primary or just even in general that the Marvin window is approvable? Just to put that on the record, that way, if you were able to work a deal with Marvin, you don't even have to come back to us for all the windows, let's say. Vice Chair Goodson: Agreed, I think we could build a motion that specifies we've seen that Marvin window and it's approvable as a primary window or if they chose to use it for the entire project. I'm sure we can build in some verbiage in that regard. Does anybody else have any comments on this? Mr. Koochagian: On the windows or other things? Vice Chair Goodson: On any of it. Mr. Koochagian: I guess what I would like to hear is, does anybody have an opinion on the finish of the railings? My concern is that since we don't know if it's a plastic gloss finish, because we would not want that up. Do we want to require it painted or a sample to be provided to staff to decide that part? Vice Chair Goodson: I, for myself, what we've typically done on projects is if it's a painted material, if it's paintable, I find the profile of that material approvable. From myself, I am concerned about a glossy factory finish so I would default to a painted finish, but I would absolutely be open to the applicant coming back to us, or if we're comfortable leaving it to staff, to submit a product sample, that we'd be comfortable with that factory finished color. I'd be comfortable with that. Mr. Koochagian: I do agree that the railing profile and its construction are approvable. It's just the finish. I think it's either gloss or it's not, and staff could easily adjudicate that. BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BUSINESS MEETING MINUTES February 19, 2020 Page 41 of 44 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING · 25 WEST MARKET STREET · LEESBURG, VIRGINIA 20176 Telephone 703.771.2765 · Fax 703.771.2724 · www.leesburgva.gov/planning Vice Chair Goodson: Before I go any further, is there any member of the public that wishes to speak on this? May be the last chance. All right. Any other questions, comments, concerns? If not, does somebody want to try to craft a motion? Mr. Koochagian: I guess, Dale, what I would like to comment on is to the applicant. You have made a lot of changes and worked with us with our Guidelines. I think the end product, overall, has come a long way, but it's started at a great place to begin with. We appreciate all of the effort knowing that a lot goes into this and things do cost money and we are trying to be cognizant of all of that. One concern I have, and I'm just voicing it and I've been on the fence, is from the beginning I've had concerns of the Church Street elevation, particularly with the approximately 120 or so feet of, I'll say, blank façade where you have no windows or door openings. Understanding that there's nothing behind their parking garage, I still have concerns of the human scale of that sidewalk area. I have been on the fence whether or not I find it approvable or not. At the end of the day with everything else, I will find this approvable, but it's not an easy decision for me because I do have concerns about that elevation and the fact that it could have been broken up a little bit more with some minor adjustments to stimulate door openings and whatnot. What I fear is it's going to be another blank wall just like we have with the county building and the parking garage across the street. Anyway, overall, nicely done but I do have concerns about what the street frontage is going to look like and it's the only primary street frontage that this project actually has. That's all. Vice Chair Goodson: Thank you for those comments. I think they were well said. I would reiterate to the applicant, again, thank you for the process we have forwarding this along. I think we worked through a lot of details that have improved the project for all of us. I definitely appreciate that. Mr. White: Thank you all for your input. I think it's gotten better, for sure, over the past few months as Tom said. Ms. Pastor: I move that TLHP-2019-0137 be approved based on the information provided by Torti Gallas and Blair White, as revised through February 10th, 2020, including all the associated photos, specifications, and product information with the following conditions: 1. That the delineation of the primary and secondary windows be approved as to the primary windows and that there be a defined secondary window to be determined. And that any subsequent changes to the windows in general in that primary and secondary format come back to the BAR at some future point. 2. That the finishes of the railings be non-gloss finish— Ms. Ens: Or a black finish. Is that what you're looking for? Ms. Pastor: (Condition 2 continued) --Painted finish, again, with factory finish options to be provided to staff for subsequent consideration of approval. Vice Chair Goodson: I would suggest painted finish pending material sample to staff. Ms. Pastor: That's what it was, material. I forgot to write that down. (Condition 2 continued) Material samples. Then should a factory finish option present itself then that be considered by staff. I think that was it. Ms. Skinner: Second. Mr. Koochagian: Friendly amendment. Vice Chair Goodson: For that motion? Yes, please. Mr. Koochagian: Removing of the packet page 13 for the metal roof. Ms. Pastor: Right. Yes. Vice Chair Goodson: Correct. In our packet page— BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BUSINESS MEETING MINUTES February 19, 2020 Page 42 of 44 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING · 25 WEST MARKET STREET · LEESBURG, VIRGINIA 20176 Telephone 703.771.2765 · Fax 703.771.2724 · www.leesburgva.gov/planning Ms. Pastor: It's now 14. Not 13. Vice Chair Goodson: Page 13 is removed superseded by page 14. Mr. Koochagian: Right, and that each changes in the height of HVAC equipment from what is currently drawn, would come back for review. Ms. Pastor: Or, “cannot be higher than the parapet walls”? Mr. Koochagian: It can be higher than the parapet wall. Right now, it is, but I would say not any higher than it already is. Because of the sightline you wouldn't necessarily see even it was to get taller. Vice Chair Goodson: The sightlines. It would have to go up a certain amount. What that amount is I don't know. That's why I hesitate to say X inches or feet above the parapet wall. I think that was reasonably put. Ms. Pastor: Okay. Vice Chair Goodson: Any other suggestions, Richard? Mr. Koochagian: I think that covers it. Vice Chair Goodson: Tom? Mr. O’Neil: No. Vice Chair Goodson: Julie? Stacy? All right. We got a motion and did we get a second? Ms. Pastor: Stacy. Vice Chair Goodson: Stacy, seconded. Any discussion? All those in favor? BAR Members: Aye. Vice Chair Goodson: Opposed? Thank you very much. Yours are always so fun. The motion was approved by a 5-0-1-1 vote (Minchew recused and Reimers absent). Ms. Ens: Thank you. Ms. Berry Hill: Congratulations. Cases Not Requiring A Public Hearing None Old Business None New Business None Staff Announcements Vice Chair Goodson: I believe we still have our chair out there. Ms. Pastor: Yes, Terri, is she still there. BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BUSINESS MEETING MINUTES February 19, 2020 Page 43 of 44 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING · 25 WEST MARKET STREET · LEESBURG, VIRGINIA 20176 Telephone 703.771.2765 · Fax 703.771.2724 · www.leesburgva.gov/planning Vice Chair Goodson: If not, in the meantime, Debi do you have anything for us? Ms. Parry: I have one staff announcement, but I'd like Terri to be in here before I make the staff announcement because it directly affects the chair. Vice Chair Goodson: Were you taking a nap out there? Chairman Minchew: I couldn't tell that you were done. Ms. Parry: We do have one staff announcement. You may remember a discussion that we had regarding funding for BAR travel and training and a motion was made by the Board to put forward $5,000 for that to Town Council to maintain our CLG status and to keep what we had previously had in prior budgets. That has been added to the budget requests. There is a work session of the Town Council to discuss budget request on the 24th, which is Monday at 7:00 PM and the Town Manager would like to have a representative of the Board attend that meeting to answer any potential questions that Council may have regarding that funding request. So is there anyone? Chairman Minchew: I don't have my calendar with me. Vice Chair Goodson: I'd have to check my calendar. I suspect that one of us could probably do that. Ms. Parry: Maybe we can follow up tomorrow, the three of us, and figure out who can be here for that. Chairman Minchew: Unless somebody else wants to do it. Vice Chair Goodson: We could nominate Paul. Chairman Minchew: Or Richard. Is Richard still there? Vice Chair Goodson: Richard. Richard might still be on the phone. He might object. Mr. Koochagian: Yes. You can't nominate me. I'm here. Chairman Minchew: That's fine. We can do that. Vice Chair Goodson: Let us check schedules and we'll work it out. Ms. Parry: I'll follow up with you both tomorrow. We'll figure that out. That's all that I have. Mr. Koochagian: If need be I am available on Monday. Ms. Parry: Okay. Vice Chair Goodson: Uh-oh. Chairman Minchew: All right. We'll get somebody lined up for that one. All right. That's all we got. Where were you? New business? Vice Chair Goodson: Yes. Just asking staff, any new, old business? Any announcements? Chairman Minchew: Nobody has anything else? Vice Chair Goodson: No. Chairman Minchew: All right. Adjournment Vice Chair Goodson: Motion to adjourn. BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BUSINESS MEETING MINUTES February 19, 2020 Page 44 of 44 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING · 25 WEST MARKET STREET · LEESBURG, VIRGINIA 20176 Telephone 703.771.2765 · Fax 703.771.2724 · www.leesburgva.gov/planning Chairman Minchew: There you go. Ms. Skinner: Second. Chairman Minchew: All in favor? BAR Members: Aye. Chairman Minchew: Adjourned. The motion was approved by a 6-0-1 vote (Reimers absent) and the meeting was adjourned at 9:49pm. Teresa Minchew, Chairman Deborah Parry, Planning & Zoning Analyst