Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout05 17 2021 BAR Meeting Minutes LEESBURG BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BUSINESS MEETING MINUTES Monday May 17, 2021 Town Hall, 25 West Market Street Council Chamber MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Teresa Minchew, Vice Chair Paul Reimers, Parliamentarian Julie Pastor, Helen Aikman, Erin Nicholson, Tom O’Neil, Donald Scheuerman, and Planning Commission Liaison Gigi Robinson (participating remotely) MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF: Preservation Planner Lauren Murphy and Planning & Zoning Analyst Deborah Parry Call to Order and Roll Call Chairman Minchew called the meeting to order at 7:01 pm, noted attendance, and determined that a quorum was present. Adoption of the Meeting Agenda Chairman Minchew noted a proposed change in the meeting agenda to have the public art discussion immediately follow public comments and presentations at the beginning of the agenda. Further, she proposed an additional amendment to move cases TLHP-2021-0040 and TLHP-2021-0055 to the consent agenda, noting the applicants have agreed to staff’s recommended conditions. At 7:03pm, Vice Chair Reimers proposed a motion to adopt the meeting agenda, as amended. The motion was seconded by Ms. Nicholson and approved by a 7-0 vote. Approval of Meeting Minutes a. April 5, 2021 BAR Work Session At 7:05pm, Ms. Pastor proposed a motion to approve the meeting minutes of April 5, 2021. The motion was seconded by Mr. O’Neil and approved by a 6-0-1 (Reimers abstained). b. April 19, 2021 BAR Business Meeting At 7:05pm, Ms. Pastor proposed a motion to approve the meeting minutes of April 19, 2021. The motion was seconded by Mr. O’Neil and approved by a 6-0-1 vote (Aikman abstained). BAR Member Disclosures Chairman Minchew disclosed that she has had some general conversations about the proposed mural on the Loudoun Museum building and application TLHP-2021-0058, 210 North King Street with Sharon Virts. Further, she stated she would recuse from participation in application TLHP-2021-0050, 330 West Market Street, as she is the applicant. Vice Chair Reimers stated he will also recuse from participation in application TLHP-2021-0050, 330 West Market Street. Ms. Pastor stated she will recuse from participation in application TLHP-2021-0040, King Street Station, as she and her husband are owners of a condominium in this development which is still under construction and still under the control of the developer, who is the applicant in this case. She stated, as such, she could be negatively or positively impacted by the decision. Public Comment and Presentations None BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BUSINESS MEETING MINUTES May 17, 2021 Page 2 of 12 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING · 25 WEST MARKET STREET · LEESBURG, VIRGINIA 20176 Telephone 703.771.2765 · Fax 703.771.2724 · www.leesburgva.gov/planning Mural Proposal – Commission on Public Art Discussion of this item began at 7:08pm. Ms. Murphy stated the Public Art Guidelines for the Town ask that the Commission on Public Art seek a recommendation from the Board to the Town Council regarding public art proposals within the Old & Historic District. She stated the topic of this discussion is the proposed mural on the east elevation of the Loudoun Museum building at 16 Loudoun Street SW, which is proposed to be painted with a clear-coat sealant over spray paint and Behr paint on the stuccoed façade. She noted the structure was built sometime between 1850 and 1878 and was previously connected to an adjacent building that was removed. She expressed concern regarding the large scale of the mural and the potential impact of the proposed paint on the historic structure, citing Preservation Briefs that discuss more appropriate paint treatments for historic stucco buildings. Further, she suggested that the Commission on Public Art and the Board discuss the possibility of an alternative mural at this location, such as one that is freestanding in front of the building. Ms. Murphy also addressed concerns with proposal to have Harriet Tubman as the primary subject of this mural, noting that she had a recognizable role in the Underground Railroad and has no known ties to Loudoun County. She stated this might create a false sense of history and lead passersby to assume that either she or the Underground Railroad are associated with this building. She noted that the Black Historic Committee has acknowledged a similar concern in their support for the concept of the project and that the NAACP expressed support for a mural which includes several notable figures to celebrate Leesburg’s extensive Black History. Further, she noted her support for these organizations in their advocacy to recognize the stories of local history in any future art installations. Elizabeth Ransom, Co-Chair of the Commission on Public Art (COPA) was present. Ms. Ransom discussed the history related to the Underground Railroad in Leesburg and individuals such as Bazil Newman who is believed to have been a conductor and Leonard Grimes who was convicted of being a conductor in the Underground Railroad locally. She stated the current Loudoun Museum building was previously the Do Drop Inn, a social spot and restaurant that catered to a black clientele, noting that the most well-known owners of this business were Sherman and Mary Berry. She discussed the design of the proposed mural depicting Harriet Tubman reaching out her hand to welcome people into the Loudoun Museum, stating that glow-in-the-dark painted would be used for the lantern she is holding in the image. Further, she stated the commission would work with the Loudoun Museum, Thomas Balch Library and other organizations to create a plaque to be placed in front of the mural and that would context for this art installation. Ms. Ransom discussed the accomplishments of the artist selected to paint this mural, Shawn Perkins, and noted the economic benefits that public art can bring to communities. She also addressed concerns regarding the impact of the mural on the Loudoun Museum structure, noting that murals are painted on historic masonry buildings in Washington, D.C. and other areas without detrimental impact to the buildings. Further, she addressed the concerns regarding the proposed sealant, stating the Commission can work with the artist to discuss an alternate treatment. There was discussion regarding the intended life span of the mural, the potential impact of the proposed materials on the building, the large scale of the mural, and concerns with a false sense of history that might be created by having such a historically recognizable figure as the subject for this mural rather than celebrating local historical figures. The discussion was opened for public comment at 7:41pm. Sharon Virts, President of the Loudoun Museum and Chairman of the Board of Trustees, stated the museum’s board recently held a meeting at which time the members present voted unanimously to not endorse this mural on the side of the building. She stated the board is concerned with the impact to the historic building, noting that the museum has already had to address areas of deterioration of the historic bricks in this wall. She stated the Board is also concerned with the proposal to have Harriet Tubman as the subject of this mural, noting that she has no direct connection to Loudoun County and the use of her image on this structure may lead to a false sense of history. She stated the museum is supportive of public art; however, there is concern that the museum’s director was not consulted and that the board BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BUSINESS MEETING MINUTES May 17, 2021 Page 3 of 12 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING · 25 WEST MARKET STREET · LEESBURG, VIRGINIA 20176 Telephone 703.771.2765 · Fax 703.771.2724 · www.leesburgva.gov/planning was not given a voice in this process. Further, she expressed a desire to work with the COPA to find other ways to tell the story, such as potentially using this wall as a video screen for art. Richard Koochagian, 212 Loudoun Street SW, expressed concern with the negative impact to the structure that would be caused by this proposed mural installation. He stated the size and scale of the proposed mural is not appropriate for this structure and noted that there are other more appropriate locations for this mural. There were no further public speakers on this topic. There was discussion regarding the goal of tonight’s discussion and it was confirmed that Ms. Ransom’s goal for this discussion was to introduce the project and address concerns before returning to a future meeting to seek a formal recommendation from the Board. There was additional concern expressed regarding the impact of the proposed paint and sealant materials on the structure as well as concern with the subject of the mural and the overall size and scale of the mural. Further, there was discussion regarding alternative locations and or installation methods for the mural. Ms. Ransom stated she would like to discuss the Board’s concerns with the Commission on Public Art and return with further information at a future meeting. Further, she also noted that the Commission is planning to relaunch the Arts & Cultural District during the July 4th weekend. Consent Agenda Chairman Minchew opened the consent agenda items for discussion at 8:12 pm and determined that there was no public comment or Board discussion for the following items. a. TLHP-2021-0057, 101 Meherrin Terrace SW Project: Window Replacement b. TLHP-2021-0049, 207 South King Street Project: Exterior Alterations c. TLHP-2021-0051, 218 Cornwall St NW Project: Addition d. TLHP-2021-0040, 2-5 Stationmaster Street SE (King Street Station) Project: Amendment to Previous COA – Building Material Change e. TLHP-2021-0055, 212A Loudoun Street SE (Greenheart Wellness LLC) Project: Exterior Alterations At 8:14pm, Mr. O’Neil proposed a motion to approve TLHP=2021-0040, 2-5 Stationmaster Street SE, under the consent agenda with all conditions and clarifications as stated in the staff report. The motion was seconded by Ms. Nicholson and approved by a 6-0-1 vote (Pastor recused). At 8:15pm, Ms. Pastor proposed a motion to approve items TLHP-2021-0057, 101 Meherrin Terrace SW, TLHP-2021-0049, 207 South King Street, TLHP-2021-0051, 218 Cornwall Street NW, and TLHP-2021-0055, 212A Loudoun Street SE, under the consent agenda with all conditions and clarifications as stated in the staff reports. The motion was seconded by Mr. O’Neil and approved by a 7-0 vote. Public Hearings on New Cases in the H-1 Overlay District a. TLHP-2021-0054, 404 Madison Court SE Project: Exterior Alterations Chairman Minchew called the case to order at 8:17pm. BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BUSINESS MEETING MINUTES May 17, 2021 Page 4 of 12 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING · 25 WEST MARKET STREET · LEESBURG, VIRGINIA 20176 Telephone 703.771.2765 · Fax 703.771.2724 · www.leesburgva.gov/planning Ms. Parry provided a brief overview of the proposal to remove an existing shed porch roof in the rear and install a new deck on this circa 1970 duplex structure. She noted this structure is unusual in that the boundary for the Old & Historic District divides the duplex structure so that this address is in the Historic District but the other half of the duplex structure is not. She stated the shed porch roof is a late 20th century addition and does not contribute to the architectural style of the structure. She stated the proposed deck will be at a similar height as the shed roof and is proposed to be constructed with Trex decking and a white vinyl 36-inch high railing with black aluminum pickets. She clarified that the deck will have stairs down the right side and will be accessed from the ground as there is no second story door leading to the deck. Further, she noted her finding that the proposal is in keeping with the Guidelines; however, the proposed vinyl railing does not have a traditional appearance and is not consistent with the Guidelines. The applicant’s representative, Marshall Painter, was present. Mr. Painter presented an alternate aluminum railing for the deck, noting this railing system had previously received approval from the Board for installation elsewhere in the Historic District. Further, he noted that his client is unclear as to why her home is in the Historic District. There was discussion regarding the location of this structure within the Historic District and the nature of having the duplex structure split by the Historic District boundary. There was also discussion regarding the lack of access to the deck from the structure and Mr. Painter was asked whether the applicant intends to install a door leading to the deck in the future. Mr. Painter stated the applicant would like to convert one of the rear windows to a door under a separate application. The public hearing was opened at 8:28pm. There were no petitioners and the hearing was closed. There was additional discussion regarding the proposal and it was the consensus of the Board that the alternate aluminum railing system proposed by the applicant is approvable in the context of this structure. At 8:30pm Vice Chair Reimers proposed a motion to approve TLHP-2021-0054, 404 Madison Court SE, based on the information provided by the applicant as revised through May 17, 2021. The approval is further based on the following findings and subject to the following conditions: 1. The subject structure is a contemporary duplex in an isolated cul-de-sac neighborhood built in the late 20th century (Circa 1970). The structure has no discernable architectural style and was constructed in a suburban style typical of construction in the late 20th century. It does not contribute to the overall character of the district. Further, the structure is unique in that the boundary of the Old & Historic District runs through this structure so that only half of the structure is in the district. 2. Madison Court is a cul-de-sac neighborhood of similar aged duplex houses with some properties that back up to historic homes along South King Street. The subject structure is not adjacent to any historic structures and the neighborhood has no historic context. 3. The proposal to remove the existing patio roof is consistent with the Guidelines as it is a contemporary structure and is easily removable without causing damage to the primary structure. 4. The proposal to construct a deck on the rear of this structure is consistent with the intent of the Guidelines given the location on the rear and its compatibility with the architecture of this structure as well as its context in the contemporary neighborhood. Further, the construction of a deck in this location to replace the existing roof presents no net negative impact on the overall character of the district. 5. The proposed Trex decking material is acceptable in this instance due to the modern nature of decks in general and the location of this specific deck at the rear of a late 20th century structure with limited impact on the overall character of the property and the District. 6. The proposed vinyl railing is not consistent with the Guidelines as it does not visual approximate wood construction and presents an overly decorative and contemporary appearance. 7. The Key-Link aluminum railing will be installed and details of this railing will be submitted to the Preservation Planner for final review prior to application of a zoning permit. BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BUSINESS MEETING MINUTES May 17, 2021 Page 5 of 12 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING · 25 WEST MARKET STREET · LEESBURG, VIRGINIA 20176 Telephone 703.771.2765 · Fax 703.771.2724 · www.leesburgva.gov/planning 8. The ends of the deck will be trimmed with either a skirt board or picture framing to disguise the cut ends of the Trex. The motion was seconded by Ms. Pastor. Chairman Minchew proposed a friendly amendment to state that the style of trim to cover the ends of the deck boards will be submitted to the Preservation Planner for approval prior to the issuance of a Zoning Permit. The friendly amendment was accepted and the amended motion was approved by a 7-0 vote. b. TLHP-2021-0039, 22 Cornwall Street NE Project: Roof replacement and dormer alteration Chairman Minchew called the case to order at 8:33pm. Ms. Parry provided a brief overview of the proposal for in-kind replacement of the shingle roof on the historic core of this structure, replacement of the standing seam metal roof with asphalt shingles on the rear addition, and replacement of the asphalt shingle siding on the dormers with Hardieplank siding. She stated her finding that the in-kind replacement of the asphalt shingle roof is approvable in this instance, noting that the original roofing material is not known and the existing shingle roof was installed with approval in the 1990’s. Further, she recommended additional Board discussion regarding the change in roof material for the rear addition as well as the use of Hardieplank siding on the doormers in the historic portion of the structure. The applicant, Anthony Aiken, was present. He noted the level of difficulty in accessing the dormers for maintenance, stating he would prefer to clad the dormers with Hardieplank as opposed to wood. There was discussion regarding the dormers and it was noted that the original cladding material was wood which was covered with the asphalt shingles in the late 1990’s. There was also discussion regarding the pitch of the roof on the addition and it was confirmed that the applicant’s contractor believes that there is adequate pitch for the installation of asphalt shingles. Further, there was discussion regarding the possibility of installing thermally modified wood to clad the dormers as it requires less maintenance than standard pressure treated wood. The public hearing was opened at 8:47pm. There were no petitioners and the hearing was closed at 8:47pm. It was the consensus of the Board that the proposal to install asphalt shingles on the rear addition is approvable given that asphalt shingles have already been installed on the historic core and the addition should not appear older or higher style than the original structure. There was also consensus that a wood product be installed to clad the dormers rather than the proposed Hardieplank siding. At 8:52pm, Ms. Pastor proposed a motion to approve TLHP-2021-0039, 22 Cornwall Street NE, based on the information provided by the applicant, as revised through May 17, 2021. The approval is further based on the findings and subject to the conditions as stated below: 1. The primary structure is a historic circa 1900 Colonial Revival residence with two dormers and a two-story rear addition. The historic survey for this property indicates that there has been a building on this site as early as 1878 and even earlier by deed reference. It also notes that it is possible that the current house my incorporate an early brick covenant house or may have been built around or upon the foundation of a previous structure. Additionally, the survey notes that this home was constructed by the Norris Brothers who are known to have rebuilt/remodeled earlier buildings into new architectural styles. Further, the exterior of the home is pebble-dash stucco and the home sits at the corner of Cornwall Street NE and Church Street NE. 2. The proposal to permit the in-kind replacement of the asphalt shingle roof on the original historic core of the structure is approvable given that this material has been used to sheath this portion of the structure for some time. Alternatively, should the applicant desire, it would be approvable to BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BUSINESS MEETING MINUTES May 17, 2021 Page 6 of 12 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING · 25 WEST MARKET STREET · LEESBURG, VIRGINIA 20176 Telephone 703.771.2765 · Fax 703.771.2724 · www.leesburgva.gov/planning install another roofing material that is more in-keeping with the style and age of the structure, such as standing seam meal or other original roofing material, if known. 3. The applicant has provided adequate justification to show severe deterioration of the existing standing seam metal roof such as to necessitate the replacement of this material. While the addition is of such an age as to have gained significance in its own right, the continued use of standing seam metal roofing may lend the appearance that the addition is older or higher styled than the historic core of the structure which is sheathed in asphalt shingles. 4. The proposal to remove the asphalt shingles from the sides of the dormers on the structure is desirable and will provide a more traditional appearance. The replacement cladding material will be a wood product and details regarding the product shall be provided to the Preservation Planner for approval prior to installation. The motion was seconded by Ms. Nicholson and approved by a 7-0 vote. c. TLHP-2021-0044, 250 Loudoun Street SW Project: Exterior Alterations Chairman Minchew called this case to order at 8:54pm. Ms. Murphy noted the Board previously heard a case for the retroactive approval of alterations to this structure which was denied. She stated this new application proposes the construction of a new half-round porch stoop similar to the one that was removed, replacement of the top sashes of the aluminum clad 6/1 windows with a new aluminum clad sashes featuring simulated divided lites, replacement of the existing craftsman style door with a new half-lite wood door, and the installation of a light fixture by the side door at the end of the driveway. She stated the applicant also seeks retroactive approval for the replacement of an existing half-lite rear door and picture window with a new aluminum clad sliding glass door, the preplacement of a stone walkway with a new flagstone walkway, replacement of the asphalt driveway in-kind, installation of a new flagstone paver patio in the rear yard and installation of two mini-split HVAC units at the rear of the garage addition. She stated staff finds the walkway, driveway, light fixtures and patio to be consistent with the Guidelines as submitted. She stated the HVAC units are also generally consistent; however, the supporting appurtenances should be painted to match the siding. She expressed concern with other elements of the project including the revised front porch, the rear sliding door and the window alterations. Further, she stated that further discussion regarding these concerns is recommended. The applicant, Chris Zarou, was present. There was discussion regarding the possibility of scheduling a site visit to better understand the extent of the alterations. There was also discussion regarding various elements of the project, including the front stoop materials and design, the window materials and design, the sliding rear patio door, and window trim. The public hearing for this application was opened at 9:15pm. Richard Koochagian, 212 Loudoun Street SW, expressed concern with the metal clad windows, noting he finds them to be inappropriate for a historic structure. He stated the changes in the window and door trim have significantly altered the character of this structure and should be put back to their previous state. He also expressed concern with the removal of the two windows on the east side, noting the visibility of this elevation. Further, he expressed concern that the building, as altered, no longer fits in the neighborhood or vocabulary of the Historic District. There were no additional speakers and the public hearing was closed at 9:16pm. There was additional discussion regarding the areas where progress has been made with this application, areas of continued concern, and the need for further clarification regarding the full scope of modifications made to this structure. It was the consensus of the Board to schedule a site visit and continue discussion of this application to the June 9, 2021 work session. BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BUSINESS MEETING MINUTES May 17, 2021 Page 7 of 12 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING · 25 WEST MARKET STREET · LEESBURG, VIRGINIA 20176 Telephone 703.771.2765 · Fax 703.771.2724 · www.leesburgva.gov/planning At 9:30pm, Vice Chair Reimers proposed a motion to continue TLHP-2021-0044, 250 Loudoun Street SW, to a site visit and further discussion at the June 9, 2021 work session. The motion was seconded by Ms. Pastor and approved by a 7-0 vote. d. TLHP-2021-0048, 239 West Market Street Project: Window Replacement Chairman Minchew called this case to order at 9:31pm. Ms. Parry provided a brief overview of the proposal to replace an existing 6/6 vinyl clad window on the west elevation of a rear addition with a rectangular aluminum clad awning window and siding infill. She stated the applicant has proposed this alteration to address privacy concerns as this window is located in a bathroom in close proximity to the neighboring property. She noted there is a double awning window of similar size on the east elevation of the addition, stating the applicant has indicated their willingness to have the new window match this window. She expressed concern that the rectangular shape of the proposed replacement window would disrupt the fenestration pattern. Further, she recommended approval of the application with the installation of a replacement window of similar design to the other windows on the west elevation. The applicant, Judd Fuoto, was present. He discussed the privacy concerns necessitating the proposed window replacement and the proximity of the bathroom window to the neighbor’s driveway. There was discussion regarding the possibility of a single square awning style replacement window versus the proposed rectangular window. Mr. Fuoto stated he would be comfortable with a square window as long as it is installed at an adequate height to address the privacy concerns. The public hearing was opened at 9:40pm. There were no petitioners and the hearing was closed. There was further discussion regarding the proportion and configuration of the replacement window, noting that the width of the square window should be similar in width to the two existing windows on that elevation to maintain the rhythm. There was also discussion regarding the appropriateness of adding simulated divided lites to the window, in keeping with the muntin configuration of the existing windows. At 9:45pm Ms. Nicholson proposed a motion to approve TLHP-2021-0048, 239 West Market Street, based on the application materials as revised through May 17, 2021. The approval was further based on the findings and subject to the conditions of approval as stated below: 1. The subject structure is a Colonial Revival home constructed 1810-1815. The survey notes that the original dwelling features log construction that has been obscured by the present façade of brick stretcher bond veneer. The main entrance is on the east elevation. There is also a one-story wood frame rear addition with an asymmetrical gable roof. Two of the elevations were reclad in brick veneer and a third side was stuccoed. In 1996, just prior to the most recent survey the one story addition was added down the west elevation and across the rear onto the east elevation. 2. The subject window is located in an addition to this structure which received approval from the Board of Architectural Review in 1996. The existing vinyl clad window was likely a later replacement. Given the material and contemporary age of this window, its removal and replacement is appropriate and in keeping with the Guidelines. 3. The replacement window will be constructed of aluminum clad materials with simulated divided lites and will be square, sized in proportion with the width of the remaining windows on this elevation. Chairman Minchew proposed a friendly amendment to add that final drawings of the window design and placement will be provided to staff for approval prior to installation. The friendly amendment was accepted and the motion was seconded by Vice Chair Reimers. The amended motion was approved by a 7-0 vote. BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BUSINESS MEETING MINUTES May 17, 2021 Page 8 of 12 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING · 25 WEST MARKET STREET · LEESBURG, VIRGINIA 20176 Telephone 703.771.2765 · Fax 703.771.2724 · www.leesburgva.gov/planning e. TLHP-2021-0056, 16 Ayr Street SW Project: Exterior Alterations Chairman Minchew called this case to order at 9:46pm. Ms. Murphy provided a brief overview of the application to install board and batten shutters, install a canopy above the front door, and repaint the historic structure at 16 Ayr Street SW. She noted the structure may have been originally constructed as a barn or stable and expressed some concern with the proposed shutters and front door overhang in this context. Further, she recommended that the shutters remain as existing or be removed entirely, that the proposed paint color change be approved and that there be further discussion with the applicant regarding the appropriateness of the proposed roof overhang. The applicant, Doug Slitor, was present. Mr. Slitor stated he does believe the board and batten style shutters are relative to his building as it was originally a stable for 246 Loudoun Street SW. He stated his existing shutters are not properly sized and are screwed into the structure. Further, he stated the new shutters would be operable. There was discussion regarding the details and appropriateness of the proposed shutters and front door roof. The public hearing was opened at 10:02pm. There were no petitioners and the hearing was closed. There was additional discussion regarding the proposals and it was the consensus of the Board that the installation of operable wood board and batten shutters would have a no net negative impact on the structure. There was also support from the Board for the paint color change and the installation of a roof overhang above the front door; however, there was concern regarding the design of the overhang as currently proposed. Further, it was the consensus of the Board to continue this application to allow the applicant to provide further details and design revisions for the front door overhang. At 10:16pm, Ms. Pastor proposed a motion to defer TLHP-2021-0056, 16 Ayr Street SW, to the June 9, 2021 work session. The motion was seconded by Ms. Nicholson and approved by a 7-0 vote. f. TLHP-2021-0058, 210 North King Street Project: Exterior Alterations Chairman Minchew called this case to order at 10:17pm. Ms. Murphy provided a brief overview of the proposal to remove an existing enclosed porch, kitchen, and deck on this mid 19th Century structure. She discussed the evaluation criteria for demolition requests as outlined in the Old and Historic District Design Guidelines in the context of the proposal. She stated the subject porch enclosure and kitchen addition are later additions to the historic structure and noted that the feeling of the house is already negatively impacted by the insensitivity of some of these alterations. She noted that a site visit by staff disclosed that the areas proposed for removal are substantially deteriorated and further stated that the applicant’s conceptual design, which will return for approval, shows reconstruction of the porch and kitchen areas as well as a more appropriate treatment for the rear deck. Further, she recommended approval of the application as submitted. The project architect, Wiley Cooke, and property owner, Sharon Virts, were present. Mr. Cooke noted that some of the additions on to the structure have structural issues and need to be addressed. He stated the original lap siding is still on the interior wall of the side porch and the original stone foundation for the structure is there as well. Further, he noted repairs would also be needed to structure and detailing of the front porch. There was a brief discussion regarding the restoration of this structure, noting that several of the proposed items are able to be approved administratively; however, the Board will need to take action on the demolition request. BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BUSINESS MEETING MINUTES May 17, 2021 Page 9 of 12 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING · 25 WEST MARKET STREET · LEESBURG, VIRGINIA 20176 Telephone 703.771.2765 · Fax 703.771.2724 · www.leesburgva.gov/planning The public hearing was opened at 10:30pm. There were no petitioners and the hearing was closed. There was discussion regarding the extensive deterioration documented with this structure and the justification provided for the removal of the areas proposed for demolition to allow restoration efforts to continue. It was the consensus of the Board that the proposal is approvable as submitted. At 10:32pm, Vice Chair Reimers proposed a motion to approve TLHP-2021-0058, 210 North King Street, as proposed and based on the following findings: 1. The subject building was constructed in the 19th century and is a classic example of the Gothic Revival architectural style. 2. The proposed areas for demolition (enclosed rear porch, rear addition and deck) are later alterations to the structure. The applicant has documented the deteriorating condition of these areas to support the request to demolish. The proposal is generally consistent with the Guidelines for Demolition which allow for the removal of structures (or portions of structures) when their historic integrity is diminished beyond recognition or repair. 3. A future Certificate of Appropriateness will be submitted to replace the areas demolished in a sensitive and contextually appropriate manner. g. TLHP-2021-0053, 106A South Street SE (Wild Hare) Project: Exterior Alterations Chairman Minchew called this case to order at 10:34pm. Ms. Murphy outlined the proposal to add a porch feature above the existing rear patio/deck areas on this historic cabin structure. She noted the cabin was relocated to this site from Western Loudoun during the construction of the Market Station development in the late 20th century. She expressed concern with the proposed scale, materials and design of the structure, noting that the patio covering is a departure from the Guidelines; however, the substantial alterations to this site allow for the introduction of more innovative approaches to outdoor dining than might be acceptable in other commercial areas of Historic District. Further, she recommended a detailed discussion of this proposal in a work session setting to aid the applicant in determining possible alternatives to the current proposal that would be contextually sensitive to the history of the building. The applicant, Jim Madaj, was present. He stated the extra covered space made available with this proposal is needed for his business to remain in its current location. He stated he does have some flexibility in terms of the design and materials; however, he does not have that level of flexibility in terms of the size of the enclosure. There was discussion regarding the approximate age of the two story porch on the rear of the cabin and whether that may have been a more contemporary addition. There was also discussion regarding the proposed roof materials and whether something more temporary in nature, such as an awning, may address massing concerns with the proposal. Mr. Madaj stated he would like to keep the footprint of the structure as proposed to match the existing patio area and noted his concern that a temporary soft covering or an open roof, such as a pergola, would not adequately address his needs. The public hearing was opened at 10:56pm. There were no speakers and the hearing was closed. There was further discussion regarding the proposal and the additive massing created with the proposed porch roof wrapping the rear and side of the structure to the front. There was discussion regarding various ways to address concerns such as stepping the roof away from the stone chimney on the side, lowering the pitch of the roof, evaluating the material selections and adjusting the height at which the porch roof attaches to the cabin structure. It was the consensus of the Board that a site visit is needed to view the existing structure and context of the site in terms of the overall proposal. At 11:02pm, Vice Chair Reimers proposed a motion to defer TLHP-2021-0053, 106A South Street SE, to the June 9, 2021 work session and request that staff work with the applicant to schedule a site visit prior to the work session discussion. BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BUSINESS MEETING MINUTES May 17, 2021 Page 10 of 12 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING · 25 WEST MARKET STREET · LEESBURG, VIRGINIA 20176 Telephone 703.771.2765 · Fax 703.771.2724 · www.leesburgva.gov/planning The motion was seconded by Ms. Pastor and approved by a 7-0 vote. h. TLHP-2021-0050, 330 West Market Street Project: Exterior Alterations Ms. Pastor called this case to order at 11:03pm. Ms. Parry provided a brief overview of the proposed exterior alterations to a historic accessory structure on the property at 330 West Market Street. She stated the proposal includes construction of a brick front stoop, the addition of new Dutch wood storm doors on the second floor loft and the addition of a new wood second story window on the rear elevation. She noted that the front stoop will match the width of the entry door and will be constructed of brick sourced on site. She stated the storm doors will match the size and detail of the existing loft doors; however, the infill panels will be glass to allow light into the space and to allow the detail of the historic doors to be visible when the storm doors are closed. She stated that the new window is proposed for the rear to provide natural light and that the applicant has sourced two window sashes of similar age to the subject structure to be placed in a custom frame. Further, she stated the overall proposal is in keeping with the Guidelines as well as best preservation practice for the maintenance of historic structures, noting the minimal nature of the alterations and recommending approval with conditions to clarify the type of mortar proposed for the stoop and final details of the storm doors and window. The applicants, Randy and Teresa Minchew, were present. Mr. Minchew discussed the need for these alterations to increase the functionality of the space. There was discussion regarding support for the proposal overall as well as the possibility of providing flexibility to the applicant in granting approval for the proposed custom window or a new wood window if so desired. The public hearing was opened at 11:18pm. There were no petitioners and the hearing was closed. At 11:18pm, Mr. O’Neil proposed a motion to approve TLHP-2021-0050, 330 West Market Street, based on the application materials as revised through May 17, 2021. The motion was further based on the findings and subject to the conditions as stated below: 1. The primary structure on the site is a historic Colonial Revival/Queen Anne structure built in 1899. There are six other historic accessory structures also located on the site. The subject structure is the 1899 Laundry House structure which is two-stories and constructed of wood frame and weatherboard siding. It has a central front shingled gable and 6/6 sash double-hung windows. The structure is internal to the property and is not visible from the public right-of-way. 2. The proposal to construct a stoop at the front entry of the structure using bricks of a similar age to the structure and sourced on site is in keeping with the Guidelines for materials and treatment of front entry features. 3. The proposal to add the custom storm door over the original loft doors on the structure will have minimal impact on the appearance of this historic structure and meets the intent of the Guidelines with regard to the retention of historic materials by ensuring that the storm doors have the same material, profiles and configuration as their associated historic door. 4. In this particular instance, the proposal to add a new window on the rear of this historic accessory structure is consistent with the Guidelines given that the window opening is not located on a primary elevation, the opening will be of similar size to other windows on the elevation, and the material of the proposed window is appropriate to the age and architectural style of the building. Further, the proposal to install a custom window made of sourced wood sashes similar in age and dimension to the existing windows in the structure will ensure an appearance that is in keeping with the architectural style and does not detract from the historic character of the structure. 5. Final details of the storm door and window will be provided to the Preservation Planner for approval. 6. The applicant has the option of substituting a new wood window, matching the details and dimension of the existing windows, if desired, rather than using the sourced sashes. 7. A lime based mortar in a “buff” color will be used in constructing the stoop with the sourced historic bricks. BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BUSINESS MEETING MINUTES May 17, 2021 Page 11 of 12 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING · 25 WEST MARKET STREET · LEESBURG, VIRGINIA 20176 Telephone 703.771.2765 · Fax 703.771.2724 · www.leesburgva.gov/planning The motion was seconded by Ms. Aikman and approved by a 5-0-2 vote (Minchew and Reimers recused). Chairman Minchew called a recess at 11:19pm. The meeting reconvened at 11:22pm. New Cases in the H-2 Historic Corridor Overlay District a. TLHP-2021-0052, 524 Trimble Plaza SE (Sonic) Project: New Construction Chairman Minchew called this case to order at 11:22pm. Ms. Murphy provided a brief overview of the proposal to construct a new drive-through restaurant within the Oaklawn development, which is proffered to design review under the H-2 Guidelines. She expressed concern with several elements of the project including compatibility with surrounding development, the massing and form of the structure, façade elements including bright corporate branding features as well as large unarticulated walls, design expression, materials, and site elements such as the large bright red canopies for the car-hop spaces. She noted that the Zoning Administrator will need to review the proposed signs, stating the extensive signage shown likely exceeds what is allowable under the Zoning Ordinance. Further, she recommended that the application be deferred to a work session for discussion of the outstanding concerns. The applicant, Kishan Chaniyara was present and representatives from Sonic, Ryan Trease and Wade Harden, were participating in the meeting via Webex. Mr. Chaniyara stated he is the franchisee for this business and he would like to receive some feedback from the Board on the design and direction to move forward at the next work session. There was discussion regarding the need to simplify the overall design and address concerns with the overall corporate architectural design. It was clarified that all mechanical equipment will be screened from the right-of-way. There was also discussion regarding the need to ensure that the overall design is compatible with other approved structures in this development such as the recently approved Chick-fil-A and Dunkin Donuts. Further, the architects for Sonic were asked if they have any experience working within an architectural design district. Mr. Harding stated the architects at Sonic have designed projects all over the country and have worked in areas such as this before. He stated seeing the recently approved structures in the development and hearing the feedback from the Board has provided some direction to inform design revisions and in-depth discussion for the work session. The public hearing was opened at 11:43pm. There were no petitioners and the hearing was closed. There was additional discussion regarding the Board’s purview in terms of the overall site design and building orientation. It was the consensus of the Board to defer discussion of this item to the next work session. At 11:46pm, Ms. Nicholson proposed a motion to defer discussion of TLHP-2021-0052, 524 Trimble Plaza SE, to the June 9, 2021 work session. The motion was seconded by Mr. Scheuerman and approved by a 7-0 vote. Items Not Requiring a Public Hearing None BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BUSINESS MEETING MINUTES May 17, 2021 Page 12 of 12 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING · 25 WEST MARKET STREET · LEESBURG, VIRGINIA 20176 Telephone 703.771.2765 · Fax 703.771.2724 · www.leesburgva.gov/planning Old Business a. Legacy Leesburg Town Plan Update Discussion of this item began at 11:47pm. Ms. Murphy stated at the last meeting there was discussion regarding some suggested edits to the draft Legacy Leesburg Town Plan document and a motion was approved at that time to allow the Chairman to send a letter summarizing discussion from that meeting to the Planning Commission. She stated the Chairman had some further edits that were not discussed during the previous meeting and direction is needed from the Board to allow these additional topics t to be included in the letter to the Planning Commission. There was discussion regarding these various proposed edits to the draft plan language as well as other comments offered by members of the Board. It was the consensus of the Board that Chairman Minchew and Ms. Murphy work together to refine the recommendations from the Board to the Planning Commission. New Business None Staff Announcements Ms. Murphy provided an update to the Board regarding the application for 16 Liberty Street SW that was approved at the April business meeting. She stated when the minutes for that meeting were being prepared it was noted that the public hearing for the application was not opened during the discussion. She stated at the direction of the Town Attorney’s office, the application will be readvertised for a public hearing to be held during the June 9, 2021 work session. There was also discussion regarding current COVID protocols which are beginning to ease and it was the consensus of the Board to return to full seating on the dais for future meetings. At 12:01am, Ms. Pastor proposed a motion to allow the Board to return to full seating on the dais for future meetings. The motion was seconded by Ms. Nicholson and approved by a 7-0 vote. Adjournment On a motion by Ms. Pastor, seconded by Vice Chair Reimers, the meeting was adjourned at 12:05am on Tuesday, May 18, 2021 by a 7-0 vote. . Teresa Minchew, Chairman Deborah Parry, Planning & Zoning Analyst From:Julie Pastor To:Teresa Minchew Cc:Debi Parry; Lauren Murphy Subject:Disclosure for Recusal fromTLHP-2021-0040 Date:Thursday, May 13, 2021 10:37:42 AM Dear Chairman Minchew, In addition to making a verbal disclosure at our May 17th meeting, the Town Attorney has recommended that my request for recusal and reasons for Item #9g, TLHP-2021-0040 be made in writing to you and for the file with the Clerk. My husband and I are owners of a condominium in the King Street Station development (3 Stationmaster St. SE Unit 403) that is still under development and under the principal control of the developer who is the applicant for this Certificate of Appropriateness. As such, we could be positively or negatively affected by the outcome of any decision made on this case. I will therefore recuse myself from participation on this application. I understand that I am precluded from voting on the matter and must refrain from acting in any manner in the transaction on behalf of the BAR, and from discussing the matter with staff or any other BAR member or other Town officer at any time (within or outside of a meeting). Sincerely, Julie Pastor, FAICP TOWN OF LEESBURG - INTERNAL EMAIL THIS MESSAGE WAS SENT FROM AN INTERNAL ADDRESS