Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout10 04 2021 BAR Work Session Minutes LEESBURG BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW WORK SESSION MINUTES Monday, October 4, 2021 Town Hall, 25 West Market Street Council Chamber MEMBERS PRESENT: Vice Chair Paul Reimers, Parliamentarian Julie Pastor, Helen Aikman, Tom O’Neil, Erin Nicholson, and Planning Commission Liaison Gigi Robinson MEMBERS ABSENT: Teresa Minchew and Don Scheuerman STAFF: Preservation Planner Lauren Murphy and Planning & Zoning Analyst Debi Parry Call to Order and Roll Call Vice Chair Reimers called the meeting to order at 7:00 pm and noted that a quorum was present. Adoption of the Meeting Agenda At 7:01pm, Mr. O’Neil proposed a motion to adopt the meeting agenda. The motion was seconded by Ms. Pastor and approved by a 5-0-2 vote (Minchew and Scheuerman absent). BAR Member Disclosures Ms. Pastor disclosed that she owns property on Loudoun Street SW and is familiar with the property at 250 Loudoun Street SW. She further disclosed that other property owners on the street have communicated their concerns with her about this property. Vice Chair Reimers disclosed that he will facilitate discussion regarding the application at 15 South King Street; however, he will abstain from voting on case. Presentations & Public Comment None Continued Cases in the H-1 Overlay Old & Historic District a. TLHP-2021-0115, 250 Loudoun Street SW Project: Exterior Alteration - Doors Discussion of this item began at 7:02pm. Ms. Murphy provided a brief overview of the proposal to replace the existing front and garage entry doors at 250 Loudoun Street SW. She stated the existing doors were installed by the previous owner and were not found to be appropriate for the structure. She stated the previous owner received approval for replacement doors; however, the new owner of the home does not like the approved doors and is seeking an alternative option. She stated at the previous meeting some members of the Board expressed concern with the rain glass panels in the proposed door and asked to see a material sample of the glass. Further, she recommend that the Board provide guidance as to the appropriateness of the proposed wood door with the ¾ rain glass panels. The applicant, Becky Outten, was present. There was discussion regarding the rain glass and Ms. Outten noted that she was unable to get a sample to bring to the meeting. There was also discussion regarding the previously approved door and it was noted that Ms. Outten prefers the appearance of the proposed door. Further, there was discussion regarding the applicant’s concerns with having clear glass in the door, such as privacy and security. BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW WORK SESSION MINUTES October 4, 2021 Page 2 of 5 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING · 25 WEST MARKET STREET · LEESBURG, VIRGINIA 20176 Telephone 703.771.2765 · Fax 703.771.2724 · www.leesburgva.gov/planning At 7:10pm Vice Chair Reimers opened the discussion to the public. There were no petitioners. The Board discussed the appropriateness of the proposed door and it was clarified that the front door and garage door do not have to match unless desired by the applicant. The majority of the Board felt that the door itself was approvable; however, there was concern with the proposed rain glass given the lack of a sample. There was also concern regarding the applicant’s need for privacy and discussion regarding treatments that could be applied to clear glass such as a curtain or a film. Further, the applicant indicated that she would be willing to install the proposed door with clear glass. At 7:21pm Ms. Pastor proposed a motion to approve TLHP-2021-0115 to install two new doors on the historic property at 250 Loudoun Street SW as authorized in Section 2.3.7 of the Leesburg Zoning Ordinance and based on the following findings and conditions: 1. The subject structure was constructed in the late 19th or very early 20th century in a vernacular style. The structure has undergone substantial alterations in the last quarter of the 20th century and into the 21st century. 2. A previous owner of the subject property removed the half-lite wood doors and replaced them with the currently installed quarter-lite doors without an approved Certificate of Appropriateness. This action, in conjunction with other unauthorized alterations to the property, resulted in a zoning violation on the subject property. To address the violation, the previous owner secured approval from the BAR under TLHP-2021-0044 to install new doors which were nearly identical to the doors removed. 3. With this request (TLHP-2021-0115), the new owner and applicant seeks approval from the BAR to install an alternative door style. The revised door is a wood, ¾ glass door with simulated divided lites. a. The proposed rain glass is not acceptable in this instance because it does not have a traditional appearance, does not have historic precedence in the district, and, a physical sample of the glass was not available during the review of the proposal. Therefore the BAR finds that the most appropriate treatment of the door is to install traditional glass and treat the interior with a removable film to provide the privacy desired by the applicant. 4. The Guidelines allow for the introduction of alterative door styles when they are consistent with the architectural character of the structure. Given the age and vernacular style of this structure the most appropriate door styles are either a fully paneled (solid) door, or a half-lite door as was approved by the BAR under TLHP-2021-0044. a. The revised door style is also generally appropriate to the architecture of the structure and is therefore acceptable in this case. 5. The most appropriate material for front doors in historic structures is wood as proposed by the applicant. The motion also included the following conditions: 1. The proposed door at the front entry will be wood with a ¾ clear glass panel. The glass will be smooth (not artistic) and the applicant may, at their discretion, install privacy treatments to the interior of the door. The motion was seconded by Ms. Nicholson and approved by a 5-0-2 vote (Minchew and Scheuerman absent). b. TLHP-2021-0116, 15 South King Street Project: Exterior Alterations – Siding and Window Replacements Discussion of this item began at 7:22pm. Ms. Murphy noted that a site visit was held earlier this evening with the Board to examine the condition of the windows proposed for replacement. She provided a brief overview of the proposal to replace the wood windows with vinyl on the rear alley addition, to eliminate two windows, and to replace the previously removed wood siding with Hardieplank siding. She stated the siding was removed during the in-kind roof replacement in 2020, noting the applicant has stated that the siding was a mix of wood and aluminum. She stated the Guidelines clearly support replacement in-kind and recommended that wood siding be installed to match as closely as possible to the siding that was removed. She noted the Guidelines for windows also clearly support replacement in-kind when repair BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW WORK SESSION MINUTES October 4, 2021 Page 3 of 5 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING · 25 WEST MARKET STREET · LEESBURG, VIRGINIA 20176 Telephone 703.771.2765 · Fax 703.771.2724 · www.leesburgva.gov/planning is not possible, noting the rear addition appears to be contemporary with the main block, constructed in 1886. Further, she recommended the elimination of the two windows as requested by the applicant and the replacement of the remaining windows with wood in 6/6 and 2/2 sash configurations to match existing. The applicant, Fabian Saeidi, and his contractor, Eric Bradley were present. There was discussion regarding the proposed material for the replacement windows and Mr. Bradley noted that his supplier is unable to order wood windows. At 7:28pm Vice Chair Reimers opened the discussion to the public. There were no petitioners. There was discussion regarding findings at the site visit including the severe deterioration of the existing wood windows and evidence of alterations that were made to raise the roof of the structure without approval from the Board. There was discussion regarding the need to install wood siding and wood windows on this structure given the historic nature of this building. There was also discussion regarding the availability of wood siding and wood windows with Board members giving several examples of wood windows that have been previously approved and can be ordered. Mr. Saeidi stated this portion of the building is not historic and it was noted that he could ask for a deferral to the next work session to gather evidence of this finding. There was also discussion regarding how the Old and Historic District Design Guidelines are applied to historic structures and new construction in the district. It was the consensus of the Board that wood windows and wood siding would be the most appropriate treatment for this structure in the absence of any new information regarding the age of the addition. Further, it was also the consensus of the Board that the removal of two windows to be covered by siding is approvable in this instance. At 8:02pm Mr. O’Neil proposed a motion to approve TLHP-2021-0116, 15 South King Street, as authorized in Section 2.3.7 of the Leesburg Zoning Ordinance, based on the following conditions and clarifications: 1. The windows will be replaced with wood windows of which a manufacture’s information sheet will be submitted to staff for approval. 2. The two windows in the rear wall of the front of the building will be a 2/2 muntin pattern and the remainder of the windows will be a 6/6 muntin pattern. 3. The two windows in the rear may be removed and covered with siding. 4. The replacement siding will be wood with a 4”-6” lap details of which will be submitted to staff for review. 5. The roof on the building was raised and replaced without approval from the Board of Architectural Review and is noted here for the record. Ms. Pastor offered a friendly amendment to include the following findings: 1. The subject structure is a c. 1880s commercial duplex located on King Street. The building was constructed in a vernacular style with stylistic influences, most especially the modillioned cornice, which are rooted in the Italianate period. Based on the evidence found in the Sanborn Insurance Maps, the portion of the building proposed for synthetic siding and windows is located at the rear of the main block. The main block of the structure is masonry with large storefront windows. The rear ell (and the subject of this application) was clad in wood [possible addition: and a mix of other non-traditional siding materials]. 2. The Old and Historic District Guidelines are grounded in the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation of historic structures, which are the national benchmark used to determine the appropriateness of historic preservation projects in locally designated historic districts. 3. The retention of historic material is essential to the preservation of individual structures within the Old and Historic District and to the retention of the authentic character of the District as a whole. 4. The Guidelines specifically call for the retention of historic wood details, including siding (OHD Guidelines, Chapter 6 – Guidelines for Existing Structures: Materials, Section A – wood, guideline BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW WORK SESSION MINUTES October 4, 2021 Page 4 of 5 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING · 25 WEST MARKET STREET · LEESBURG, VIRGINIA 20176 Telephone 703.771.2765 · Fax 703.771.2724 · www.leesburgva.gov/planning 1) and repair of missing or damaged elements rather than replacement as a whole (OHD guidelines, chapter 6 – guidelines or existing structures: Materials, section a – wood, guideline 3). 5. When repair is no longer possible, the Guidelines call for existing historic material to be replaced in-kind with new material, which matches the existing in material, texture, dimension, and design. 6. The Guidelines specifically note that fiber cement siding should not be used as a replacement for wood siding if it is “architecturally incompatible” with the structure (OHD Guidelines, Chapter 6 – Guidelines for Existing Structures: Materials, Section A – Wood, Guideline 4). 7. As the subject structure is a historic building, which had historic lapped wood siding until it was removed by the applicant in 2020, staff finds that the request to replace the wood siding with new fiber cement siding is not consistent with the Guidelines. In this case, the most appropriate course of action is to replace the wood siding with new, wood siding to match the previous material as closely as possible. 8. For the windows appropriate for replacement, the appropriate course of action, as outlined in the Guidelines and the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards is to replace the windows in-kind with the same material, dimension, style, muntin patterns, and configuration. a. The replacement of historic, wood windows with vinyl eliminates essential, character defining, historic details of the building and diminishes the architectural authenticity of the individual building specifically and ultimately of the historic district as a whole. 9. The elimination of windows 3 and 10 on the applicant’s window schedule is acceptable in this instance because of their location on the rear of the building. The Guidelines expressly caution against changes to the fenestration on primary elevations but this proposed change will be located on a secondary elevation. Further, the elimination or alteration of window openings overtime is a common historic practice. The friendly amendment was accepted by Mr. O’Neil. The motion was seconded by Ms. Aikman and approved by a 4-0-1-2 vote (Reimers abstained; Minchew and Scheuerman absent). Continued Cases in the H-2 Historic Corridor Overlay District None Old Business a. Outreach Strategy Discussion of this item began at 8:06pm. Ms. Murphy noted the Board had discussed outreach initiatives at their August work session and that discussion was continued to this meeting. She stated some of the work has already begun, noting staff is updating the website, the applicant survey has been sent out and estimates have been received for the postcard mailer. Further she asked if the Board wished to add any additional items to the list or assign priorities to any of the items included. There was discussion regarding the initiatives captured during the previous discussion. There was additional discussion regarding outreach opportunities to reach new property owners in the Historic District as well as a desire to better educate other boards and commissions on the work of the BAR. Further, there was additional discussion regarding other elements of the plan and direction to begin moving forward based on the staff memo provided and discussion during the meeting. b. Zoning Ordinance Amendment – Administrative Approvals for Certificates of Appropriateness Discussion of this item began at 8:41pm. Ms. Murphy stated the draft ordinance language in the packet includes comments made during the previous discussion. She asked that the Board provide any additional feedback regarding the draft ordinance, noting the Planning Commission is scheduled to hold a public hearing on these amendments at their November 4th meeting after which a public hearing with the Town Council will be scheduled. BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW WORK SESSION MINUTES October 4, 2021 Page 5 of 5 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING · 25 WEST MARKET STREET · LEESBURG, VIRGINIA 20176 Telephone 703.771.2765 · Fax 703.771.2724 · www.leesburgva.gov/planning There was discussion regarding language in the amendment pertaining to review of accessory structures as well as review of administrative applications when the Preservation Planner position is vacant. After discussion it was the consensus of the Board that the language is acceptable with the changes noted. At 8:53pm, Ms. Pastor proposed a motion to forward the recommended language to the Town Council on the Zoning Ordinance amendment regarding administrative approvals as revised through this evening from the staff memo dated October 4, 2021. The motion was seconded by Ms. Nichols and approved by a 5-0-2 vote (Minchew and Scheuerman absent). New Business None Staff Announcements Discussion of this item began at 8:54pm. Ms. Murphy noted Board members should have received an invite to the Board and Commission networking event scheduled for October 27, 2021. Further, she noted upcoming training opportunities and asked Board members to contact her if they are interested in attending. Adjournment On a motion by Ms. Pastor, seconded by Ms. Aikman, the meeting adjourned at 8:56pm by a 5-0-2 vote (Minchew and Scheuerman absent). Paul Reimers, Vice Chairman Deborah Parry, Planning & Zoning Analyst