Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout2022_07_06 BAR Work Session Minutes LEESBURG BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW WORK SESSION MINUTES Wednesday, July 6, 2022 Town Hall, 25 West Market Street Council Chamber MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Helen Aikman, Vice Chair Teresa Minchew, Parliamentarian Julie Pastor, Erin Nicholson, Tom O’Neil, and Don Scheuerman, and Town Council Liaison Zach Cummings MEMBERS ABSENT: Paul Reimers STAFF: Planning & Zoning Director James David, Preservation Planner Lauren Murphy, Senior Planning Project Manager Scott Parker, Senior Planner Rich Klusek, and Planning & Zoning Analyst Deborah Parry Call to Order and Roll Call Chairman Aikman called the meeting to order at 7:00 pm and noted that a quorum was present. Adoption of the Meeting Agenda At 7:01pm, Vice Chair Minchew proposed a motion to adopt the meeting agenda. The motion was seconded by Ms. Pastor and approved by a 6-0-1 vote (Reimers absent). BAR Member Disclosures None Presentations & Public Comment None Continued Cases in the H-1 Overlay Old & Historic District a. TLHP-2022-0054, 14 Royal Street SE Alterations to a Previously Approved COA - Addition Chairman Aikman called this item to order at 7:02pm. Ms. Murphy provided a brief overview of the historic property at 14 Royal Street SE which was constructed circa 1890 and was the subject of a previous approval for a new addition under TLHP-2020-0084. She stated the purpose of this application is to address inconsistencies with the previous approval in how the addition was constructed. She noted the revised drawings provided by the applicant have addressed the majority of the concerns and recommended that a modest porch roof or canopy be constructed over the rear entry door to mitigate the visual impact of the rear elevation massing. Further, she recommended discussion of the revisions and provided draft findings and conditions for the Board’s consideration. The applicant, Joshua Cox Goldsberry, was present. He expressed concern with staff’s recommendation to add a porch roof or canopy over the rear door, noting the additional costs associated with that recommendation. Further, he outlined the proposed alterations made to correct the improperly constructed addition, including removing the roof to lower the wall height and bring the appearance more in line with the original approval. Keith Barron, contract purchaser for the home, noted that there have been mistakes made by the contractor along the way; however, he has concern with any additional requirements that may further delay construction. There was discussion regarding the review process for this application, noting that the addition was not constructed as previously approved. Further, there was also discussion regarding the revisions BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW WORK SESSION MINUTES July 6, 2022 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 discussed during this meeting and consensus that the small, bracketed roof over the rear door would address concerns with the largely unarticulated rear elevation. Further, there was additional discussion regarding the windows, siding, and roof pitch and there was consensus that the revisions are largely approvable. At 7:40pm, Mr. O’Neil proposed a motion to approve TLHP-2022-0054, 14 Royal Street SE, as authorized in Section 2.3.7 of the Zoning Ordinance, based on the information provided by the applicant as revised through July 6, 2022, including associated photos and specifications, and further based on the following findings and conditions: 1. The subject structure is a late 19th century vernacular structure. The front elevation is three bays wide with an asymmetrical entry and full-length front porch. The historic context of the structure has been substantially altered by insensitive contemporary construction along Royal Street and through alterations made to the subject property including the removal of historic material from historic additions. 2. The revised elevations for this addition reflect a more traditional mass and form that is generally consistent with other rear additions to modest homes in the District. 3. The proposed revised fenestration is consistent with the Guidelines and with the fenestration of secondary elevations on other surrounding structures. 4. The introduction of a new window in the historic main block is acceptable in this instance because it is a secondary elevation, the proposed window is a fully wood window, the location and trim are appropriate for the age and condition of the structure, and the addition of the window helps to articulate and balance the façade while also introducing light and areas of ingress/egress into the historic second floor. 5. The proposed materials are consistent with the Guidelines for new construction and are compatible with those approved under TLHP-2020-0084. The motion also included the following conditions: 1. A modest roof canopy will be installed over the rear door of the addition. The canopy will be constructed of wood, with brackets to anchor it to the structure (similar to other such structures approved in the historic district) and sheathed with asphalt shingles to match the structure. The final details and design of this canopy will be submitted to the Preservation Planner prior to submission of a zoning permit of the structure for review and approval. 2. The fascia of the addition will not exceed 1x8 in accordance with the approval of TLHP-2020-0084. 3. In the addition, the ridge will match the existing ridge as constructed before this hearing and as currently found in the field. The current ridge will remain in place and the roof pitch will be determined by matching the fascia height of the existing structure and keeping the existing ridge. 4. The siding on the rear elevation of the addition will be smooth finished, cement fiber siding with a reveal to match the installed siding on the right side of the addition. 5. The materials for the windows, gutters, trim, door, and the roof sheathing will be in accordance with those approved under TLHP-2020-0084. 6. Revised zoning/building permits will be submitted as required by the Town of Leesburg and Loudoun County. If the review of those permits necessitates changes to the exterior of the addition, a new COA application may be required. The motion was seconded by Vice Chair Minchew. Ms. Pastor proposed a friendly amendment to include the following finding as recommended by staff, the proposed alterations to the front porch are acceptable in this instance because they appear to have been conducted in-kind based on evidence observed in the field during the BAR site visit on June 9, 2022. Mr. O’Neil added an additional condition, stating the right-side elevation window placement will match the elevation drawing presented rather than the floor plans that were submitted. BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW WORK SESSION MINUTES July 6, 2022 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 The amendments were accepted, and the amended motion was approved by a 6-0-1 vote (Reimers absent). Continued Cases in the H-2 Historic Corridor or Gateway Districts None Cases Not Requiring a Public Hearing a. Referral for Russell Branch Retail Drive-Through – TLZM-2021-0012 & TLSE-2021-0005 Chairman Aikman called this item to order at 7:45pm. Mr. Klusek provided a brief overview of the proposed zoning concept plan and proffer amendment for buildings 6 and 7 in the Shops at Russell Branch retail development. He noted the proposed revisions would consolidate the two buildings totaling 9,000 square feet into one 7,000 square foot building and discussed the proposed special exception to add a drive-through use. Further, he discussed the site design and context within the overall shopping center as well as efforts by the applicant to address the Gateway Design Guidelines in providing four-sided architecture for the structure. Ms. Murphy noted her agreement with Mr. Klusek’s assessment in terms of the applicant’s efforts to address the Gateway Design Guidelines. The applicant’s representative, Molly Novotney, was present. There was discussion regarding parking and other site elements. There was also discussion regarding staff’s recommended change to the proffers for this portion of the site to be brought under Gateway District review rather than H-2 Corridor District review as part of this proposed legislative application. The Board expressed their consensus with staff’s assessment of the proposal. b. Referral for Lidl Grocery Store at Tuscarora Village – TLZM-2022-0005 Chairman Aikman called this item to order at 8:01pm. Mr. Klusek provided a brief overview of the proposed zoning concept plan and proffer amendment to allow for the construction of a Lidl grocery store on parcel 4A of the Tuscarora Village, previously known as Leegate, property. He noted the proposed proffer amendment would cover the entire Leegate property to address phasing triggers within the previously approved rezoning application. He stated the subject parcel is boarded by Trailview Boulevard, Battlefield Parkway, and Fort View Boulevard and provided perspective views of the proposed 31,000 square foot grocery store building. He expressed concern regarding the need for four-sided architecture and the siting of the building on the property, noting adjacent uses, utilities, and topography concerns. Further, he noted that the proposed site layout is not consistent with the Gateway District Guidelines and recommended a revised site layout and design to better address the Guidelines and site context. There was discussion regarding potential locations for the grocery store on the site and the layout of the associated parking, as well as the proposed buffer modifications requested by the applicant. The applicant’s representative, Molly Novotney, was present. Ms. Novotney provided background information regarding the Lidl company and the larger Leegate rezoning approval. She expressed concern regarding any change to the siting of the Lidl building noting the existing sewer lines and the additional expense of modifications that might result from moving the building. Further, she noted the proposed placement of the building better addresses the East Market Gateway as well as the existing residential and proposed commercial development surrounding the property and added that more could be done to articulate all four-sides of the building. BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW WORK SESSION MINUTES July 6, 2022 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 There was discussion regarding the unique site constraints with this property and concern expressed regarding the current orientation of the building on the site with the rear facing Battlefield Parkway and the need for four-sided architecture to address the street frontages and mitigate the visual mass of the structure. The applicant, Harris Johnson, addressed the Board. Mr. Johnson stated Lidl’s model as a discount grocery store is based on efficiency, noting the importance of the shape of the building and floor space. He stated that while there is limited wiggle room on those elements, there is an opportunity to make additional modifications to the exterior of the building to address concerns. Further, he discussed the proposed placement of the building on the site, noting that this orientation better addresses the Route 7 and main access for their customers as opposed to the recommendation that the building be turned so that the back faces Route 7. There was additional discussion regarding the importance addressing the Battlefield Parkway frontage and ensuring that the building addresses the Gateway District Design Guidelines in terms of four-sided architecture, which may necessitate two store frontages. It was noted that this application is coming to the Board during the first submission review period and that there may be an opportunity for the proposal to return to the Board for another referral review as the application evolves during the review process. c. Referral for Meadowbrook Neighborhood Center – TLZM-2021-0002 & TLSE-2021-0002 Chairman Aikman called this item to order at 8:44pm. Mr. Parker provided a brief overview of the rezoning and special exception application within the Gateway District to allow for a total of 34,000 square feet of retail development within five buildings, a 6,450 square foot gas station and car wash, as well as 65 residential townhome units. He noted that an eight-acre parcel, identified as Land Bay F on the plans, is to be left vacant under this proposal and designated as temporary open space. He provided a review of the location and details for each of the elements included with the plan, noting staff’s concern with the need for additional details regarding the proposed side and rear elevations of the residential units and the need for additional articulation and four-sided architectural treatment for the commercial buildings. Further, he noted that the applicant is proffering to continue the Journey Through Hallowed Ground trail and landscape palette across the entire King Street frontage of the property. The applicant’s representative, Bruce DeAtley, was present. Mr. DeAtley discussed the process that has been underway to develop the proposed concept plan, including discussions with staff, Council and members of the community. He stated this project is the second phase of the Meadowbrook development which began with the 400 single-family homes constructed in Meadowbrook Farm Estates. Further, he noted that future plans for Landbay F include senior housing; however, a Zoning Ordinance text amendment is needed before an application for that use can be submitted. There was discussion regarding the context of this property and the orientation of the townhomes along South King Street, as well as the need for all structures on the site to address the Gateway District Design Guidelines in terms of four-sided architecture. There was additional discussion regarding the placement of the gas station and gas canopy as well as the context of this use on the site and the adjacent uses. There was some concern regarding the proposed proffers, noting that the Gateway ordinance does allow additional flexibility in terms of administrative approval for buildings of a certain size. Further, it was also noted that the proffers should include language to state that the architecture of the buildings will be in general conformance as modified by the Certificate of Appropriateness process to allow for alterations to the architecture during the COA process. Old Business None New Business BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW WORK SESSION MINUTES July 6, 2022 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 a. Joint Architectural Review Board Awards Chairman Aikman called this item to order at 9:22pm. Ms. Murphy noted that the Joint Architectural Review Board will be meeting later in the month to choose award recipients for 2022 from Loudoun County, Purcellville, Middelburg, and Leesburg. She noted that the program had been paused for several years and therefore the review period has been expanded to capture excellent projects from the past six years. Further, she outlined several projects within the Town of Leesburg as potential nominees, including the following: • 207 South King Street • 330 West Market Street • 32 South King Street • 1 North King Street • 13 South King Street • 24 South King Street • 218 Cornwall Street NW It was the consensus of the Board that each of the projects discussed be presented as nominees for the 2022 Joint Architectural Review Board Awards. Staff Announcements None Adjournment On a motion by Mr. O’Neil, seconded by Ms. Nicholson, the meeting adjourned at 9:49pm by a 6-0-1 vote (Reimers absent). Helen Aikman, Chairman Deborah Parry, Planning & Zoning Analyst July 6, 2022 Board of Architectural Review Work Session (Note: This is a transcript prepared by a Town contractor based on the video of the meeting. It may not be entirely accurate. For greater accuracy, we encourage you to review the video of the meeting that is on the Town’s website – www.leesburgva.gov or refer to the approved Board of Architectural Review meeting minutes. The Board’s meeting videos are retained for three calendar years after a meeting per Library of Virginia Records Retention guidelines.) Chairman Aikman: Never used the gavel before. Good evening and welcome to the July 6, 2022 work session of the Town of Leesburg Board of Architectural Review. We have a full agenda tonight and we appreciate you all coming out this evening. Following the agenda here, the meeting is called to order for roll call this evening, We have everyone here from the Board except Paul Reimers. I'm Helen Aikman, the Chair for 2022. This is our Vice Chair, Terri Minchew. Our Parliamentarian is Julie Pastor and additional members are Don Scheuerman at that end. Tom O'Neil here and Erin Nicholson beside Tom. We do have a quorum this evening. The first order item of business is to adopt the agenda for the evening. Do I have a motion to adopt? Vice Chair Minchew: So moved. Ms. Pastor Chairman Aikman: All in favor? Board Members: Aye. Chairman Aikman: All opposed? The agenda is adopted by a vote of six to zero with one absence. The next item on the agenda is BAR member disclosure. This is an opportunity for members of the Board to disclose any contacts they've had or any conflicts they feel they may have regarding the items on the agenda tonight. Are there any disclosures? No? Excellent. We can move on to item five, which is petitioners and presentations. I'm sorry, to ask, I guess, if there's anyone who has anything that they want to raise this evening that's not on the agenda? Is anyone here in the public have something that they'd like to talk about other than what's on the agenda? No? Excellent. Moving on to item six, continued cases in the H-1 overlay, Old and Historic District. The first item on that on that category is TLHP-2022-0054, 14 Royal Street. Ms. Murphy: Thank you, Madam Chairman. This is a continued case which we have been working for several months with our applicants at 14 Royal Street, SE. The subject property we are all familiar with at this point. We've done a site visit and had several meetings, but it is the photo on the left of the screen. It's a vernacular residence, late 19th century. Our records date it to about 1890. The overarching proposal here is to address some inconsistencies that were constructed in the field that are not in compliance with the approved Certificate of Appropriateness, which was issued by the Board back in 2020. Prior to any construction on the site, these are the existing conditions. When the applicant came (Note: This is a transcript prepared by a Town contractor based on the video of the meeting. It may not be entirely accurate. For greater accuracy, we encourage you to review the video of the meeting that is on the Town’s website – www.leesburgva.gov or refer to the approved Board of Architectural Review meeting minutes. The Board’s meeting videos are retained for three calendar years after a meeting per Library of Virginia Records Retention guidelines.) 2 | Page July 6, 2022 to the BAR for the first time, you see there was a small one-story rear addition, a two-story rear ell, and a small two-story shed-roofed addition that the BAR authorized removal of in 2020. Again, those are those same elevations, just in 2D drawing as opposed to 3D photograph. The original approval, you see here on the screen. As we talked about at our June work session, the rear elevation, in particular, the point of that elevation with the dual roof forms was really to preserve the original footprint of that small one-story addition. As we saw on our site visit before the June work session, that's pretty much been eradicated at this point, and so the BAR felt that there was not necessarily a reason to demarcate something that's no longer there anymore. Which brings us to the current proposal. These are the revised drawings that you received in your packet. There have been several changes to what you saw and considered at the June meeting, which I did not put on the screen, but if you'll recall, it had sort of a faux dual roof form on the rear elevation, which the BAR advised the applicant to abandon. The biggest changes that you'll see here are, one, that the drawings have been corrected. There were several things that were not drawn into the original elevations that are now drawn in, which is very helpful for getting the actual full picture. The applicant's also proposing a window in the historic main block, which you see on the left side of the slide there. They also proposed to retain a window in the second floor of the addition, but eliminate a window in the first floor of the addition. These were windows which were shown in the original approval but were never actually installed. On the rear elevation, quite a substantial change from what you reviewed the last time. The applicant is essentially proposing to remove the roof as constructed, which as we know is constructed incorrectly, and lower the overall floor height. The BAR was pretty clear at the last work session that lowering the overall floor height was really the only possible solution for addressing some of the issues, especially where the addition meets the historic main block, and so the applicant has committed to doing that. The new pitch of the addition would be 8/12 in order to retain a ridge line that falls behind the ridge line of the historic main block, which is consistent with the Guidelines. It's hard to see there, but these are in your packet. The first-floor height would be 7-foot-1, and the second-floor height, 7-foot-5. In list form, again, the overall lowered wall height, the new addition with a roof pitch of 8/12, a corrected gable end and end addition connection, a window in the gable end of the historic clock, revised fenestration on the right side, a corrected overhang, 12 inches as was originally approved, and then the cement fiber siding are all pieces in the revised design in your packet. A very brief summary of the staff analysis. I would say that the majority of the concerns that have been identified to date have been addressed with this revised proposal. The BAR, as I've said, previously agreed that highlighting a historic addition, which is essentially gone from the footprint of the building at this point was (Note: This is a transcript prepared by a Town contractor based on the video of the meeting. It may not be entirely accurate. For greater accuracy, we encourage you to review the video of the meeting that is on the Town’s website – www.leesburgva.gov or refer to the approved Board of Architectural Review meeting minutes. The Board’s meeting videos are retained for three calendar years after a meeting per Library of Virginia Records Retention guidelines.) 3 | Page July 6, 2022 no longer necessary. There was no support at the June work session for the creation of a false gable to reinstall what had been originally approved. It was specifically noted by this Board at that June work session that lowering the floor height seemed to be the most effective solution for addressing some of the issues of connection and roof massing. As I noted in the staff report, I do find that the addition is still quite large in comparison with the original historic main block, especially now that the two roof forms have been consolidated into one. I think one potential solution to that could be on the rear elevation, that some sort of either very modest rear porch or roof canopy, like we've approved on other additions, could be a possible solution. I've just done a very rough sketch on the screen there, but basically, something that would kind of match the pitch of either the front porch or the addition and have very similar brackets to those that are on the front porch or even a full post would help to break up the massing of that rear addition. Which, as you can see here, is already relatively unarticulated and is very visible from Church Street. For the windows, there was support from the BAR at the last meeting to include an installation of a window in the historic building. Changes to secondary elevations are permitted by the Guidelines, especially when the material and the placement is appropriate. In this instance, the wood window, the overall style of the window, a 2/2, and the location centered in the gable end would all be appropriate for this particular vernacular structure. Then you see the two arrows layered on top of one another. The applicant does propose to retain that upper story window but eliminate the originally approved first story window. Side elevations in the Historic District are notoriously irregular, so I don't think that this is incongruent with the Guidelines. I think that the other changes that have been made have sufficiently broken up the massing of this side addition, which was identified in the original staff report as being a concern. Then finally, there were several minor changes which were proposed with this application, which were really just more corrections from the original drawings, which included things like door heights which were not correct and alignment of windows. As with the very first staff report, I'm continuing to recommend approval of those items. Finally, and one of the questions that sort of started this whole foray into this discussion is the issue of the rear elevation siding. It's now proposed for all lapped Hardieplank to match the side elevation that you see there, because there's no more historic addition, there's really no need to mark any of that area with wood siding. Staff supports the use of the Hardieplank smooth finish siding for the rear and right side elevations. To summarize all of that discussion for tonight, I think there are several things that we don't necessarily need to focus on and several things that we do. The minor adjustments, again, the door heights and the window alignments, I think that we could recommend could approve those. I am recommending approval of those and don't believe that we need any further discussion. The roof line is perhaps the (Note: This is a transcript prepared by a Town contractor based on the video of the meeting. It may not be entirely accurate. For greater accuracy, we encourage you to review the video of the meeting that is on the Town’s website – www.leesburgva.gov or refer to the approved Board of Architectural Review meeting minutes. The Board’s meeting videos are retained for three calendar years after a meeting per Library of Virginia Records Retention guidelines.) 4 | Page July 6, 2022 biggest single issue as with all of our previous meetings. If this doesn't address the BARs concerns, there's really no point in discussing the other items. The windows, staff supports the revised fenestration for the right side and doesn't recommend any additional discussion. The materials, staff does not recommend any additional discussion of this item either. Cement fiber siding is acceptable for additions and new construction, and it's already in use on the structure for the piece that has been installed already. All the other materials are proposed to and should match the original approval from 2020. That includes the windows, doors, roofing, et cetera, that we'd already approved before. On the rear elevation, in your staff report is a recommendation for some sort of small canopy or modest porch to improve the facade as viewed from Church Street. The BAR should discuss that. That's not something that's come up before. Then finally, this was an issue that was brought up during the public hearing and viewed at the site visit but neglected to be included in the staff report, the issue of the front porch decking. I don't believe that the BAR had any concerns about this, but I went back and checked my notes and didn't see where we had specifically given it a blessing. The original wood decking floor of the porch on the front elevation was replaced with new wood decking. I believe we observed at the site visit that that was a previous condition and that the BAR was generally satisfied with that replacement, but we should confirm that tonight before moving forward. There are some possible findings. These are the same that are in your staff report. I will not read them to you because they are lengthy, but I did add a draft finding for the porch. If the board feels prepared to vote tonight, you will want to just do the findings as amended on the screen. There are some proposed possible conditions. The canopy over the rear door, that the fascia will not exceed a one by eight. That was a specific condition from the 2020 approval. The siding on the rear elevation would be smooth-finish cement fiber to match the reveal on the installed siding on the right side. Everything else would match the approval from 2020, and just cover all the bases, that revised zoning and building permits would be submitted as required by the Town of Leesburg and Loudoun County. If the review of those permits necessitates changes to the exterior of this addition, a new application may be required. That is our summary slide. The applicant is here. I'm sure he's happy to answer any questions as usual, as am I. Chairman Aikman: Thank you. Mr. Cox Goldsberry: Hello. Chairman Aikman: Welcome back. Mr. Cox Goldsberry: Thank you. Hopefully the last time. Chairman Aikman: First of all, you've had an opportunity to review the staff report? (Note: This is a transcript prepared by a Town contractor based on the video of the meeting. It may not be entirely accurate. For greater accuracy, we encourage you to review the video of the meeting that is on the Town’s website – www.leesburgva.gov or refer to the approved Board of Architectural Review meeting minutes. The Board’s meeting videos are retained for three calendar years after a meeting per Library of Virginia Records Retention guidelines.) 5 | Page July 6, 2022 Mr. Cox Goldsberry: Yes. Chairman Aikman: Excellent. Is there anything you want to add for clarification? Mr. Cox Goldsberry: The only thing that was new, just based on the last discussion or based on the staff report was the porch in the rear. That wasn't something that we had chatted about before. That's not something that we had necessarily planned to include. Wasn't part of our already exceedingly high budget. My request in that is just that we can come to an agreement on something that is not adding more cost because we are already reducing the entire height of the roof. That wasn't something that had come up in previous conversations or in the previous approval or anything like that. Do you want me just to walk through our changes just briefly? Chairman Aikman: Sure, if you would like. Mr. Cox Goldsberry: We did go back, we revised all of the drawings as per the last few meetings. We made sure that all of the elevations were correct. One note on the window on the right elevation, the upper window, it is actually moved slightly into the stairwell. This window here is actually moved slightly over just so that-- the interior elevation has a bathroom, or the interior is a bathroom and then the stairwell is adjacent to or right up against that. We moved it into the stairwell. It's still providing fenestration on that side. It's just not in the bathroom instead. Chairman Aikman: How big of a change is that? Mr. Cox Goldsberry: It's a two-and-a-half-foot window and it moved over about two- and-a-half-feet. I can provide the exact measurements. Chairman Aikman: This drawing doesn't reflect that? Mr. Cox Goldsberry: That does. Chairman Aikman: Oh, it does reflect. Okay, thank you. Mr. Cox Goldsberry: The drawings in the packet do reflect the movement of that, it's just slight enough on the elevation that it may not be noticeable and so I wanted to point out it did move just to the stairwell. Chairman Aikman: Thank you for bringing that up. Mr. Cox Goldsberry: The reason we didn't put it on just match it on this first floor is that it would hit the landing of the stairwell and just wouldn't make sense. We adjusted the windows on this elevation. As you can see, we also adjusted where the soffit line meets the return end gable to show the actual height of those and this will be where it will actually meet. There will be a gutter line that runs down there just to help conceal that the bump in from the main historic block to the addition. This is the porch elevation that we just hadn't discussed previously. On the rear elevation, we did change to an 8/12 elevation which is called out very timely or very (Note: This is a transcript prepared by a Town contractor based on the video of the meeting. It may not be entirely accurate. For greater accuracy, we encourage you to review the video of the meeting that is on the Town’s website – www.leesburgva.gov or refer to the approved Board of Architectural Review meeting minutes. The Board’s meeting videos are retained for three calendar years after a meeting per Library of Virginia Records Retention guidelines.) 6 | Page July 6, 2022 tiny on the plans. We show the Hardieplank siding. We do show the corrected 12- inch overhang on either left and right elevations as well. I believe that covers it all. Chairman Aikman: Then just for my edification, the drawing is to scale, right? So the change in the pitch is reflected in the drawing? Mr. Cox Goldsberry: It is, yes. Yes, that was something that Lauren had pointed out that is-- I mean, these are the drawings we got back from our architect that show the change in that. I did take a side-by-side of what was shown for the eight-foot, and then shown with the actual height for the correction. You can see a change in that elevation. Chairman Aikman: A change in the pitch, okay. Thank you. Mr. Cox Goldsberry: Yes. The other thing we're proposing is, obviously, removing the roof line on the addition, lowering those walls to be reflective-- actually, it's better seen on this. Better reflective of the actual floor heights to give that pitch, and to reduce the overall massing of what was previously approved. That is all I have. Chairman Aikman: Okay. Excellent, thank you. Ms. Murphy: Madam Chair, can I just note really quickly on the roof overhang. The reason why that wasn't brought up previously by staff is because it’s the first time we are seeing that you have provided your elevations. While I don't specifically like to spring new things on the BAR or the applicant in a work session, it wasn’t in the staff report for this work session , but that's the reason why I'm suggesting that something over that rear door might be necessary now given the new change the pitch and the revised proposal for the rear elevation. Chairman Aikman: This is a work session. Those of you who have been to work sessions before know that we're a little less formal and we have a slightly different process than we do in our hearings. In this case, the deliberation of the Board will probably mix questions and comments. I think we'll go in our normal order. We did have a public hearing on this previously but given the complexity of the application and the history, I'd like to give the public an opportunity to weigh in at this point if there's anyone in the public who has something to say about the application. This is your opportunity. Sure. If you would identify yourself for the record, please. Mr. Barron: My name is Keith Barron. We are the people that are buying the home. Obviously, there's been some mistakes made along the way with this addition. My concern is that theres things that keep getting added. This process has been going on for awhile, like the rear porch, that's an addition. From a standpoint of we thought maybe we were going to be in this house already, we are now renting an apartment. This seems to be an ongoing process that seems to be endless. I'm concerned about when will we know the final judgement of the BAR. There's no more things that we need to add to this. That's just our concern. Chairman Aikman: Sure. I appreciate your comment. I think it's only fair to say-- First of all, we'll discuss the rear porch this evening, but it's only fair to point out that (Note: This is a transcript prepared by a Town contractor based on the video of the meeting. It may not be entirely accurate. For greater accuracy, we encourage you to review the video of the meeting that is on the Town’s website – www.leesburgva.gov or refer to the approved Board of Architectural Review meeting minutes. The Board’s meeting videos are retained for three calendar years after a meeting per Library of Virginia Records Retention guidelines.) 7 | Page July 6, 2022 the process has been attenuated because of disregard for the Certificate of Appropriateness that was issued previously. It wasn't anything that the BAR did, just to be fair to the BAR. Mr. Barron: No, I understand that. Chairman Aikman: Nobody would like to see closure on this as much as we would. Mr. Barron: Sure, I think everybody does. I guess my-- tonight, there's been something that's been added that's new and so that adds concern. If we start down the process of what's been presented, is there a possibility that something else could be requested in the future after tonight? Chairman Aikman: If there are no changes. If the Certificate of Appropriateness is issued and it's complied with, and there are no future changes that require another Certificate of Appropriateness-- I know that that sounds like a lot of caveats. Ms. Murphy: I think that-- if I can-- Chairman Aikman: Yes, please. Go ahead. Ms. Murphy: I think that the Board needs to discuss the revised proposal tonight to determine if it addresses their concerns. Chairman Aikman: Right. Ms. Murphy: If they don't find that it addresses their concerns, there may need to be another revision. Hopefully, they'll be able to discuss it and ask questions of your contractor, who can then respond accordingly, and hopefully, address any questions or outstanding issues that might come up. This is the first time that their packet that went out last week is the first time they've seen these revised drawings. Mr. Barron: Okay. All right, thank you. Chairman Aikman: Excellent, thank you. For those who haven't been here before, we normally begin comments and questions with the Vice Chair, Ms. Minchew, and then we will go from her to this end. Don will go next and we'll come down that way. Vice Chair Minchew: All right. Thank you. Thank you for coming back. Thank you for putting so much work into this, taking our input seriously. I am concerned that there's a perception out there though, that we have been dragging our feet. I just want to be very clear that what was brought to us last time resembled very little the approved drawings. This is the very first time we were seeing a proposal to try to bring it into compliance at some level, because-- an historic ell was removed outright, we cannot actually, there's no way to actually do that. We are trying to find a way to mitigate what was done. I know you're aware, but it sounds like others may not be, we're trying to find a way to mitigate the ill effects of removing that historic ell and creating an out-of-scale (Note: This is a transcript prepared by a Town contractor based on the video of the meeting. It may not be entirely accurate. For greater accuracy, we encourage you to review the video of the meeting that is on the Town’s website – www.leesburgva.gov or refer to the approved Board of Architectural Review meeting minutes. The Board’s meeting videos are retained for three calendar years after a meeting per Library of Virginia Records Retention guidelines.) 8 | Page July 6, 2022 addition on the back of this building, which is very visible from a different right-of- way. There's a lot going on. Ms. Aikman's correct. Nobody wants to reach closure on this more than we do. You've heard it before, our least favorite cases are those that are violations that have already been constructed. It's very, very difficult. We're doing our best. I know you're doing your best. It's very clear to me. Hopefully, we'll get somewhere. I don't really have questions at this point, except I will want to talk about that rear elevation. I think it is much improved, but that is still a big, broad block. That is the area I'm going to want to talk about. Chairman Aikman: I think you can go ahead, and we can combine questions and comments if you want to go ahead and talk about that. Vice Chair Minchew: Well, I just do have concerns about the broadness, still, of that rear elevation. I think it's phenomenally closer to an approvable addition. I do want to hear what others have to say, particularly our architect over here. Interested in what he has to say and what others have to say on that. I don't know that that little portico, it's not even a porch-- It's a very, very simple idea that Lauren suggested as a way to mitigate that expanse. I don't know that it's an expensive change and I do push back on the idea that it is throwing something new when this is our first opportunity to see this proposal. Chairman Aikman: Thank you. Don? Mr. Scheuerman: I don't really have anything specific, having gone through the package and staff report. Lauren's done a fairly good job of drawing out all the different issues. To the Vice Chair's point about how expansive the back is, from the Church Street, yes, that's true and might be something that we do want to consider. I too am looking forward to hearing from the architect. Chairman Aikman: Julie? Ms. Pastor: First, I want to concur with both the Chair and the Vice Chair regarding the comments, and this is not really directed to you, but just in general, because it is difficult when the BAR is confronted with something that, where there it really wasn't our fault. We had an approval and that approval we had every intention to see actually constructed and it wasn't, so it makes it really difficult. I do also want to commend you, especially, for the attention that you've paid to what we've asked for, and actually, in absencia, our architect, thank Tom as well for troubleshooting some of the ideas that I think you have taken to heart. That is clearly reflected in what we see tonight. Again, to just say what everybody else has said is that this is the first time that we're now seeing it all done and it's great. I don't really have any significant questions. I think the concern about adding a porch is, maybe it's overstating that it needs to be a porch. I think what we are really talking about, and I would think it would be a feature that maybe a homeowner would like, is (Note: This is a transcript prepared by a Town contractor based on the video of the meeting. It may not be entirely accurate. For greater accuracy, we encourage you to review the video of the meeting that is on the Town’s website – www.leesburgva.gov or refer to the approved Board of Architectural Review meeting minutes. The Board’s meeting videos are retained for three calendar years after a meeting per Library of Virginia Records Retention guidelines.) 9 | Page July 6, 2022 just a small roof that would cover you from the weather to take your boots off or whatever as you're going in there, but I do think it just would add visual interest as well as break up the mass on the porch. Otherwise, I feel like you have addressed our concerns and I feel the application is in so much of a better place than it has been. Thanks. Chairman Aikman: Thank you, Julie. Erin? Ms. Nicholson: Not to beat a dead horse, [chuckles] I just want to get clarification on the windows on the right-hand side. Can you look to the right elevation? Mr. Cox Goldsberry: Yes. Ms. Nicholson: That this is the accurate locations of the intent of those window locations, those two circled, in fact, because sheet A0003 on page 13 of our packet, the window in the front upper level does not appear centered. Then the single window that is supposed to be adjacent to the stairs is not shown on sheet A0003. Mr. Cox Goldsberry: I don't have that packet in front of me. This is reflective of what we plan to do, and this was for the last working session adding the window in the front block. Then instead of eliminating the one in the bathroom, just moving it into the stairwell. Ms. Nicholson: Okay. Ms. Murphy: You said page 13, Erin? Ms. Nicholson: Yes, I want to make sure that this is what we're approving because it conflicts with that architectural sheet. Mr. Cox Goldsberry: Oh, yes. It's just the floor plan which is not updated. The floor plans were just intended to show that there were bathrooms in there where the windows were originally provided. Ms. Nicholson: Okay. That was my only question. Chairman Aikman: Thanks. Tom? Mr. O'Neil: I guess my first question is for staff or other members of the Board who were at the site visit. If you look at those same floor plans that Erin was just talking about, the dining room on the first floor, the sidewall of the dining room and the new walk-in closet above it on the second floor, were those new walls or were they a remaining part of the original house? When you all went out originally, they were supposed to be left intact. Ms. Murphy: Yes. It all looked like pretty much new framing and studs pretty much everywhere. (Note: This is a transcript prepared by a Town contractor based on the video of the meeting. It may not be entirely accurate. For greater accuracy, we encourage you to review the video of the meeting that is on the Town’s website – www.leesburgva.gov or refer to the approved Board of Architectural Review meeting minutes. The Board’s meeting videos are retained for three calendar years after a meeting per Library of Virginia Records Retention guidelines.) 10 | Page July 6, 2022 Mr. Cox Goldsberry: If I can just point out on that, it's just in the kitchen area that that was new. That was original all the way back to where the rear addition was on the left elevation. Vice Chair Minchew: I think the dining room walls were old still. They were original still. Mr. Cox Goldsberry: Yes. It was the wall where, actually, on this elevation where the chimney comes down, that is a load-bearing wall there and that is where the addition ended, or that, I guess, a new-- Mr. O'Neil: I’m talking about on the opposite side. Mr. Cox Goldsberry: Yes. opposite side, sorry. Mr. O'Neil: The west elevation or the left elevation. To me, it's very narrow because the building next to it's only a few feet away. Mr. Cox Goldsberry: Correct. Yes. Mr. O'Neil: I think it would help at this point, since everything behind the front gable-- It's on there somewhere, yes. Ms. Murphy: I don't have floor plans in the presentation. They're usually too hard to read on the screen. Mr. O'Neil: Okay. It's in our packet. The west elevation should have a vertical corner board at the end of the gable of the original part of the house and switch to new siding from that point back to-- This is just my opinion because I think it would-- Chairman Aikman: Mark it in other words [crosstalk] Vice Chair Minchew: Isn't that what's proposed? Mr. Cox Goldsberry: That's proposed on the right elevation where the-- Ms. Murphy: Do you mean on the left elevation, Tom? Mr. O'Neil: Yes, if you could treat the left elevation just like-- Mr. Cox Goldsbery: Just add a corner board all the way down? Mr. O'Neil: Put the newer siding on the front gable in and the wider siding from there back because-- Mr. Cox Goldsberry: I believe that's what is there. Ms. Murphy: Yes. That side, that's the wall that had multiple different profiles of wood siding that you've already had matched. Correct? (Note: This is a transcript prepared by a Town contractor based on the video of the meeting. It may not be entirely accurate. For greater accuracy, we encourage you to review the video of the meeting that is on the Town’s website – www.leesburgva.gov or refer to the approved Board of Architectural Review meeting minutes. The Board’s meeting videos are retained for three calendar years after a meeting per Library of Virginia Records Retention guidelines.) 11 | Page July 6, 2022 Mr. Cox Goldsberry: Right. Ms. Murphy: Okay. Mr. O'Neil: Is there already new siding on there? Ms. Murphy: They patched and repaired. There had been aluminum siding, which the BAR previously gave approval to remove and patch and repair the wood. What they did was take samples of the two different styles of wood siding that were on the building and had them milled to match, but that left side elevation has-- Mr. O'Neil: So that's already installed on the whole thing? Ms. Murphy: Yes. Mr. O'Neil: Okay. Ms. Murphy: It was only replacement of a few boards here and there. Mr. O'Neil: Okay. Disregard that [crosstalk] Mr. Cox Goldsberry: Aside from the addition in the back. Ms. Murphy: Yes. Mr. O'Neil: Another comment is just if we do approve this tonight, I think we need to remove any comments about roof pitch, because on the drawings they're reversed and if we just say the ridge of the addition will remain in place and the fascia of the addition will match the fascia line of the existing house, because the pitch of the addition is much closer to a 4/12 and the pitch on the front is much closer to an 8/12. I just think they got reversed. Any reference to roof pitch, I would not want to have in an approval because it could lead to confusion. Mr. Cox Goldsberry: You mean the actual ratio, the roof pitch ratio? Mr. O'Neil: Yes, 8/12 is incorrect. Just if we reached that point. As far as I do agree with other members of the Board and the staff report that I think just a simple shed-roofed, bracketed overhang on that rear door would help just because when you're viewing the addition, something to think about from Church Street, is that you're looking at the building from the corner, you see that very long east façade and the north façade. It's not just looking straight on to the north elevation that 99% of people will see, they're going to be looking at that broad expanse of siding. The roof over the door would help break that up. I'm sure every penny counts at this point but it's a very practical thing to add. It'll enhance the appeal of the house and it won't be that expensive to do. I feel like it's worthy of being included in the design. Otherwise, it's come a long way and I don't see why it couldn't reach approval tonight if the applicant is willing to make some of the suggestions that have been made. (Note: This is a transcript prepared by a Town contractor based on the video of the meeting. It may not be entirely accurate. For greater accuracy, we encourage you to review the video of the meeting that is on the Town’s website – www.leesburgva.gov or refer to the approved Board of Architectural Review meeting minutes. The Board’s meeting videos are retained for three calendar years after a meeting per Library of Virginia Records Retention guidelines.) 12 | Page July 6, 2022 Chairman Aikman: I have just a couple of comments. One is, the mass of the addition, it seems to me, was approved originally based on the design and the design has changed so fundamentally that I don't think there's any other path, but it looks like an ocean liner. Okay. It's huge and I think that the original design mitigated that. I think this design, while it's a great improvement and you've done a lot of work and it's fine, to me, I'm not sure that it would have originally been approved, but I agree with Tom that we can probably get there. I have one question which is, the view from Church Street, how much is that going to be changed by the garage? That's still in the works, right? Mr. Cox Goldsberry: It's pretty substantially. Ms. Murphy: Can you flip to that one photo where-- Is that in there? Mr. Cox Goldsberry: I'm not totally sure. Ms. Murphy: Yes. Oh, go back. Mr. Cox Goldsberry: Sorry. Ms. Murphy: That's okay. Mr. Cox Goldsberry: You'd think I'd know how to use this by now. Ms. Murphy: There you go. That photo is taken from Church Street. The garage, which is-- Chairman Aikman: Is to the rear of that, right? Ms. Murphy: Yes. Mr. Cox Goldsberry: Yes, the garage will be-- If you can see where the blue tarp is? Ms. Pastor: Kind of very on the edge of the picture, right? Mr. Cox Goldsberry: Yes, like the blue tarp on this section. Ms. Murphy: Kind of in line with that little shrub? Mr. Cox Goldsberry: Yes. Chairman Aikman: Yes. Okay. Okay, well, it sounds to me like there's a consensus for approval subject to trying some additional mitigation of the mass which articulation of it through the addition of basically a little shed roof over the back. Do-- Vice Chair Minchew: Madam Chair, may I say that I think there may be other ways to mitigate it. If you would rather explore some other way, we would probably support you doing that. This is just, I think staff was right on to say that this is a very simple, inexpensive way to attempt to mitigate it, but I don't think that that's the only way to mitigate it. (Note: This is a transcript prepared by a Town contractor based on the video of the meeting. It may not be entirely accurate. For greater accuracy, we encourage you to review the video of the meeting that is on the Town’s website – www.leesburgva.gov or refer to the approved Board of Architectural Review meeting minutes. The Board’s meeting videos are retained for three calendar years after a meeting per Library of Virginia Records Retention guidelines.) 13 | Page July 6, 2022 Mr. Cox Goldsberry: If this is the option that will get us an approval tonight, this is the option we would like to go. We need to get construction started as soon as possible. As you heard from the homeowner, they are living in an apartment at this point. If that is what we need to do to get that, I will. Chairman Aikman: Also, on this question of having to come back again. The way we got here was a complete lack of management of the construction. The builder was doing all kinds of things that had nothing to do with the approval. Now, I guess I'm speaking to the owner as much to anyone, this needs to be managed. If somebody builds a different roof or just does it differently than the approval, there'll be a like situation again. I'm hoping that that won't be the case this time around. Go ahead Terri. Vice Chair Minchew: Madam Chair, my question would be, what is the Board's feeling about the design, the details, the materials of this proposed portico roof? Is that something that we feel we could put into words for staff to do final approval or not? Because we don't actually have a proposal from the applicant for it. We have approved several of late that I think are similar to what staff had in mind, but given the previous problems, how do we feel about approving it without seeing it, I guess is where I'm going? Ms. Pastor: Staff did give us some guidance in that regard, if they were willing to go with a modest roof canopy, constructed of wood with brackets, similar to other structures approved in the Historic District and sheathed with asphalt shingles to match the structure. We could have the final details go to the preservation planner. Vice Chair Minchew: Yes, I think that's the question. It's either that or come back. I don't think-- Ms. Pastor: I guess, yes, that's right. Vice Chair Minchew: I would be happy to if we can craft it and if we think that's strong enough, then I'd be happy to craft it, but maybe Tom can craft it when he-- Mr. O'Neil: I think the way that Lauren has it described as a bracketed roof, if the applicant is willing to accept that, I have complete confidence in Lauren's judgment. We've described it closely enough and there have been recent approvals of very similar bracketed roofs that as long as they come back to Lauren with exactly what they're going to do, and she approves it. I think that's- Mr. Cox Goldsberry: Can I ask a couple clarifying questions on the structure of that? Chairman Aikman: Sure. Mr. Cox Goldsberry: Is that something that you would envision, gutters and downs spouts on as well? Vice-Chair Minchew: No. (Note: This is a transcript prepared by a Town contractor based on the video of the meeting. It may not be entirely accurate. For greater accuracy, we encourage you to review the video of the meeting that is on the Town’s website – www.leesburgva.gov or refer to the approved Board of Architectural Review meeting minutes. The Board’s meeting videos are retained for three calendar years after a meeting per Library of Virginia Records Retention guidelines.) 14 | Page July 6, 2022 Ms. Murphy: It's not going to be big enough to that. Mr. Cox Goldsberry: It didn't seem so. Vice Chair Minchew: I wish we had an example to show you because I think it would-- Chairman Aikman: Wasn't there one on-- well anyway, go ahead. Vice Chair Minchew: I just think you would be less concerned if you could envision what we're talking about. It's nothing major. Mr. Cox Goldsberry: I have an idea. I just-- based on-- I want to make sure that we know exactly what we're doing. Vice-Chair Minchew: What was that last one we did? Chairman Aikman: It was one on Wirt, right? No, Liberty. [crosstalk] Mr. O'Neil: It could be 5 feet by 3 feet. Mr. Cox Goldsberry: I'm sorry? 5 foot by 3? Mr. O'Neil: Five feet wide by three feet out from the house. Ms. Pastor: It's the one on the way up to the hospital. Chairman Aikman: Oh, it's-- Ms. Pastor: Goes to Dry Mill Road. Ms. Murphy: Ayr Street? Chairman Aikman: Ayr street. That's right. Ms. Pastor: On the front. It's on the front. Ms. Murphy: Yes. Has it been done now? I'm not sure if it's installed. Is it? Vice Chair Minchew: Yes, either that or scaled, just something that is scaled to the opening, I think is-- Chairman Aikman: I think that we can give them that discretion. I would be fine with that. Vice Chair Minchew: I think it's just a little awkward not to have anything [laughs] to be wording it around, but I think we can do it. (Note: This is a transcript prepared by a Town contractor based on the video of the meeting. It may not be entirely accurate. For greater accuracy, we encourage you to review the video of the meeting that is on the Town’s website – www.leesburgva.gov or refer to the approved Board of Architectural Review meeting minutes. The Board’s meeting videos are retained for three calendar years after a meeting per Library of Virginia Records Retention guidelines.) 15 | Page July 6, 2022 Mr. O'Neil: If it's a three-foot door, a five-foot roof would give you a foot of on each side to have the four by four brackets, and I think you could get a reasonable-- and there'd be enough discretion if you come back with five foot four. Mr. Cox Goldsberry: Are there mounting, like the mounting of those brackets, is there a certain style or-- Ms. Murphy: The front porch has very simple, straight brackets. I think you wouldn't want to do anything fancier than is on the front porch of the structure. Mr. Cox Goldsberry: Okay. I just want to have as clear and concise as we can. Vice Chair Minchew: Is there a step going in there or-- Ms. Murphy: There is, yes. Vice Chair Minchew: It was previously-- We know what it is exactly? Ms. Murphy: It was noted on the original 2020 approval as being a set of wood stairs. I think it's two steps, actually. Mr. Cox Goldsberry: It's currently just two cinder blocks, but it will be wood stairs once construction's done. It's more so they don't get damaged during construction. Vice Chair Minchew: That’s fine. Ms. Murphy: It just goes to a dirt pit right now. Chairman Aikman: Do we want to-- Julie, would you like to lead with it? A motion? Ms. Pastor: I think Terri said she was going to do it, or Tom was going to do it? Vice Chair Minchew: I think Tom might because he had some great additional language to include. I would love for Tom to do it, especially the ridge-- Well, the ridge language I think is important. Chairman Aikman: Yes, that's right. Mr. O'Neil: Let me get to the right page. Vice Chair Minchew: I didn't get it all written down when he said it. I was trying. Chairman Aikman: The pitch point was important. Mr. O'Neil: Okay. I'll make a motion for approval as authorized in section 2.3.7. of the Leesburg Zoning Ordinance. I move that Certificate of Appropriateness application TLHP-2020-0054, be approved based on information provided by the applicant as revised through July 6, 2022. Including associated photos and specifications and further based on the findings included on page four of the staff report prepared by the Preservation Planner and subject to the following conditions: (Note: This is a transcript prepared by a Town contractor based on the video of the meeting. It may not be entirely accurate. For greater accuracy, we encourage you to review the video of the meeting that is on the Town’s website – www.leesburgva.gov or refer to the approved Board of Architectural Review meeting minutes. The Board’s meeting videos are retained for three calendar years after a meeting per Library of Virginia Records Retention guidelines.) 16 | Page July 6, 2022 A modest roof canopy, roughly 5 feet wide and extending 3 feet out from the house with 4x4 brackets on each side of the door will be installed over the rear door of the elevation. The canopy will be constructed of wood with brackets to anchor it to the structure, similar to other such structures approved in the Historic District and sheathed with asphalt shingles to match the structure. Final details and design of this canopy will be submitted to the Preservation Planner prior to occupancy of the structure for review and approval. Just one caveat, in the middle of doing this, do you really want it to be prior to occupancy or-- Vice Chair Minchew: Prior to construction. Ms. Murphy: Normally we say prior to submission of a zoning permit, is the normal language. Mr. O'Neil: Okay. Every time I touch this, I skip pages. The fascia of the addition, this is number two, will not exceed 1x8 in accordance with the approval of TLHP-2020-0084. In the addition, the ridge will match the existing ridge as constructed before this hearing and currently as found out in the field. The current ridge will remain in place and the roof pitch will be determined by matching the fascia height of the existing structure and keeping the existing ridge. The siding on the rear elevation of the addition will be smooth finished, cement fiber siding with a reveal to match the installed siding on the right side of the addition. The materials for the windows, gutters, trim, door, and the roof sheathing will be in accordance with those approved under TLHP-2020-0084. Lauren, another question for you. I should have asked this one earlier. The window being added to the existing house, does that have to be an all wood window? Ms. Murphy: I believe it is, and all of the windows were wood windows. Mr. O'Neil: Okay, and number four. Revised zoning building permits will be submitted as required by the Town of Leesburg and Loudoun County if the review of those permits necessitates changes to the exterior of the addition, a new COA application may be required. Vice Chair Minchew: Second. Ms. Pastor: Tom-- Sorry. There was one thing that Lauren had added that was on the screen and-- Ms. Murphy: Yes, the findings about the front porch. Ms. Pastor: The yellow one. The front porch. You had said the findings on page four of the staff report and the finding-- (Note: This is a transcript prepared by a Town contractor based on the video of the meeting. It may not be entirely accurate. For greater accuracy, we encourage you to review the video of the meeting that is on the Town’s website – www.leesburgva.gov or refer to the approved Board of Architectural Review meeting minutes. The Board’s meeting videos are retained for three calendar years after a meeting per Library of Virginia Records Retention guidelines.) 17 | Page July 6, 2022 Chairman Aikman: As augmented tonight. Yeah. Ms. Pastor: As mentioned tonight-- Vice Chair Minchew: Regarding the front porch. Ms. Pastor: Regarding the front porch. Mr. O'Neil: The finding presented by the staff. I will add one more condition, that the east or right-side elevation window placement will be what is followed and not the floor plans that were submitted. Ms. Nicholson : The corner board. Do you want to annotate what the corner board requirement is? Vice Chair Minchew: I think we've decided not to. Right? Chairman Aikman: That wasn't relevant. Vice Chair Minchew: Second, as amended. Chairman Aikman: All in favor? Board Members: Aye. Chairman Aikman: Opposed? Okay, approval is granted with a vote of six to zero with one absence. Mr. Cox Goldsberry: Thank you. Chairman Aikman: Congratulations. Mr. Cox Goldsberry: I'm not there yet. Vice Chair Minchew: Good luck. Chairman Aikman: You are. Okay. Ms. Murphy: Can you switch to Rich’s PowerPoint? Chairman Aikman: Okay, the next item on the agenda is continued cases in the H-2 Historic Corridor or Gateway districts, there are none of those. We now move on to Item eight, cases not requiring a public hearing. We have a series of referrals this evening. We'll begin with the referral for Russell Branch Retail drive through TLZM- 2021-0012 and TLSE-2021-0005. Ms. Murphy: I will just give a brief overview of this referral process for our newer members on the BAR before I turn it over to Rich and to Scott from the planning department to handle these individual cases themselves. I think this is probably the first referral that about half of the Board has ever had to do. Basically, in 2019 the (Note: This is a transcript prepared by a Town contractor based on the video of the meeting. It may not be entirely accurate. For greater accuracy, we encourage you to review the video of the meeting that is on the Town’s website – www.leesburgva.gov or refer to the approved Board of Architectural Review meeting minutes. The Board’s meeting videos are retained for three calendar years after a meeting per Library of Virginia Records Retention guidelines.) 18 | Page July 6, 2022 BAR decided that they did not care for the process that was in place at the time, which we call the concept development plan, and they wanted to try reverting back to an older process of doing a referral on legislative applications. Legislative applications would be anything that requires the Town Council's approval. Mainly rezonings and special exceptions. This referral process is intended to give applicants who are going through a legislative process very high-level feedback on overarching design issues which are likely to come up if and when these applications come in front of the Board for a Certificate of Appropriateness. We won't be diving into the minutiae of muntin patterns or material selections tonight. What we'll be focusing on are high level, I call it like the 30,000 foot approach, building placement, orientation, size scale and massing, and any big overarching design problems that you might notice that you want to make sure the applicants are aware of. and that staff is aware of going into the public hearing process for these applications with the Planning Commission and the Town Council. The purpose of tonight would be for the BAR to give feedback on these rezoning and special exception applications that the staff and the applicants can take forward with them for the rest of the development process. With that said, Rich Klusek and Scott Parker from our department are the project managers. Rich has two and Scott has one on the agenda tonight. We don't normally get this heavily loaded but I know that the planning department has seen a large influx of legislative applications all coming back in-- Rich, I have the remote if you need it. Sorry. All coming back in at the same time which is why we're seeing so many on the agenda at one time. Typically, we might see one and then we might go many months or even a year or in some cases several years because some of you have been appointed for several years and I've never had to do one of these. This is an unusual experience, but they're all three different and in varying stages of development and Rich will walk us through the first one. Ms. Parry: Just real quick, Rich, before you start, I have been asked by our closed captioning contractor to ask you all to speak into your microphone and speak a little louder. Mr. Klusek: Thanks, Lauren. Again, my name is Rich Klusek. Have had the opportunity to work with some of you in the past, some more than others. Lauren basically took my first three slides in providing that introduction. Ms. Murphy: I had the benefit of seeing his PowerPoint in advance so I had a little leg up there. Mr. Klusek: Here's a little secret. You're going to see these first couple of slides in all of your next three applications. I won't go through a whole lot of detail other than to say that, again, you will be preparing a referral letter. At the end of this we'll be taking copious notes and we'll be looking for a signature from the Chair to essentially say that what we've captured essentially represents the sentiment of the BAR. (Note: This is a transcript prepared by a Town contractor based on the video of the meeting. It may not be entirely accurate. For greater accuracy, we encourage you to review the video of the meeting that is on the Town’s website – www.leesburgva.gov or refer to the approved Board of Architectural Review meeting minutes. The Board’s meeting videos are retained for three calendar years after a meeting per Library of Virginia Records Retention guidelines.) 19 | Page July 6, 2022 Again, we're focusing on height, size, scale and massing. Again, your final architectural details will be discussed during the COA process. This particular application, they're all going to be coming to you at slightly different stages in the referral process. The reason for that is because they all come in at slightly different times and of course the BAR has these regular meetings. With this case, this particular application is coming in with the applicant's second submission. Staff has already made some comments and the applicant has made some layout changes to address those particular concerns, mainly focused around vehicular circulation. The Preservation Planner of comments, Lauren's, over here obviously have already largely been addressed as well. It's coming to you generally with some positive comments from staff. The project itself is a concept plan and proffer amendment. The reason for that is the applicant is now coming in for a special exception for a drive-through. The BAR in the past has actually seen this application before it was part of the Gateway District, but since they're looking to change the layout, they're amending the concept plan and the proffers. The subject property is the site-- I don't know how to better describe it than to say right near Lowe's. You have the Aldi as well as the car wash and Lowe's in this general vicinity. The previous approval here for land bay C actually had two different buildings, building six and building seven, totaling 9,000 square feet. The current proposal is to consolidate that into a single building with the drive-through use, with two different uses in the same building, and that drive-through use for 7,000 square feet. The drive-through window is proposed on the north side of this building. I will point out that in the beginning, with building six and seven, the buildings were right up front to the road with the parking essentially behind it. However, this is very much an auto-oriented center and we do find it to be consistent with Town Plan guidance that calls for it to be an auto-oriented center. Given the nature of the use, they set the building back behind some parking. This allowed for circulation to go all the way around the building, as you would very much see with the drive-through use. It's worth mentioning, of course, that similar conditions exist throughout this retail center, which again is very much an auto- oriented use and addressed as such in the Town Plan. Our assessment for this one is they have provided four-sided architecture. I'll show you the renderings in just a moment to break up the mass. You can see that all four sides have some degree of fenestration or articulation that we felt was generally appropriate. With the east elevation, there might be some opportunity to do a little bit more that may or may not come out in our further comments. I think in general, for the purposes of BAR review, we do find that the building placement is appropriate given the site context. Modifications for surface parking would likely be needed per the Zoning Ordinance, Section 7.12.24, but we think that those can be justified. Again, the architecture is generally consistent with the intent of the Gateway District and surrounding development. (Note: This is a transcript prepared by a Town contractor based on the video of the meeting. It may not be entirely accurate. For greater accuracy, we encourage you to review the video of the meeting that is on the Town’s website – www.leesburgva.gov or refer to the approved Board of Architectural Review meeting minutes. The Board’s meeting videos are retained for three calendar years after a meeting per Library of Virginia Records Retention guidelines.) 20 | Page July 6, 2022 That is all I have for this one. Perhaps the most straightforward one you'll be looking at this evening. I don't know if Lauren, do you have anything further you'd like to comment on in terms of what we're looking for from the BAR this evening? Ms. Murphy: I think it'll be important tonight for the BAR to let the applicant and staff know, one, if you disagree with our assessment. You should have had in your packet both a memo from Rich summarizing the project and going into more detail of everything he just said on this PowerPoint, and then attached to that was also my Preservation Planner memo, which I provide separately to Rich. Just based on my own personal observations and evaluation of the development. In general, I would say that I agree with the assessment that you've been presented with tonight and that the architectural concerns that may have existed with the first submission have largely been addressed with the second. Chairman Aikman: Okay. Thank you. Why don't we follow our normal order here and combine-- I think we can combine questions and comments. I don't think we need to have a separate question period. Terri, do you want to begin or-- Vice Chair Minchew: Is there an applicant presentation? Chairman Aikman: No. Is there an applicant presentation? Mr. Klusek: Is there anything that you would like to add, Molly? Ms. Novotney: Good evening. For the record, my name is Molly Novotney. I'm an urban planner with Cooley and I'm here to answer any questions that you have tonight. Chairman Aikman: Okay, but no presentation on this one? Ms. Novotney: I have a slide that I can share if we need to. If questions come into-- Chairman Aikman: Okay, great. Thank you very much. Ms. Novotney: Thank you. Vice Chair Minchew: That may be my big question right now. Happy to have Lauren's input and Rich, yours as well. It is a different-looking project than it was when we saw it last time. I think you've done a lot of work on it already. The architecturals will be important when we get there, but I don't really have any major comments or questions. Chairman Aikman: Okay. Erin? Ms. Nicholson: No comments. Chairman Aikman: Tom? (Note: This is a transcript prepared by a Town contractor based on the video of the meeting. It may not be entirely accurate. For greater accuracy, we encourage you to review the video of the meeting that is on the Town’s website – www.leesburgva.gov or refer to the approved Board of Architectural Review meeting minutes. The Board’s meeting videos are retained for three calendar years after a meeting per Library of Virginia Records Retention guidelines.) 21 | Page July 6, 2022 Mr. O'Neil: I just had one clarification on the site plan. The rectangle at the top of the page. What is that? That's not another structure where-- Mr. Klusek: Parking. Mr. O'Neil: Parking? Are those walls around it or? Mr. Klusek: Wait, let's make sure we're talking about the same rectangle. Are we talking about this rectangle? Mr. O'Neil: No. The big one. Chairman Aikman: The big-- Yes, there you go. Mr. Klusek: The big one is parking. Mr. O'Neil: Okay. Chairman Aikman: The drive-through, that is oriented north at the top. Right? The drive-through is at the top of the structure? Mr. Klusek: That's the window right there. Chairman Aikman: Okay. Mr. O'Neil: I guess I'm just curious why that parking took on that form. Mr. Klusek: Mainly because of the size of the land bays and the fact that this concept plan actually is-- This is the third time that it's being revised. First with the original Lowe's rezoning application, then with the next Russell Branch Retail application. Now once again with this. The road network was essentially established before. The applicant was largely working within that existing road network. That parking was there because they actually had deficit in parking with the very second application. Ms. Murphy: It is kind of down in a hole as you're going down Route 7. This is down below the highway. Mr. O'Neil: Okay. That's all I have. Chairman Aikman: Okay. Julie? Ms. Pastor: You're going to hear this one for all of the cases. It's regarding the issue of the Gateway District versus the H-2. Where are we on this? Is this applicant willing to commit to the Gateway District versus the H-2? As you know, the big idea around Gateway was that we get rid of H-2 and we move applications when we had the opportunity seeing this is a proffer amendment. Mr. Klusek: Sure. Each of these applications are going to be a little bit different. In general, it's going to be staff's position that when an applicant comes in for a re- (Note: This is a transcript prepared by a Town contractor based on the video of the meeting. It may not be entirely accurate. For greater accuracy, we encourage you to review the video of the meeting that is on the Town’s website – www.leesburgva.gov or refer to the approved Board of Architectural Review meeting minutes. The Board’s meeting videos are retained for three calendar years after a meeting per Library of Virginia Records Retention guidelines.) 22 | Page July 6, 2022 zoning, that they should be proffering or changing to the H-2 at least for the portion that they're re-zoning. Chairman Aikman: To the Gateway, you mean? Mr. Klusek: To the Gateway. I'm sorry. Did I say H-2? Yes, the Gateway. [laughter] Ms. Murphy: That's okay. We know what you meant. Mr. Klusek: To the Gateway. I'm going to say it again. We are expecting applicants to proffer into the Gateway, at least for the portion that they're looking to make significant changes. The initial Russell Branch Retail application has a much larger area. They're not proposing any changes to that. We're not necessarily asking for changes there. It would be ideal from a staff perspective, but we are going to take a pretty firm stance for areas that they are changing. Ms. Pastor: That's my only question. Otherwise, I feel like the details can be addressed. I wouldn't really-- the comments that the staff made, I believe there was one related to some fenestration on the facade, on the east facade. I think you actually mentioned it in your presentation. Chairman Aikman: Okay, thank you. Don? Mr. Scheuerman: Yes. Other than any staffs mentioned in the fenestration on the east facade, which is blank, no questions. Chairman Aikman: Okay. What I'm hearing, and correct me if I'm wrong, is that we're aligned behind the staff's comments. There's no-- no one's taking exception to the staff report or expanding on the staff report, or varying from the staff report for purposes of summarizing and creating a letter? Vice Chair Minchew: I'll just say, I think there are different degrees to which we can go in that letter as well. I would be most comfortable if we just said that the BAR has generally accepted the proposed building, just the specific items that we’re asked about placement, orientation, context and leave it at that. Ms. Pastor: Right. We stay in our lane. Vice Chair Minchew: Yes. Just keep it really-- I don't see that we need to go any further than that. Please, somebody correct me if you see it differently. Chairman Aikman: No, I think that's right. Ms. Pastor: Unless we had something very specific that we wanted them to look at. Vice Chair Minchew: We didn't flag anything else that seemed alarming. I, too, would have been thrilled had it come into the H-2, but in this particular case-- (Note: This is a transcript prepared by a Town contractor based on the video of the meeting. It may not be entirely accurate. For greater accuracy, we encourage you to review the video of the meeting that is on the Town’s website – www.leesburgva.gov or refer to the approved Board of Architectural Review meeting minutes. The Board’s meeting videos are retained for three calendar years after a meeting per Library of Virginia Records Retention guidelines.) 23 | Page July 6, 2022 Chairman Aikman: To the Gateway. Vice Chair Minchew: Sorry, the Gateway. I know. It's in our DNA. That's why I wanted to change the name. I'm the one who came up with Gateway. How soon I forget. Yes, I think if we just keep it strictly to that, I think that that letter, then, is something that you get buy-in for us to assign. Ms. Murphy: Can I just clarify, Madam Chair? Is it the Board's position that you would like to see the full property brought in to the Gateway District, or you don't want to go that far in your letter? I think we need to know. They are proposing to put this particular land bay in, right, Rich? Mr. Klusek: I think, yes. That's what we're expecting that at this point. Ms. Pastor: I think, ideally, that is what we're saying. Ms. Murphy: The best-case scenario from the BAR's perspective is that the entire parcel would be committed to the Gateway District rather than the H-2? Ms. Pastor: Correct. Mr. Klusek: The applicant would like to comment. Chairman Aikman: Sure. Ms. Novotney: If I may. This, as Rich pointed out, this is one of four parcels that were part of the original shops at Russell Branch Retail. As such, this is the only portion, the only land bay that is subject to the rezoning. We have already constructed several of the other buildings. They are not purview to this application so we'll agree to bring this parcel, this one land bay into the Gateway District Guidelines, but the other three land bays are not part of the application before the BAR or staff. Ms. Murphy: And they're separate PIN numbers? Is that right? Ms. Novotney: Yes, they've all been sub-divided. Ms. Pastor: I think it's just for us because this is a high-level review, we can continue to say that we would like properties that are currently proffered H-2 to commit to the Gateway District whenever possible. So, whenever the shops at Russell Branch come in for redevelopment, we want them to be [crosstalk]-- Ms. Novotny: That's just a comment, though, right [crosstalk]-- Ms. Pastor: It's just a comment. We're not directing anything. We can't direct anything [crosstalk]-- Ms. Novotny: Great. I just wanted to give background, so when we come back just with this parcel that you're not like, "Hold on, Molly. We talked about that." Those other parcels when- if they do come back, then they could be evaluated. Thank you. (Note: This is a transcript prepared by a Town contractor based on the video of the meeting. It may not be entirely accurate. For greater accuracy, we encourage you to review the video of the meeting that is on the Town’s website – www.leesburgva.gov or refer to the approved Board of Architectural Review meeting minutes. The Board’s meeting videos are retained for three calendar years after a meeting per Library of Virginia Records Retention guidelines.) 24 | Page July 6, 2022 Chairman Aikman: Thank you. Ms. Pastor: That's it. Chairman Aikman: Okay, and we don't take any kind of a vote or anything? Ms. Pastor: No vote. Next. [chuckles] Chairman Aikman: Yes. We move on then to referral TLZM-2022-0005 Fort View Boulevard, and Trailview Boulevard is the address and it is to be a Lidl grocery store. Mr. Klusek: I'm going to skip over the first four slides here because we've seen that and it's the same general information applies here, but in this case, we are reviewing the applicant's first submission. This is again a concept plan and a proffer amendment, which is rezoning. The concept plan covers Parcel 4A, which is highlighted in red here. The proffers cover the entire site. There’s are some phasing triggers with the previously approved rezoning application that are affected by development on Parcel 4A here. For that reason, I'll say it again, the concept plan amendment is only changing 4A. The proffers affect the entire Leegate proposal. The subject property here, again, is the triangular piece of property bound by Trailview to the north, Battlefield, and Fort View. The triangular piece of property has presented some unique design constraints here, and that's going to be the subject of what we're talking about this evening. A couple of views, just to get you oriented to the site. This is from the Battlefield Parkway Route 7 overpass looking south towards the subject property. Trailview Boulevard located right here. The property is the grassy area that you see behind the line that I drew, and the existing townhouses behind that. This picture is taken from Trailview Boulevard looking towards the townhouses. Here's a view looking at the property actually from Fort View Boulevard. This is looking south down Fort View Boulevard, with the applicant's proposal located on the left side, the townhouses on the right. That last photo was actually taken generally in this direction. As you can see, the applicant is proposing a 31,000-square-foot grocery store. The back of the property is oriented currently towards the Battlefield Parkway. There's a loading area in this general vicinity. The front door of the building, which you'll see in some of the renderings that I show you at the end, is located in the circle that I just drew. In this particular case, staff's assessment is that the building placement does not adequately address the Gateway District Guidelines or the Zoning Ordinance TLZO Section 7.12.24. In addition, the building lacks sufficient articulation and fenestration to deal with building mass. Some of staff-specific concerns are that the front is oriented towards the parking lot. The side and rear facades are on major roadways. In addition, the applicant is seeking setback modifications from Battlefield Parkway. They are not providing the full Zoning Ordinance setback as requested for Battlefield. They have (Note: This is a transcript prepared by a Town contractor based on the video of the meeting. It may not be entirely accurate. For greater accuracy, we encourage you to review the video of the meeting that is on the Town’s website – www.leesburgva.gov or refer to the approved Board of Architectural Review meeting minutes. The Board’s meeting videos are retained for three calendar years after a meeting per Library of Virginia Records Retention guidelines.) 25 | Page July 6, 2022 surface parking located in front of the building. Service areas, primarily the loading dock, is oriented or in close proximity to the residential townhouse units. There are also some vehicular circulation concerns, since the primary entrance to the site is located right here, and this is the same place where trucks would have to essentially come in and back into the loading dock. There's also excessive surface parking that is proposed here. Zoning Ordinance requires some 135 spaces, if I recall, and they're providing nearly double what is required. As I mentioned before, the rear façade is exposed to Battlefield Parkway. There's trademark architecture, which you'll see in some of the renderings here, which again is one of the things that the Gateway Guidelines specifically discourage. Having said all of that, we recognize that there are some challenges with this site. The triangular-shaped property is one of them. The back of the building will have to face a road. We understand that. The question I think that we need to be thinking about is, which road should the back of the building face? Should the back face Fort View with the townhouses? Should it face Battlefield Parkway, which is by far the most highly traversed corridor here, the most traffic? Or should it face Trailview? In addition, there are some topography concerns we need to be thinking about. The first photo I showed you earlier was from the ramp from the bridge over Route 7 looking down into the site and of course, that proximity to residential. Some building elevations, I don't have a lot to say to these. I'll sort of let them speak to themselves. The key thing to know is that the circle that I drew on one of those earlier maps of the front door, that is located essentially in this corner. The applicant has provided some renderings. This, again, is the front door of the building facing the parking area, as we discussed earlier. This is a view looking across the Trailview Boulevard intersection, roughly from Battlefield Parkway. You'll notice the townhouses in the back. View looking generally northwest across Battlefield Parkway. Fort View Boulevard would be located in that general vicinity. View looking across Fort View Boulevard. In this particular case, our overall assessment is that the current layout is not consistent with the Gateway District Guidelines. There would be a number of zoning modifications that would be required and in this case, we struggle to see the justification for that. Staff is recommending a revised layout and design to better address the Guidelines and site context. I think that there has to be some recognition that it would be very difficult to achieve full compliance with all of the Gateway District Guidelines and the zoning, but I think that there needs to be some sort of theme or some sort of intent to at least respect a handful of them, and that's not something that we're seeing right now. One potential solution, and I say potential solution because we're open to other ideas from the applicant, or from the BAR, for that matter, is to rotate the building. Essentially, orienting the front door more towards the residential units to provide improved fenestration along the rear and side facades, to essentially account for the fact that there would be a rear façade facing the road. As well as additional (Note: This is a transcript prepared by a Town contractor based on the video of the meeting. It may not be entirely accurate. For greater accuracy, we encourage you to review the video of the meeting that is on the Town’s website – www.leesburgva.gov or refer to the approved Board of Architectural Review meeting minutes. The Board’s meeting videos are retained for three calendar years after a meeting per Library of Virginia Records Retention guidelines.) 26 | Page July 6, 2022 landscaping and buffering along some of the roadways; namely, Battlefield Parkway and Trailview Boulevard. Again, your front facade is essentially facing or roughly facing the residential units. I want to point out one additional thing, one thing that you're going to learn a little bit later on. I'll let Molly speak to a little bit more in just a moment. One of the reasons that you actually see the building sited the way it is right now is because there is a sanitary sewer line that runs roughly in front of the building. That has, I think, largely driven the placement of the building as it stands now, but even with this current placement, staff does have concerns; namely, our utilities department. I apologize to Molly because she's hearing this for the first time. Given the timing, we haven't gotten full comments yet, but the overhang of the building that is located in this general vicinity is actually overhanging the existing sanitary sewer line a little bit too much for our utilities department comfort. At a minimum, even if the building does stay in this current position, the overhang, as you see circled here, would have to be shrunk down as well. Having said all of that, again, one idea that we have is to rotate the building so that the back goes up to Trailview. It is not a perfect design solution to address all of the comments, but this is one of those tricky situations that we're going to have to put our heads together in order to figure out and work together. That is what I have for now. Happy to take any questions Mr. O'Neil: One question. Are you suggesting on this drawing that the building actually swings completely around to the upper corner so that the sanitary sewer line misses the building when it's rotated? Is that-- I hope-- [chuckles] Mr. Klusek: There's actually multiple sanitary sewer lines, if I recall correctly. There's somewhat of a Y-shape. Regardless, I think that we're looking at some sort of redo of the sanitary system on this land [crosstalk]-- Mr. O'Neil: Okay, or the shape or footprint of the building would have to change? Mr. Klusek: Or the shape of the building footprint would have to change. I think that that would probably be pretty difficult to accommodate. This was initially set up for three individual pad sites; one roughly something like this, one something like this, and one something like that. The sanitary sewer was divided amongst them. Given the fact that this is a significantly larger building, there are significant design challenges associated with trying to fit this building within the existing utility infrastructure. Mr. O'Neil: Okay, thanks. Chairman Aikman: Quick question. Would reducing the number of-- I mean, I don't know what your position is on the number of parking spaces, but does reducing the number of parking spaces create any-- Does it make it any easier to reorient the building, or is that something you're not looking at, at this point? (Note: This is a transcript prepared by a Town contractor based on the video of the meeting. It may not be entirely accurate. For greater accuracy, we encourage you to review the video of the meeting that is on the Town’s website – www.leesburgva.gov or refer to the approved Board of Architectural Review meeting minutes. The Board’s meeting videos are retained for three calendar years after a meeting per Library of Virginia Records Retention guidelines.) 27 | Page July 6, 2022 Mr. Klusek: I think that that would be part of the overall equation of what staff's ultimate recommendation would be. For the orientation of the building and the positioning on the site, I'm not sure that matters a whole lot. Simply from the perspective of excess parking, again, nearly double what is required by the Zoning Ordinance, we do have some concerns associated with that. Chairman Aikman: Okay. Mr. Scheuerman: Just brief. The number of parking spots, is that a minimum for the use or is that a maximum? Mr. Klusek: Our Zoning Ordinance dictates a minimum. The applicant is proposing double, essentially, what the Zoning Ordinance requires [crosstalk]-- Mr. Scheuerman: The minimum is 135, and they're looking to double up on that? Mr. Klusek: Yes, sir. Mr. Scheuerman: Okay, and so if they're not putting in parking spots, it allows space for alternate uses like green space or buffers or whatever? Mr. Klusek: Correct. Which gets to one of staff's positions is that they are seeking a buffer modification in this general area; a reduced setback and some reduced buffering. At the same time, they have a lot of excess parking, so it's-- [crosstalk] Go ahead. Mr. Scheuerman: Do you think that that modification is in an effort to try to fit within the bifurcated site because of-- Because I assume it's a no-build utility easement [crosstalk]-- Chairman Aikman: Why don't we-- Yes, I think that-- Does the applicant have a brief proposal or a brief presentation which you'd like to-- Thank you. Ms. Novotny: Do I need that remote to advance. Thank you. Ms. Murphy: If you do draw on the screen, you have to-- It's a little bit off. [laughter] Ms. Murphy: The line will not go where you actually put the pen. Ms. Novotny: I'm going to do my best not to draw because it's been a while since I've drawn on the screen. Again, for the record, my name is Molly Novotny. I'm an urban planner with Cooley, here before you on this application on behalf of Lidl. Just by way of background. Some of you may not be familiar with Lidl. It is a German- based grocery store. It got its start in 1977. There are about 35 stores throughout the State of Virginia. There are two others within Loudoun County. This would be the third Loudoun County location. Lidl, just economics, is a really good provider in terms of the market and Towns that have Lidl, your grocery prices are lower. That's (Note: This is a transcript prepared by a Town contractor based on the video of the meeting. It may not be entirely accurate. For greater accuracy, we encourage you to review the video of the meeting that is on the Town’s website – www.leesburgva.gov or refer to the approved Board of Architectural Review meeting minutes. The Board’s meeting videos are retained for three calendar years after a meeting per Library of Virginia Records Retention guidelines.) 28 | Page July 6, 2022 important, relevant information right now in the time that we live in; not relevant to the BAR, but wanted to give you that background. This application before you is part of a larger rezoning application. As Rich mentioned, Leegate was rezoned. It allows about half a million square feet of commercial development and about 330 townhouses. Phase 2 is stuck as part of the townhouses. As part of the Leegate application, there was a phasing requirement that they could unlock their first phase of residential, then they needed to build some commercial before they could get to Phase 2. They're stuck, and so this Lidl application is coming forward to revise those proffers which would allow Phase 2 to come online. In terms of the design intent, this is what's really the critical issue. What you see here in red is the existing in-ground sewer line. To relocate this line, we're estimating it's between $750,000 and $1,000,000 to relocate the line. This building has been sited specifically to respect that line. As Rich said, the first time we've heard the comment about the overhang; we can adjust the overhang to respect the line. As you see here, Battlefield Parkway is on the right. Trailview is at the top of the screen. We see Trailview Boulevard as our main entrance, as our main corridor, not Battlefield Parkway. The majority of the traffic will be coming off of Route 7 onto Battlefield Parkway, viewing what we've identified, and I'll show you the images, as our front door. We've got a large glass facade along that northern side of the building. Also importantly is, as I said, Leegate is approved for half a million square feet of development. That development will all be occurring north of Trailview Boulevard. The idea of placing the back of our building to Trailview closes the door for that integrated mixed-use environment that's so important to the Leegate project. As we mentioned, this alignment, the building where it is, it respects and relates to the future development at Leegate. The image at the top is that approved concept plan. It's not a hypothetical, it was approved several years ago. That plan calls for a hotel, office, additional residential and additional retail up there. One of the comments was about the additional parking. Our placement, in addition to respecting the existing sewer line, it also provides the ability to build additional commercial development within this land bay. We're not ready to do that now. Lidl does not have the time within their contract to try to find additional tenants, but the idea had always been to locate two smaller buildings. The approved Leegate plan shows two smaller buildings along Trailview, and this would allow that with a future legislative application. Then additionally, it places the back of the building along the arterial road, Battlefield Parkway, which is a much higher classification of road within the collector road that is Trailview. Behind Battlefield is a Town sewer treatment plant. We think that's a much more appropriate location for back-of-house rather than the to-be-developed Leegate area to the north. (Note: This is a transcript prepared by a Town contractor based on the video of the meeting. It may not be entirely accurate. For greater accuracy, we encourage you to review the video of the meeting that is on the Town’s website – www.leesburgva.gov or refer to the approved Board of Architectural Review meeting minutes. The Board’s meeting videos are retained for three calendar years after a meeting per Library of Virginia Records Retention guidelines.) 29 | Page July 6, 2022 Our most attractive façade is outward-facing. Yes, we know that we are bound by three roads, and that is a very sticky spot to be in with these Gateway District standards. What we've done is we've really tried to respect the roads where we can and relate to the most important ones. We've got convenient drive aisles and parking; critical for shopping for a grocery store. Fully enclosed loading dock, I'll show you some images of that in a minute. Then as I noted, the rear of the building will face Battlefield. After seeing the staff report, we did go and look to see how could this building be located as staff has suggested. What you see here is this would require a replacement and a relocation of that sewer line, not something we're advocating for. What we think is important here is you see that the back of the house is now facing the north, which is facing Leegate. We just don't think that is a good design decision. Additionally, the main entrance really becomes undesirable for a grocery store. You're driving in at that northern entrance, you're driving immediately in right at the front door and there's not that convenient parking there. It also greatly limits future on-site development. It would be very difficult to put another building within this triangle piece. We do have a strong pedestrian connection to the existing townhouses across the street that you can see here. In the image of the building, that is actually the loading dock. It is fully enclosed with a roof and a garage door. Loading occurs at night, so that garage door would be closed throughout the day. This shows the loading dock on the far-right. This elevation is facing Trailview. We saw the staff report. We reviewed it against the Gateway design standards. This is the current design of the building. This is the façade that you would see as you enter the property as you're traveling south on Battlefield Parkway. Building placement. As I noted, it's incredibly tricky with three perimeter roads, and so we've placed it with the back-of-house to the road that we think is most likely not to negatively impact our neighbors. You can see here, the image at the bottom is as someone is traveling south or west at Trailview, it's that intersection at Trailview, and it's got a strong street presence there. We can't bring the building any closer to that road because of that sewer line. Off-street loading. These are three examples that Lidl has built of enclosed loading docks. Ours would be very similar, and so we have addressed one of the Gateway design standards. What I've done on all these screens is done a screenshot from the ordinance of the Gateway standard to show you how we are adhering to the standard. It talks about loading should be screened, and we've done that here. In terms of site design, mechanical equipment shall be screened. We've done that. You can see in the image, we've got parapets at the top of the roof, so from the street level, you would not be seeing any rooftop mechanical equipment. In regard to surface parking, yes, there will be parking between the front of the building and the streets. The ordinance calls for a four-foot-tall masonry wall. We don't think that's really the best approach here, given this is part of a larger (Note: This is a transcript prepared by a Town contractor based on the video of the meeting. It may not be entirely accurate. For greater accuracy, we encourage you to review the video of the meeting that is on the Town’s website – www.leesburgva.gov or refer to the approved Board of Architectural Review meeting minutes. The Board’s meeting videos are retained for three calendar years after a meeting per Library of Virginia Records Retention guidelines.) 30 | Page July 6, 2022 integrated rezoning development-- mixed-use development, and so we've proposed landscaping. We're happy to have additional conversations with staff, but we think that we've mitigated the parking impacts with the landscaping. In terms of building design, we've worked very hard to do four-sided architecture. Are we completely there? Probably not. We are early in the process. We're in the middle of our first round of referrals. We've not yet received staff comments on the overall rezoning application. This does show you we've got all-natural materials; a mix of wood, brick, stone, and some smooth-faced block here. That material continues along all sides. What you see in the top picture, that was our initial design. It does have a monolithic rear of the building. The lower image shows how we've already revised that. Those materials are natural as well, brick and block as well. We've got a variety of materials and color. We've got colors and some articulation on the back of the building, as well as the landscaping, but we have not turned- we have not ignored the back of the building. We know that that is important and have done the four-sided architecture. Just to go over the materials. Again, you see here it's a mixture of different types of brick and wood and then glass panels. With that, I'm happy to answer any question. Chairman Aikman: Thank you. Why don't we follow our normal course. If you want to begin, Ms. Minchew. Vice Chair Minchew: Thank you. I'm struggling to say anything much more than that I concur wholeheartedly with staff preservation planners' assessment, and Rich's as well but very specifically, the preservation planners' assessment. I understand the site constraints, I understand how difficult it must be to be trying to shoehorn this sized building on that site with those previously existing problems, but the concerns that staff has highlighted would be my concerns as well. Ms. Murphy: I'm just going to put the images back up so you have something to talk to. Vice-Chair Minchew: As far as building placement, I have concerns. As others have- I mean, as staff has already relayed, building orientation, I have concerns; understanding there's not going to be a perfect solution for the orientation, but I definitely have concerns. I don't think you're there yet. The building height, it's perhaps acceptable, kind of hard to tell now. Building size seems massive without changing the massing. If you worked on the massing, then the size and scale might be okay. Those are my takeaways on the specific elements we're supposed to address tonight regarding the architectural. Again, I agree wholeheartedly with staff's assessment. I don't really feel the need to go into a lot more right now, maybe later. Chairman Aikman: Okay, thank you. Julie? (Note: This is a transcript prepared by a Town contractor based on the video of the meeting. It may not be entirely accurate. For greater accuracy, we encourage you to review the video of the meeting that is on the Town’s website – www.leesburgva.gov or refer to the approved Board of Architectural Review meeting minutes. The Board’s meeting videos are retained for three calendar years after a meeting per Library of Virginia Records Retention guidelines.) 31 | Page July 6, 2022 Ms. Pastor: Okay, and so starting at the beginning. I think actually, Rich, you made the point perfectly clear that this is at the first submission, so unlike the other one where we have things have started to work their way out, we don't have anything worked out here. I think I would concur with Terri, one of the difficulties with these referral ones is we don't really know when we are going to get them. I believe when we set the process in motion initially, it was to get it a little bit later in the process so that we could be reacting to a more complete review, but as Ms. Minchew indicates, I mean, there are way too many question marks out there. First of all, it is a big-box project and right off the bat, that's not something that we're going to be comfortable with. It affects placement orientation as well. If it weren't such a big box, it might fit in different places and the scale might be different and everything else. I too understand the constraints of the site, and realize that you really have to look at what you've got and figure out the best way to deal with making a silk purse from a sow’s ear. The other thing is from a design perspective at the surface, and of course, we're not going to get into the details now, but this project relates more to the water treatment center than it does to the residential or ore the mixed-use that I believe Leegate is trying to be, a mixed-use center that's pedestrian-friendly, integrated uses, all that good stuff. We're not going to get there tonight. I think it is best for us to just say that-- I think both the staff and- the planning staff and the preservation staff have outlined some concerns. It needs to evolve into a next submission. Perhaps at that point, we could even come back and make comments again if you felt it was valuable, but I also think that the preservation planner took a pretty good crack at those as well. Anyway, I can see the difficulty that we have here. Of course, I have to say the Gateway Guidelines, again, and we have the issue as different from the one that we were presented with before. We had a carve-off of this property, just going into the Gateway. In this case, we've got a bigger project trying to use the Gateway Guidelines. If we're going to use these Gateway Guidelines, then you really need to look at what those Gateway Guidelines say and take that to heart. Ms. Murphy: Madam Chair, can I just address the timing? I forgot to talk about that earlier when I gave an introduction to these. Chairman Aikman: Sure. Ms. Murphy: The standard operating procedure that was developed by the previous director, which could be subject to change because of course, all of you met our new director earlier tonight- [laughter] Ms. Murphy: -was that these would come to the BAR after the first submission. In this particular instance, the applicant did ask if they could come earlier rather than later. Because, I mean, correct me if I'm wrong, Molly, but I think your clients are still in a little bit of a study period right now, correct? (Note: This is a transcript prepared by a Town contractor based on the video of the meeting. It may not be entirely accurate. For greater accuracy, we encourage you to review the video of the meeting that is on the Town’s website – www.leesburgva.gov or refer to the approved Board of Architectural Review meeting minutes. The Board’s meeting videos are retained for three calendar years after a meeting per Library of Virginia Records Retention guidelines.) 32 | Page July 6, 2022 [laughter] Ms. Murphy: They were hoping to get some preliminary BAR feedback that coincided with that study period that they're in. Ms. Novotny: Right. If I may, we are still in that study period. Commissioner Minchew, I heard you about the building placement. We would love some additional guidance. Sanitary line aside, even if that weren't here, we just struggle with placing the back of the building along Trailview, knowing that commercial development and a mix of uses was going to develop on the other side. We'd love some additional guidance as to how we could rectify that. We tried to address it through architecture and landscaping, and happy to dig into that more, but the actual siting of the building, from our perspective, is really confined by the mix of uses it's supposed to relate to, both to the west and to the north. Chairman Aikman: Don? Mr. Scheuerman: I'm very sympathetic to a bifurcated site. I've had a few of those in my career. I think staff has done a really good job. The first cut is always messy, and so I think Lauren has done a good job of drawing out those things that we're concerned about and what we think about. I think your explanation in back of the house towards the water treatment plant is an interesting position, particularly compared to what is the future development. I can appreciate why it is you position yourself the way you have, but I do support staff's comments. I think, like I said, the first cut is the deepest here, and it's a lot of detail and a lot of mess. Hopefully, the next time around, some of this can be worked through. Chairman Aikman: Thank you. Tom? Mr. O'Neil: Just one clarification, again, make sure I understand, there's- they're asking for a variance at how close they are to Battlefield as well? Ms. Murphy: That's outside my realm. I'd have to let Rich answer that. [chuckles] Mr. Klusek: Yes, they are seeking a setback modification. They are looking for the building to be closer to Battlefield Parkway than would otherwise be required by zoning. Also worth noting, this is in the Eastern Gateway District, not to be confused with the Gateway Overlay. That Town Plan, the Small Area Plan, does also seek for those particular roads to be sort of Gateway features as well. That presents some challenges for us as well. Mr. O'Neil: Okay, thank you. I just asked because it does seem like what a lot of people are reacting to is the back of the building is on Battlefield. I understand the reason for the variance, but that just seems to be compounding the problem. (Note: This is a transcript prepared by a Town contractor based on the video of the meeting. It may not be entirely accurate. For greater accuracy, we encourage you to review the video of the meeting that is on the Town’s website – www.leesburgva.gov or refer to the approved Board of Architectural Review meeting minutes. The Board’s meeting videos are retained for three calendar years after a meeting per Library of Virginia Records Retention guidelines.) 33 | Page July 6, 2022 Ms. Novotny: Just for background. That modification, the requirement would be 80 feet. We've modified it down to be 50 feet, so we've reduced 30 feet and it's to respect the sewer line. That building really slots right between-- It's as close to that sewer line as we can get it and therefore, we need to be a little bit closer to Battlefield Parkway than the ordinance would have allowed. Just to give you the background on why we have the modification [crosstalk]-- Ms. Pastor: But does the building need to be that size, is the question. That's one of the comments that's made is it is corporate architecture and it may be the template and that might be it, but if there's a way for it to be less, then you may not need that modification. Ms. Novotny: If you'd entertain, I'd love to introduce the client, Lidl, and give them a chance to address that comment and speak just for a moment. Ms. Pastor: If they want to. Mr. Johnson: Good evening, Board. Thank you for seeing us on such short notice as well. We really appreciate it. We are really under the gun with our contract. Regarding [crosstalk]-- Chairman Aikman: Could you just identify yourself for the record. Thank you. Mr. Johnson: I apologize. Harris Johnson, I'm a real estate manager with Lidl in Virginia. Chairman Aikman: Okay, thank you. Mr. Johnson: Regarding Ms. Pastor's comments, we are a discount grocer. The way we get there is through efficiency, and that is based on our very specific internal layouts and operational systems. With that being said, we are pretty bound to the shape of our building and our floor space. That is a primary concern for us and something that we have very little wiggle room on. We've talked a lot about sort of extra modifications, we are in a position to be able to make more. We haven't exactly addressed everything yet but again, we're still very early in the comments. I'd just like to make one further comment. This right here, which is where Lauren stopped, this is the primary face of our building. This is what we think is looking best, this is where we want to address the community. Rich, when he started his presentation, he started looking from Battlefield Parkway from that little hill coming from the Route 7 overpass. It would be looking right at this side of our building, which we think is the best building. Siting it one or the other way, it would be the back of our building, our loading dock. Frankly, our vision for this property is for our customers to get off of Route 7 and see that right there. Thank you very much for your time. Chairman Aikman: Thank you. (Note: This is a transcript prepared by a Town contractor based on the video of the meeting. It may not be entirely accurate. For greater accuracy, we encourage you to review the video of the meeting that is on the Town’s website – www.leesburgva.gov or refer to the approved Board of Architectural Review meeting minutes. The Board’s meeting videos are retained for three calendar years after a meeting per Library of Virginia Records Retention guidelines.) 34 | Page July 6, 2022 Ms. Pastor: Thanks. Mr. O'Neil: My only other comment would be the four-sided architecture that's noted for the Gateway. The applicant mentioned it themselves that that façade facing Battlefield, when it comes time for us to review it for the particular details, that façade more than anything currently needs the most work just so it does meet that concept of four-sided architecture. That's all I have. Chairman Aikman: Thank you. Erin? Ms. Nicholson: Just briefly, I'd also support Preservation Planners' comments and the Board's comments. I have an appreciation for how challenging it must be to try to fit a rectangular box in a triangular hole. Placement is challenging. I think it's been more than said that the direction and how it's facing is a major concern that maybe needs to be looked at closer. Has there been any consideration of turning it about 100 degrees so the back of the building is facing the storm retention pond in that back corner? Ms. Novotny: I might need to switch to a plan so we can see- make sure-- Are you talking about-- Oh, goodness. I'm going to have to draw [laughter] [crosstalk] Ms. Murphy: I jinxed you by telling you about it. Ms. Nicholson: It's not that one. Ms. Novotny: Down here? No? Ms. Nicholson: No, not that. Ms. Novotny: The stormwater pond is farther to the south, right? It's like-- I can't draw on this. [chuckles] Ms. Nicholson: The back of the building would be facing the Fort if it was flipped 100 degrees approximately. Ms. Novotny: Our layout is shown here. This is our layout shown here. The sewer line that exists in the ground today is in red. I just want to make sure I'm understanding. Ms. Nicholson: If it's turned clockwise so the back of the building was along that curved [crosstalk]-- Ms. Novotny: So the back of the building is to the south? Ms. Nicholson: Yes, Fort View Boulevard, where-- You can't see on this map, but down in that bottom corner is the storm retention pond behind the townhouses. The (Note: This is a transcript prepared by a Town contractor based on the video of the meeting. It may not be entirely accurate. For greater accuracy, we encourage you to review the video of the meeting that is on the Town’s website – www.leesburgva.gov or refer to the approved Board of Architectural Review meeting minutes. The Board’s meeting videos are retained for three calendar years after a meeting per Library of Virginia Records Retention guidelines.) 35 | Page July 6, 2022 frontage would be facing Battlefield- as you're driving down Battlefield Parkway, the long front of the building would be facing kind of that direction. Ms. Novotny: I don't think we've looked at that [crosstalk]-- Ms. Nicholson: Or is it just too awkward? [laughs] Ms. Novotny: Right, I don't think we've looked at that because of that storm pipe there. Doesn't mean we can't look at it, but it does then shift that loading even more proximate to more townhouses, but we can look at that. I appreciate the feedback and the ideas. That's definitely what we're looking for here, so thank you. Ms. Nicholson: Just throwing ideas out. Ms. Novotny: Yes, I appreciate it. Ms. Nicholson: Not that the Board agrees with that as well, just thinking out loud. Chairman Aikman: It seems like we're presented with some conflicting imperatives, right? I mean, you have the way your store needs to be oriented and there's the sewer system and there are other considerations, and then there are these Gateway Guidelines. It's easy to see those as kind of academic or something, as compared with the imperatives that you feel for your business and the site and so on. As somebody who just recently relocated to Leesburg, I think the Gateway Guidelines are super important. The first time I came to Leesburg, I came in on Old Waterford Road, which is a road that it's not in the Gateway. On the strength of approaching Leesburg that way, I actually put a contract on a house and moved here. The next week, I came back to Leesburg for the inspection of my house, and I came in that time on East Market Street. I have to say, when I did that, I thought to myself, "Oh my God, I've made a mistake." Because the way the Town presents from different angles and the Gateway makes a huge difference in the impression that the Town makes. While I understand the importance to a commercial enterprise of its formula for selling, that's hugely important to you guys. While I understand the inconvenience of the way the site was originally designed for other types of structures, something ultimately is going to have to give. We're early in the process, and I think staff's commitment to the Gateway Guidelines is something that is not just a technicality. It's super important to the culture of Leesburg and to the impression that the own makes. On the strength of that and the very apt comments that have been made by my colleagues already this evening, I think at this point, I concur with the staff reports. That's my view. I guess we're back where we were with the same sort of articulation that we made in the last case, right, for the letter? Vice Chair Minchew: At most. I mean, I'm not even sure-- [sighs] (Note: This is a transcript prepared by a Town contractor based on the video of the meeting. It may not be entirely accurate. For greater accuracy, we encourage you to review the video of the meeting that is on the Town’s website – www.leesburgva.gov or refer to the approved Board of Architectural Review meeting minutes. The Board’s meeting videos are retained for three calendar years after a meeting per Library of Virginia Records Retention guidelines.) 36 | Page July 6, 2022 Ms. Pastor: I think we could say we're not comfortable or [crosstalk]-- Chairman Aikman: I just mean in terms of concurrence with the staff position. Ms. Pastor: Sure, we could say that [crosstalk]-- Vice Chair Minchew: I think we could say that, yes. Chairman Aikman: That's what I meant. I'm sorry, I wasn't clear. Mr. Klusek: I'm speaking solely for myself and not necessarily for Lauren at this moment. I think that what we're looking for right now is an improved attempt to address the Gateway standards and the Guidelines. We talked a lot about the standards today. Not necessarily even the Guidelines, but an improved attempt to address them. I think that in this particular case, it would make sense to see this application before the BAR again so that we can see if that improved attempt does in fact work. We're learning this process as we go because the Gateway is so new and even the process is relatively new. We went through a period where we had very few applications to one where we're all of a sudden having a lot, so I think we're going to have to take each of these circumstances case by case. In this one, I think that we would ask the applicant to make an attempt to address them or not. I mean, they do have the option to move forward despite the comments that staff and the BAR have made. I think that that makes sense right now. Again, I think our summary recommendation is work to try and better address the standards and guidelines. Does that sound-- Ms. Pastor: Yes, that sounds [crosstalk]-- Vice Chair Minchew: I think keeping [crosstalk] Chairman Aikman: I think that's right on point. Vice Chair Minchew: -is absolutely appropriate. Chairman Aikman: Yes, I think that's exactly right. Vice Chair Minchew: Which doesn't mean we don't appreciate the issues the applicant is facing. Chairman Aikman: Absolutely. Vice Chair Minchew: I think our role is really to-- Mr. Klusek: I also want to make it clear just for the record that I made the suggestion to rotate the building. I still think that there's some merit to doing that but is by no means the only potential solution. I neither want the BAR nor the applicant to think that that's the only way that they can reach a more successful outcome. (Note: This is a transcript prepared by a Town contractor based on the video of the meeting. It may not be entirely accurate. For greater accuracy, we encourage you to review the video of the meeting that is on the Town’s website – www.leesburgva.gov or refer to the approved Board of Architectural Review meeting minutes. The Board’s meeting videos are retained for three calendar years after a meeting per Library of Virginia Records Retention guidelines.) 37 | Page July 6, 2022 Chairman Aikman: Understood, thank you. Vice Chair Minchew: I think it has been said and everything's been said well, but the other thing to remember is that the reason we have the Gateway at all is to respect the approach to the Old and Historic District. It's understandable for the applicants to be focused inwardly to their own project, but there's a bigger picture there. We wouldn't even have this district without it being a corridor district approaching the historic district. Our bottom line then is to protect and assist the positive elements of that that Helen was referring to. Ms. Novotny: We appreciate and definitely think that we can address many of the Gateway standards. We just struggle with putting the back of the building along that, what we think is really the closest thing to the Gateway corridor. Staff's suggestion is to shift that building such that the back would be what you would see as you're driving along the East Market Street. If we can be tasked with working on some of these other standards, with recognizing that even if the sewer line weren't there, we think this is the appropriate location for the building, we cannot wholeheartedly do that, but we just struggle with the idea. We just don't think it's good planning to put the back of this grocery store along that corridor, given the Gateway. Vice Chair Minchew: I just want to say again, though, that the four-sided architecture is very important. If it didn't look like the back of a building, it wouldn't matter so much. [chuckles] I mean, not to overstate it and not to say I would automatically approve it if it were four-sided, but it is not even close to looking like a-- What you have to the back, doesn't even matter which street it is, honestly. What you've got now facing one of your three primary roadways is not four-sided architecture. If it looked like an approvable front of a building, then it's a much smaller ask for us to get there [crosstalk]-- Ms. Novotny: That is great feedback, thank you. Ms. Murphy: I think the Board has the support in the Gateway District standards, which specifically address buildings that have multiple road frontages, in saying that they should have basically two front elevations. I think that that's documented in terms of the Gateway District at least. Vice Chair Minchew: It is difficult, and your site-- I'm struggling a little bit. I'm always helped by a lot of perspectives that show what I'm seeing from where I'm seeing it, and there's a little bit of that. If you really believe what you're saying, that would help a lot to be saying, this is exactly what you see from here and what you see from there. I'm not saying it would get you there, but it would definitely help. Chairman Aikman: It's been very helpful in recent applications that we've had to be able to visualize better with perspectives, I think. Vice Chair Minchew: Given topography and all those things. (Note: This is a transcript prepared by a Town contractor based on the video of the meeting. It may not be entirely accurate. For greater accuracy, we encourage you to review the video of the meeting that is on the Town’s website – www.leesburgva.gov or refer to the approved Board of Architectural Review meeting minutes. The Board’s meeting videos are retained for three calendar years after a meeting per Library of Virginia Records Retention guidelines.) 38 | Page July 6, 2022 Chairman Aikman: Yes, exactly. Ms. Pastor: I also think that this-- Not to make the staff's point again, but they didn't say that it had to be turned. There might be another alternative and maybe you could look at that. Vice Chair Minchew: Right, agree. Chairman Aikman: So-- Ms. Pastor: We're done. Vice Chair Minchew: You have enough to work on for a letter? Chairman Aikman: Okay, great. Ms. Murphy: I think so. Chairman Aikman: Thank you and thank you for the presentation. That was very helpful. Ms. Novotny: Thank you all. I would say yes, we got good assignments from you all, so I appreciate it. Thank you for indulging us. Have a good night. Chairman Aikman: Thank you all. Okay [crosstalk]-- Mr. Parker: And now for something completely different. Chairman Aikman: Right, that brings us to-- Let's see. What are we doing? There it is. TLZM-2021-0002, which is also TLSE-2021-0002. Mr. Parker: Madam Chair and Members of the Board, good evening. Some of you I know, and I've worked with for a long time, others I have not. I'm Scott Parker. I'm a Senior Planning Project Manager in the Planning Department. As few times as Rich has done this. He's a veteran. This is my first time. I made a couple of presentations back when we were doing the H-2 concept plan those many years ago, but I'm new on this one so please bear with me on this one as well. It's a little bit different than from the last cases that we have. All three of them have their own unique properties this evening. This is a rezoning concept plan. I don't know how many members of the Board here may have dealt with this particular property back when there was a code of development that was proposed. I think a couple of you might have been on the Board when this was proposed before. There was an application that was denied by the Council for a commercial development here a number of years ago. This is a redo. The applicant took a lot of what the Council had to say to heart, and they have totally redesigned the site and they have what's presented here this evening. Again, with Lauren's beginning about at seven o'clock, we can skip these slides. (Note: This is a transcript prepared by a Town contractor based on the video of the meeting. It may not be entirely accurate. For greater accuracy, we encourage you to review the video of the meeting that is on the Town’s website – www.leesburgva.gov or refer to the approved Board of Architectural Review meeting minutes. The Board’s meeting videos are retained for three calendar years after a meeting per Library of Virginia Records Retention guidelines.) 39 | Page July 6, 2022 Lauren: I stole your thunder. Mr. Parker: Well, I'm still going to thunder in the distance a little bit. This is a concept plan and rezoning. There's a lot to this application focused in my lane on placement, orientation, context, height, scale, massing. There's a residential and commercial, as well as a gas station component. You'll see what I'm getting at in a moment. We're on a third submittal of this application. Staff has been working very, very hard with the applicant on this since the inception, to work with a number of elements of this particular application as it pertains to Meadowbrook. Obviously, the details are going to be summarized for Planning Commission and Council. We're tentatively scheduled to go in the fall for this application. What we have is a rezoning to PRN for 19.94 acres, and a rezoning to B-3 with a special exception for a service station of 1.4 acres. That includes a service station, convenience store, and a self-service carwash. The application that you're going to show here - I probably should have done the sheet first, but I'll get to that in a second - it's PRN and B-3. They're 65 townhouse units, which includes four affordable dwelling units. There's 34,000 square feet of one-story commercial, there's eight acres of open space that's designated as a temporary open space on the plan. I'll get to that in a moment. Then there's one special exception application for the aforementioned carwash. This particular site is bounded. I'm going to use blue for this. This is King Street, this is Evergreen Mill Road. This is Marathon, which is part of the new Meadowbrook Farm's neighborhood which is right here. The stormwater facility that you see when you drive is in this vicinity here. This does not exist through the site. This is a service road type of a thing, but it is in the general location of the main street that's going to be going through the application site. This is the concept site layout for this particular site. What you will find is what I just pointed out. This is South King Street, this is Evergreen Mill Road, this is the aforementioned Marathon. The applicant is proposing a connector road that is going to bifurcate the site through here with the advent of a large circle and a smaller circle here. This is an eight-acre piece called Land Bay F that the applicant is proposing to leave vacant and designate through the rezoning as open space. The Council will be taking up an initiation of a text amendment to the ordinance to look at some sort of senior care/continuum of care facility. That will become in the future. If this application is approved, anything that comes back for Land Bay F will have to go through the legislative process all over again. This is germane because as of right now, and I will change colors, only approximately this much of the property from King Street to this green line is currently in the Gateway District based on the map. The applicant is, through their proffers, proffering the entire site into the Gateway and the requirements thereof. That's not a requirement. That's something that we would have liked to have seen. It would have made it problematic to get through the process. It was not required, but they are proffering to be in the Gateway. Ergo, (Note: This is a transcript prepared by a Town contractor based on the video of the meeting. It may not be entirely accurate. For greater accuracy, we encourage you to review the video of the meeting that is on the Town’s website – www.leesburgva.gov or refer to the approved Board of Architectural Review meeting minutes. The Board’s meeting videos are retained for three calendar years after a meeting per Library of Virginia Records Retention guidelines.) 40 | Page July 6, 2022 whatever comes back on Land Bay F will have to come to the BAR in the future via concept amendment, et cetera. With that setting the stage for the background that we have here, the land bays are broken up in this particular application. The whole site is being reviewed for the Gateway District, and that's why we're here this evening. What is germane to the application now, as far as construction and the BAR, is these are residential townhouse units here, and these are residential townhouse units here. They provide a transition from what is the commercial core right here, as they're calling it, and then there is a service station with 8 pump 16 fueling stations in this location here. These are the single-family detached homes that I just showed you of the Meadowbrook Farm's neighborhood. To get a little bit closer. As far as this particular site layout, we have the Journey Through Hallowed-- The applicant is proffering, although leaving Land Bay F as open space, they are proffering to create and continue the Journey Through Hallowed Ground trail and landscape palette across the entire frontage with this application, which is included in this area here. This will be relevant in a moment to you. The orientation of these townhouses are on Marathon for this particular land bay, which is the connector road, and King, and Marathon. The fronts of the townhouses front on Marathon, they front on connector road. Then the interior townhouses, they front this way, facing this open space here via a loop road. The Gateway Design Districts, and Lauren will be able to probably weigh on this later. This is a touch out of my lane, but the Gateway District seems to suggest that they want the townhouses fronting on King Street. In this particular application with King Street, with the Journey Through Hallowed Ground palette, staff, as far as myself in the review of design, find that in this particular case, modification might not be out of the realm of possibility. I do believe that is Lauren's lane when we get to this application a little bit further down the road, but that may be something to consider. Because staff, from our design perspective, the lane that we're in, find that the orientation of these particular buildings is appropriate. The same is true of the balance of the townhouse units that's on this side of collector road. They face collector road creating a streetscape. They face the stormwater facility, which is being utilized, with significant buffering and the water of the pond as a feature. They front on Marathon as well. I incorrectly stated in my staff report that these units right here faced the commercial, they do not. They face this internal green space here and they're accessed via a loop road. That is the residential component of the 65 townhouses of this particular development. This is the palette so far that we have conceptually for these particular buildings. There's not a great amount of detail for this. When the architecture comes back to you for Certificate of Appropriateness, things like the sides of the buildings as they face this open space, rear, et cetera, will be a point that you will be taking up with the individual COAs. Again, that's for future discussion. (Note: This is a transcript prepared by a Town contractor based on the video of the meeting. It may not be entirely accurate. For greater accuracy, we encourage you to review the video of the meeting that is on the Town’s website – www.leesburgva.gov or refer to the approved Board of Architectural Review meeting minutes. The Board’s meeting videos are retained for three calendar years after a meeting per Library of Virginia Records Retention guidelines.) 41 | Page July 6, 2022 This is Land Bay C, and this is the commercial core of this development. This is significantly smaller than what the application was before. This is 34,000 square feet in five buildings. There's no use greater than 8,000 square feet. What staff has worked with the applicant on for a significant amount of time now has been the orientation of the building, the meanings of the building and what the purpose is. Basically, what we have is there's going to be the division between the residential in this area via landscaping, evergreens, significant wall piers, et cetera. This particular building, C1, will face onto this parking area, which opens to a large, commercial, public gathering space, which is to connect to this to make this a more of a dining restaurant, retail, community-type of an experience. However, the applicant is also activating this façade, and this façade, and this façade as well in order to give the street presence as well to what's called connector road now. They had a name for it. It's called connector road now, so we keep calling it connector road. At some point, we're going to have to put a name on it, so we don't have to keep calling it connector road. We'll do that. As you can see, the circle here for traffic calming, et cetera, will function even when Land Bay F comes into play. Staff is fine with the building orientation and the façade orientations of these buildings, given the nature of this particular development. We feel that it presents well to the street, as well as to the interior desire for the open space of the community. Obviously, there's going to be some work that's going to need to be done. Let me go a little bit further. These are the elevations that are presented at this particular time for building C1 right here. This is building C1, and you can see the various preliminary architecture that they have at this time. One of the things that will need to be addressed as we move forward through this is where the buildings do present on this side and this side, they'll need some variation in form and architecture, but again, that's a representation for the future, for the COAs of this. From my particular perspective, the height, the scale, the massing, the roof lines, architectural detail for the top, it's appropriate given the scale and the type of use for this particular development and the smaller scale that it is with the smaller uses. B1 and B2 are the same thing. You have a main facade on this side, main façade on this side, main façade here, parking in the rear here. The representation, again, has the smaller low scale presentation on the particular façades. Obviously, some architectural detail for the COAs is going to be required for the north and the east façade of B1 and B2 as well. Streets are going to be activated. As a basic form, basic façade presentation, basic orientation, staff, from my perspective, finds this appropriate, again, with the type of development that we're looking at. Building D is a little bit separate. You can tell that that's a standalone that is intended to be a dining restaurant type of an experiential type of a place that has its presence mainly on the open space gathering space, and the walk feature of the water, etcetera. Four-sided architecture, obviously, is going to be required for this. As far (Note: This is a transcript prepared by a Town contractor based on the video of the meeting. It may not be entirely accurate. For greater accuracy, we encourage you to review the video of the meeting that is on the Town’s website – www.leesburgva.gov or refer to the approved Board of Architectural Review meeting minutes. The Board’s meeting videos are retained for three calendar years after a meeting per Library of Virginia Records Retention guidelines.) 42 | Page July 6, 2022 as, again, as the placement size of the footprint scale amassing, we find it appropriate for this particular setting, as I've previously stated. This is the gas station. This is a subject of a special exception, as well as a rezoning to B-3. Gas station is a special exception use and a B-3 zoning, which the applicant is providing. The front of the store will be presenting this way. The gas station canopy pumps will be adjacent to the collector road. Again, the architecture for this is presented here. Generally, the form, façade placement, and orientation of these buildings is generally acceptable to us given the context. Staff did look at this and had numerous conversations about where the building goes, where the pump goes. Given the location proximate to residential, the layout of this design, potential uses of the front, we've come to the conclusion that, from a design standpoint, this is probably the more appropriate. Given that there is a buffer on this side, and you have open space and there is houses. If the pumps were put behind that, also we'll put gas underground storage closer to the storm water facility, as well as potentially having more of an impact on resonance as farther away. There's really no residences that are in close proximity to this, which is a good thing for this particular application as well. Again, that's the layout and design of that particular building. The staff assessment for this and I know I'm moving pretty fast with this, we'll get to the question here. Staff for this particular application finds placement site layouts appropriate given the subject property context, as well as the Town Plan guidance for this type of a mixed-use center. Building in façade orientation, we've worked very hard with the applicant on this to try to get the parking to work together to get it to be cohesive with each other, get proper buffering. As I have mentioned, the blank walls facing key areas should be addressed in the future with COAs, and I don't think the applicant would argue with that. The overall assessment is that it's appropriate, acceptable, with the commercial articulation, blank walls, variation of materials, design needed for compatibility with Gateway, et cetera, as expected, and will be presented as far as the COA goes if all goes well. With the residential, obviously, while the concept designs look acceptable, there's insufficient detail for façade and rear elevations to determine compatibility with Gateway. I think for the lane that I'm in with this, that we've reached something that we can deem appropriate for this application. That concludes my presentation at this time. I will be happy to answer any questions, concerns, or protests that anybody might have with this particular application. Chairman Aikman: Thank you. Terri, would you like to lead off? Vice Chair Minchew: Assuming there's nothing from the applicant that we're expecting. (Note: This is a transcript prepared by a Town contractor based on the video of the meeting. It may not be entirely accurate. For greater accuracy, we encourage you to review the video of the meeting that is on the Town’s website – www.leesburgva.gov or refer to the approved Board of Architectural Review meeting minutes. The Board’s meeting videos are retained for three calendar years after a meeting per Library of Virginia Records Retention guidelines.) 43 | Page July 6, 2022 Mr. Parker: If the applicant would like to come up and address me, I would encourage them. Bruce, do you have anything you'd like to say? Chairman Aikman: Thank you for reminding me of my oversight. Bruce DeAtley: Good evening. My name is Bruce DeAtley. I'm with Whitehall Partners. I'm here tonight with Peter Kalaris of Traditional Land LLC, and Mark Thomas is the planner from Pennoni. We really don't have a substantial presentation. I think Scott's done a pretty good job of the presentation. We've gotten our statement of justification as part of the staff report. The one thing I would like to perhaps references is that this project, what you see now is really the product of a three-and-a-half-year evolution of working with staff and the community to come up with a program that is consistent with the transition from the lower intensity of Leesburg into the greater intensity that you find inside the bypass. This is the second phase of three phases for the Meadowbrook development. The first phase was Meadowbrook Farm Estates, which was 400 single-family homes. This is the second phase. The third phase will be the portion of the property that's on the north side of Route 621. Again, we have gone through iteration, after iteration, after iteration with staff. They've been very helpful to work with. We've worked with some of the Council Members. We've had a number of community meetings getting their input. We feel that the project now reflects almost the ideal transition given the fact that the 200,000 square foot shopping center, which was proposed previously was denied by the Town Council. What we did was try to address the concerns that were identified in that denial and incorporate or address those concerns as part of this project. I do want to amplify the Land Bay F portion which is zoned, it will be zoned temporary open space. We started working on senior housing on that location, I think two or three years ago. We actually wanted to do a text amendment to the Zoning Ordinance at that time because the Town staff was invested in the Gateway District. However, it was suggested that we not pursue that at this time. Since that time, since we submitted two weeks ago, we've submitted a text amendment to the Town Council as a recommendation. It's our understanding the Town Council actually is looking into addressing the text amendment and suggesting that staff might work on that. If you have any questions, we'll be glad to answer them. We appreciate your time. Chairman Aikman: Thank you very much. Vice Chair Minchew: Thank you. Thank you for proffering the entire project into the Gateway District. That's wonderful. Speaking as one of those people that has worked on it for a long time, and speaking as one of the people that worked on it all. The first time around, I think I'm, actually, the only one up here who was on the Board when we spent many, many meetings working on the previous iteration of all this. (Note: This is a transcript prepared by a Town contractor based on the video of the meeting. It may not be entirely accurate. For greater accuracy, we encourage you to review the video of the meeting that is on the Town’s website – www.leesburgva.gov or refer to the approved Board of Architectural Review meeting minutes. The Board’s meeting videos are retained for three calendar years after a meeting per Library of Virginia Records Retention guidelines.) 44 | Page July 6, 2022 I do have an appreciation for all the work before, all that you're dealing with now as far as community input and all that. Scott, you mentioned that this is the third phase for Meadowbrook. Just for everybody else's edification, the first two phases were by-right, is that correct about those first two phases of Meadowbrook by-right subdivisions? Mr. Parker: This is actually the second. Vice Chair Minchew: Of the whole Meadowbrook thing, not this particular part of it, but the-- Ms. Murphy: Single-family, you mean? Vice Chair Minchew: Yes. Mr. Parker: The single-family detached houses have five phases in it and they're all under permit or built at this particular time. This has always been designated as the commercial area for subdivision. [crosstalk] Vice Chair Minchew: Those houses that are now providing the context for what we're doing now, those did not go through any special legislative action, those were all by right? Mr. Parker: It's zoned R-1, but as part of a settlement agreement many, many, many years ago, there was a new ordinance that was created called a Traditional Design Option. That ordinance was done as a legislative application that set out the parameters and set out lot sizes, setbacks, et cetera, for the neighborhood, but then when the houses did come in, there were no other legislative applications to that other than compliance with said Traditional Design Option in order to provide the 400 houses on that particular size of property. Vice Chair Minchew: Thank you. I just thought it would be good for everyone to understand that those parts of it that are now creating context for what we're dealing with, didn't come about in a way where we had any input. We had absolutely no input in that. Mr. Parker: That is correct. Vice Chair Minchew: For better or worse. Let's see. This is the third submission, and I'm guessing why we're seeing this on the third submission. We just were told that we're supposed to be seeing them ideally around the first submission, but talk to me a little bit about why we're seeing it now. Mr. Parker: There were so many issues with design that we needed to work through with the applicant that we felt like it was not a productive use of our time or the BAR's time for the second submission on this. We felt that the agreement that we were coming to for the next submission, which is this one was the best use of the time (Note: This is a transcript prepared by a Town contractor based on the video of the meeting. It may not be entirely accurate. For greater accuracy, we encourage you to review the video of the meeting that is on the Town’s website – www.leesburgva.gov or refer to the approved Board of Architectural Review meeting minutes. The Board’s meeting videos are retained for three calendar years after a meeting per Library of Virginia Records Retention guidelines.) 45 | Page July 6, 2022 coming here because some of the design was affected by ordinance issues that required building changes. To get your input on a concept plan that had ordinance issues, that required the moving of them anyway, was not productive. Vice Chair Minchew: That makes sense. Let's see. Land Bay F, just so I understand. I thought I heard you say or somebody say, that it was going to be zoned temporary open space. Is that, actually, what it would be zoned? Mr. Parker: For this application, everything in this has to have a zoning ascribed to it. Land Bay F with the rest of the site, except for the gas station, is being zoned PRN, Planned Residential Neighborhood, as part of that is being assigned and is being called open space. It will stay open space under the PRN-managed open space. At such time in the future when a senior housing component comes in per the applicant, it would have to go through a concept plan rezoning again, and then potentially a special exception. We don't know at this point, and you will get to see it again for compliance with the Gateway Design District. The one thing that we've insured too, this is a sidebar. The open space that's required for the PRN is still met, even if Land Bay F is developed. It's open space that's above and beyond what the ordinance requirement is for the site in order for its designation to be open space. Vice Chair Minchew: Thanks. That's helpful just to clarify. Kind of an unusual thing to see. All right. Let's see. It's a lot, you guys. I can see you've been working on a lot. There weren't that many things that jumped out at me as very problematic. I agree that the townhouses that will be closer to King Street, that there might be a way to let them have a side to the street, as opposed to what we would generally want to see. That will come down to the details of what's proposed there. The only thing I'm a little wary about, and maybe it's because this was where a lot of our issues came the last time around is the gas station and where the pumps are and where the canopy is. It's, actually, all about the gas station. Can you show us again a little bit better or again where it's going to be? Mr. Parker: Yes, ma'am. Vice Chair Minchew: Then, Lauren, I think you did identify a little bit of a concern about location of this. If you could speak to that a little bit for us. Ms. Murphy: While Scott's finding the site plan. I did note in my Preservation Planner comments, which, of course, you have as an attachment to Scott's staff report, that the Gateway District does as with the last application, anticipate that parking would not be between the roadway and the building. With that gas station location that is, essentially absent the structural member of the pump canopy itself, that is essentially what we're looking at. I believe what Scott was trying to say earlier is that the Planning Department staff, which I just want to clarify, I am also one of. (Note: This is a transcript prepared by a Town contractor based on the video of the meeting. It may not be entirely accurate. For greater accuracy, we encourage you to review the video of the meeting that is on the Town’s website – www.leesburgva.gov or refer to the approved Board of Architectural Review meeting minutes. The Board’s meeting videos are retained for three calendar years after a meeting per Library of Virginia Records Retention guidelines.) 46 | Page July 6, 2022 [laughter] Sometimes I'm hearing a differentiation between the Preservation Planner and staff. Just so we're all cool, I'm also staff. I think one of the things that the planning and zoning land use reviewers who have been working with this application, which would include Scott and our Deputy Director, Brian Boucher, and probably a bunch of others because we've been working very hard on this. One of the things that they've been considering is a stormwater management pond. I believe it's somewhere on the property, which maybe you can point to, and then also some proximity of residential. They felt that maybe it was justified in this instance to have the canopy in front. With the Gateway Districts, there is sort of the added element of the Zoning Ordinance standards in addition to the Guidelines. Unlike the H-2 and the H-1, where we pretty much have the zoning ordinance, which lays out the fact that you have to get a Certificate of Appropriateness, but all of the design details are contained in the Guidelines themselves, which are incorporated by reference into the Zoning Ordinance. The Gateway District, actually, has specific universal design standards that were key things that the Council cared much about during that process that they wanted to see instilled in the Zoning Ordinance themselves. That doesn't mean they can't be modified, there is a modification process for some of those things, acknowledging that not all sites are created equal, and that there may be certain circumstances sometimes where it might not make sense to meet one of those standards given a particular site constraint or like in this property, for example, the residential up against King Street. There's the added element of the Journey Through Hallowed Ground streetscape, and maybe the BAR would want to prioritize one thing versus another. There are modification procedures, but that issue of parking and kind of auto-oriented uses in between the road and the primary building, it's sort of antithetical to some of those bigger principles of the Gateway District. I do think it would be good to at least highlight that. Mr. Parker: With that, this is the site that I have here. Now, I'll zoom out and then zoom back in for you. When we went around a lot with this, myself and Brian and the applicant, as a matter of fact, the stormwater management facility is existing, and it's right here and the gas station is proposed in this corner right here, the pumps here and the building here. The proximate residential is all along here, along here, and along here. My experience as a planner has been that with gas stations, the most offensive part of them are the canopy and the lighting. Twofold here is, for myself, one, this is what's called a Hotspot. It needs protection and engineering concerns for the storage of fuels, putting the pumps where A1 is puts the fuel closer to the stormwater facility, and it also makes the canopies more obtrusive over that long distance to proximate residential than this does. (Note: This is a transcript prepared by a Town contractor based on the video of the meeting. It may not be entirely accurate. For greater accuracy, we encourage you to review the video of the meeting that is on the Town’s website – www.leesburgva.gov or refer to the approved Board of Architectural Review meeting minutes. The Board’s meeting videos are retained for three calendar years after a meeting per Library of Virginia Records Retention guidelines.) 47 | Page July 6, 2022 With four-sided architecture on A1 in this particular case, and given the design of the building as well as the carwash A2 is a carwash. I felt as well as Brian did that in this particular case, this as far as an obtrusive and a functionality standpoint is the better alternative layout. You may feel differently about that, but that is the determination that I came up with when reviewing all aspects of this, the interconnectedness of the site B1 and B2, the way they relate, everything's got to go somewhere. [chuckles] I feel like that in this particular case with the stormwater pond, the buffering that's going to be done, as well as the proximate residential. This was the proper layout and with the ordinance requirements of the lighting for the canopy, as well as the four-sided architecture that we've been speaking about quite a bit this evening, I think that from staff, from my perception, this is acceptable and appropriate. That's what I would recommend. Vice Chair Minchew: That's very helpful. Thank you, Scott and Lauren. I would just say that what that means is likely the devil’s in the details when it comes right down to it. Just for a little light reading, refresh your memories, might be fun to go back and read the discussion about the canopy that we did approve before the Town or didn't approve, but we're on the road to approving before the Town denied the last one. I just think it's doable. I don't-- Ms. Murphy: Our Gateway guidelines, actually, have an entire section devoted to canopies. Vice Chair Minchew: I don't doubt that you have come to the right conclusion on placement. I don't have anything that would tell me otherwise, but the devil will be in the details as all. Otherwise, I don't see any red flags truthfully. Chairman Aikman: Okay, Don? Mr. Scheuerman: I think you did an amazing job of balancing all the competing interests. You did a very good job explaining, how you reasoned and got to where you were at. I really appreciate the effort you put in. Huge difference between first-time submission and a third-time submission, this looks much better. Anyway, I generally agree with what staff has written up on this. Mr. Parker: Thank you. Chairman Aikman: Julie? Ms. Pastor: I too agree that the devil's going to be in the details on this. I think the word of the day is four-sided architecture. The C1 elevations on the south and D also, and the B-east and north, they really jump out at you. Otherwise, I think there's also a big difference between the third submission and the first submission. Chairman Aikman: Tom? Mr. O’Neil: Yes. Overall, I agree with the other comments. I think it's a very interesting plan that to me, the transition from single-family, with the townhouses, all (Note: This is a transcript prepared by a Town contractor based on the video of the meeting. It may not be entirely accurate. For greater accuracy, we encourage you to review the video of the meeting that is on the Town’s website – www.leesburgva.gov or refer to the approved Board of Architectural Review meeting minutes. The Board’s meeting videos are retained for three calendar years after a meeting per Library of Virginia Records Retention guidelines.) 48 | Page July 6, 2022 that works very well. I do think the weakest part of the submission right now are the facades of the commercial buildings. We can get there with further development of the backside of those buildings and the townhouses that face King Street. I did have one other question concerning the big traffic circle and the road to nowhere to Land Bay F. Is that really going to be built that way with nothing on? Mr. Parker: Well, that'll be stubbed out on that corner, excuse me, on this. The circle is going to be built. It's going to be twofold. As they phase the application, that'll provide a required turnaround for fire apparatus, but then when it becomes functional the leg up here, it's not going to go into here. It will stop here. You won't be able to access that until such times. Mr. O’Neil: Okay. That's just the way it's drawn. It's going to be-- Mr. Parker: That is correct. Those are unfortunate lines in their plan. Mr. O’Neil: Okay. Because I hate stuff like that. [laughter] Mr. O’Neil: It's like the deck with the deck and a railing across the back of the window. That's all. Vice Chair Minchew: The sliding door to nowhere. Chairman Aikman: Yes. Mr. O’Neil: The sliding door with the wood up. Chairman Aikman: Erin? Ms. Nicholson: I'm excited to see the details when they come. Clearly, a lot of thought has gone into developing a highly efficient, concentrated layout for mixed-use on this plot of land. As previously mentioned, I think when you come back with those details, we'll have to look closer at facades and fenestration. Overall, the concept to me looks okay. I would be curious to see more of the detail, particularly with the gas station and how we're properly shielding back-of-house issues, and have some thoughtfulness on that because Evergreen Mill is a major thoroughfare. Chairman Aikman: Okay. Thank you. I really don't have any comments to add to the good comments that have already been made by the Board. Ms. Murphy: Madam Chair. Can I just clarify because I've heard a few people mention it about when it comes back? Are you looking for more information to be included in the rezoning package or do you mean at the Certificate Of Appropriateness? Ms. Pastor: No. At the COA. Ms. Murphy: I just wanted to clarify that. (Note: This is a transcript prepared by a Town contractor based on the video of the meeting. It may not be entirely accurate. For greater accuracy, we encourage you to review the video of the meeting that is on the Town’s website – www.leesburgva.gov or refer to the approved Board of Architectural Review meeting minutes. The Board’s meeting videos are retained for three calendar years after a meeting per Library of Virginia Records Retention guidelines.) 49 | Page July 6, 2022 Chairman Aikman: I think that's what everyone meant. Ms. Murphy: I wasn't envisioning it coming back for another referral. I wanted to make sure that you weren't. Chairman Aikman: No boomerangs. Mr. Parker: I was looking at COA. Vice Chair Minchew: Although it was so well done. [laughter] Vice Chair Minchew: It wouldn't be that painful, but I don't know if there's any need from what I'm hearing from everyone anyway. Chairman Aikman: That seems to be the case. Vice Chair Minchew: Madam Chair though, may I ask one other or two other points that were in our Preservation Planner’s Report [chuckles] as opposed to the other planner's report. About the proffers. She raises an interesting point that I hope is being considered that many of the changes that come back later could be administratively done as opposed to having to come back to the BAR. Apparently, the current proffer says everything will come back to the BAR. We did work really hard in those Gateway documents to incorporate a lot of language that would prevent that. Would save you time, would save you money. Look at that hard and try to get that in there. There's a good language, I think on that, that I'm sure you have access to. Then she did also recommend that the elevations that you eventually settle on, which say illustrative it's more useful, I think to everyone if they have stronger language than that. I think the language she suggested was general conformance commitment to those illustratives. We need that wiggle room because we may not find that they're sufficient. Just look at that when you're going through this proffer language. Mr. Parker: This is a different, since with a typical rezoning that is outside of this process, which is relatively new, the applicant would proffer to the elevations and commit to them, so we're still working through with the proffers and how we put on the plan, how we say, when we go to Planning Commission and Council, these are illustrative, however. We are working on that. We're keenly even there. Vice Chair Minchew: Well, it's a balance. You don't want to commit to something, then we'll show up here and we'll say, "What?" [crosstalk] Ms. Murphy: I usually like to see something that says that they'll be in general conformance as modified by the Certificate of Appropriate process. There needs to be that flexibility built in that the COA can make modifications. We're not in a (Note: This is a transcript prepared by a Town contractor based on the video of the meeting. It may not be entirely accurate. For greater accuracy, we encourage you to review the video of the meeting that is on the Town’s website – www.leesburgva.gov or refer to the approved Board of Architectural Review meeting minutes. The Board’s meeting videos are retained for three calendar years after a meeting per Library of Virginia Records Retention guidelines.) 50 | Page July 6, 2022 situation where if we say an additional window is necessary or a change to the canopy pitch or something like that that we can't make. Vice Chair Minchew: It is a fine line. In the past, we have had things come where we couldn't change it because it was- Ms. Murphy: That has happened Vice Chair Minchew: -too tightly written. We don't want that to happen. Mr. Parker: That's going to help me too. It's going to be well documented, in the staff report, the Planning Commission's going to have to know about the lane as well as where we're going on this. Yes, and then there's a couple of spots that I'll save them from themselves without having to come back to the BAR for things that aren't necessary. Vice Chair Minchew: Yes. I think you should do that. Madam Chair, I think we're in good shape to have a letter that says-- Chairman Aikman: Concurs with this. Vice Chair Minchew: We concur, at least, generally with the building placement orientation, height, scale, size, and massing. Chairman Aikman: Yep. I agree. All right. Thank you very much for- Mr. Parker: Thank you. Chairman Aikman: -excellent presentation. Mr. Parker: It was nice meeting you all that I haven't met before, and sure I'll see you again. Chairman Aikman: Okay. All right. Vice Chair Minchew: Thank you. Chairman Aikman: That concludes. Let's see. Ms. Murphy: Okay. No offense, Scott and Rich, but now we get to do something fun. Mr. Parker: Come on. Go ahead. Vice Chair Minchew: Stick around if you want to have fun. Mr. Parker: We'll wait our turn. Chairman Aikman: Let's see. We have old business next and there's nothing noted in the old business section. Anybody have anything they want to raise? That brings us to new business (Note: This is a transcript prepared by a Town contractor based on the video of the meeting. It may not be entirely accurate. For greater accuracy, we encourage you to review the video of the meeting that is on the Town’s website – www.leesburgva.gov or refer to the approved Board of Architectural Review meeting minutes. The Board’s meeting videos are retained for three calendar years after a meeting per Library of Virginia Records Retention guidelines.) 51 | Page July 6, 2022 and the JARB Awards. Ms. Murphy: Yes. This is a very exciting day for me because I love this program so much. It is the Joint Architectural Review Board awards program, which we used to do with the County, Middleburg, and Purcellville. Those four jurisdictions are the only ones in Loudoun County that have a locally Designated Historic District or Architectural Review District of any kind. So many years ago, we began partnering together in a joint award ceremony to recognize property owners, architects, builders, businesses, what have you all throughout our collective districts. It's up to 11 total now that have done exemplary work. Later this month, our representatives on the JARB as it is lovingly named, which is honestly-- [crosstalk] Vice Chair Minchew: It's terrible name. Chairman Aikman: That's a really terrible name. Ms. Murphy: Not the best name but that's what she's stuck with, so that's what we're going with. Terri and Julie will be presenting our slate of possible award winners and then all of the representatives from all of those jurisdictions will vote on the final winners, and they will be invited to an award ceremony in September. As will, all of us and we shall go and have great time, because I personally love this. People get really into it, which is also special. They treat it like it's the Academy Awards and I love that, because who doesn't love preservation awards. Chairman Aikman: You're already so excited. Ms. Murphy: I'm already totally down to talk about it. [crosstalk] Vice Chair Minchew: Have we ever seen her this excited? [laughter] Ms. Murphy: Probably not at 9:30. Chairman Aikman: At this time of night. Ms. Murphy: I'm usually like, "Come on." Okay so we have a list that we've gone over as a small group of possible projects and I'm going to give you some photos of each of them starting with what we think is our obvious contender, our friends, KM and the work that they've done on rehabbing the building at 207 South King Street. This is a project that we approved in both 2019 and then revised in 2020. The revisions were approved by this Board in order to support a tax credit project. (Note: This is a transcript prepared by a Town contractor based on the video of the meeting. It may not be entirely accurate. For greater accuracy, we encourage you to review the video of the meeting that is on the Town’s website – www.leesburgva.gov or refer to the approved Board of Architectural Review meeting minutes. The Board’s meeting videos are retained for three calendar years after a meeting per Library of Virginia Records Retention guidelines.) 52 | Page July 6, 2022 As far as I know, it is the only historic rehabilitation tax credit project ever to have been approved and actually constructed in Leesburg. Which in and of itself is very exciting. These folks have done a fantastic job. I feel like I'm selling it, but I feel like I don't even need to sell it because it's awesome and I am in love with this project, but they've done a really great job. For those of you who don't remember, I think everybody was on the Board at the point in 2020 when we did the revision. Vice Chair Minchew: No. I'll go through the side-- Ms. Murphy: The bottom photo there you see is the old gas station and then this building is next to it in the distance. That's a Circa 1950s photo. Then the photo above that was a 1970s photo when it had been converted into a garage. You see the two roll up doors and the photo all the way on the left is what the BAR inherited in 2019 when they started working on the revisions that got it to this point. Personally, I think this one is a clearly recognizable example of a preservation award-worthy project. Do you guys want to take them at each one or if anyone objects, then we can throw it out or we could keep going or what do you want to do? Vice Chair Minchew: Well, the parameters as we understand them are that we can submit as many as we wish, and that we can hit as many categories as we feel we have good candidates to support. Maybe it makes sense to get feedback one by one. Ms. Nicholson: Are there some classic categories that we're typically nominated for in the past that we could use as a guideline? Ms. Murphy: There's usually a rehabilitation or restoration category for projects similar to this one. There's typically a new construction category which could be separate from additions, or it could include additions. There's usually always a signage category and then there's usually some other, for lack of a better word. It could be different details. It could be projects that don't necessarily fit one box or another. It's flexible until we see what all the jurisdictions bring together. This will be kind of unusual because we haven't run this program since 2016 when I, actually, left the County. there would is it is Vice Chair Minchew: Excuse me. Is it worth saying what the goal is what we're trying to honor here? Ms. Murphy: Sure. The goal is to recognize that locally Designated Historic Districts especially, we tend to get a bad rap sometimes because we're dealing with people in their most vulnerable. We're dealing with them as they're trying to start a business, we're dealing with them as they're trying to make improvements to their home. It's a very stressful and emotional process for a lot of our applicants. It's all for the greater good of protecting these heritage resources that have been identified by the jurisdictions as being the cream of the crop of their community. It's nice on the back end when you see a really good example to recognize those property owners for the hard work and the effort that they put in, but also to hold it up (Note: This is a transcript prepared by a Town contractor based on the video of the meeting. It may not be entirely accurate. For greater accuracy, we encourage you to review the video of the meeting that is on the Town’s website – www.leesburgva.gov or refer to the approved Board of Architectural Review meeting minutes. The Board’s meeting videos are retained for three calendar years after a meeting per Library of Virginia Records Retention guidelines.) 53 | Page July 6, 2022 to other folks coming through the process to say like, "This was a beacon of a good preservation project example." The goal is to recognize people for their hard work and their effort and their commitment to preservation because they're really making decisions that impact the next person who's going to own their home and the person after that and the person 100 years after that. For property owners to be making those decisions and in some ways changing what they want and how they see themselves using the house in order to make the best preservation decision for their building, feels like it's worthy of a Certificate and an Awards Program. Vice Chair Minchew: Can I just, before you go on, I think the other part of it is to recognize creative solutions to problems it's to-- Ms. Murphy: Sure. Vice Chair Minchew: It's to recognize somebody who's not just met the minimum, not just come up with something approvable, but something that goes above and beyond. Ms. Murphy: Above and beyond. Vice Chair Minchew: There's plenty of approvable projects, but they don't all— Ms. Nicholson: It also recognizes the positive impact of the whole preservation effort. Ms. Murphy: Exactly. It's not all just like regulation and BAR meetings or HDRC meetings. There's a positive character to these two that need to get highlighted. Ms. Nicholson: The feel good stuff. Ms. Murphy: It is. We often have to be the hammer and now we can be the bouquet of flowers. Vice Chair Minchew: When you're talking about them I think personally we should address or discuss each one as we go through, but maybe indicate which category or categories you would think that each one might-- Ms. Murphy: I did that on this slide, but I did not do it on the title slides for the individual photos. I think this one would probably fall under that rehabilitation category. We can't quite call it a true restoration because we don't have documentary evidence of exactly what this building looked like. We have some photos from adjacent properties, so we can't quite call it a restoration, but it's certainly a rehabilitation. This was a, when you see it in its status on the left there it had been an office at one point in time. When the folks at KM took it over it was really quite dilapidated and unloved. I think the other thing that's important about this building is it is very unique. (Note: This is a transcript prepared by a Town contractor based on the video of the meeting. It may not be entirely accurate. For greater accuracy, we encourage you to review the video of the meeting that is on the Town’s website – www.leesburgva.gov or refer to the approved Board of Architectural Review meeting minutes. The Board’s meeting videos are retained for three calendar years after a meeting per Library of Virginia Records Retention guidelines.) 54 | Page July 6, 2022 It was the Coca-Cola bottling plants which is very special. The fact that it's still there and it has this great industrial history to this little industrial area of Town, which you can see best in the bottom photo. They stripped off some of the modern changes that were made to make it feel a little more office and a little more residential and they really embraced the industrial character of the building, which I think is important. That's what it looks like today and if you haven't gone by it, you definitely should because it looks great. Chairman Aikman: They also have a Ping-Pong table. Right? Ms. Murphy: Who doesn't love to play Ping-Pong at work? I'm just saying, James. We have space in our office for it but- Vice Chair Minchew: Nobody ever sits back there. Ms. Murphy: Just like a Murphy bed that folds out of the wall, but it could be- Ms. Nicholson: There you go. Now you're thinking. Ms. Murphy: a Murphy Ping-Pong table. Ms. Murphy: Oh, well. Chairman Aikman: It's completely awesome what they did. It's the focal point of that. It's funny because there's other stuff down there. There's Goose Cup, there’s this. There's that pavilion, but that is the jewel, if you ask me. It's what your eye goes to. It's fabulous. Vice Chair Minchew: Knowing the history of it I think is the key to understanding why it's so important that it got saved really because it could have gone many different directions that it was getting close to going down. Ms. Pastor: Are we saying up or down or are we? Vice Chair Minchew: Are you okay about this one? Ms. Pastor: Up. Chairman Aikman: Up. Ms. Murphy: I'm hearing everyone thinks this is a good idea to move along. Ms. Pastor: Yes. Ms. Murphy: Okay. This next project is another unique preservation project. This is 330 West Market Street. This is the Laundry House. I forgot to take the question mark off of that. We talked about that earlier. This building is very unique in that it may honestly be the only remaining two-story laundry house left in the Historic District. I can't swear to that, but I certainly can't think of any others either. National (Note: This is a transcript prepared by a Town contractor based on the video of the meeting. It may not be entirely accurate. For greater accuracy, we encourage you to review the video of the meeting that is on the Town’s website – www.leesburgva.gov or refer to the approved Board of Architectural Review meeting minutes. The Board’s meeting videos are retained for three calendar years after a meeting per Library of Virginia Records Retention guidelines.) 55 | Page July 6, 2022 Register and this particular project, the property owner came forward with a proposal to install storm doors for the upstairs loft. You see them in the top. Vice Chair Minchew: Not a great-- We've got to get better pictures. Ms. Murphy: We'll get better pictures, for sure. This clicker thing never works when I need it to, and then sometimes it'll randomly have a laser beam that shoots out. It's not great. You see, in the second floor of these windows, which are unique. They've got really a cool pattern into them. The property owner proposed these storm doors to be able to respect the doors that were behind it, but also make for a more usable second story space. That allows for the adaptive reuse. Obviously, it's not a laundry house anymore but it does allow for the adoptive reuse of both floors of the building because now, there's a safe alternative for using the doors on the second floor. Vice Chair Minchew: And light. Ms. Murphy: Light. Vice Chair Minchew: It was mostly for light. Ms. Murphy: I thought maybe I had a before picture, but I do not. Chairman Aikman: Very cool. Mr. Scheuerman: Yes, sure. Ms. Murphy: I'm seeing all thumbs up. Vice Chair Minchew: Disclosure on that one, that's mine. Ms. Murphy: Yes. That’s the Minchew property on West Market Street. Vice Chair Minchew: If we're going to include that in the package, I will probably defer my spot to Helen who was the backup to be on the Committee, anyway. Just for comfort reasons, not to be voting on my own house. Ms. Murphy: This next project is the redevelopment or rehabilitation of 32 South King Street. This building, you can see in the 1975 black and white photo on the top, and the 1999 black and white photo on the bottom. Then the circa 2007 team Google Images photo in the bigger color photo there, which is how the BAR inherited it in 2017 when they began reviewing an application to turn it into this. It's basically a complete façade improvement program that all took place on one building. You can see what was there before. I think everybody probably remembers when that was an antique shop relatively-- Well, I'm just going to say, it's inappropriate for the Historic District, [chuckles] unfortunately. The building that was there was torn down and unfortunately, this is what was built in its place in the mid-20th century. (Note: This is a transcript prepared by a Town contractor based on the video of the meeting. It may not be entirely accurate. For greater accuracy, we encourage you to review the video of the meeting that is on the Town’s website – www.leesburgva.gov or refer to the approved Board of Architectural Review meeting minutes. The Board’s meeting videos are retained for three calendar years after a meeting per Library of Virginia Records Retention guidelines.) 56 | Page July 6, 2022 It looks like it was built in the mid-20th century and it really was just a detraction from the overall character of the Historic District. With, I won't say, simple because I know the property owner, actually, did not feel it was simple. You can see. They didn't have to tear the whole building down in order to make a massive improvement to this very important corner in the streetscape of the Historic District. I think the changes that they made were very sensitive. They were contextually appropriate for what was around it and they were successfully able to elevate that building into something that looks more like it belongs there. Chairman Aikman: Was this rehab? Ms. Murphy: I would say this is also rehabilitation, yes. Chairman Aikman: I'm good with it. Mr. Scheuerman: Yes. Mr. O’Neil: Thumbs up. Ms. Murphy: You guys are like Roman emperors at this point giving it the thumbs up or the thumbs down. For signage, we do a lot of signage in our Historic District because we have such a huge, commercial component. One that stood out to our subcommittee here was the Rebellion signs. There are two, I think this is the smaller of the two. This is the one that's located on the West Market street façade. There's another one on the King Street façade. It did have some unique detailing, but it blended sort of this industrial vibe that they're going for in their building as well with, again, very traditional materials. The wood, the metal, the iron, and then that emblem in the center is a carved relief that's been applied to the wood panel. Chairman Aikman: I'll tell you what, if they put half as much effort into the food in that place that they put into that building-- Ms. Murphy: Apparently it's open. I don't know if anyone's been-- Chairman Aikman: It's definitely open. Ms. Pastor: Soft open. Vice Chair Minchew: Grand opening Friday. Ms. Pastor: I think the hard opening is on Friday. Ms. Murphy: Yes. Chairman Aikman: I mean, what they did for that building is just a lot. I agree about the side. Ms. Murphy: It looks pretty good from the inside too. I've not gone in, but I've walked past it. (Note: This is a transcript prepared by a Town contractor based on the video of the meeting. It may not be entirely accurate. For greater accuracy, we encourage you to review the video of the meeting that is on the Town’s website – www.leesburgva.gov or refer to the approved Board of Architectural Review meeting minutes. The Board’s meeting videos are retained for three calendar years after a meeting per Library of Virginia Records Retention guidelines.) 57 | Page July 6, 2022 Ms. Pastor: Lauren, FYI, it looks like those are the same size. It's just that one is hung lower than the other one when I went by on the way here. Ms. Murphy: I think Debi did the approval for these, but I think one was technically bigger than the other. Wasn't it? Vice Chair Minchew: It's supposed to be. Ms. Parry: That's my recollection. Ms. Murphy: Supposed to be. Whether or not they installed two of the same thing. Ms. Pastor: I don't know, but I took a picture again too with the both of them in it and I'm pretty sure that is-- Mr. Scheuerman: They're very nice. Ms. Pastor: Anyway, I think it's good. Ms. Murphy: Everyone feels comfortable with that one? Chairman Aikman: Yes. Mr. Scheuerman: Yes. Mr. O’Neil: Yes. Ms. Murphy: Okay. Staying with that same property, this would be sort of like a unique detail similar to the doors as part of their restoration and rehabilitation of this building, which they've been doing extensive work inside and with their signage and even on the exterior, these folks removed drywall from the inside of the building and uncovered the original exposed brick and found that the framing for windows that had been in place was still there. They came through this board to request to replace the faux-infill shutters that you see in the picture on the left with actual double-hung wood windows that were custom-made and fitted to these original openings. We had some documentary evidence of the fact that there were windows there to begin with, plus the physical evidence that they uncovered inside the building. It's really made a nice change to the streetscape there. Chairman Aikman: Huge. Huge. Yes. Ms. Murphy: Yes. And what I like about it is that it sort of removes the false detail, which was the closed shutters, which we would discourage people from doing now. I think that that's a nice return to a good preservation principle. Chairman Aikman: No lingerie. Ms. Murphy: That is not the subject of our Historic District purview. (Note: This is a transcript prepared by a Town contractor based on the video of the meeting. It may not be entirely accurate. For greater accuracy, we encourage you to review the video of the meeting that is on the Town’s website – www.leesburgva.gov or refer to the approved Board of Architectural Review meeting minutes. The Board’s meeting videos are retained for three calendar years after a meeting per Library of Virginia Records Retention guidelines.) 58 | Page July 6, 2022 [laughter] Ms. Murphy: We have no purview over the use of the building on this Board. All right. Sticking in a similar vein. This is 13 South King Street. This, actually, predates my time with the Board as did the renovation of 32 South King street. This was, again, a detailed project where the property owner of a business that's, unfortunately not located there anymore. It was called Be Beauty. Some of you may remember it, did a lot of research about this building. She had wanted to install a door on the front elevation and people who were on the BAR or on the staff at the time can correct me. Did she come to you all and ask about putting the door in and was told no, or did she research it and come prepared with the research? Vice Chair Minchew: I think she came prepared with the research. I don't think we ever said, yes. Ms. Murphy: Okay. Ms. Parry: She had talked to Tom, and Tom said, "You have to back it up." Then she did the research. I remember correctly. Ms. Murphy: I thought I remembered that there was initial conversation where there was some uncomfortableness about the idea, and that would normally be right. We would normally not support someone carving a new door on the front elevation of a building right on King Street. It's not something we would normally go for, but she actually, did the evidence. She found the documentary photograph, was able to locate where the door had been originally and was able to come through this Board with an approval process to actually reinstall the door. Ms. Pastor: It was a business decision too. Vice Chair Minchew: Yes. That's what I thought when I saw the picture. Ms. Pastor: She wanted to have her front be on the main drag. Ms. Murphy: Up until then her entry was down a little alley, around the corner. Chairman Aikman: Got it. Ms. Pastor: Because she now has a sign or there is a sign there now that says, "Entrance." People coming in from the garage-- Ms. Murphy: The current tenant does not use the alleyway door. She did, I think use it for a time, at least. Vice Chair Minchew: This reintroduced a missing feature, which once you knew it was missing, it was very obvious it was missing. Once you realized how awful it looked without that opening there and then energized her relationship with the street and business. (Note: This is a transcript prepared by a Town contractor based on the video of the meeting. It may not be entirely accurate. For greater accuracy, we encourage you to review the video of the meeting that is on the Town’s website – www.leesburgva.gov or refer to the approved Board of Architectural Review meeting minutes. The Board’s meeting videos are retained for three calendar years after a meeting per Library of Virginia Records Retention guidelines.) 59 | Page July 6, 2022 Ms. Murphy: This is a detail that's not captured in the photos, but she actually did a nice job with the repair work on the historic brick as well. The architectural story here has been well documented through physical evidence. We're not just going to believe 50 years from now, the next Preservation Planner is not just going to be relying on these photos. There's physical evidence on the building that shows sensitively the work that she did, which I think is important as well. Chairman Aikman: I'm sorry, which building is this? Ms. Pastor: You know where Stanley is sitting? [crosstalk] Ms. Murphy: It has the bench, the Stanley Caulkins statue. Vice Chair Minchew: You still call it Caulkins. Right next to Black Hoof. Mr. O’Neil: Black Hoof is on the right. Ms. Pastor: Black Hoof is right next door. Ms. Murphy: Then the alleyway that leads down to the Town parking garage. Chairman Aikman: Yes. Okay. Vice Chair Minchew: It's much more impact. It's what we're going to have to work on these pictures too because it's much more impactful in-person. Ms. Pastor: Also, actually, the door has been painted too and it's really beautiful. Vice Chair Minchew: Yes, it was a lot of work. This was an above and beyond thing. Ms. Murphy: Yes. Vice Chair Minchew: She went to a lot of work to do the research correctly, to do the work correctly, to have-- It wasn't even her build. She didn't know the building. Ms. Murphy: Correct. Chairman Aikman: Is that right? Ms. Pastor: No. Vice Chair Minchew: She was a tenant. Ms. Murphy: She was a tenant. Vice Chair Minchew: She had permission to do it all. Chairman Aikman: Right. That’s wild. (Note: This is a transcript prepared by a Town contractor based on the video of the meeting. It may not be entirely accurate. For greater accuracy, we encourage you to review the video of the meeting that is on the Town’s website – www.leesburgva.gov or refer to the approved Board of Architectural Review meeting minutes. The Board’s meeting videos are retained for three calendar years after a meeting per Library of Virginia Records Retention guidelines.) 60 | Page July 6, 2022 Vice Chair Minchew: Maybe it's the first step to bringing back that bay, that projecting bay up there. Chairman Aikman: Okay, thumbs up, that's a good one. Ms. Murphy: This next one, again, a similar, we have a lot of really cool detail projects that we're going to be putting forward. We could always talk about holding some back for a future year if we wanted, although these are some older ones that we are picking up because the JARB Awards fell off the face of the earth for a little bit. We do have that added benefit of some extra years to draw from. This is the window that was added at Sidebar. It was also before my time. Terri, I don't know if you want to maybe give an overview because I'm actually not 100% sure what the BAR process was for this one? Vice Chair Minchew: Oh, as I recall, they came to us wanting-- Ms. Murphy: This is what it looked like before. Vice Chair Minchew: Yes, wanting a solution because they wanted to be able to serve coffee. You've probably all gotten your coffee there now, they wanted a solution. I think they came to us with a slightly different proposal. We gave them some feedback. They went back and found this window that opens, tilts up. We don't have a picture of it open because we didn't think to take a picture of it when it's open. It was really creative, I think solution for having a coffee shop on the sidewalk and bringing a liveliness to their business that they would not have otherwise there. Ms. Murphy: This is where it started. Vice Chair Minchew: Yes. Which was not appropriate either. It replaced an inappropriate condition with a creative solution, but also bringing it I think more visually appropriate to what it should be and at no small expense for creative business owners, creative caring business owners, a lot of them. Chairman Aikman: That's cool. Ms. Murphy: The theme of our slide deck, yes. Chairman Aikman: Yes. Awesome. Ms. Murphy: Then, I think this might be our last one, I might have one more after this one. I'm just not sure. This is actually a residential project. These are not the best photos because we just added this one at 5:30 tonight when we were thinking about the use and kind of going over the photos. These are the Salsers at 218 Cornwall Street Northwest. Vice Chair Minchew: Looks so good. Ms. Murphy: They have done a series of really well-designed residentially scaled additions to this property. This is before our most recent application with them, which (Note: This is a transcript prepared by a Town contractor based on the video of the meeting. It may not be entirely accurate. For greater accuracy, we encourage you to review the video of the meeting that is on the Town’s website – www.leesburgva.gov or refer to the approved Board of Architectural Review meeting minutes. The Board’s meeting videos are retained for three calendar years after a meeting per Library of Virginia Records Retention guidelines.) 61 | Page July 6, 2022 was done in 2021. This is the after and it's primarily that extension of the projecting bay that you see there with a brick base at the top of the driveway. This was a 2021 project, and again, that's what was inherited by the BAR in 2021. You can see that there's several sensitive additions here in the rear. Unfortunately, because I didn't have time to go knock on the door and ask if we could get to the backyard to see some of them, these are the plans that were approved by the BAR. If you want to go forward with this one, then we'll obviously have to get photos to show the joint architectural board. Vice Chair Minchew: I was thinking on this one, it was just a series of very well-done additions and renovations. They did a beautiful job on the barn. They have a standalone little kiosk building, which is beautiful. I just think that it warrants recognition for all of it. Not just the most recent one, but with every step they've done it well and they've done it right and it does nothing but add to—does nothing but add to the property as far as-- Chairman Aikman: Well, and to the Town. Vice Chair Minchew: To the Town, and to the neighborhood and it's an example for other residential properties what, to me anyway, of how to approach it and even in its incremental-- In its evolution. They didn't come-- It's much harder, I think to figure out what you want for your home and it's a pretty big lot and big house to do it all at once, but they haven't done that. If you guys aren't thumbs up on it? We'll do the research. We, Lauren and Debi will do the research. [laughter] Ms. Murphy: I did a quick search, they have quite a few TLHPs to their PIN number. Vice Chair Minchew: They do. It goes back a number of years that everything's been done with care and an appropriate scale and massing. Ms. Murphy: Right. I think what I like about it so much is actually this dichotomy right here, you see the front elevation. I know these are the plan view, but it actually does look like this when you view it from Cornwall. There's no question here, which piece is the historic star. Everything they've done, is completely respectful of their historic building, but then when you see the rear elevation, you see just how much they've expanded that structure to meet their contemporary family needs. I think that seeing those two images in particular side by side is really an important message. Like the Historic District is not meant to tell you that you have to live in a bedroom, that's six by six because that's what you inherited from a house that was built in 1890. There are sensitive and appropriate options that can be done. I think that this is a good example of them. Chairman Aikman: For a front-facing garage. [laughter] (Note: This is a transcript prepared by a Town contractor based on the video of the meeting. It may not be entirely accurate. For greater accuracy, we encourage you to review the video of the meeting that is on the Town’s website – www.leesburgva.gov or refer to the approved Board of Architectural Review meeting minutes. The Board’s meeting videos are retained for three calendar years after a meeting per Library of Virginia Records Retention guidelines.) 62 | Page July 6, 2022 Ms. Murphy: They do not have a front-facing garage. Chairman Aikman: It's really nice. Mr. Scheuerman: Is there an award a serial preservationist or what? [laughter] Ms. Pastor: Residential- Chairman Aikman: Residential. Ms. Pastor: -additions, with a more residential new construction. Chairman Aikman: Residential. Ms. Murphy: Yes, It would be like a new construction. Like I said, sometimes there's a separate category for addition versus new construction. The county typically has more purely new construction projects and the other districts have just because they have more land or area to develop. Most of our new construction comes from additions. Vice Chair Minchew: What will happen, the past is any indications that Lauren and Debi will work on the language that goes along with these to really make it clear why, you know what it is that-- Chairman Aikman: I think it's important with that one to emphasize, as you say, the pattern over time, not just-- It's a commitment, right? It's cool. Ms. Murphy: Well, I think Leesburg is going to sweep these categories because we have the best Historic District, but I think we've got a good list to put forward. There will be multiple winners in multiple categories. It won't just be like one addition across all the districts, it'll be three. If there's three that are worthy, then three win the award. Chairman Aikman: Awesome. Ms. Minchew: Or 10, or whatever. Vice Chair Minchew: If we have too many in one category or another and they don't want to do that, we can submit it next year. It's not that strict. Chairman Aikman: It's fun to look forward, though. Thinking about the ones we're looking at the things we're looking at now, right? Vice Chair Minchew: There's a few that are just not quite done that would have been-- Chairman Aikman: Yes, but that's good for the future. (Note: This is a transcript prepared by a Town contractor based on the video of the meeting. It may not be entirely accurate. For greater accuracy, we encourage you to review the video of the meeting that is on the Town’s website – www.leesburgva.gov or refer to the approved Board of Architectural Review meeting minutes. The Board’s meeting videos are retained for three calendar years after a meeting per Library of Virginia Records Retention guidelines.) 63 | Page July 6, 2022 Ms. Murphy: Yes, I think we have the contenders for next year that are just still under construction. There's a couple of additions that we've approved that they're still working. With this meeting coming up in this month, I just wasn't sure that they would be finished by then, so I didn't put them forward. Chairman Aikman: Got to keep it going because it just adds an element of interest to the whole process. Ms. Murphy: Because we do have a lot in this kind of detail category that are kind of similar, are you all comfortable putting all of those forward? Like the doors at 330? This one, the window? I think we should personally, but I just want to make sure. Chairman Aikman: Yes. Absolutely. Vice Chair Minchew: The narrative will be different for each of them. What it is that makes them notable. Mr. O'Neil: People can see it right on the street, I think. There's a lot of visibility for these. Vice Chair Minchew: All right. Ms. Nicholson: For positive reinforcement. Ms. Murphy: I love it. I love a good awards program. [laughter] Chairman Aikman: Next a parade. [laughter] Ms. Murphy: That would be so awesome. [laughter] A preservation parade, I could try and make that happen. I'm not opposed to it. Chairman Aikman: Well, Leesburg's big into parades, so there you go. Ms. Pastor: Only if you throw a candy. [laughter] Ms. Murphy: I guess we can't throw like historic bricks, that won't be a good idea. Chairman Aikman: I think we're aligned around submitting all of them. Ms. Murphy: I'm not hearing you guys say you'd like to pull any of them. I think we're going to go ahead and have our Committee put all of these forward. I'm hearing that Helen and Terri are going to switch places. Chairman Aikman: Is there an invite for that meeting? (Note: This is a transcript prepared by a Town contractor based on the video of the meeting. It may not be entirely accurate. For greater accuracy, we encourage you to review the video of the meeting that is on the Town’s website – www.leesburgva.gov or refer to the approved Board of Architectural Review meeting minutes. The Board’s meeting videos are retained for three calendar years after a meeting per Library of Virginia Records Retention guidelines.) 64 | Page July 6, 2022 Ms. Murphy: Yes. I'll forward it to you. Chairman Aikman: Can somebody forward that to me, that would be great. Ms. Murphy: Terri, if you don't mind, it might be helpful since some of these predate me. If you can help me come up with some of the write ups. Vice Chair Minchew: I'm happy to help you do that. I'm so happy to help you do that. Chairman Aikman: Awesome. Unless there's any other new business, I think we can entertain a motion to adjourn. Mr. O'Neil: So moved. Ms. Nicholson: Second. Chairman Aikman: All in favor? Board Members: Aye. Chairman Aikman: We are adjourned 6 to 0 with 1 absence. The meeting was adjourned at 9:49 pm.