Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout2010.03.01 BAR Work Session MinutesDEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ZONING Town Hall, 25 West Market Street, Leesburg, VA 20176 TEL 703-771-2765 FAX 703-771-2776 www.leesburgva.gov MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW Work Session Monday, March 1, 2010 25 West Market Street Council Chamber MEMBERS PRESENT: Dieter Meyer (Chair), Tracy Coifing (Vice Chair), Marilyn Bos, Doris Kidder, Richard Koochagian, Bob Miller, Teresa Minchew, Jim Sisley, Councilmember Tom Dunn MEMBERS ABSENT: none STAFF: Annie McDonald, Wendy Walker Call to Order and Roll Call Mr. Meyer called the meeting to order at 7:03pm, noted attendance and determined that a quorum was present. Discussion Agenda 1. THLP-2010-0003, 206 West Loudoun Street, Applicant: Peter Berk, re: repair woodwork, repaint; and replace roof — Old and Historic District (H-1 Overlay) Ms. McDonald noted having spoken with the Applicant the previous week and deferred to the Applicant. The Applicant indicated having scheduled roofers for estimates on metal and different detail versions versus the whole roof. Regarding the exterior siding, another contractor reviewed the project and agreed the carpentry work was poorly done. The Applicant had been unaware of the material used until the Preservation Planner pointed it out, but that carpenter had not been working on the project since about January. The Applicant stated being willing to replace with like kind to increase the wood quality to retain the historic character of the wood to the extent possible, and use like kind material in areas where it must be replaced. The Applicant added that the new contractor said the plywood the carpenter used was an acceptable material, though not in the Town of Leesburg in this case, but the material could be used as siding work. For the roof, the Applicant noted wanting to find a compromise that was acceptable to the Town. One quote obtained was for a standing seam metal roof on just the front part of the roof. Another alternative was for standing seam metal on just the gables, or the reverse with the front part of the roof being standing seam and shingled gables. The Applicant posed that from the street, one could not see the roof at all, though across the street from the lot one could see more. The Applicant indicated not trying to avoid any requirement to maintain the metal somewhere on the roof that blends into the district. Mr. Meyer stated that the Board ultimately needed to revert back to the design guidelines which were an extension of the Zoning Ordinance — a more specific document that guided applicants and the BAR in reviewing the application to gauge compliance with the Zoning Ordinance, thus on what the Board based judgment. Mr. Meyer asked if the Applicant looked closer at the guidelines on which to base an argument. The Applicant indicated having looked at the guidelines and understood the like kind replacement, as well as queried about if a property owner could not afford the time or money to replace in like kind. Mr. Meyer asked staff and the other Board members if anything was found in the guidelines to allow such a reason to be a mitigating BAR Minutes — March 1, 2010 factor to which Ms. McDonald and several Board members indicated having reviewed the guidelines but found nothing to support the applicant's argument. The Applicant expressed understanding, but then queried why a shingle roof had been allowed on the back side of the house, prior to purchasing the property. Ms. McDonald responded that when the back side of the house was constructed, it was likely either not originally a metal roof when constructed or when altered it was under an older set of guidelines, and may not have been reviewed for materials at all as standards were different than now. The nearby house at 214 West Loudoun probably did not start with an asphalt shingle roof as they were not being used at the time the house was constructed, but had the asphalt shingle roof by 1975 when the survey was done, though materials were not being considered in that way then. However, with changes in design review, programs nationwide, and greater attention to the impact of materials on a building's character at least since 1994, the use of different materials on historic structures had been considered, which may explain the asphalt shingle on the back of the building when the Applicant purchased the building in 1999. The Applicant queried about alternatives if unable to afford removing and installing a new metal roof. Ms. Minchew responded that it may not have to be a standing seam metal roof, but just had to be appropriate to the building as the guidelines did provide for something to approximate wood shingles which was the material under the metal, but the problem was that the current asphalt shingles did not approximate so the metal was a default and clearly appropriate, though not necessarily the only choice. The Applicant asked about the consequences of doing nothing at the time, until figuring out a way to install a metal roof or wood roof, admitting being unfamiliar with the guidelines, as well as naively assuming that some shingled roofs in the area and a partial shingling on the structure, that it was not unreasonable to shingle the entire roof. Mr. Meyer responded that a potential timeframe could be discussed, and input from the Town Attorney would be needed. Mr. Sisley suggested other architectural review boards must have had similar scenarios to which Ms. Minchew stated that in the past under different guidelines an architectural type of shingle had been approved, though not the Applicant's type of shingle. Mr. Sisley queried if there had been other cases where the finished project had inappropriate materials to which Mr. Meyer and Ms. Minchew confirmed as such, and that the Board had denied approval of the project. Ms. McDonald referenced the new construction at 301 South King Street where the Applicant installed a white metal handrail that was not approved; it was brought to the BAR for post -construction review and the BAR found it to be inappropriate. The Applicant was trying to obtain a Certificate of Occupancy so there was a process whereby other approvals hinged on BAR action, therefore the Board required it be removed and the Applicant then installed a wood handrail. Ms. McDonald distinguished that the subject case was a building already constructed and occupied so additional research would need to be done to more fully answer the query, as well as confirm with the Town Attorney. Ms. Leslie Berk, noting that a Board member who lived nearby watched the roof being installed, queried why it was not brought to the property owner's attention when the first shingle was put on, knowing it should not be there. Mr. Meyer responded that the BAR was not a policing organization, or keeping track of what everyone was doing on their properties. Ms. Minchew added that the violation was reported as soon as noticed to which Ms. McDonald continued that notice was given the way the Town properly handles notification for violations. The Applicant added that shingles go on very quickly so it was a weeklong process. Ms. Minchew queried about the suggested partial reroofing to which Mr. Meyer referenced the Board having granted additional leeway if not readily visible from the public way, but would have to review specifically in that context so if the Applicant proposed, then staff would prepare a report and determine if any other legal issues related to the proposal. Mr. Koochagian added that the guidelines did provide some leeway so the guidelines were not at fault as there was a statement that replacement with another traditional material may be appropriate when compatible with age, style, and character of the building. If the project had come to the BAR before construction, then the Board could have worked to interpret another traditional material such as synthetic slate, asphalt shingle, cedar shake or standing seam metal, but now needed to gauge what other materials would be appropriate. Regarding hardi-siding as opposed to wood siding, Mr. Meyer noted that material on Page 2 of 10 BAR Minutes — March I, 2010 a non -historic property which adequately mimicked the look of traditional materials was found acceptable, but not acceptable based on the guidelines on an historic structure. Though not necessarily extending to all siding alternatives, Ms. McDonald clarified that one rationale in the preservation field for not permitting the use of Nardi -plank on historic structures was because of the different thermal properties and the very rigid nature of hardi-plank, where it may not be appropriate for a traditional historic wood -framed structure that may require siding that flexes a little more, thus, the materials may be incompatible. Mr. Meyer added that in some cases one reason it had been permitted was its visual and distinguished ability so the same argument for roofing material would be if it was visually indistinguishable from the material it was attempting to approximate. Mr. Meyer iterated that he had not seen an asphalt shingle that mimicked wood which was typically the intent, and only the diamond -shaped shingle was truly a traditional asphalt shingle, but the Board may agree it was an acceptable approach as though it was a nontraditional material on that structure. The Applicant queried about the term architectural shingle since what the contractor selected was architectural grade to which Mr. Meyer and Ms. Minchew responded that it was just a marketing term. Mr. Meyer added that there were products that mimicked well; some of the imitation slate was almost indistinguishable and accepted as substitute material, but asphalt shingles were immediately recognized as asphalt, not wood. The Applicant indicated preference for metal on the roof and not wanting to go back to a wood type shingle, as well as asked if it was acceptable to do something on the front without having to do something on the back since there was no side street in the back. Mr. Meyer queried the Board about the consideration, assuming the back was truly not visible from the public way. Mr. Miller requested to see what was being proposed. Mr. Koochagian suggested treatment also at a minimum on the edges of the gable, especially on the west side as it could be seen. Ms. Bos added that all of the front side including the gables was probably better in one material to which Mr. Koochagian agreed. The Applicant confirmed that the previous contractor would not be doing the replacement work though he had been referred by Loudoun County housing staff. Mr. Meyer added that there were various qualities of metal roofs, and a variety of manufacturers from prefinished to a sheet that was field painted which was a more traditional process. Ms. Minchew noted the dormers were more visible from the street than the rest of the roof so the dormers and steep gable would need to be treated the same way, and then perhaps a phasing in of the entire roof at some point may be considered. Regarding a timeframe for repairs, Ms. Minchew expressed interest in working something out as well as appreciation that it was an emergency repair and the Applicant was trying to protect the building, albeit not the proper procedures. The Applicant proposed an eighteen -month timeframe to which Mr. Meyer indicated the BAR would consider, providing there were no legal implications. With the work not done and wanting to make it look nice, the Applicant noted that the structure was an eyesore, and would certainly try to do something on the metal roof, at least on the front part, sooner rather than later much. The Applicant stated that he was not proposing to delay the work six months from now, but wanted to do as much as possible during the next sixty days or so to at least get that done. Ms. McDonald agreed to discuss phasing and timeframes with the Town Attorney's Office for recommended input if it was agreed to by the BAR and the Applicant, and phrasing of motion to ensure it reflected everything and was a defensible decision, as well as discussing with the enforcement staff. Mr. Meyer noted construction projects can take more than eighteen months to which Ms. Minchew added that it would be good to keep the project on track. Mr. Sisley suggested language include diligent pursuit or constant effort; as well as clarification about fines, the time period, and repeating fines year over year since it may inform the direction to provide the Applicant. Ms. McDonald responded that the Deputy Town Attorney does not attend work session meetings unless there was a public hearing, but could get the information for the next meeting. Ms. Bos recollected that the email previously circulated about legal implications sounded very punitive to which the Board concurred that it would be better if a schedule could be agreed upon. Mr. Sisley expressed concern about the timeframe if the Town approached it as a project not done in compliance and applied a fine since there would be a time period for it to be addressed. Ms. Minchew responded that the Town Attorney could provide the guidance when suggesting language for a draft motion, and Mr. Dunn added that it would be precedence for the next applicant with a similar situation. Page 3 of 10 BAR Minutes — March 1, 2010 Mr. Meyer understood the precedent and dilemma of the Applicant's situation as well as the Board being charged with protecting the historic resources in the Town. Most property owners want to do the right thing, but there were some potentially unscrupulous owners that would want to get around the requirements so that was what needed to be negated to which the Applicant understood. Mr. Dunn further posed that if an owner of a property sold within an agreed upon time period, and the buyer was unaware of the remaining timeframe, would the Town have the ability to place a lien on the property or an option that the work be done before the sale was complete to which the Applicant concurred. Mr. Dunn reminded that if the application came before Council, that it would be a great case for a downtown improvement grant or low interest loans to help out property owners that partner with the Town to keep up the historic district. Not to be a drain on the taxpayer, but to be an investor with the taxpayer, though it was something still for the future with the downtown improvement authority that was being worked on. Mr. Meyer referenced from a preservation conference, another historic district that was faced with a roofing situation where a truly indigent homeowner, an elderly couple could not afford to do something and the guidelines stated replacing with a like -kind metal roof so there was not a really good answer and the Board found the guidelines had to be applied. That was the type of situation where a fund could help. The Applicant responded that he was not crying poor, but there were a lot expenses like everyone else and arising all at once so it would be good if leniency were extended or a timeframe to be completed. The Applicant expressed regret about doing anything as could have patched every six months which would have potentially cost much less. Ms. Kidder queried about the Secretary's statements including that economics was not a reason to which Ms. McDonald indicated the Secretary of Interior's Standards did not addressed about hardship, but it was an issue nationwide in historic districts, and different municipalities address differently based on their enabling legislation. Economic hardship had been explained as not necessarily based on particular conditions of a property owner since it would have the potential to result in unequal treatment of applicants, but rather economic hardship was based on conditions of the property itself so was it economically feasible. Though it may not impact the decision, it would be beneficial for the Board to have more information on economic hardship, particularly in the current economic climate. Ms. McDonald would work with the Town Attorney's Office on how economic hardship should be addressed since it was not specifically addressed in the Secretary of the Interior's Standards which were based on design, context and historic character, but it was an issue identified by the Parks Service, State Historic Preservation Offices, and design review boards. Ms. Kidder added that the subject property was a prominent property in the historic district, on a main thoroughfare and an introduction to the historic district so it was good that this much time was being taken to address the issues because it was a very important element of the district. Mr. Sisley queried about federal programs that assist through low interest rate loans to which Ms. McDonald responded that there was not usually such programs for private properties, normally the incentives were available for nonprofit organizations, local governments, property owners or tenants with a public purpose. For an income producing property there was the tax credit available, a combined 20% federal with 25% state, so long as the alterations were done in compliance with the Secretary of Interior's Standards. Several projects in Town had taken advantage of the tax credit, such as the Brown-Carrera office building at 11 Loudoun Street SE, and the Lightfoot Restaurant. Compliance with the Standards would mean either standing seam metal, or alternative traditional material reviewed by the State Historic Preservation Office could be considered appropriate. If the BAR had a timeframe for compliance, then it may be that it could serve the Applicant well to consider the tax credit as an option. Mr. Sisley queried about an applicant pursuing a partially funded tax credit replacement of the mistake, and the BAR giving the time to diligently pursue the option. Ms. McDonald added that a tax credit was available to a qualifying property and qualifying project; a qualifying project would have to meet 100 percent of the base value of the property absent the land, but it would require additional research and consultation with a tax attorney. Mr. Meyer suggested it was worth investigating and a good way to approach the timing issue since researching to save money would be the reason to grant Page 4 of 10 BAR Minutes — March 1, 2010 additional time. Ms. Minchew emphasized that especially if contemplating further renovations to which the Applicant indicated being more than willing to consider that option. Mr. Sisley suggested discussing, not the cost, but what the end result should be — the roof replaced with material that would meet the guidelines — which if adopted as a common goal, and if the Applicant was diligently pursuing tax credit benefits, then the BAR would be in a defensible position without compromise of the guidelines or practices. Ms. Bos noted that with future similar situations, it would demonstrate that the BAR wanted to work with people. Mr. Miller queried if the property was a Section 8 Rental as there were HUD -insured loans for property improvements. The Applicant clarified that it was all originally under Section 8 when purchased, but now two tenants were under Section 8 and the rest with Loudoun County's Family Services or Mental Health group. Ms. Minchew suggested deferring on the roof part of the application while acting on the siding repairs to which the Applicant agreed as repairing the siding would make the structure look much nicer and cleaner. The Applicant asked about what was appropriate in terms of the metal roof material. Mr. Meyer responded that the bulky caps and ridges seen on new shopping center roofs was generally not a traditional design, but a more modern system that required less skilled labour. Meanwhile more traditional houses had hand seaming of all the joints, standing seams and ridge. Ms. Minchew shared that Beaver and Valley companies had done many metal roofs in Town. Mr. Sisley suggested contacting owners that had replaced metal roofs such as 29 North King Street which had the standing seam metal roof replaced three years ago. Ms. McDonald noted that another resource would be the Historic District Residents Association to which Ms. Coffing added that the association maintained a list of contractors that homeowners within the historic district had used. Ms. Minchew added that there may be alternate suggestions about approaching the two -stage part as the systems may not work well that way. Ms. McDonald confirmed that the BAR process has a specific timeline unless the Applicant and Board mutually agreed. The timeline was established to help keep applications moving so Town Council may agree in such a case as this, where there was agreement by both parties to reach a mutually beneficial conclusion, particularly when considering some potential economic incentives. Mr. Dunn suggested the time period was for a decision to be made, and the proposed eighteen months for the project to be completed was a decision. Mr. Meyer clarified that the project was not that it had to be done in eighteen months, but rather a deferral for the Applicant to continue research possibilities, then to report back how long it would take to get the project thorough the tax credit system, so a deadline could be set for when to report back or defer until a date certain. Ms. Kidder expressed concern about the BAR or Town Council placing an emphasis on economic hardship in this type of a case as it was a precedent and not appropriate to which Ms. Minchew indicated trying not to focus on hardship, but defer for one more month, maybe one month at a time at the Applicant's request. Ms. McDonald emphasized economic hardship versus economic incentives which could extend to anyone regardless of circumstances. Mr. Sisley added the emphasis was more about economic feasibility so the idea was to suggest to the Applicant about programs available and to diligently pursue the programs. Ms. Kidder responded that it was very generous to spend the time in consideration, but was curious if legally that was a good discussion. Ms. Minchew agreed that the Board needed to be careful that the project was not being deferred for economic reasons, but rather deferred for more time for the Applicant to figure out a plan because one had not been proposed yet. The Applicant stated that if a roofer gave a great price, he would do it and just be done with it. Ms. Minchew added the project was being deferred not because of the price so much, but because the Board wanted the plan to be perfect for the building so if considering a hybrid solution, it would have to be right. Mr. Meyer noted preference was not for a hybrid solution unless it could be shown. The Board was not committed to that yet, and the burden was on the Applicant to prove that it was absolutely not visible from the public way. Mr. Sisley stated the deferral was the same as with other applicants with incomplete or infeasible plans, but then when would the time period start on this application to which Ms. McDonald responded it was from the first public hearing. Mr. Meyer added unless if there was an agreement between the Board and the Applicant to waive the time period requirement or extend it. Ms. Minchew stated Page 5 of 10 BAR Minutes — March 1, 2010 that the Applicant just needed to ask for the deferral to which the Applicant responded that he would like to have it deferred. Ms. Coifing suggested that if the Applicant discussed a hybrid solution, it was important that the contractor provide very clear information about how the ridge would be treated and a slight return on the side so it would be very clear in the application if choosing to go that direction. Mr. Meyer added that would probably not be an acceptable approach if pursuing a tax credit solution to which the Applicant agreed. Ms. Minchew queried about the Applicant being unaware of being in the historic district to which the Applicant responded knowing the house was in the historic district from the gentleman that sold the property, but did not know it was designated an historic property because there was no plaque on it. Ms. Minchew asked how a similar situation could be avoided for new purchasers to which the Applicant responded that he never received a packet of procedures. Ms. Minchew noted that designation would be in the title and zoning category to which the Applicant responded not knowing what would have helped, perhaps a plaque or a kit at settlement indicating procedures for future improvements. Mr. Sisley suggested the County knows which properties were in the historic district so Council could ask that the County notify the Preservation Planner that an historic property sold to trigger staff to provide a packet to the new owner. Mr. Miller compared that home buyers would be informed in the beginning about an HOA when purchasing a home so could back out if did not like it after reviewing, but not all realtors inform completely about historic district restrictions to prospective buyers so it would be good if a disclosure package was required. Ms. Minchew indicated there had been legislation proposed at the state level to require such for historic districts, Mr. Sisley noted that it would not work when an investor bought directly from the owner without representation. Ms. Minchew queried if the Applicant bought title insurance as it would list the zoning category to which the Applicant confirmed but had never read that. Mr. Meyer stated that they were similar, and there were not many areas in Northern Virginia that were not under HOA restrictive covenants or an historic district. The historic district guidelines and BAR were actually less restrictive than HOA guidelines, where homeowners could not change anything and whose review board was not required to have a skill level like the BAR. Ms. Kidder shared that there was an historic district booklet available for ten dollars which had photos of houses in the historic district, one of which was probably the Applicant's property. Mr. Sisley formally asked Councilmember Dunn to advance the concept to Council about requesting County notification. Mr. Dunn affirmed, adding that there were covenants and restrictions that were part of the sales contract so it may be something that could come up in the downtown authority, which would be advancing. Covenants would be created for the downtown historic district which would then make it part of the legal process for buying and selling homes in the historic district. Mr. Sisley pointed out that not all contracts to make the acquisition were done through a realtor or a broadly open and transparent process so would not want new owners with that type of transaction to be unaware. Certainly the County knew what structures were in the historic district, and the Town communicated as a municipality with the County. The County had the ability to notify the Preservation Planner when a property in the historic district sold which would provide the opportunity to deliver the guidelines, putting the new property owner on notice in the most certain way possible without state legislation. Mr. Dunn concurred that it may be a mechanism of the title insurance company, and needed more venting but was hesitant to put more work on one person that was staffed, to be involved in every sales transaction in the downtown. Even though there may not be many, Mr. Dunn was hesitant to add more to the Preservation Planner's workload. Would rather determine if there was an automatic mechanism already available that existed through the County, title company, sales contracts, HDRA, or a potential downtown improvement authority. Mr. Dunn agreed it was a good idea as would not want additional property owners responding that they were not properly informed about the process and guidelines. Mr. Sisley suggested asking the County to send a letter notifying a new property owner about being in the historic district. Ms. McDonald confirmed that the historic district was a layer on the tax map to which Ms. Minchew added that when the tax map ID number was checked with the County, it should indicate the historic district. Mr. Sisley Page 6 of 10 BAR Minutes — March 1, 2010 confirmed that the layer functioned, which was good, but it would not get a notice to the property owners. The Applicant added that he would not have forgotten if he had received such a notice. Different today than when the property was purchased, Mr. Meyer pointed out that there was a very good website available which includes the guidelines and much easier to find. Particularly in this area, a vast majority of people would research on the web before purchasing property, though things can fall through the cracks so a fallback would not hurt. The Applicant noted having painted the property about six years ago, which now know was routine maintenance, but nobody said anything at the time that he should have told the Town, and that there was a process if he ever decided to tear off the roof. Ms. Minchew responded that the paint colours were not being reviewed at that time. Ms. McDonald added that paint colours had always been in the design guidelines and Zoning Ordinance. When the program was inherited four and an half years ago, changes in paint colour were reviewed administratively for commercial buildings, but unless a paint colour that came up on a residential building was not onerous, there was not really a review requirement. Now all paint colours were reviewed because that was the way the ordinance was written, but there was a comfortable understanding previously that if the residential paint colour was deemed appropriate, then it was not reviewed, probably because at the time all applications were charged twenty-five dollars regardless of whether it was administrative approval or BAR review. At that time, the understanding was to not charge twenty- five dollars which was the cost of a gallon of paint. Now no administrative approvals were charged other than sign reviews for ten dollars so there had been some procedural changes in the process. The Applicant asked how one would know when the procedural guidelines where changed unless reading minutes of every BAR meeting. Ms. Minchew responded that procedures were changed very rarely so the challenge was that the Applicant was not local and not reading the newspaper or receiving the notices, but there was a lot of publicity and public hearings with the changes. Ms. McDonald added that there were notices like on the property site, but the Town was unable to directly notify every property owner for every public hearing, though did notice in the newspaper as required by law, and noticed throughout the historic district at the gateways by posting signs with maps well before the meetings. Ms. Minchew noted that there was a different level of education needed for absentee land owners to which the Applicant agreed, adding it was not an excuse but the process was confusing. Ms. Minchew suggested approval of the siding issue to which the Applicant agreed as the intent was to start on the woodwork as soon as possible, though could not paint until the temperature was right. Mr. Meyer indicated staff would need to consult with the Town Attorney about the procedural process, whether to pull out the siding portion of the application to approve it, and the other portion could be worked out between the Applicant and Preservation Planner offline before the next meeting after having consulted with the Town Attorney. Ms. McDonald pointed out Zoning Ordinance Section 3.10.5 -Review of Plans in a Timely Manner that included the current Town Council approved language stipulating the timeline for BAR approval within a 75 -day period. Ms. McDonald indicated conferring with the Town Attorney's Office to ensure that whatever decision the BAR made was appropriate, of which it may be that the Board could extend the action to an additional period to consult and report back, but would want to confirm that it met the Zoning Ordinance. The Applicant indicated following up with Ms. McDonald about possibly returning to another work session with ideas and samples, as well as doing research to which Ms. McDonald offered to forward information about the tax credit programs. Administrative Agenda Review of the revised BAR Bylaws: Ms. McDonald stated that the Town Attorney had concerns about some of the language in the Bylaws and would discuss with the Deputy Town Attorney before the next BAR meeting. Some of the concerns were substantive but not very extensive. Some of it had to do with how far the BAR extended its authority when establishing the Bylaws so it would be best to defer discussion until a more thorough review and an opportunity to work out some compromises since some of the language would end up being softened, particularly regarding the decision -making section in the Rules of Procedures. Ms. Kidder queried about the Findings of Fact to which Ms. McDonald responded that was one of the sections needing to be discussed first with the Town Attorney's Office. Page 7 of 10 BAR Minutes — March 1, 2010 Windows workshop (support/discussion): Ms. McDonald noted being slated on the HDRA's March meeting agenda to garner feedback and interest about the proposed workshop. Based on the amount of discussion during the Town Council meeting including whether it was an appropriate use of Town funds, the BAR may choose to consider if the Board felt it would be a valuable workshop. Mr. Dunn suggested it was a way of certain councilmembers making points in a political season about being fiscally responsible. The BAR had every right to request funds and the Council could exercise the right to deny the funds, but Mr. Dunn indicated he would support the effort, as well as suggested making very clear the benefit of the workshop and the benefit to the community. Initially it seemed to be a feel good meeting and Council could not see the true benefits for it, but greater cuts could be made than the $3,000 requested out of the $20,000 budget that was not close to being used in the $91 million total budget. Ms. McDonald regretted that Town Council did not receive the entire application so the appearance as a feel good event was heightened by the fact that all the information submitted was not available to Council, If Council intended to pursue special projects again next year, then the process would be internally reviewed to ensure Council received all the information available. Ms. Kidder suggested adding about assurance of participation to identify the return on the investment. Mr. Meyer agreed with the concern that there be enough attendees. Ms. Minchew expressed surprise that other boards had similar requests granted without much of the supporting information, and questioned if a survey had been done ahead of time about attendance for a rain barrel workshop. Mr. Dunn responded that the rain barrels were fifty dollars each and was available to the entire Town, whereas the window workshop was for specific individuals in a specific area of Town as it may not benefit someone in a seven year old home. Ms. Minchew added that it was not always the best idea to replace windows in even some newer homes. Ms. McDonald indicated that there was a Council question about charging a fee so the HDRA would be asked about the interest for the topic as well as willingness to pay to attend such a workshop. Mr. Dunn noted in comparison that the Tree Commission just held a free workshop for not much cost with about 50 persons in attendance, and everyone had trees so a little more information to Council was recommended, if the BAR felt it would be very beneficial. Ms. McDonald agreed to assemble additional supporting documentation that was not necessarily required of other boards, but certainly the BAR could choose to abort the initiative. Mr. Meyer suggested garnering feedback from the HDRA as it seemed like it would be a very popular program, but if there was not much interest from the HDRA, then that may inform the decision. Ms. Minchew noted that depending on the level of interest, that there may be other ways to get the same kind of information out, because there was a lot of outreach about replacing windows which may be the right choice in certain situations, but not generally, so even homeowners in newer subdivisions should think about repairing before replacing outright. Mr. Meyer queried if the workshop would be more beneficial as a broader reaching more encompassing 'renovate/repair' seminar, rather than just limited to windows. Ms. McDonald noted that the explanation in written documentation as well as verbally to Council was that whatever one did with windows from a maintenance standpoint translated to any wood material repairs. Mr. Koochagian concurred that the conference workshop discussed repairing columns and porches, as well as the use of synthetic epoxy and resin to replicate rotted wood, which was explained to the Town Council, so in the spirit of the public -private partnership, like funding for applicants, historic buildings may be a more limited set of the Town, but it was also part of the Town that was bringing people to the area. Assuming that there was interest, if the Town was willing to fund a rain barrel workshop and not charge a fee, there was not much of a difference with a wood repair workshop, particularly with all the damage properties sustained from the year's storms. Ms. Coifing queried if the intended audience was just local residents and property owners, adding that should also be going after Loudoun Preservation Society, contractors and trades people in the area, and overseers for other historic properties (Oatlands, Morven Park, Loudoun Museum). Mr. Meyer proposed the workshop be free to Town residents and a fee to outside participants. Mr. Dunn did not support charging a fee as most people would not want to pay a fee for this workshop, but another idea would be a `weathering the storm' workshop as there was a lot of need with fallen gutters and fascia, not just in the historic area, but other property owners would also benefit from the information. Mr. Dunn supported the workshop, adding that the funds were available and it was important for the downtown; the downtown would not just fix itself which was why the BAR was needed. Ms. McDonald iterated that the goal was to Page 8of10 BAR Minutes -- March 1, 2010 have the workshop in May, but did not appear it would happen by then so would aim for sometime in the summer and do the best with what could. Ms. Coffing portended the workshop would go well, and should be the beginning of an ongoing series of similar technical workshops for people to which Mr. Dunn agreed and that it may be a good way to present it. Ms. Coffing indicated seeing that as the BAR role, to educate the public with sessions at least once a year, of which this workshop would be the kickoff. PC review of the Town Plan (Heritage Resources Section for BAR): Ms. McDonald announced that the Planning Commission would be reviewing the Town Plan, with a deadline of April 15 to receive back comments from boards and commissions. Ms. McDonald indicated the need to discuss with department leadership as to if the BAR should review other sections of the Town Plan in addition to Heritage Resources, such as Recreation, Transportation, or Community Design which dealt with areas outside the historic district but was impacted by the H-2 Corridor. Meanwhile, the Historic Resources section was an area with great potential for improvement, such as additional clarity, more than one map to better differentiate, and to clarify intent and objectives. Mr. Sisley queried if the Community Design element included form -based zoning to which Ms. McDonald responded that the element would be impacted by Form -Based Code, but existed independent of form -based zoning. That section of the Town Plan would still be used to review rezonings and special exceptions even without Form -Based Code, which was a significantly smaller area than to what area the Community Design applied. Ms. Kidder indicated the Planning Commission would appreciate any comments on any of the Town Plan, in particular Ms. McDonald's expertise for the Community Design element. Neither a burden nor a formal report needed, just notes or ideas presented informally, Ms. Kidder invited the Board to attend a Planning Commission meeting to discuss the elements relevant to the Board. Ms. Minchew responded that it was a good opportunity as many of the concerns identified were not addressed in the last Town Plan review about five years ago. Mr. Dunn added that the Town had not decided one rezoning that fit within the Town Plan so in reviewing the document, was it just an academic study, or was it actually how and wanted to be as a Town. Mr. Meyer suggested that maybe the Zoning Ordinance had not caught up with the Town Plan which had happened on certain occasions. Mr. Dunn agreed it could be a combination. Ms. Kidder added that staff responded as such when that question was asked previously, as there was a lot of discrepancy with what had been zoned and what was the present zoning which was old. Mr. Meyer noted that the H-2 Overlay was the prime example in that the Town Plan anticipated what form -based zoning was the implementation tool for, but the Zoning Ordinance stated otherwise, thus the reason and decision for implementing form -based zoning to implement the Town Plan. Revisions to Article 15 -Signs Ordinance & Review of the H-2 Corridor Sign Guidelines: Ms. McDonald informed that staff was reviewing other municipalities to compile recommended alternatives. In discussion of the annual report, which was very well received by the Council, comments indicated it may be a good idea to incorporate a review of the H-2 Corridor Sign Guidelines with the Sign Ordinance revisions. The more recently revised H-1 Sign Guidelines had been used successfully. Considering the H-2 Corridor Sign Guidelines were so vague and weak, and there was a history of decisions and interpretations that could be memorialized to improve the quality of the document regarding how to address neon and comprehensive sign plans, which could make staff review of the signs easier, as well as provide a more solid basis for recommendations for approval when applications did go before the BAR. Ms. Minchew agreed that a rewrite of the H-2 Corridor Sign Guidelines was a great idea, especially since it was not that long and review of the rest of the guidelines would not happen immediately. It would be one concrete item to address right away, as well as allow staff to take on more administrative approval with some foundation with which to work. Ms. Minchew added that a review could also be educational for the group to look at all the sign issues. On a community basis, Mr. Sisley noted that it would provide people the guidance to make right decisions the first time since rework which was always incredibly expensive and happened more often than one would realize. The Board in reviewing applications was not supposed to review the financial impact, but zoning guidance allowing people to do it right the first time, would also result in a better looking community. General Discussion (additional): Mr. Meyer noted that staff reported to Town Council about the annual BAR activities and all positive feedback was received. Ms. McDonald added that a more uniform way of presenting annual reports was being considered for boards and commissions as well as the department as a whole. Page 9 of 10 BAR Minutes —March 1, 2010 Mr. Sisley reiterated that staff was asked to dramatically cut down the window workshop content to which Ms. McDonald responded that the in-depth two page application with explanations of why, was condensed into two sentences in the written material to Town Council. Mr. Sisley commented that based on the instructions to staff, the decision to condense to a few sentences and state that the BAR did not prove the point of its impact on the community, seemed a bit ingenuine. Mr. Dunn confirmed that there was one sheet with four requests and the others were approved, though the Balch Library withdrew because a donation had just been received. Ms. McDonald clarified that the BAR's second request was less money than what was originally requested, but the same amount of information was provided on both requests. Ms. McDonald stated that the storm damage outreach letter was sent to historic district residents to which Ms. Minchew suggested an annual letter or brochure every two years may be good. Adjournment: The meeting adjourned at 8:47pm. NEXT REGULAR BUSINESS MEETING: Monda , March 15, 2010 at 7pm Tow a Council Chamber West arket Street i(72" Leesburg, A Dieter ever, Chair 41 Wendy Walker, Clerk of the BAR Page l0 of 10