HomeMy Public PortalAbout2010.05.03 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, May 3, 2010
25 West Market Street
Council Chamber
MEMBERS PRESENT:
MEMBERS ABSENT:
STAFF:
Dieter Meyer (Chair), Marilyn Bos, Doris Kidder, Bob Miller,
Teresa Minchew, Jim Sisley (Parliamentarian)
Tracy Coifing (Vice Chair), Richard Koochagian, Councilmember Tom
Dunn
Annie McDonald, Brian Boucher, Wade Burkholder, Wendy Walker
Call to Order and Roll Call
The meeting was called to order at 7:06pm, attendance noted and a quorum determined to be present.
Administrative Agenda
2010 JARB awards program: Ms. McDonald confirmed the awards program was on May 20" from 5:30 to
7:30pm at the Birkby House. Council, BAR members and awardees would be receiving individual
invitations. Ms. Bos shared that Leesburg's awardee, Ed Shihadeh of Shoes Cup & Cork Club and
architect were thrilled with the nomination. Ms. Kidder suggested combining with the business awards
event to which Ms. Minchew noted the previous year there were multiple awards given and it mixed the
message. Ms. Bos indicated that this year was joint sponsorship with the Loudoun Preservation Society
to which Ms. McDonald added that the Preservationist of the Year award would also be announced, plus
it was being used as an opportunity for a member event in the spring for Preservation Month. Ms. Bos
continued that this year's recipients were high quality and Leesburg was the only jurisdiction with just one
nomination.
Teleconference presentation on Federal Tax Incentives, Saturday 12 June 2010: Ms. McDonald stated
the presentation was outside the BAR's normal purview, but was good information to have when trying to
educate applicants and property owners that other boards and commissions in the area would be invited
as well as staff to the teleconference. Mr. Sisley added that registration was required for each certificate
of accreditation, but not for general education and to provide information. Ms. Kidder indicated the
National Trust recommended Leesburg encourage the program to which Ms. McDonald added that some
projects in Town had used Federal Tax incentives (e.g., Lightfoot Restaurant, the restoration of 11
Loudoun Street SE/Brown-Carrera offices, as well as Market Station).
Update on the Form -Based Code (staff report provided): Mr. Boucher presented the Form -Based Code
(FBC) as currently existed and as recommended by the Planning Commission. The FBC District was
originally larger than the Crescent District area which was intended to give a more traditional urban form
to areas of redevelopment, and allowed a density yield under the current Zoning Ordinance. The FBC
District had a lot of possible and necessary infrastructure; the additional roads created a grid pattern
similar to the traditional downtown Leesburg, as well as would handle a lot of density and provide more
walkable communities. The Crescent District emphasized streetscape with wide, friendly sidewalks with
trees, and a more traditional downtown feel to the roadway network, encouraging people to live there with
more pedestrian -friendly streets with a downtown environment. The District had a regulating plan
showing the road network that would be required, and height districts (building to certain heights such as
BAR Minutes — May 3, 2010
three stories, four stories and bonus story for up to five, which would allow buildings to go more vertical
and increase density). After deliberation, the Planning Commission recommended a truncated District,
bounded to the west by Harrison Street, south of Catoctin Circle to East Market Street, back down to the
H-1 District and south including an area in the H-1 District which contained the auto salvage yard off
Depot Court, European Auto Center and Morningside; plus on the Southside of the W&OD Trail was
Harrison Park which was also in H-1 Overlay District.
Major reasons for the changes were the infrastructure that went along with FBC, the regulating plan with
new streets that created the grid pattern; it was a new district and relatively new concept, rarely used in
brownfield areas. Normally it was used in green fields where things had not been built, not to revitalize an
existing district, so the thought was to take an area with large underutilized lots that were ready for
redevelopment. If it worked there, then possibly expand outside that area; as well as it simplified the grid
by lengthening the blocks to decrease the cost of the public infrastructure to develop the area. The FBC
was made as administrative as possible with lots of language about building type to entice developers
with timesaving and more certainty. A couple properties currently in the H-1 District (Harrison Park, the
salvage yard, auto center, a County parks and recreation building, and Morningside) were recommended
to be more appropriately zoned in the FBC District because it was too expensive to develop as currently
zoned, as well as to gain architectural control since the provisions of the FBC would apply and give
architectural guidance in this area, with the sensitivity that it was adjacent to the residential H-1 District.
However, lime kilns in the area were on property owned by the W&OD Trail which may get designated as
an historic landmark with H-1 control so FBC was written so that anything with H-1 designation would
apply to H-1 architecture and design. Additionally, the European Auto Center was a commercial structure
of some vintage and unusual in the Town so it may be appropriate to not include in the FBC and remain
with H-1 designation, given the historic nature of the building.
Private streets and access could be built, but would not be required to be public streets with all the street
frontage criteria that were in the FBC, and it may make this area more developable long term and more
attractive. The area of H-1 being added was a three-story height zone so that near the existing and
proposed H-1 District, the scale would grow larger when moving away from the more traditional H-1
District. The FBC had different type of street typologies: a residential area and a general urban area, with
types of building appearances and limitations on types of buildings to protect the existing H-1 District.
There were still more Planning Commission discussions about the FBC final revisions before acting on
the Code and moving it forward to the Town Council.
Ms. Minchew queried about the interpretation of the stories to which Mr. Boucher responded that three-
story height was 46 feet maximum, a four-story building was 58 feet, and a five -story building was up to
70 feet which would be farther away from the historic district. Height was measured from the ground up
to the eaves of the roof so the height maximum would not include the roof structure; whereas in the
current Zoning Ordinance it was from the midline of the roof. Mr. Meyer queried about building out the
attic space to which Mr. Boucher indicated there was an option to include an additional story that if certain
criteria was met such as dormers for build out of an attic space. It would have the appearance of being
not a full story under roof on all three building heights. Mr. Meyer clarified that occupiable space was
permitted in the attic space to which Mr. Boucher confirmed, adding that 25 -foot setbacks adjacent to
residential districts were built into the FBC, plus increased setback for multi -family and non-residential
buildings as written into the Zoning Ordinance, to avoid a very massive building adjacent to the historic
district, and providing a better sense of transition. Additionally, along the perimeter adjacent to a
residential district outside the FBC District, buffering requirements had to be met per the Zoning
Ordinance which was a 50 -foot buffer for multi -family. There was another provision in the FBC that if a
six-foot brick wall was built with a ten -foot residential screen, then the buffer could be reduced
significantly but the setback was still the same requirement. There were greater expectations for privacy
and separation for single-family detached residential from more intense development of mutti-family use.
Mr. Meyer queried if it was a change from the original FBC draft to which Mr. Boucher responded that it
may be, but staff would forward a list of changes since the original draft that went to the Planning
Commission.
Ms. Minchew queried about materials of which some may not be set up the way the BAR recommended.
Mr. Boucher responded that there was a distinction between areas that were defined as not visible versus
Page 2 of 7
BAR Minutes — May 3, 2010
areas visible from the public right-of-way; there was a list of materials in the ordinance that had to be
used for any walls visible from public open space, but if it was not visible from those areas, then there
was a wider variety of materials that could be used. Ms Minchew questioned who determined visibility to
which Mr. Boucher noted it would be the Zoning Administrator, but that the language needed refining so
the Zoning Administrator did not have make an interpretation every time an applicant wanted to build.
Ms. Minchew noted an elaborate and sophisticated list of materials had been suggested, but were not
reflected in the FBC and seemed much more limited to which Mr. Boucher stated that it would be fairly
restrictive to be administrative, and the Town Attorneys had looked at this format. Mr. Meyer clarified that
it was designed to get through the process quickly, but an applicant could always ask for alternatives to
which Mr. Boucher confirmed it was a by right process, but could ask for modifications though there was
no certainty that such would be approved. Ms. Minchew queried about removing properties from the
historic district and the impact on the National Register District to which Mr. Boucher responded that
except for the European Auto Center and lime kiln area, there were not many structures or any existing
structures of historic value in the area so it was ripe for redevelopment. It would not result in the
destruction of existing historically contributing buildings so it would be appropriate to allow for controlled
redevelopment in these areas in accordance with the FBC. This District was a way to get architectural
control into the ordinance, allowing a better form of redevelopment of those areas that did not have
structures close to the downtown. Ms. Minchew queried about demolition standards in the FBC to which
Mr. Boucher responded that a permit and certain safety criteria would still be required for demolition, but
not review.
Mr. Meyer queried about why the auto salvage was in the historic district to which Ms. McDonald
responded that when the Old and Historic District was created in 1963, part of the property was included
in the Town boundaries as depicted on the 1878 Gray's New Map. The original ordinance specifically
referenced Gray's New Map which showed the corporate limits, which was why there were historic
resources on West Market Street and South King Street that were not included in the original district
boundaries, but only added after the 1990 architectural surveys identified as eligible for inclusion. Mr.
Meyer queried if there were any buildings on the site to which Ms. McDonald noted there were a few
structures on the site, but the dates of construction were unknown. There was a poured concrete
structure of some age that showed up in the 1975 architectural survey, but the relationship if any to the
historically industrial nature of that site was unknown. Mr. Meyer suggested that it should be determined
if the structures on the properties had any historic value, or any potential historic value to that piece of
land to keep in the historic district. Ms. McDonald responded that the site at one time was used as a
quarry and included a lake as depicted in an historic postcard and the1878 Gray's New Map, though
outside of the structures was unable to speak to any potential historic value to the land or landscape. Ms.
Minchew stressed seeing the survey reports for each of the properties proposed to be removed and
analysis from staff as to whether it would damage the historic district if removed; parameters needed to
be established for taking properties out of the historic district so it would not become random or a problem
later to remove property from H-1 protection. Mr. Meyer queried if the BAR would be asked to weigh in at
a future meeting. Mr. Boucher agreed that staff needed to provide analysis because if land was removed
from the H-1 Overlay District, it needed to be for a good cause and defensible so there was not a
cascading affect, as well as for Town Council since it would be a rezoning to expand or truncate and the
recommendation needed to be based on something defensible. Therefore, staff would gather information
and provide to the BAR before the June 3rd Planning Commission public hearing. Ms. Minchew added
that analysis should also include impact on the remaining properties in the historic district that may be
affected by the move. Mr. Boucher noted that rear facades facing the district may need to be adjusted to
add an extra layer of protection to which Ms. Minchew suggested the heights too, because it would be
allowed to be higher than if it stayed within the H-1 District.
Revisions to Article 15 -Signs Ordinance & Review of the H-2 Corridor Sign Guidelines: Ms. McDonald
indicated the proposed modifications to Article 15 were slated for Planning Commission public hearing on
May 20th regarding neon signs, administrative approval in the H-1 and H-2 Overlay Districts, and
comprehensive sign plans. Recently, most BAR sign reviews in the Old and Historic District had been
placed on the consent agenda. Currently, staff had administrative approval authority of building -mounted
signs only, based on criteria per the sign guidelines as written in 2006. Were the BAR to review and
update the document, there would only be a few modifications to permit administrative approval authority.
The H-2 District guidelines were not good, but a lot of signs in the H-2 Overlay were placed on consent
Page 3 of 7
BAR Minutes — May 3, 2010
agenda with no discussion so that if the guidelines were improved, then administrative approval would be
much easier. Comprehensive sign plans were more complex so the formation of an administrative review
panel of three staff was proposed (the Preservation Planner, Zoning Administrator and Deputy Zoning
Administrator). For any commercial site outside the H Overlays, the panel would review and take action
on those sign plans, and appeals would be to Town Council which would focus the BAR authority back on
the Overlay Districts. Inside the H-2 Overlay, the administrative review panel would take action on new
and changes to existing comprehensive sign plans, with an appeal to the BAR. In the H-1 Overlay District
where it was the goal to protect historic resources, the administrative panel would review and make a
recommendation to the BAR who would have primary review and approval authority. For the BAR or
review panel to make a more defensible decision, basic criteria was being included in the ordinance
regarding type of signs, illumination, location of signs for a comprehensive sign plan, because currently
the H-2 guidelines addressed nothing about signs in a comprehensive sign plan, and those same vague
guidelines were used to review sign plans outside the H Overlays. Thus, in the H-2 Overlay, the criteria in
the ordinance and H-2 guidelines would be applied; or in the H-1 Overlay, the criteria in the ordinance
and the relevant H-1 sign guidelines.
Regarding neon in the Old and Historic District, it was prohibited downtown since 1990 in a large revision
to the Zoning Ordinance at that time. However, neon was an historic way to illuminate material to use for
designing a sign, and had been elsewhere in the Old and Historic District during the second quarter of the
20th century. Neon and Carerra glass were hallmarks of the modern movement that had only come in
vogue in the last twenty years in the preservation world. The marquee on the Tally Ho Theatre had been
fully lit with neon. There were three historic neon signs in Leesburg (the hot food sign at the Mighty
Midget and the Shoes sign which dated pre -1950, as well as the BAR -determined historic sign and
character -defining feature at the Downtown Saloon and Payne's). Considering the historic nature of neon
and its traditional use as a type of sign in Leesburg, the BAR may consider expanding its use downtown.
Mr. Meyer noted that new and different eventually becomes historic. Mr. Sisley stated that administrative
approval of comprehensive sign plans accomplished the Town goal of being more business friendly by
making the process of government more transparent, and therefore agreed with staff to codify
requirements for staff to determine if submissions adhered to guidance. Ms. McDonald clarified that with
administrative approval, the BAR would receive appeals for either district; Town Council would hear
appeals for outside the H overlays. Ms. McDonald further clarified that only multi -tenant properties would
be open to having a comprehensive sign plan but not required; however, in the H-2 Overlay District,
individual approval would need to be submitted for each sign. The benefit to having a comprehensive
sign plan was that it allowed more flexibility, such as the number of signs per business or the location.
Ms. Minchew added that shop owners did not have to come for approval each time as tenants changed to
which Ms. McDonald confirmed that there would not need to be administrative approval as a BAR case
for each individual sign so it shortened the review process by just requiring a sign permit. Mr. Sisley
queried about the distinction between existing and new multi -tenant buildings. Ms. McDonald confirmed
there was no requirement, though previously comprehensive sign plans were memorialized for existing
developments that did not have a sign plan, but during an application to change the monument sign,
existing wail signs were memorialized and under canopy signs were established. Ms. Kidder noted sign
plans gave the owner better control over the look of the center regarding individual signs to which Ms.
McDonald agreed in theory. Mr. Meyer added that owners could require tenants to adhere to a standard
signage package to which Ms. McDonald stated it may hinder owners because potential tenants may not
locate in the center unless permitted to have a specific sign. Mr. Sisley suggested if it was a productive
center with plenty of traffic, a company would locate regardless of a sign, though there should be stronger
motivation for companies to adopt comprehensive sign plans in order to be allowed to build at the
Planning Commission level or as part of the Zoning Ordinance.
Ms. Bos agreed signage should be more effectively administratively approved. Ms. Minchew also agreed
with administrative approval for signs, because the previously revised H-1 sign guidelines allowed more
applications to consent, though some tweaking may be needed on H-1 sign guidelines and similarly the
H-2 guidelines to have applications administratively approved. Ms. Minchew agreed too with the
comprehensive sign plan concept, querying if other jurisdictions had an administrative review panel to
which Ms. McDonald responded that it was a modification of some research that was done. One
municipality reviewed administratively but not as a panel. Establishment of a panel was in part so it
Page 4 of 7
BAR Minutes - May 3, 2010
would not be the decision of a single person for greater contribution and so when there was staff turnover,
there would be greater consistency between the different memberships on the panel. Ms. Minchew noted
it was adding another step to inside the H-1, because currently the Preservation Planner made
recommendation to the BAR. Ms. McDonald responded that it would be same basic process, except the
recommendation would come from the review panel, though that may take a little more coordination.
There were not many comprehensive sign plans in the H-1, though there were still some areas ripe for
development in the Old and Historic District. Market Station did not have a comprehensive sign plan and
depending upon what happened with the FBC, there was still a benefit to having the BAR opine and take
action on comprehensive sign plans, when the signs proposed in those plans had the potential to impact
historic resources. Mr. Meyer stated there could be a lot of variation depending upon building design with
some circumstances for a unified plan and other circumstances not unified. Ms. McDonald agreed that
the criteria specifically stated that the degree of uniformity among the signs should be dependent on the
degree of uniformity or differences within or among the buildings for which the sign plan was being
established. Ms. Minchew queried if the recommendation would still come with analysis on the impact on
the historic district from the Preservation Planner to which Ms. McDonald confirmed as such, and that it
was the reason why the position was included in the panel. Ms, Kidder liked the idea of streamlining and
strengthening the guidelines which would improve the whole system.
Mr. Miller queried about banner signs to which Mr. Burkholder stated they were prohibited signs so the
ones currently seen were being pursued by enforcement action because they were considered animated.
Mr. Meyer agreed staffs recommendations were in order, but the only concern was to ensure that
someone with aesthetic judgment sat on the panel. It was important because if the panel was staff that
were trained more as technical people, the aesthetic judgment ability would be lost so hopefully the
Preservation Planner position would weigh in and not be overruled too often to which Ms. Minchew
agreed, and Ms. Kidder noted it was an excellent point, suggesting that there should be criteria of who
could serve on the panel. Mr. Meyer suggested Leesburg should have a Town architect, as some
communities do, to advise on aesthetic decisions because there were many engineering -based decisions
based an infrastructure improvements around Town, but clearly no aesthetic judgment exercised. It may
be an issue to address with Town Council in the future as a suggestion, but in the meantime the
Preservation Planner would serve that purpose. Ms. McDonald confirmed the panelists were clearly
defined as designated by the Director of Planning and Zoning. With regard to qualification, judgment and
experience, it was more of an administrative issue to be handled by staff leadership when hiring for any of
these positions, and was already covered in the position requirements, though there would be some
learning curve. Mr. Meyer indicated the concern was that a Preservation Planner and an architect may
not necessarily be trained in the same way from an aesthetic judgment standpoint; though current staff fit
that criteria, overall concern was about future staff in that position. Ms. Bos posed that the BAR could
then address issues to which Mr. Meyer agreed that if it was not working, then it could be recommended
to change, though that was harder to do once implemented. Ms. Minchew stated signs in particular were
more of an aesthetic; first was to ensure a sign fit the guidelines, then to make sure it looked okay. Mr.
Meyer added that some signs had been approved by the Board that met the guidelines, but aesthetically
were not what would like to see so judgment at the staff level to inform an applicant in the proper direction
would be helpful, versus once it was at the public hearing when it was more difficult to change so
generally it was a very good idea.
Ms. Kidder queried about a BAR representative serving on the panel, similar to a Planning Commission
representative on the BAR. Ms. Minchew added that there could be concern in a different future situation
about people who were responsible to each other on the panel, deciding about comprehensive signs
plans. Three Town employees where some were beholden to the others for their position at some level
was a bad idea so was there a better third person to be on the panel to which Mr. Meyer agreed. Ms.
McDonald queried about replacing the third person, or the BAR member as a fourth decision -maker or
advisory person, adding that there were some review bodies such as in DC that had a pre -review
committee, as a smaller panel of the larger review board. Ms. Kidder suggested a representative not
replace the third person, but rather as an ex officio non -voting member to be consistent with other Town
representatives. Ms. Minchew noted the Zoning Administrator and Deputy Zoning Administrator fulfilled
the same role to ensure Zoning Ordinance requirements were met. Mr. Meyer stated that at times there
may be a staff member that could fulfill the review panel role and other times not, so may be membership
of the panel could be tweaked as well as research of other jurisdictions. Mr. Sisley suggested a BAR
Page 5 of 7
BAR Minutes --- May 3, 2010
member would just be a different application rather than a new panel, and it may be an opportunity for
members to sit on the panel every six months to learn and not be overburdened. Ms. McDonald clarified
panel reviews would be daytime meetings as needed.
Regarding neon, Mr. Miller stated the Shoes sign looked nice, but other owners would then want to add
neon. Ms. McDonald understood the benefit to permitting neon signs in the historic district from an
historic architecture standpoint as neon was historic, but was also concerned about the potential for
proliferation and the point at which one could defensibly say no. Mr. Sisley stated the issues were
proliferation, scarcity of resources and legislating art. It would be difficult to keep people to a certain
amount of content, negative space versus positive space, and there would be a rush to have the limited
number that might be put up; if put distances between signs mounted on the street, where the signs faced
and how far off the ground would become a nightmare, plus it would make the few cool things very
common so would lose the special nature of the few grandfathered items, and did not see a path to
success in allowing additional neon signs. Ms. Bos agreed about legislating art because attractiveness
was in the eyes of the beholder, and that everyone would want to have a neon sign which would
denigrate the quality of the existing neon signs. Mr. Sisley noted that neon was an animated sign by
which gas moved through the tubes so it would be difficult to open up and not get into the argument about
other animated signs. Mr. Miller suggested that if one restaurant was allowed a neon sign, all the others
would want neon too. Ms. Minchew agreed, but if there were a way to establish legally supportive
defensible language to allow the re-creation of historic signs that would allow Tally Ho to be what it once
was, then it would be okay, but was also not in favour of permitting neon signs where there never were
any, or even permitting all the neon signs that were once in Town. To permit just the ones that were
appropriate to their facade, like the China King sign which was no longer neon but was appropriate to the
facade on which it was mounted at one time, would be supported if in the context of the guidelines.
Mr. Miller queried about the 1757 Real Estate sign size based upon what was once there to which Ms.
McDonald clarified that the size of the sign, based on historic precedent, was not otherwise prohibited by
the Zoning Ordinance. The Stockman building sign was originally a sign band and it did not make any
sense to not allow a sign there so the sign ordinance was modified to allow the BAR to modify certain
details such as locations, because signs outside the Old and Historic District were not permitted to be
located above the level of the second story windowsill so it was a sign that otherwise would have been
prohibited, but the applicant was able to provide solid documentation that it had historically been used for
signage. Mr. Meyer suggested that may be the basis for allowing historically documented, previously
existing neon signs to be reinstalled where they had been before. Ms. Minchew added where they had
appropriately been before, in case there had been a proliferation in the 1970s. Ms. Bos confirmed there
had not been a proliferation of neon signs in the 1970s to which Ms. Minchew added if there had been
some badly placed ones, then one would not want those replaced. Ms. Minchew continued that perhaps
a house that had recently gone from residential to commercial on the main block of King Street had neon.
It was not appropriate to have neon then or now as it was a residential building even if used for
commercial so it had to coordinate with the front of the building to be approved.
Mr. Sisley queried what was to gain to which Ms. Minchew added that Tally Ho would look fabulous
restored. Ms. McDonald added that if an owner of the Tally Ho wanted to pursue a state or federal tax
rehabilitation credit, the current sign ordinance would not permit the restoration of the original marquee as
a character -defining feature of a traditional theatre from the period, thus there was some economic
development rationale to allow rehabilitation of the sign as originally designed. Ms. Minchew suggested
more research before proceeding, but not to abandon the idea. Mr. Miller queried about neon open
window signs to which Mr. Burkholder confirmed that neon or LED in the H-1 District was prohibited, and
a three-foot setback for any other type of wall or window sign. In the H-2 District, the BAR currently
reviewed every type of sign greater than two square feet that was neon or LED. However, the new
language removed the BAR from review of neon in the H-2, recommending neon be permitted in the H-2
up to four square feet per sign, with anything less than two square feet being exempt from any sign permit
outside the H-1. Mr. Burkholder further confirmed that neon would count for one of the two signs
permitted per business.
Ms. Kidder queried if neon designed and built today was a different character to which Ms. McDonald
confirmed it was not different. Ms. Kidder noted the wellness center in the shopping center on Catoctin
Page 6 of 7
BAR Minutes — May 3, 2010
Circle had an open massage sign which was flashing and tacky. Ms. Kidder then agreed about the
proliferation in the historic district, adding that the few grandfathered signs were fun, in good taste and
made a statement. Mr. Meyer agreed that if other historic buildings could be shown that it was there,
such as at the Tally Ho, then there was no objection. Ms. Bos also agreed, though there would be limited
documentation available to which Ms. Minchew expressed great caution.
Ms. McDonald indicated staff was modifying the definition of a banner, as well as noted BAR member
comments regarding temporary signs over which the BAR did not have purview, and A -frame signs which
there were standards. There were some in Town that were illegal, but the Preservation Planner did not
review A -frame signs nor was there a permit fee within the Old and Historic District, though there were
material requirements per the Town Code and enforced through the zoning inspections and enforcement
team. Mr. Sisley asked why setbacks away from the public right-of-way midblock were not addressed in
the sign ordinance, only if in the public right-of-way regarding corners. Ms. McDonald indicated the
reference was in the A -frame signs section and should be in the real estate signs section as the concerns
had been forwarded to staff.
General Discussion (additional): Ms. McDonald indicated the next business meeting agenda included a
couple violation cases: a sunroom addition to an house in the Old and Historic District that was already
built but without permit; a patio and enclosure of a rear porch without any permits; as well as Leesburg
Central which was approved by the BAR in 2004, with some minor modifications to the elevations in
2005. More recently, there were several things noted by BAR members as well as the Preservation
Planner that were not quite right on this large building so staff conducted a courtesy inspection that
resulted in several items to be reviewed against the new guidelines of which some may be appropriate,
and some not.
Adjournment: The meeting adjourned at 8:56pm.
NEXT REGULAR BUSINESS MEETING:
Monday, May 17, 2010 at 7pm
Town 1 Council Chamber
25
Dieter Meyer, Ch
Wenc ialke4 Clerk of the BAR
Page 7 of 7