Loading...
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