HomeMy Public PortalAbout2010.06.07 BAR Site Visit and Work SessionDEPARTMENT 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
Site Visit and Work Session
Monday, June 7, 2010
25 West Market Street
Lower Level Conference Room One
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Dieter Meyer (Chair), Tracy Coffing (Vice Chair), Marilyn Bos,
Doris Kidder (attended work session discussion), Richard Koochagian,
Bob Miller, Jim Sisley (Parliamentarian)
MEMBERS ABSENT: Teresa Minchew, Councilmember Tom Dunn
STAFF: Annie McDonald, Barbara Notar, Wendy Walker
Site Visit
The scheduled site visit with the Applicants and representatives began 6:35pm at 201 Loudoun Street
SE. Ms. McDonald indicated there was a list of items that were approvable as constructed, and a list of
items that required more discussion. Not as many issues on the east end of the building, Ms. McDonald
pointed out that the window lintels were approved as cement fiberboard, but were Fypon with hoods of
different sizes (wider on the second story, narrower on the upper story), though the profiles were the
same and the hoods extended over the edges of the window. Mr. Meyer noted the Applicant previously
commented that the appearance of the extension on the sides would be changed when the shutters were
installed. However, what was normally seen was the trim around the windows matching the size of the
window head, and the profile of the trim would come out so that the trim around the window and the
extension out from the window head would all look like a unit as opposed to pasted on. Additionally, the
eastern portion of the building was supposed to be a smooth German profile, but was instead a grained
beveled clapboard siding. The third story windows were nine over nine and should have been six over
six. On the entrance door, there should have been a transom installed over top, roughly to the height of
where there was a change in siding colour. Mr. Meyer iterated that the Board as a body should perceive
if the material conveyed the sense of traditional material (i.e., were the grained siding and Fypon an
acceptable facsimile of real wood). Mr. Meyer queried if the windows were the same ones the BAR had
approved to which Ms. McDonald confirmed the Board had seen the same sample with muntin profile.
Mr. Koochagian noted the ridge vent did not fit in the ridge gable. Mr. Meyer referenced the Applicant's
justification for not having installed a transom was because the door had to be fire rated so the Board
should perceive if there was an actual reason why the fire rating would be required in that space, adding
that there were windows at the same location in relationship to the centerline of the road as there were at
the door,
Ms. McDonald noted the inconsistencies on the central portion of the building were that the dormer
windows were installed as nine over nine but approved as six over six. The trim work on the dormers did
not appear to be consistent with what was approved, but the Applicant provided additional information to
discuss in the meeting. The fascia board was not consistent with the approved width. The issue with the
window hoods also existed on this portion of the building. Not related to compliance with the approved
plans, the Applicant should address and clarify below the bottom level of the siding where the corner
boards did not go all the way down to the water table. There were the vertical pieces of which this portion
of the building was proposed to be painted and new shutters would be installed (the Applicant provided a
sample, confirming it was not the exact shutter as it was too short). The transom light over the door was
not installed, and the siding which was the correct profile should have been smooth instead of grained
BAR Minutes — June 7, 2010
according to the approved plans. Mr. Meyer queried about how the shutters would be mounted, adding
that the requirement was that the shutters were either operable or appeared to be operable, and the
portion of the size of the shutter had to essentially be one half of the window to appear as if closed that it
would cover the window. The Applicant noted the sample was what could be procured at the moment
since it was a custom order, but the shutters would be exactly what were approved.
On the western portion of the building, the Applicant pointed out two caulking examples of the control
joint: brick colour and white mortar colour. Ms. Coffing queried about why the joint was needed in the
location instead of relying on a joint in the corner. The Applicant's architect stated the mason would have
proposed the joint location to avoid cracks in the brick to which Ms. Coffing responded that joints should
only be every 15 to 20 feet. Mr. Meyer suggested the red joint filler was a less close colour; the white
was a reasonably close colour to which Ms. McDonald suggested the Board view the filler from across the
street, as well as view the different issues of this elevation. The cornice trim did not appear to meet what
was approved; the widths appeared different with the upper piece eight to ten inches, and about half that
below. The center portion showed a brick projection from the cornice returns, all the way down the
facade to the sides of the entrance. At the center top, the window was approved as round arched.
Center middle at the second story, the narrow windows on either side were raised at the bottom so the
same height as the central window, but positioned six to eight inches above the level of the other nine
over nine windows. The third story windows were also approved as six over six but installed as nine over
nine, comparing with the four over four windows on the upper story and the muntin grid which did not
align. The quoining on either side of the projection did ultimately appear to meet the three-quarter deck
on the approved plans, as well as the rustication that extended across the entire first story. All the
materials on this portion of the building appeared to be as approved. Mr. Meyer noted the misalignment
of windows.
On the west side of the building, there was a change in material of the foundation from stone to brick on
the north and south sides of the projecting bay, which Ms. McDonald noted the Applicant indicated it had
to do with how the foundation was poured which would have caused the brick to protrude too much.
On the back of the building, the foundation on the projecting bay carried through on the south elevation.
On the projecting bay to the south elevation with the gabled roof, the foundation was originally approved
as brick, but changed to stone based on field conditions. The gable pitches between the top gable on the
main portion of the building and the projecting bay were different, but should be roughly the same based
on the approved plans. The cornice returns were a little off. The upper story windows should also be six
over six, as well as extended to the upper window on the projecting bay. There was a flight of steps that
was not part of the approved plan. The Applicant noted the second column was also added. The Fypon
window hoods issue also existed on the backside of the building, as well as the dormer trim. There was a
sample of the paint colour on the far east, as well as black PVC shutters. Mr. Meyer reiterated that the
key was when the shutters were mounted, that it not look like it was just nailed on as the higher standard
in the historic district was authenticity to which the Applicant stated making sure that the shutters were
half the size of the window as mentioned earlier. Mr. Meyer continued that the shutters needed the
hinges and to project off as if it was operable. Ms. McDonald noted the foundation that was stone on the
front portion did not wrap around, as well as the wall treatment was not carried down to the foundation
level or stone water table on the same portion of the building, though it may have been an issue of
completeness as work was stopped.
On the front of the building, Mr. Meyer questioned how the columns ended up outside the face of the
building, as well as queried about the trim detail around the door. Ms. McDonald clarified there were not
to be window hoods on the front brick portion of the building. Mr. Meyer pointed out the two different
issues of the wood graining on the siding, and the wood graining on the trim. Mr. Koochagian noted there
were window hoods on this elevation, but not on the south side on the first story. Mr. Sisley questioned if
the brick course dividing the foundation was on the approved plans to which McDonald stated it was
uncertain if the approved drawings went to that level of detail. Mr. Meyer suggested the drawings should
show something about how to build it to which Ms. McDonald added that it was important to differentiate
between what was a field modification that was not consistent with either the BAR or County approved
drawings, and what was a modification approved by the County but not consistent with the BAR drawings.
Page 2 of 10
BAR Minutes— June 7, 2010
CaII to Order and Roll Call
Mr. Meyer called the meeting to order at 7:23pm, noted attendance and determined that a quorum was
present.
Discussion Agenda
1. THLP-2010-0022, 201 Loudoun Street SE, Applicant: Brian Kotzker of Sarks Investment
Group LLC for Leesburg Central, re: post -construction amendments — Old and Historic
District (H-1 Overlay)
Mr. Chris Commeau with Architecture Incorporated was hired by the original owner, Jamie
Turner, to take the project through permit of which it was a job inherited from another architect he
had hired. Mr. Sonny Veen and Mr. Amitoj Gabri worked for the owners of the building, as well as
Mr. Binod Thapa who looked after the project.
On the north elevation's brick portion of the building, Ms. McDonald noted the round arched to flat
window profile at the center window was approvable as constructed, but not the configuration of
the panes. Originally the window was designed as a semi -circle, but the Board had no issue.
Presence of control joints to be expected, these control joints did not extend all the way down the
facade to which Mr. Meyer suggested there were more than what might have been necessary,
though it was a judgment call for architects and engineers to make. Ms. Coffing stated that the
joints were not necessary on the north and west elevations because they were not associated
with steel and were easy to eliminate by replacing with bricks. Mr. Sisley agreed as it seemed
like many joints were put in, especially on the north elevation so it seemed there were more than
necessary and where the joints were put was questionable. Mr. Meyer noted joints were usually
put in corners and windows were a common location, but not necessarily at every window, The
Architect stated the mason for the project would have recommended locations, though the
architecture firm was not involved in the construction process so could work with the Applicant for
a solution that satisfied the overall and made the joints go away as best as possible. Ms.
McDonald suggested the mason provide explanation for use and locations. Mr. Meyer agreed,
adding that joints matched to the mortar rather than the brick would disappear well, and it may be
more obvious to pull out and replace with bricks. Ms. Coffing noted that the building had to be
cleaned anyway, and Mr. Sisley stated that brick was replaced in downtown all the time. Mr.
Veen indicated the mason said the joints could be filled up with the same colour and it would not
be noticed as it would go away to the common eye. Mr. Meyer asked for the mason to provide
structural rationale for the joints and the BAR could determine if it was acceptable. Ms. Coffing
recollected the excessive joint locations were on the north and west elevations. Ms. McDonald
confirmed that Town Hall joints were caulked a colour to match the mortar and pre -cast, though it
had aged significantly over time as the building was 20 years old so it was dried and cracked in
places. Mr. Thapa noted the joints were plainly visible from the top to the bottom, and Mr. Veen
offered to do the same to this building to which Mr. Meyer indicated that some BAR members did
not think the joints needed to be in all the circumstances so more information was needed from
the mason. Mr. Koochagian requested the mason explain why the joints did not go all the way
through the banding to which Ms. Coffing added that sometimes joints were stepped.
Ms. McDonald noted the BAR approved drawings for the frieze called for a one by eight on the
top portion with a one by ten below it. Mr. Meyer queried if it was the overall exposed to which
Ms. McDonald noted the graphic representation of the drawings appeared to convey it should be
what was exposed. Mr. Meyer stated proportionally it was odd looking, and the BAR needed to
determine if it was approvable. Mr. Sisley did not think it was overall unacceptable if that was
what was approved, but there was a problem with how the frieze and fascia were constructed in
the corner to which Mr. Meyer noted it should be fixable. Mr. Meyer queried if there were regular
inspections to determine if the quality was up to in-house standards to which Mr. Veen said the
construction supervisor was onsite, but a lot had to be fixed and would be taken care of in the
final list. Mr. Meyer iterated that the proportion of the heavier top over the smaller bottom was
backwards. The rest of the Board agreed that the method of installation was not adequate at the
corners, but the wider piece with the narrower exposure on the bottom was generally acceptable.
Page 3 of 10
BAR Minutes — June 7, 2010
The difference in gabled pitches on the south elevation in the main block of the brick -clad building
and projecting bay were roughly the same pitch in the BAR -approved drawings, and the pitches
on the returns were reflected in those drawings. Mr. Sisley stated the return on the right side had
metal cladding, whereas the return on the left that just had exposed decking was as approved,
but should be consistent with the rest of the building and should be simulated slate to which Mr.
Meyer noted it was normally done in metal; traditional construction was flatter, but these were
returned way up so shingles were a flashing detail. Mr. Sisley commented that the returns were
standing seam metal though the roof was simulated slate to which Mr. Meyer stated that was
what would be expected. Ms. McDonald noted the bottom two returns as approved should have
the same treatment but were instead flush. The gable pitches were inconsistent, though not
necessarily inappropriate and could conceivably be approved as constructed. The Applicant
indicated the change in pitches was a result of shop drawings for the gables, which was an
inconsistency with the BAR approval. Mr. Sisley queried about the angle of the returns to which
Mr. Thapa and Mr. Veen said it could be corrected. Mr. Miller questioned if the returns were of
different lengths to which Mr. Koochagian confirmed the upper right return was longer than the
left, and Mr. Veen said the contractor agreed to fix it. Mr. Sisley asked if the lower returns would
have the same treatment to which Mr. Koochagian noted it did not project out the same to which
Mr. Meyer added that the top should still be flashed. Mr. Koochagian queried about a frieze
around the bottom fascia to which Ms. McDonald confirmed.
Mr. Meyer clarified the issue of the difference in roof pitches, which was unusual but may not rise
to unapprovable. Ms. McDonald stated the issue of additive massing could be used to justify the
change, but the foundation was designed to be installed to be consistent. If installed as approved
with a brick foundation instead of stone, the additive massing concept lent itself to this portion of
the building, versus a building that evolved over time and its mass broken up into smaller
components. This building had a complex roof form, but it did not necessarily make it
incompatible to which Mr. Koochagian noted that the brick style was also inconsistent with the
additive mass argument. Ms. McDonald stated that the belt course was also not continuous to
which Mr. Meyer added that such a minimal amount of addition would not have been done later
on. Regarding compatibility of the different pitches of the roof, Mr. Sisley indicated it was
noticeable and looked strange. It appeared the top gable was a steeper pitch than what was
approved, and the additive element got the pitch correct according to the drawings; plus the gable
ends were shown with a steep flashing element than what was constructed, but all the returns
should be consistent with flashing on all the pitches or not. The Architect agreed, noting the
fascia piece that was missing on the bottom should be added, as well as returns straightened out
and flashed back to the wall. Mr. Sisley stated it looked odd and made more sense to other
persons in the construction business that the returns should be simulated slate. Mr. Meyer
disagreed as traditionally a slate roof would not have slate returns, but it was not a make or break
issue. Mr. Meyer continued that the main roof pitch was much steeper than the approved
drawings, though there was not necessarily an issue with the pitch of the main roof.
Ms. McDonald added that it may be necessary to get clarification as to the actual wall height; the
approved drawings showed the flat portion of the roof as wide as the projecting bay on the front of
the building, but it was actually wider than the projecting bay. Mr. Meyer noted it looked three
feet or less which was the reason for the pitch difference, and the peak of the roof was very off
compared to the peak of the drawing to which Mr. Sisley added that one could not get far enough
away from the building to see the angle in the drawing. Ms. McDonald suggested it may support
the proposition that the pitch may be slightly steeper than approved because to meet the height
requirement at a steeper pitch, to be as wide as the projecting bay, it would have to be taller and
possibly truncated to meet a height standard, thus wider than the projecting bay. Mr. Sisley
queried about what to do now that the building was constructed to which Mr. Meyer responded
that it was the BAR task to determine whether it was approvable or not, considering it as if it was
a fresh application because it was changed from the approved application. Mr. Sisley further
queried about if the project was rejected to which Mr. Meyer responded that the BAR had to
provide a reason for not approving the project and what in the guidelines made it unapprovable,
though there was nothing in the guidelines that spoke to maximum or minimum roof pitches. Mr.
Sisley asked about what the process would be if this new application was unapprovable to which
Page 4 of 10
BAR Minutes — June 7, 2010
Mr. Meyer stated if the BAR did not approve it, the Applicant could decide to appeal or ignore the
ruling, but BAR authority was to use the guidelines to guide decision making. Though the
guidelines did not speak to the issue specifically, Ms. Coffing noted the guidelines indicated
balance and proportion (not a height issue), and how roofs and gable ends related to one
another. The Architect hoped to work with what was there, make improvements, such as the
projecting bay, to make it as good as possible. Mr. Sisley questioned about the pitch on the
eastern side of the main roof to which Mr. Meyer suggested it was perspective or distortion of the
photograph. Mr. Meyer requested a recommendation from staff based on the BAR input, and the
Applicant offered to make the structure more presentable and better than now.
On this portion of the building on the southern facade, Ms. McDonald noted the change from brick
to stone on the foundation, which actually improved the condition as it reduced the very vertical
emphasis of that portion of the building and was consistent throughout the bay. Mr. Miller agreed
it looked better, and Mr. Meyer agreed it helped break up the height, and gave it a base. Ms. Bos
noted about the pillar that went from stone to brick to which Ms. McDonald added that it was a
veneer but a separate issue. Another issue, Mr. Sisley had a problem with the projection on the
bay which was fieldstone, but was supposed to be brick which affected the angle.
On the central portion of the building, the trim on the dormers did not appear to be as dimensional
as the BAR -approved drawings, but regarding other approvals, this was not too different from the
treatment at 6 Wirt Street NW so not necessarily unapprovable. Mr. Meyer generally agreed
because many dormers on newer construction looked top heavy, whereas traditionally dormers
were kept narrower with a tiny overhang, essentially crown moulding. However, it was not far off
from what others had been approved, though the trim around the window, instead of being a
single piece of trim, looked like trim, then a one -inch gap going to siding, and then trim again so a
continuous piece of trim all around would clean up the look a lot, Also, the cap on the metal roof
was pre-fab which the BAR frowned upon as it added an extra line rather than the traditional
seamed cap, as well as the pre -fabricated ridge was clunky looking which was the main objection.
Ms. McDonald agreed that specific roofing material may not have been addressed in the original
application. Mr. Sisley queried if sill trim was missing on the dormers to which Mr. Meyer
suggested it was deceiving because it had pre -fabricated treatments of the transition of the metal
roof rather than traditional seaming detail. The pre -fabricated metal that was part of the roofing
system took the place of traditional sill trim. Mr. Koochagian noted the roof caps were not shown
on the drawings and the guidelines indicated using a traditional rolled edge to which Ms.
McDonald responded that because the original drawings did not address it, the BAR had
previously approved under the old guidelines those kinds of roofing systems so it was not
necessarily an inconsistency up for re -review at this point. Ms, McDonald clarified the
modifications were being reviewed under the new guidelines, but not the entire building.
Mr. Meyer suggested that cleaning up the dormers with finish colours would help to not be as
noticeable, and there were some places around the window that had gaps of the siding to which
the Architect offered to use a wider piece of window trim, Mr. Sisley responded that the trim
needed to be the same width for the top and sides because wider trim on the side would eclipse
the top and look disproportional. Mr. Meyer added that the original approved dormer design was
not good to which Mr. Sisley did not think the dormers were heinous, though there should be a sill
on the bottom. Mr. Meyer suggested the Applicant check if a sill could be added to the dormers
with the existing roofing system to which Mr. Sisley noted it was noticeable from the street which
was a standard the BAR applied regularly. Mr. Sisley further noted the dormer walls were wider
than the windows used, and the drawings showed the trim at the top of the windows to be thinner
than the sides. Mr. Meyer reiterated the drawing proportions were not good to begin with so if the
dormers were painted out in a consistent matter and trim on the sill location, then it would be
okay. Mr. Thapa and Mr. Veen confirmed the original paint scheme was the same off-white
colour that was painted on the bottom so it would all match up to which Mr. Meyer stated it was
not then an issue, just getting the piece of trim at the sill per the drawings. Ms. McDonald noted
that the same issue extended to the south elevation. Mr. Miller queried about putting trim on the
bottom to which the Architect responded that it probably could be figured out to give it a base.
Mr, Veen offered to add sill trim to one dormer for the BAR to see if it looked better, then it would
Page 5 of 10
BAR Minutes — June 7, 2010
be done to all, but if it looked worse, then it would be pulled out. Mr. Meyer stated it was up to the
BAR to decide if it met the guidelines, but it seemed far enough away that it did not rise to a level
of approvability or not.
The cornice trim (the frieze, not the fascia) was narrower than approved, though the specific
dimension was not indicated in the approved drawings, but appeared to be a piece of trim that
was comparable in width to the one by ten on the brick portion of the building so it should have
been wide. Ms. McDonald stated this item seemed approvable as constructed, which it was
important to compare it to the trim on the brick portion since there was not a specific dimension
given, and the BAR had no issue with the modification.
Regarding items needing more discussion and again on the brick portion of the building, the
projection on the central portion was not in the BAR drawings and did not appear to be in County -
approved permit set, unless the Applicant had a stamped set showing otherwise, though it did not
necessarily mean the BAR should approve it, but it may clarify the issue. The Architect confirmed
it was not part of the construction drawings and was believed to be a foundation issue, and Mr.
Veen noted it was a field condition because of how the foundation was poured. Mr. Koochagian
inquired about the treatment for steel lintel to which Mr. Thapa responded it would be the same
as on the windows which also had steel lintels so therefore it would be painted. Ms. McDonald
noticed the windows on the right side of the projecting bay were closer to the projection and
farther from the quoining than the left set, Mr. Veen suggested the windows were meant to align
with the top windows to which the Architect clarified it was not a symmetric facade. Mr. Sisley
posed that the second floor windows were further from the left than the third or first story. Mr.
Meyer stated that traditional architecture would not put a steel lintel up top to carry a section of
brick, but would rather just build brick straight up, nor was it a reflection of a more modern design
as it was an attempt at being symmetrical, but was asymmetrical.
Mr. Meyer suggested the more difficult issue was the projection of the central section and the
alignment because there were a lot of traditional buildings that were not actually symmetrical,
such as Mount Vernon. The crowding of the window on the right to the edge of the brick was
more problematic than the fact that it did not match the other side, though it should match so the
question was if could it be justified. The asymmetry could have an argument that it did not have
to be, but the central section projecting out into a different plane creating an arrowhead was an
issue. Mr. Koochagian responded that the guidelines stated rhythm and balance of windows as
well as symmetry so if the application came to the BAR before construction, the Board would
have requested symmetry because it was of traditional design and meant to be symmetrical to
which Mr. Meyer agreed, The Architect understood the mason screwed up so the correction
could be made and the two small windows could come down, but the whole projecting piece was
not feasible without modifying the entire facade and rebuilding it, which was economically too
much of a burden, to which Mr. Sisley noted the Board was not permitted to discuss that part. Mr.
Sisley queried if the whole row of windows on the right side of the projection could be moved to
the right, closer to the quoining to make it symmetrical, noting it was most bothersome on the bay
by far. Mr. Veen asked the Architect if it could be moved to the west to which Mr. Koochagian
noted mitigating the arrowhead would be to carry some ornament straight across. The Architect
suggested it would change the whole character and Mr. Miller thought it would look funny. Mr.
Meyer suggested the Applicant look at options for making it work, which was what the Board
would ask if the project was still in the design process. All agreed the windows on the right
should shift as was originally designed to which Mr. Sisley added that if not as designed, then at
least consistent with the windows on the left side.
The foundation on the western canted bay, the five -sided bay, changing from brick to stone on
the north and south elevations of that bay was not appropriate based on the guidelines, which
stated foundation materials should be consistent with traditional design. Ms. McDonald continued
that the kind of treatment that changed in the middle of a feature was not consistent with
traditional design so either the stone should be changed back to brick, or the brick should be
changed to stone. Not reflected on the construction drawings, the Applicant had noted it was due
to a field condition, having to do with how the foundation was poured, resulting in a greater
Page 6ofI0
BAR Minutes — June 7, 2010
projection of the brick, though that should not be the case because the veneer for a stone would
be comparable. The Board agreed it was not approvable as constructed, and Mr. Meyer noted
that the brick projected out in front of the stone so there was enough room to get in brick
coursing. The Architect responded that the brick ledge was not adequate where the stone was
installed, but the stone could be removed, the brick cut in half and applied to work with the
narrower ledge so it could be accomplished on both sides of the projecting bay as it occurred on
the flip side too, which it would also include changing the stone ledge to brick.
On the central portion of the building, Ms. McDonald noted the Fypon window lintels had a
difference in profile, where the approved drawings showed simply a flat piece of moulding with
canted edges so that it was wider at the top than at the bottom, but without the tripartite
organization with the base field and capital. On the elevations, they abutted a wider moulding
that surrounded the perimeter of the windows so it appeared that the moulding spanning the
perimeter of the first story windows should be the same condition as the second story with the
rhombus -shaped window hood above. Mr. Meyer assumed the intent was a piece of wood or
faux wood trim though the shape was unusual. Ms. McDonald stated the profile was inconsistent
and that the Applicant had noted it was Fypon. Because of how they were mounted, the shutters
would hide some of the overlap, and would not necessarily notice that the side trim was not there;
however, based on the design in the approved drawings, there should also be a piece of trim
between the window and the ornamental hood above . If the BAR found the design as installed
was appropriate, the use of that trim atop of the window might be redundant. It seemed more
consistent with suburban window treatment than traditional window design to which Mr. Meyer
agreed it was more ornate on this building, and the execution should have been designed more
as a unit rather than looking pasted on. The Architect suggested the shutters would make that go
away a bit. Mr. Meyer noted it looked glued on rather than the siding ending into it so something
did not look right in the way it was installed. It would be seen on a brick facade as a decorative
detail, and traditionally as a rain deterrent to shield the window. Mr. Veen said that once
everything was the same off-white colour it would hide it a bit to which Mr. Sisley responded that
it would not change the relief in the shadow lines, and Ms. McDonald stated that the trim would
still be white. The Architect noted the construction drawings indicated Fypon to which Mr. Meyer
confirmed there was nothing in the guidelines to prevent use of Fypon.
Ms. McDonald clarified that the trim material approved by the BAR was either wood or cement
fiberboard, but the construction drawings ended up with a Fypon hood, though the BAR's new
guidelines indicated that in certain cases alternate material may be determined to be appropriate
provided it conveys the traditional visual characteristics of traditional materials so it was up to the
BAR to determine if the Fypon material was appropriate based on the ability of the material to
convey traditional characteristics. Mr. Meyer reiterated that it looked pasted on as opposed to
marrying up well with the siding, which was the biggest issue in conveying the traditional material
appearance so less the material than the relationship to the material it adjoined. Ms. McDonald
added that a Fypon hood may be appropriate provided it was designed and installed in a manner
more reflective of traditional construction. Mr. Koochagian noted the other concern was that the
sill trim piece was of a different material so it would not look the same even once both were
painted. Mr. Sisley added that the cap on top of the window was exactly the same as the piece
underneath; different than the decorative cap, and the same situation on the south elevation of
the building. (Mr. Sisley noted in the middle of the foundation fieldstone was a brick course to
which the Board agreed to discuss that later in the list.) Mr. Meyer stated if the installation could
be redone in a manner that appeared traditional and integrated with the rest of the window trim
and shutters, and not appear pasted on, then it might be approvable, but if not, then it probably
should go back to the original design. Mr. Koochagian noted that the sill needed to be in
conjunction with the hood to which Mr. Meyer agreed that the window trim needed to be
consistent, smooth and together with the shutters, encouraging the Applicant to come back with
the whole package of how the shutters would be installed because currently it was not approvable
as had been recommended by staff.
Ms. McDonald pointed out the complication of the framing as revealed on the front of the building
with the vertical trim pieces that trisected that elevation. There would be shutters on the first and
Page 7 of 10
BAR Minutes — June 7, 2010
second stories which would cover a portion of that framing issue as seen onsite; the rest of which
would be painted creamy off-white so the BAR needed to determine approvability of the framing,
which was not consistent with traditional construction techniques or visual characteristics of
traditional design. Mr. Meyer indicated that downspouts were sometimes added to break up the
facade and get the vertical line, though that would be a stretch in this case. If painted to match
the rest of the facade and with the shutters, it may be less noticeable. Mr. Sisley stated there
was still shadow lines as it was asymmetrical to which Mr. Koochagian added that the window
spacing was not even. Mr. Meyer suggested symmetry could potentially be created by adding
similar lines to the right of the window. Ms. Coffing stated that the line should not penetrate the
frieze which should be furred out at the top. If the verticals had to be accepted, it should not
show through the frieze as it did not make any sense to which the Architect responded that it
could be accomplished. Mr. Koochagian suggested the porch roof was disproportionally taller so
from the sidewalk it seemed huge and hovering to which Mr. Meyer agreed it looked about a foot
or so too high. The columns were much taller which made it look wrong proportionally so the
Applicant should return with ideas, and the missing transom was another issue. Mr. Koochagian
noted on the portico roof that the cap on each side was essentially large and highly noticeable so
it should go back to a standing seam roof as it was not traditional, which even the old design
guidelines mentioned. Mr. Meyer agreed it was very noticeable with the pre-fab hip cap. Ms.
McDonald concurred there was a difference in the height of the columns. Mr. Koochagian
suggested the whole elevation seemed taller than drawn to which Mr. Meyer added that the
height of the roof relative to the windows and height of the columns needed to be further
addressed, as well as the hip caps adjusted to a traditional folded seam.
The Architect confirmed that the door did not need to be fire rated and a transom could be put in
so the previous Applicant comment about meeting requirements was a misinterpretation. Mr.
Sisley clarified it was for both doors to which Architect agreed.
Ms. McDonald noted that the Fypon hoods were roughly the same width as the windows on the
south side of the central portion of the building, as well as on the eastern portion, appearing that
the cornice and bay projecting beyond, significantly wider than the windows on the central
portion. The third story window hoods were closer to the width of the window, whereas the
second story hoods were wider so the treatment of the central portion was recommended to
extend to the eastern portion as well. The Architect queried if the third floor condition was
acceptable for the other window locations to which Mr. Meyer responded that it was better,
especially with shutters, but a consistent solution was needed around the whole building.
Ms. McDonald noted the siding on the central portion of the building was grained instead of
smooth. The old guidelines stipulated smooth cement fiberboard as well as the new guidelines,
with the suggestion that a grain treatment may be appropriate in other applications other than an
horizontal siding. Mr. Meyer added that the conclusion about the guidelines was that the material
had to convey the appearance of a traditional material per Town Attorney's opinion so the Board
needed to determine if the siding had the appearance of traditional graining on siding. Mr. Sisley
stated that the graining did not look too different from the redwood grained siding on 213 Loudoun
Street SW to which Mr. Meyer agreed it was acceptable. At a typical distance, it was good and
graining technology must have improved which happens over time, even laminates looked much
more convincing today than twenty years ago. Mr. Koochagian differed in opinion as it looked
rougher and there was a contradiction in materials with the Fypon components so it showed too
much grain for this type of structure to which Mr. Meyer noted that there would be a similar
amount of graining if sided in cedar. Mr. Sisley suggested from across the street or middle of the
street, the graining would not be seen, though mold would develop in the deeper graining over
time. Mr. Koochagian pointed out that both sets of guidelines indicated ungrained to which Mr.
Meyer added there was conflict with that and the section stating it had to visually depict traditional
material, which visually this material was close enough to cedar that it was convincing enough.
Ms. Coffing did not like it though there were other issues on the building of greater concern; if
accepted, it was tolerable if there was consistency in how it was used, with the trim pieces being
either all grained or all smooth, as well as how it related to the Fypon in being consistent in
looking like wood. Mr. Meyer agreed, stating that trim should all be smooth since rough cedar
Page 8 of 10
BAR Minutes — June 7, 2010
would not be used so that was what needed to be made consistent. Ms. Kidder queried if the
BAR requested smooth siding be used to which Mr. Meyer confirmed it was the original approval,
and the Applicant confirmed it would be painted. Ms. Kidder posed that the grain would show
less when painted to which Mr. Meyer stated there was not much difference between the painted
section and the rest of it, though it was reasonably convincing that it could not be disapproved,
but ultimately it come to a vote. Mr. Miller queried if grain siding had been approved on some
houses to which Mr. Meyer responded to date that Mardi had been approved only when used
vertically, and generally far enough away from the street so it could not be seen. Ms. Bos agreed
that the technology had improved as it was not as bad as expected. Ms. Kidder queried if future
applications could use a grain to which Mr. Meyer clarified if it conveyed the appearance of a
traditional material was the standard, and not all products were the same.
Ms. McDonald noted that there was the same transom issue on the eastern elevation as well as
the porch height so the Applicant should measure and ensure it was as approved to which Mr.
Meyer agreed because the distance between the top of the door and the underside of the porch
roof was too much even with a transom. Mr. Meyer queried about a wall check to which Ms.
McDonald indicated following up with the Zoning division regarding documentation required at the
time a Certificate of Occupancy was issued to ensure compliance with the Zoning Ordinance.
The third story windows were installed as nine over nine instead of six over six, resulting in a very
horizontal orientation of panes, which was not consistent with traditional window design. On the
brick portion of the building, there was a result in an inconsistency between the third story
windows that were three panes wide versus four over four to which Mr. Meyer and Ms. Bos
agreed it was very noticeable. Mr. Meyer continued that the nine over nines should be switched
to six over sixes, with sashes replaced to which Ms. Bos noted the dormers too.
Ms. McDonald stated the steps on the south elevation were approvable as installed, especially
since the Applicant demonstrated onsite that the second column could still be installed and
alignment maintained. The Architect pointed out the view from one side of the meeting room was
extremely distorted, both in the roof pitch as well as the porch -column ratio to which Ms.
McDonald agreed as it foreshortened the perspective that was opposite of the foreshortening in
the photograph, making it look taller.
Mr. Veen asked if there was a solution recommended for the control joints to which Mr. Meyer
stated that some Board members were of the opinion that if it was not necessary, then the brick
should be replaced with full brick. Others thought it may be sufficient to do caulk joints, though it
may be better to fill with mortar.
Ms. McDonald surmised that as a body, not as individual BAR members, that the siding might be
appropriate as constructed so the Applicant had had the opportunity to receive guidance to
consider modifications to make or different options for modifications, before presenting to the
BAR for a formal determination to be made. The Applicants agreed there was enough guidance
from the Board to which the Architect indicated needing to discuss with the mason as well as staff
more. Mr. Meyer suggested the Applicant refer to the guidelines to find a rationale if electing not
to change an item as some of it was interpretation, such as the siding where there were a couple
different points, of which a case could be made for it, since that was how the BAR was required to
review the application. Mr. Veen queried about the black plastic shutters shown to which Mr.
Meyer stated the shutters did not convey traditional material. Ms. McDonald suggested bringing
an example of each shutter to the next regular meeting, painted the correct colour to decide if it
could be distinguished between painted wood and the PVC, allowing for differences in colour.
Mr. Meyer added that a lot came down to the hardware, how it was attached, and if it could be
accomplished with PVC the same way as with a wood shutter so that was what needed to be
seen onsite and in place, Mr. Meyer stated that members could return to the site to which Ms.
McDonald added if that was the only issue requiring onsite inspection, members could individually
inspect, rather than a separate meeting. Mr. Meyer queried if the plastic shutter was paintable to
which the Applicant confirmed, though the shutters came in many different colours.
Page 9 of 10
BAR Minutes — June 7, 2010
Mr. Koochagian indicated in the original plans that the front portico had stone piers supporting the
columns, which did not exist and changed the character a bit. Mr. Sisley noted the brick course in
the middle of the fieldstone on the eastern portion of the building to which Mr. Koochagian added
about finishing off the concrete along the front. Mr. Meyer stated the drawings showed it as all
being stone to which Ms. McDonald said it was shown as one elevation plane from the grade to
the coping. Mr. Meyer stated the brick needed to be fixed as there was no justification for it, as
well as the exposed concrete was the stone. Mr. Koochagian added that the wood -louvered
gable vents were pre -fabricated to a different angle than the roof so that the pitch of the actual
vent was steeper than the actual gable which formed a gap.
Adjournment: The meeting adjourned at 9:44pm.
NEXT REGULAR BUSINESS MEETING:
Wednesday, June 23, 2010 at 7pm
Town Hall Couu era amber
25 West Market Stre
Leesbu
Dieter Meyer, Chair
Wendy Walker, Clerk of the BAR
Page 10 of 10