Loading...
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