Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout2010.09.20 BAR Meeting 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 Monday, September 20, 2010 25 West Market Street Council Chamber MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: STAFF: Dieter Meyer (Chair), Tracy Coffing (Vice Chair), Doris Kidder, Edward Kiley, Richard Koochagian, Teresa Minchew, Paul Reimers, Jim Sisley (Parliamentarian) Councilmember Marty Martinez Annie McDonald, Christopher Murphy, Barbara Notar, Wendy Walker CaII to Order and Roll Call Mr. Meyer called the meeting to order at 7:01 pm, noted attendance and determined that a quorum was present. Approval of Minutes Mr. Sisley moved to approve the August 16, 2010 meeting minutes; Ms. Minchew seconded the motion, and it passed unanimously 7-0. BAR Member Disclosure Mr. Meyer disclosed regarding BAR case TLHP-2010-0008 (10 South King Street) about having formerly had a contract with Uniwest, developers of the shopping center where the Applicant was located, but it had been completed for almost one year and he could therefore vote in an unbiased manner. Consent Agenda Ms. Coffing moved to approve to the consent agenda BAR case TLHP-2010-0050 (524 Fort Evans Road), Applicant: Charles Lancto of Titan Sign Corporation for Buffalo Wild Wings for new signage and awnings as submitted; and BAR case TLHP-2010-0052 (13 Catoctin Circle SE), Applicant: Randolph Byrne of Loudoun Garage Door for wall signage as submitted. Mr. Kiley seconded the motion, and it passed unanimously 7-0. Discussion Agenda 1. THLP-2010-0062, 12 Sycolin Road SE, Applicant: Laura Audi, re: post -construction amendments (TLHP-2009-0075) — Corridor District (H-2 Overlay) Ms. McDonald briefly presented the site prior to BAR approval of the project and subsequent construction in spring 2009; approved plans increased the height from one to two stories and created a large ell extension off the back that was nearly the full width of the main building. The amendments were noted as the Public Works inspectors identified a few items that were not relevant to the BAR, but which resulted in the Department of Plan Review becoming involved, and then the Preservation Planner regarding the fence and retaining wall. The fence replaced a very deteriorated stockade fence onsite, which would have probably fallen down on its own in another year. When the project received a Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) variance in 2009, one of the conditions was that the fence be retained, and because it was coming down the Applicant replaced it with a vinyl fence. Regarding the retaining wall, one of the issues that arose during staff review of the site was the difference in grade between the neighboring monument building BAR Minutes — September 20, 2010 and the Applicant's property; the modification was integrally tinted variegated concrete masonry units. Other amendments included the window type which was changed from 6/6 double -hung to fixed one -light; a gabled entry cover was added; the door was altered; the height of the stone base was changed slightly; one window was added to the right of the chimney and the windows flanking the chimney on the second story were enlarged; the chimney was completely reclad; and the pitch of the roofing was modified and flattened out slightly. The Applicant was requesting beaded vinyl siding instead of the grained fiberboard that was originally approved. The replacement door was the same profile and size, with slightly different configuration of four panel, but was made of wood. The material for the gabled entrance roof was also wood. The north elevation changed quite a bit; the roof was modified so that there was a secondary slope that came down, enclosing restrooms on the interior of the building. The nine -inch round column originally approved was removed and replaced with a door. The Applicant was also requesting approval for a porch. A door location needed to be moved to the west to get a better slope for the wheelchair ramp that descends to that entrance. The main change on the east elevation was that the corner came all the way down and a door was added; windows were removed or converted to a door, and the gable vent would be installed. The windows on the south elevation were realigned on the main block of the building with two windows added on the first and second stories, and one window was not installed because that was where the utility connections were located, as well as the change in the gable pitch does not exist like on the north elevation. Additionally, Ms. McDonald noted that it seemed like the chimney had height added to it, though the Applicant indicated it had not. Siding requested was a vinyl siding with bead at the bottom, but no support was found in the design guidelines for approval. The porch was generally appropriate and approvable, though some details need to be provided on the size of the columns, and profile of the balusters and handrail, but it could be administratively approved if the BAR wanted to establish some parameters. Other issues identified as not compliant with the guidelines were the size of the windows flanking the chimney, which should be reduced in size to meet the guidelines that call for windows not overly large but proportional to the available space. Also not compliant was the vinyl fence, which the guidelines call for fences and walls to be made of materials generally consistent with traditional materials in Leesburg. The fence installed was so solid to not have visual characteristics of a traditional wood fence, and the texture had a sheen and gloss which was reflective, thus, not consistent with traditional materials in Leesburg as generally recommended in the guidelines. Staff recommended approval of the case with modifications related to the four items presented. The Applicant, Ms. Laura Audi of 12 Sycolin LLC and Audi Contractors, who was doing the actual construction of the building, read a letter thanking the Board and staff for the time, cooperation, wise business sense, and understanding regarding financial and environmental economics today. Having spoken to Town and County representatives before purchasing the property, Ms. Audi indicated being led to believe the property could be used as an office, but then the Town said no, although Jobin Realty had been using it as an office previously. A lot of violations from the prior owner, the Applicant had to bring up to compliance with regulations to obtain B-2 occupancy, which the Applicant had no issues, but nowhere in the five months prior to purchasing the building and nine months before getting the Zoning Permit and approved site plan, had anyone indicated there was a Board of Architectural Review that needed to review anything on the building so windows and colour were not thought about yet. Once told that the Board needed to approve the siding and windows, Ms. McDonald graciously put the application on the next meeting schedule in two weeks, and therefore the Applicant only had one week to design the building and make lifelong business decisions. The Applicant noted it was not an excuse for modifications, but out of ignorance did not know that changes should have gone back to staff or the BAR to change window size and placement, or the door which opened into the commercial space. Understanding the H-2 Corridor District was established almost twenty years ago when the environment was not thought much of, the Applicant referenced the Town installation of rubber mulch at the entrance to the Old and Historic District for maintenance and cost-effectiveness. Page 2 of 8 BAR Minutes — September 20, 2010 The Applicant further pointed out that Leesburg was a Tree City USA, which tells visitors it's a community that cares about the environment, yet instead of preserving its trees, the Town mandates in the H-2 and H-1 Districts that everything be wood and not being open to PVC, vinyl fencing or siding. Referencing page 2 of the H-2 Corridor District Guidelines which were made to encourage better design and enhance the visual experience along Leesburg's major roadways leading into the Old and Historic District, the Applicant noted this property was three properties away from Route 7 and therefore not along the major corridor roadway, and hardly visible from Route 7, although it is within the 500 -foot parameter for the H-2 Corridor District coming into the Town. Also on page 2 of the introduction, the intent of the guidelines was not to restrict, but rather to promote design principles along the designated entry route to which the Applicant agreed wholeheartedly, though this property was not along the designated entry route. The guidelines also state that development can have a positive and negative impact, and the Applicant only wanted to have a positive impact within financial whereabouts today, and sometimes business decisions have to be made based on cost. The Applicant noted that construction materials under the guidelines indicate use of materials that are the same or visually similar to nearby buildings, demonstrating compatibility with other nearby existing buildings. The two houses next to the property have siding (one vinyl and the other metal), Bank of America does not have siding and is road frontage, and the property directly across from the Audi building is the Douglass Community Center, an old brick building, so the Audi building is more than compatible with the surrounding area, and possibly more so with some properties in the Old and Historic District. Regarding the fence and the BZA approval on the variances, it was specifically stated that the Applicant had to replace the fence, but the approval did not specifically state it had to be wood. The Applicant did not realize the guidelines were split into chapters on the website, but believed she was within the BZA approval of replacing the fence with a six-foot fence, and the only reason why the vinyl was chosen was because it would be maintenance -free like the energy -efficient building, plus PVC and vinyl siding were used in the Town. The windows that staff pointed out were enlarged to allow a lot of natural light, but when the chimney was stoned the lower one had to be a smaller size, so the Applicant requested keeping the larger top windows because it was a special order and would be costly to reorder. The Applicant confirmed staff was correct in that the chimney was embedded in the wall and had to be brought into compliance with code, so the chimney had to be raised when the second story was constructed (as noted on page 37 in the Applicant's documentation). The vinyl siding and fencing are environmentally safe and better than wood or cement board, and it was a lot cheaper to install the vinyl siding. The Applicant indicated being open to suggestions, though financially either they shut down or do the best with current finances to get the building to occupancy. The double door originally supposed to be in on the corner would not work with the handicap ramp that was required so the door was moved to the side, thinking the Town would be okay with it because it was for ADA compliance. Unfortunately, the Applicant indicated making a bad business decision by having the ramp go down abutting the building where a wheelchair would come out into the drive aisle, so the door and ramp had to be moved to go out to the parking lot as Ms. McDonald indicated. The Applicant requested the approval of the fence, vinyl siding, and to keep the windows as is. Mr. Meyer pointed out to the Applicant that the BAR had certain authority, basically charged with enforcing the Zoning Ordinance as pertains to the H-1 and H-2 Districts by following the design guidelines as written, with no authority to deviate. Mr. Meyer continued that several members of the Board have projects that go before the BAR, BZA, and Town Zoning so the applicant situation was understood in that certain things were approvable and some not, without going through another process. Though sympathetic to economics and financial burdens, it was not in the guidelines that the BAR could consider so any of the modifications had to be founded in the guidelines to which the Applicant understood. The Applicant presented examples of vinyl wood in Town which even existed in the Old and Historic District, including PVC railing. The Applicant also pointed out Pizza Hut's deteriorated wooden picket fence on Route 7, which was not an image the Town wanted to show to visitors coming down the corridor. Mr. Meyer understood, adding that visibility was one of the items taken into consideration when making decisions. Page 3 of 8 BAR Minutes — September 20, 2010 Ms. Minchew queried staff about the variance and whether it may affect BAR purview to which Mr. Murphy responded that the BZA issuance of the variance indicated that a six-foot privacy fence on the property should be retained, though nothing in the BZA decision indicated it must be replaced. Due to the fact that it was deteriorating and falling down, did not mean it could not be replaced, but if it were to be replaced, then it did not excuse anyone from coming before the BAR for approval of the replacement fence. Ms. Minchew queried about the wheelchair ramp to which Ms. McDonald confirmed the ramp was included on the original site plan and was reflected on the original plan reviewed by the BAR as there was a three-foot concrete walk. Ms. McDonald was unaware at the time that a wheelchair ramp was included, but at the time the BAR was focusing primarily on the modifications to the building. In the May 2009 review, one of the issues was the significant change in addition to the smaller historic structure, which if in the Old and Historic District would have been deemed a contributing resource, but it was looked at differently because it was a different district so there was always a concrete walk, but there was no slope when it first came to the BAR. Ms. Minchew queried if the Applicant received staff's approval letter in May 2009 informing of the details to which Ms. Audi confirmed receiving the approval letter and stamped drawings, but with construction and financial issues, the Applicant did not think to go back to review the documents. Ms. Minchew further asked if the Applicant read the part about contacting the Preservation Planner if field modifications were necessary, to which the Applicant responded having filed the letter upon receipt without having read anything until some issues came up. Ms. Minchew indicated future reference about what could be done to help make sure applicants understand the amendments process. Mr. Reimers queried about any bearing the relative distance from Route 7 had to which Ms. McDonald responded that there was no provision in the ordinance or guidelines about further from the corridor being a mitigating factor. In the past, visibility from the public right-of-way was a mitigating factor, and Ms. McDonald referenced a recently approved vinyl siding application at 225 West Market Street due to no visibility from the right-of-way. With the current case, there was the distance from the Route 7 corridor and the distance from the public right-of-way generally which was Sycolin Road, as well as visibility from the rear entry into Bank of America which fronts Route 7. In addition, the fence may not be clearly visible from Route 7 so the BAR may consider it a mitigating factor. Mr. Reimers queried about approval of similar fencing anywhere in the Historic District to which Ms. McDonald responded that there was nothing similar approved, though there was vinyl fencing on Edwards Ferry Road at Plaza Street. Mr. Reimers queried about the roof pitches which were not the same as approved to which Ms. McDonald agreed the constructed pitches may have been appropriate and approved in the original application. Mr. Reimers queried about the windows approved versus those installed to which Ms. McDonald confirmed both were vinyl windows. Mr. Meyer referenced a case in the H-1 District where vinyl fencing was installed adjacent to Auto Solutions on South King Street, and the application for approval post -construction was denied and removed. Mr. Kiley queried about the window size approved in May 2009 on either side of the chimney to which Ms. McDonald confirmed 2 by 5 windows were approved and the ones installed violate that approval. Noting the May 2009 approval letter and specific reference to cement fiberboard siding, Mr. Kiley queried about the fence to which Ms. McDonald stated the fence was not part of the application in May 2009, though it was not in good condition at the time, and presuming subsequent deterioration, the fence was then replaced. The Applicant noted that on page 25 of the packet, the fence was falling apart and deteriorated at the time of the BZA hearing; only one portion was left when the property was purchased, but the BZA required the fence be kept as a landscape buffer. Ms. Minchew strongly agreed with the windows flanking the chimney being reduced in size to reflect what was originally approved, as well as compliance with the guidelines calling for traditional fencing materials. The vinyl fencing installed was not approvable because it did not reflect traditional materials, though other vinyl may, but Ms. Minchew had not seen any vinyl fencing that does. Same was true for vinyl siding in that the sample presented was not approvable, though there may be a vinyl siding that was approvable, and some alternative materials sufficiently reflect what they try to imitate. The final design on the porch was fine, but Page 4 of 8 BAR Minutes — September 20, 2010 Ms. Minchew deviated from staff's recommendation regarding the windows in general as the plan originally proposed and approved met guidelines that are no longer met -- general compatibility with surrounding buildings and not too much glazing — so it was not just the two windows on either side of the chimney, but the biggest outstanding concern was the entire change in window style. Mr. Reimers agreed with Ms. Minchew about the windows installed not reflecting what was approved; even double -hung windows would have helped a lot to not look like storefront glass, which was not representative of the cottage feel in the original application, the bulk of which was gone. Mr. Reimers had no issue with the porch, was not in support of this vinyl siding, and noted the fence could be painted to reduce the vinyl shine, though it would defeat the purpose of having it to be maintenance -free, adding that almost all other artificial wood approved in Town had to be painted to mitigate shininess. Mr. Kiley noted the window installation was totally at odds with the style of window that was approved to which Ms. McDonald confirmed that instead of the double -hung 6 over 6 which were approved and 4 over 4 for the two narrower windows, what was installed were fixed one -light in all cases. Staffs issue was with the size of the two windows flanking the chimney, as opposed to the window design, though the BAR may differ in its interpretation of the guidelines to which Mr. Kiley indicated having an issue with an Applicant that ignores what was approved. Mr. Meyer asked staff to elaborate why the single light window and size was approvable other than the chimney location. Clarifying that staff review of the guidelines may differ from BAR members' individual perspectives, Ms. McDonald noted that the guidelines state a building should generally have windows that are individual, recognizable units related to the building's overall size to help promote a sense of its scale. Additionally, curtain walls, other continuous floor -to -ceiling windows, and overly large or small individual windows that lack or distort the sense of scale should be avoided, as well as extensive use of reflective or tinted glass. Some BAR members had been using the guidelines for longer, but Ms. McDonald had to not consider the structure as an historic transitional dwelling, and look at the building as new commercial construction because the changes were so great that it was basically demolition by addition. Therefore, Ms. McDonald did not so strictly apply the guidelines based on the structure, the windows for which were being replaced. Understanding it was a deviation and the current windows are very different from the windows that were originally approved, Ms. McDonald did not think that alone was necessarily a rationale for not approving what was proposed, though it may be. Agreeing with staffs approach and that it was important to divest of any assumption that this structure was a contributing resource or historic building, but rather consider as new construction, Ms. Minchew referenced page 9 of the guidelines which speaks to compatibility and variety for new construction. It is important that new or rehabilitated construction be compatible with older existing buildings with similarities among the basic characteristics of siting, size, scale, massing, roof form, construction materials and use of colour. This is important because the windows were what made the redesign seem compatible with the surrounding buildings. Ms. Minchew also referenced page 10 regarding compatibility being promoted by building scale and the use of similar types of scale -defining features of nearby buildings, demonstrating a similar attitude with its neighbors in relating to the pedestrian; the original windows did that and the current ones do not. Ms. Minchew continued on page 12 that it was desirable that new or rehabilitated construction have variety in relation to other nearby appropriately designed structures, deriving from compatible treatment of building characteristics; the variety that was introduced was appropriate, grounded in the windows, their placement, size and basic design. Referencing page 16, Ms. Minchew noted features that promote human scale in buildings with individual human size windows and multiple window panes, and features that obscure or destroy human scale are oversized windows with large single panes of glass. Ms. Minchew further referenced page 20 regarding facade elements in that buildings should have windows that are individual, recognizable units related to the buildings overall size to promote its sense of scale; the windows as approved did promote a sense of its scale, but the current ones do not, though there may be other windows that would. Ms. Coifing generally agreed with staffs recommendations about the conditions for approval, but the two windows flanking the chimney should be resized as originally proposed, and primary Page 5 of 8 BAR Minutes —September 20, 2010 objection was to the single -light fixed sash throughout the building. Double -hung sash with divided lights as originally proposed and submitted would be more appropriate in this case so the windows in the current form are out of scale with the building and detract from the building as a whole, and the guidelines support this opinion. The windows as originally proposed were a key feature in maintaining compatibility with surrounding buildings, and that's been lost with the windows as installed. Ms. Coffing continued that Mr. Reimers proposed a possible compromise to paint the fence, which the primary objection was not the material necessarily but the appearance of the plastic that has a reflective quality. Ms. Coifing also agreed that the grained cement siding should be used instead of the vinyl siding, and that the final design for the porch should be submitted to staff for review and approval with all the requested details. Mr. Koochagian also agreed the windows in the single pane was too much glazing and the sense of scale was off from what was originally intended as a cottage -like feel, which did not exist. Also, the gabled roof over the front door that is a steep pitch was precarious against the shallower pitch of the rest of the roof, which a steep pitch portico roof does invoke a cottage -like feel, but the rest of the structure counteracts that and was obvious. The shallower roofline is not necessarily inapprovable, but did not meet the original intent of the plans. Painting the vinyl fence was an upkeep concern and it may end up being a shiny fence again in a year, unless a more permanent finish to the application was possible. Confirming it was reasonably doable, and done regularly and successfully, Mr. Reimers indicated there were guidelines available for painting PVC with primer and face coat. In complete agreement with staffs recommendations and with resizing windows on the second floor on either side of the chimney, Mr. Sisley queried if a solution had been discussed with the Applicant regarding anything other than replacement of the windows, such as simulated divided lights to accomplish the look the BAR was looking for. The previously approved plans had no shutters and totally different windows, but the big design element that was missing was divided light so maybe installing simulated divided lights would be a possible solution and compromise, with the exception of the two second floor windows on either side of the chimney. Noting it was very unfortunate that the windows were created and installed the way they are, Ms. Kidder indicated having a problem with the fence, and that the owner of the property on the corner of Royal and South King Streets was not given any options about painting that fence, but instead was told it had to be removed so there was concern about setting a precedent of allowing one person to have a fence if painted, but the other person had to tear it down. In response to comment about simulated divided lights, Ms. McDonald noted the size of the windows was not quite the same of the overall size of the originally approved windows and it was not known what the final pane configuration would be if snap -in muntins were installed, or if it was even possible. Ms. McDonald also confirmed the windows were fixed one -Tight. Mr. Meyer was in general agreement with staff's four recommendations, and regarding painting the fence, the burden of proof was on the Applicant to show that an alternative material meets the guidelines; if painting the fence provides the look that one can see it meets the guidelines relative to alternative materials, then it could be considered. Any previous applicant would have had that same option to explore so that could reasonably be considered. Mr. Meyer indicated looking at the windows differently because how the building had been constructed was no longer a cottage -style structure, but more of a contemporary building of which the single light window with a more contemporary structure may be an appropriate window. Bank of America, which was one building over, was a very modern type of building so there was a mix in the neighborhood of older and newer styles. It was a different view than if this was in the Historic District and trying to preserve, or add to a traditional bungalow or cottage. Ms. Minchew understood the point, but given the buildings immediately surrounding it, and not looking at it as a cottage, did not agree. Mr. Reimers appreciated Mr. Meyer's comments and staffs explanation, but it was hard to look at the application with what was previously approved and what it is now, because it was very different in terms of the windows and a number of other items. Ms. Coffing suggested if the windows were smaller, then it would be approvable because on the front elevation on the second story window that was broken into three section with a Page6of8 BAR Minutes —September 20, 2010 mullion of sorts that helped to mitigate the overall size and scale of the windows, but the windows were so large with nothing to divide the large expanses of glass, it was out of scale and detracted from the building as a whole. Mr. Koochagian noted when looking at the two structures on either side, the glazing became an element that looked out of scale. Looking at the H-2 design guidelines, Mr. Sisley did not think there was anything to allow the windows to be approvable. Secondly, the windows were not what was proposed, and windows were an important part of the original discussion about this site, of which divided lights and individual windows were approved. To be consistent with other projects that decided to deviate without consulting staff or the BAR again, Mr. Sisley said the windows were not approvable and he could not go with all the glazing. Mr. Meyer pointed out there were other structures in the H-2 District that had larger expanses of glazing to which Mr. Sisley understood, but the reasons stated back up the opinion. Ms. Kidder's reaction was that the wide windows made the building look very awkward and unmatched. Regarding painting the fence, Ms. Minchew indicated needing to see it to determine if it was an approvable solution to mitigate what initially appeared to be an unapprovable item, but was amenable to a work session or site visit, if the Applicant wanted to propose a solution other than going back to the original windows. Ms. Coffing agreed it was up to the Applicant to prove that paint might be a reasonable solution to the fence, and it was a good point about the previous case mentioned, but at that time there were not paints available that would have performed satisfactorily on PVC as it was a fairly recent option, which Mr. Reimers agreed. Mr. Koochagian added that seeing a sample in action would be a performance specification to cite in a motion to approve. Thanking the Board and agreeing with comments about getting approval then changing the whole program, the Applicant reiterated only having had one week to make decisions to come before the BAR in May 2009 to get the Minor Site Plan and Zoning Permit, which was needed for County Permits. New to Virginia, having lived in Virginia only four years and absolutely new to the Town, the Applicant stated that no one had mentioned there was a Board that would scrutinize, though do not mind scrutiny, but there was such little time to put together the details. Mr. Meyer suggested giving a partial approval for items that were changed but approvable, deferring some of the outstanding items if the Applicant may be able to come up with an additional suggested solution, or the BAR could vote right now for all the items. The Applicant asked for more time for the Board's suggestions, adding about having checked into painting vinyl, but the epoxy paint would need a gloss finish on top. Mr. Meyer recapped that there was no BAR support for the size of the windows around the chimney, and a possible solution for the rest of the windows was suggested for a work session discussion, but there was a certain amount of onus on the Applicant to explore solutions to be compliant with the guidelines as it was not for the BAR to design, though the Board can be helpful and was willing to discuss further in a work session. Regarding the fence issue suggestion, Mr. Reimers stated a paint manufacturer's representative (e.g., Benjamin Moore, Sherwin Williams, Duron) could come out to the site free of charge about how to get paint to adhere to the PVC fence and provide a written specification, but the whole fence should not be painted until at least staff approved it could be an approved solution and acceptable for the rest of the Board. Mr. Kiley noted it may be cheaper to take down the fence and install a wood fence to which the Applicant stated having thought only about maintenance and nothing else when putting up the fence since wood will splinter, break and rot after a few years. Ms. Kidder reiterated the purpose of painting the fence was to get rid of the gloss and plastic look. Relative to a possible alteration for the windows, Mr. Reimers suggested the window manufacturer representative may be able come up with a grill that would break up the windows to which the Applicant noted being amenable to it. Ms. McDonald noted there was a benefit to a partial approval because construction of the porch requires additional Town permits and therefore gives the Applicant the opportunity to move forward with that aspect of this application. Ms. Notar confirmed it was fine to have two separate motions, but cleaner to have just one. Ms. Coffing moved that based on the facts that the BAR previously approved the addition and alterations to 12 Sycolin Road on 15 May 2009; and documentation in the form of an approval letter and stamped approved plans were provided to the applicant in May 2009 following the BAR's review; and the constructed building is not consistent Page 7of8 BAR Misrules — September 20, 2010 with the BAR -approved elevations; moved to approve BAR case TLHP-2010-0062 with the following condition that a final design for the porch be submitted to staff for review and approval with details and dimensions of materials and profiles; and defer consideration of line items as indicated in staffs modifications number one, two and three, and overall consideration of the design of the windows as installed. Mr. Koochagian seconded the motion, and it was unanimously approved 7-0 Ms. McDonald noted the October 4th work session that already included the Town Plan Review's Heritage Resources element, introduction to SharePoint, and second submission for Greenway Farm which was reviewed last year for referral review. Mr. Meyer suggested deferring the SharePoint introduction to discuss the project which would give the Applicant two weeks, and the Applicant agreed it was very reasonable. Ms. Minchew pointed out that the Applicant should notify staff if that was not a workable timeframe so that it was not to the Applicant's detriment, adding that if there were no resolutions reached, then it was looking like a denial. Mr. Kiley agreed it was clear from the discussion that the Board was not going to approve the vinyl siding so the Applicant would have to come up with the original approved cement fiberboard siding or something else. Addressing reasonable timeframe, Ms. Minchew pointed out about wanting to see any creative solution proposed, which would probably include a site visit to approve it (e.g., painting a large enough sample of the fence for members to determine if it gives the right visual characteristics), Mr. Meyer agreed a work session should be next, likely followed by a site visit to see the painted vinyl if that would be the proposed solution, and then a voting meeting. Administrative Agenda Update on the Rehabilitation Workshop: Ms. McDonald apprised about the upcoming workshop and consultant's biography. Scheduled October 16th and 17th, the weather would still permit outdoor activity to walk around Town to see examples such as the Balch Library columns and using the Loudoun Museum as a window lab. Timeframe would probably be 10am to 4pm, and the $25 fee provides catered lunch both days. The lower level conference rooms in Town Hall would be used for the presentation as there was elevator access and the lower level opened onto the brick patio up to the rose garden which backed up to the Loudon Museum. Registration was until October 8th, but could be extended to the following Wednesday. Weather permitting the workshop would be outside as much as possible. Advertising was through Leesburg Today, Loudoun Times Mirror, and email blasts to CLG ListServ, NOVA Loudoun campus, as well as personal email to Fredericksburg, Arlington, Alexandria, Clark County, Loudoun, Winchester, Culpeper, and lower Maryland communities. Day Two (specific) builds on Day One (general) of the workshop, though participants can attend one day or the other, and there is a 40 person limit so everyone benefits from the workshop, but it was not feasible to give first option to Leesburg people. Staff Approvals (For Information Only): Ms. McDonald informed the Board about recent administrative approvals which were mostly signs, plus paint colour, residential fence and opaque signs in the H-2. Mr. Meyer queried about Chevy Chase Bank to which Ms. McDonald stated it was handled administratively. Adjournment: The meeting adjourned at 9:11pm. NEXT�R G1�16�R BUSINESS MEETING: Mn ay, Octobe 18, 2010 at 7pm own Hall Council Chamber 25 West Market Leesburg, Dieter Meyer, Chair Wendy Walker, Clerk of the BAR Page 8 of 8